I was interested to read of the proposed issue of “cautions” by the police in less serious criminal cases and I was surprised that there was no mention of traffic offenses.
A long time ago I was an assistant superintendent of police in what was then the British Protectorate of Uganda in East Africa and, for the whole of 1956 (60 years ago!), I acted as chief traffic prosecutor in the traffic court of the capital city, Kampala.
We averaged 1,200 prosecutions monthly. Fortunately, many of them resulted in pleas of guilty, otherwise we would never have got through them.
In fact, there was a much greater number of traffic offenses committed and reported and we had a useful system of “written warnings” for listed minor traffic offenses. Each traffic constable was additionally trained and carried when on his beat a small bundle of printed slips in duplicate headed “Kampala Traffic Police Written Warning” which he could issue in specified offenses.
These were not summonses or convictions but, on return to the station, they would hand in the duplicate copies of any WWs that they had issued, which would go on the driver’s record so that, if there were repeats, then a prosecution might follow.
Perhaps a similar system could work here?
Incidentally, when examining witnesses of traffic accidents in court there would often arise some difficulty in describing how it all occurred. So in court I had a box containing a collection of small ‘Dinky’ vehicle toys, such as model cars, vans, lorries, buses and so on.
The relevant toy vehicles would be handed to the witness so that he could then put them on the flat table and demonstrate how he claimed that the accident had occurred. Most witnesses seemed to find it easier using the toys in this way and there was the occasional overenthusiastic smash up as they were brought together.
Sir Peter Allen