crash law

cyclonebri1

paulkenton wrote: »

!!!!!!!!!

How can stop be used in a transient sense? Stop a little bit!? Stop nearly!?

I'm no lawyer but a quick google defines stopping after an accident as in lee v knapp 1966. It means stopping for long enough to exchange details. Not;

Ok Paul so looking at your quote it clearly states;
And I quote;

Section 170(3) places an obligation on the driver, if he does not give his name and address under subsection (2) above, to report the accident to a police constable or police station as soon as reasonably practicable and in any case within 24 hours. The duty to report means "as soon as reasonably practicable": (Bulman -v-Bennett 1974 RTR).

It is stated clearly as I have argued, you must do section 2, but if you fail to do that completely you have to do section 3

It says he has to exchange details, but still says if he doesn't give his details at the scene then he can report to the Police. Please tell me where something is written to prove me wrong:wall::wall:

And to follow;

cyclonebri1

paulkenton wrote: »

What on earth has anything got to do with wether this is my first post or not? Is it like the bigger boys at school that have been there for longer trying to intimidate the new boys? The simple fact you have in excess of 1800 posts probably means you spend too long on the net and should get a wife or some friends.

If you've not waiverd one iota from what you said first then you still think this applies?

No Paul it's acommon internet tactic to register in multiple names to add credibility to an argument, check it out. Also most folk in their 1st post are here to ask for advice, not looking to argue, am I suspicious of you? oh boy yes!

Read it all again as I've asked and tell me if I have been proven wrong, I asked you to do that before recall or is your attion span that poor that you cannot recall what was said earlier in the thread

No Paul it simply measns I have some spare time during which I like to offer help when I can, ask for it when I need it, and maybe try to advice people when they are making an !!!! of themselves.

Now I have excluded you from that category so far, inspite of you calling me a !!!!!! and a school boy bully, but please don't push it;)

It's the act or system that is not correct, not me, not Seb, not Nige.

cyclonebri1

NigeWick wrote: »

Section 170 states that the driver of a motor vehicle on a road that is involved in a collision whereby damage or injury (to anything other than that vehicle or driver) are caused must stop at the scene, and, provide/swap certain details to/with any person there who has reasonable grounds to need that information. IF the driver does not comply completely with all parts of that last sentence, (s)he must report the collision straight away. There may be circumstances (like being in the middle of a Scottish moor with no phone for miles) that prevent the driver reporting the collision straight away but it must always be reported within twenty four hours if that first sentence is not fully complied with.

And yet another post from Nige reiterating what he has said previously, (correctly), and what I still adhere to.

The act is written "vaguely" as there will be many circumstances under which it is either impossible or unsafe to report/exchange at the scene.

Sorry for all the multiple posts but noticed the forum has cancelled the automatic email response system for everyone due to loading issues,

cyclonebri1

goldspanners wrote: »

anything in the name of a good arguement on the boards these days bri. :rolleyes:

You know what they say, "there's nothing like a good argument", and this is nothing like a g............;););)

paulkenton

Let's be fair, the reason I'm posting this first is because I've been Reading this thread since it started and now, all of a sudden you've changed from saying all you need to do is "stop for a nanosecond" to now agreeing with the two guys who actualy understand law. You then felt ok to call them !!!!!! even though they're right and you're wrong. That makes you a !!!!!!!

cyclonebri1

paulkenton wrote: »

Let's be fair, the reason I'm posting this first is because I've been Reading this thread since it started and now, all of a sudden you've changed from saying all you need to do is "stop for a nanosecond" to now agreeing with the two guys who actualy understand law. You then felt ok to call them !!!!!! even though they're right and you're wrong. That makes you a !!!!!!!

Wrong Wrong Wrong.

Ok you complete prat.

I left you alone because I thought you may just be unaware of the full thread. You are not. You have so little intelligence that you cannot add anything to an open and honest debate/argument

Just explain where I have changed views?

I'll save you the trouble, I HAVE NOT.

Look again at my 1st post, can you not read? What does it say? Am I not agreeing with the bloke you now are suggesting i took apop at?

Just show a single example of where I have backtracked.

Oh, and in respect of you saying something to the effecdt of why I had so much time on the net, you seem to have far far too much time on your hands also, whats your motive for posting here?????????????????
Ot are you Seb or Nige????

Sorry for having to edit again but forgot to add that in your case I think !!!!!! is an unfair description, I much prefer wan!*r

paulkenton

There really is no need to swear, you started by calling those two !!!!!! now you start on me!? It's a bit silly, it's easy to be tough behind a computer screen. I'm actually out at the mo, looking at this on my phone having a laugh at you with my chums.

All I'm saying is you started off saying you only need stop for a nanosecond, no you're saying you agree with the other two who have some legal knowledge. They are most definately not saying you only need to stop for a nanosecond. In another thread I followed you even said the process of having a bump would mean that you'd come to a full stop at the end and that'd satisfy the act. Which one is it? Come to a stop for a nanosecond or what the other two are saying? No more names now! And no, I'm not either of them. I just wanted to start posting as a result of Reading what you put up.

cyclonebri1

paulkenton wrote: »

There really is no need to swear, you started by calling those two !!!!!! now you start on me!? It's a bit silly, it's easy to be tough behind a computer screen. I'm actually out at the mo, looking at this on my phone having a laugh at you with my chums.

All I'm saying is you started off saying you only need stop for a nanosecond, no you're saying you agree with the other two who have some legal knowledge. They are most definately not saying you only need to stop for a nanosecond. In another thread I followed you even said the process of having a bump would mean that you'd come to a full stop at the end and that'd satisfy the act. Which one is it? Come to a stop for a nanosecond or what the other two are saying? No more names now! And no, I'm not either of them. I just wanted to start posting as a result of Reading what you put up.

Cut the crap and just answer any of the points I have put to you today.


Not for one second do I imagine you are out with your mates, who would want you for one?

paulkenton

Stop it, you're upsetting me now.

To start with, you said you only had to come to a complete standstill after a crash to satisfy the act.

You obviously need to do more than that, as proven by nige and seb. Now you're saying that's what you said all along. But you didn't say that all along did you?

cyclonebri1

paulkenton wrote: »

Stop it, you're upsetting me now.

To start with, you said you only had to come to a complete standstill after a crash to satisfy the act.

You obviously need to do more than that, as proven by nige and seb.

I aim to please

And I still stand by that

Show me one example where that is proven

" Now you're saying that's what you said all along. But you didn't say that all along did you?



Paul please learn to read, go back and reread, check again then come back, or will you be out with you (imaginary mates), or maybe they have dissapeared, wow is that a puzzler???