crash law

sebdangerfield

And I still read that as there being reasonable excuse in law, or more accurately it will not always be possible, for reasons of safety or practicality etc, for details of an accident to be reported directly to the police after the event.

Still? You started out saying it was an option!

I think the personnal issues between Seb and Nige have gone too far

What a ridiculous, pollitacaly correct comment. Although Nige and I disagree on a point of law (something done day in, day out in our professions) I can confidently say there are no personal issues! Throughout my career I've upset many Policemen but I can guarentee when things get personally insulting with (ex)Police officers, they do far worse than take the mick out your spelling or crack the odd joke! And I, when insulted on a personal level, take things further than correcting poor use of the possesive apostrophie! We're having a laugh and not taking things too seriously in a polite, tongue in cheek way, try it yourself.

NigeWick

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

And I still read that as there being reasonable excuse in law, or more accurately it will not always be possible, for reasons of safety or practicality etc, for details of an accident to be reported directly to the police after the event.

I think the personnal issues between Seb and Nige have gone too far, but having listened to all said, I can understand why there are opposing views on this. But reading the highlighted bits in the above, many times repeated section of the act, It reads pretty clear to me. The only issue "might" be proving good reason;)

There is no reasonable excuse in law, it is black and white. Mitigating circumstances may be taken into consideration but the law is the law is the law is the law.

Seb and I were having a bit of banter between us that perhaps looked a bit more from "outside." I see that he's atrophied out now anyway. Section 170 of the Road Traffic Act is actually quite straightforward, even for an old pensioner like me.

We can of course go through it all again if you like?

sebdangerfield

Police pension at that!

We were discussing the same thing in the office today. The first person I spoke to agreed with you (he's an idiot) the second agreed with me (he's the clever one). I've had enough...... pint?

NigeWick

sebdangerfield wrote: »

Police pension at that!

We were discussing the same thing in the office today. The first person I spoke to agreed with you (he's an idiot) the second agreed with me (he's the clever one). I've had enough...... pint?

I had to pay 11% of my wage for the pension.

The first person you spoke to follows the strict letter of the law and the second was probably a lawyer. :beer: it is!

sebdangerfield

Good answer!

I know pensions are always a way to make you guys bite! People seem to think it's free money. I heard about the new Police Pension Scheme today too. Wow!

NigeWick

sebdangerfield wrote: »

People seem to think it's free money.

It would have looked it had I stayed in the Army as one never saw any contributions coming out of pay. I was thinking of standing as a candidate for parliament next year but the local bloke has a huge majority and actually works quite hard for the area. If I got in, I could have had four pensions when I reach sixty five.

cyclonebri1

What a pair of !!!!!! you two have turned out to be. Go back and read the thread from start to finish, and i challenge anyone coming accross this thread to do the same. You both seem intent on venting your anger on each other untill stalemate, at which point you turn on a bloke that has supported you both in certain posts. Repeat, what a pair of !!!!!!:T

looking back;

Quote:
Originally Posted by sebdangerfield
So what is a recordable accident?

Actually it is a "reportable accident" according to the legislation. One where the driver of the mechanically propelled vehicle on the road that caused damage and/or injury has not complied with the strict letter of Section 170 of the Road Traffic Act.

You are quoting web sites from police forces, not the Road Traffic Act and THAT is what we must adhere to. I would always advise a driver to report a collision as that is the sensible thing to do in order to get it properly sorted out with the least amount of fuss. Again, that is advice not a legal requirement. You previously got on at me for not quoting the Section that was relevant. Here it the whole thing again.

Duties in case of accident

170 Duty of driver to stop, report accident and give information or documents

(1) This section applies in a case where, owing to the presence of a motor vehicle on a road, an accident occurs by which—
(a) personal injury is caused to a person other than the driver of that motor vehicle, or
(b) damage is caused—
(i) to a vehicle other than that motor vehicle or a trailer drawn by that motor vehicle, or
(ii) to an animal other than an animal in or on that motor vehicle or a trailer drawn by that motor vehicle, or
(iii) to any other property constructed on, fixed to, growing in or otherwise forming part of the land on which the road in question is situated or land adjacent to such land.

(2) The driver of the motor vehicle must stop and, if required to do so by any person having reasonable grounds for so requiring, give his name and address and also the name and address of the owner and the identification marks of the vehicle.

(3) If for any reason the driver of the motor vehicle does not give his name and address under subsection (2) above, he must report the accident.

(4) A person who fails to comply with subsection (2) or (3) above is guilty of an offence.

(5) If, in a case where this section applies by virtue of subsection (1)(a) above, the driver of the vehicle does not at the time of the accident produce such a certificate of insurance or security, or other evidence, as is mentioned in section 165(2)(a) of this Act—
(a) to a constable, or
(b) to some person who, having reasonable grounds for so doing, has required him to produce it,
the driver must report the accident and produce such a certificate or other evidence.
This subsection does not apply to the driver of an invalid carriage.

(6) To comply with a duty under this section to report an accident or to produce such a certificate of insurance or security, or other evidence, as is mentioned in section 165(2)(a) of this Act, the driver—
(a) must do so at a police station or to a constable, and
(b) must do so as soon as is reasonably practicable and, in any case, within twenty-four hours of the occurrence of the accident.

(7) A person who fails to comply with a duty under subsection (5) above is guilty of an offence, but he shall not be convicted by reason only of a failure to produce a certificate or other evidence if, within five days after the occurrence of the accident, the certificate or other evidence is produced at a police station that was specified by him at the time when the accident was reported.

(8) In this section “animal” means horse, cattle, as_s, mule, sheep, pig, goat or dog.

You have admitted that a minor injury collision need not be reported and will see that there is no distinction between minor and serious injury in Section 170. In fact there is no definition of injury at all. Therefore the requirements for your "minor" injury would in effect stand good for a fatality. There is no way I would ever condone such an action as not reporting a fatal but this does not change the fact that this facility is written into our traffic law.



The mind of the bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract.
Oliver Wendell Holmes


NigeWickView Public ProfileSend a private message to NigeWickVisit NigeWick's homepage!Find More Posts by NigeWickFind all thanked posts by NigeWick

Yesterday, 6:08 PM

2 or 3 not both

Thank god Nige is no longer active and I don't need the services of Seb:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

cyclonebri1

Say what guys, each of you state in one concise paragraph?, what you have both been arguing over, bullet points welcome.

I have my flameproofs on, hope you have too, :wall::wall::wall:

sebdangerfield

that has supported you both in certain posts.

What good is your support when you blindly state incorrect law like;

Only butting in to reiterrate, that stopping means just that. Achieving zero miles per hour for I nanosecond surfices. You do not have to wait for the police etc to arrive.

and

No it won't, Nigewic has it bang on. You must stop, nothing more. Hitting something, coming to a standstill and then driving off still counts as having stopped. Perfectly legal to report the detail to the police as he said.:T

And then when you're proved wrong here

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_east/7623482.stm

and here

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/4876908.stm


and even here

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/s...es/6235089.stm


you still state the same thing. You should chill. Don't offer advice when you dont know it. You may even learn things, I have. Just because two people disagree doesn't mean they want to hurt each other or have turned on you.

cyclonebri1

sebdangerfield wrote: »

What good is your support when you blindly state incorrect law like;



and



And then when you're proved wrong here

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_east/7623482.stm

and here

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/4876908.stm


and even here

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/s...es/6235089.stm


you still state the same thing. You should chill. Don't offer advice when you dont know it. You may even learn things, I have. Just because two people disagree doesn't mean they want to hurt each other or have turned on you.

(2) or (3)

not 2 and 3, yes or no?.

Just what does a junior do in you office?, make the tea and sharpen the pencils?