crash law

sebdangerfield

cyclonebri I posted the web address as that rather than an http link, it does work.

Okay, i've had a look at that. The words Nail and Head spring to mind, allow me to quote from the page.

If you have left the scene without exchanging details for whatever reason the police are likely to charge you and it will be up to the Court to decide whether you were right not to exchange your details

This shows that there is not an opt out, you are likely to be charged with failing to stop even if you give a reason like "the motorist was irate" "i'm a lone female" and then the court decide if that reason's good enough. Afterall, it's impossible to write a list of "good reasons" into the act so each should be taken on its own merit. I did mention far earlier in this thread that it was for the court to decide and it's better not to be in that position trying to emphasise to you the fact there is no opt out.

We again stress the importance of contacting us early in proceedings

The fact this is quoted from a defence law firn shows the severity of not stopping.

cyclonebri1

NigeWick wrote: »

You asked how long one must stay at the scene, not, whether one must report the collision or if it is an offence to fail to stop and give details/report the collision as in:-
(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.

There is no 4 4.

Now Now, you know I meant 4;)

cyclonebri1

sebdangerfield wrote: »

Okay, i've had a look at that. The words Nail and Head spring to mind, allow me to quote from the page.



This shows that there is not an opt out, you are likely to be charged with failing to stop even if you give a reason like "the motorist was irate" "i'm a lone female" and then the court decide if that reason's good enough. Afterall, it's impossible to write a list of "good reasons" into the act so each should be taken on its own merit. I did mention far earlier in this thread that it was for the court to decide and it's better not to be in that position trying to emphasise to you the fact there is no opt out.



The fact this is quoted from a defence law firn shows the severity of not stopping.

Seb I do know the severity of not stopping, all you linked examples show this, but then again they were ALL hit and run accidents, ie, the offenfer did not stop at all even for a few seconds, do you agree?

I can't find an example anywhere where someone that stopped after a collision, (for whatever length of time), did not exchange details at the scene but went straight to the police, and still got prosecuted.

The above link again uses the word IF, in the sense of if you do not stop and report etc. It is these words that leave this open to abuse, and yes I think it is often abuse.

I used the word opt, short for option, maybe not the ideal word, but it does give a secondary route allowing for good reason to report directly to the police.

I only got involve3d in this discussion as I had 1st hand experience of this situation. It was the advice that I reeived from the traffic officer that amazed me but it is perfectly true. The exact circumstances were that we were of to a hospital appointment that day. We were hit in the rear and the driver stopped. Reversed off. Spun the car round in a junction and shot off. The damage to our car was limited to the rear tailgate, so still safe enough to drive. I got the number as said and actually thought the car probably stolen or illegal in some way inspite of it being a low speed issue. It was 3 hours before I had chance to report it. A further 3 hours before the police chappy arrived. By this time the "driver" had been to the police and provided all documentation. I don't know what good reason was given for not reporting at the scene.
The point is this, if that copper had thought he stood any chance of getting a prosecution, there would have been no way they would not have pursued it ,but as soon as I mentioned we both came to a standstill before he drove off, he explained what I have quoted before and lost interest.
Anyway the issue is open to abuse big style:mad:

NigeWick

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

I can't find an example anywhere where someone that stopped after a collision, (for whatever length of time), did not exchange details at the scene but went straight to the police, and still got prosecuted.

That'll be because there won't be one. By going straight to the Police and reporting the collision, you are complying with Section 3.

(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.

You did not previously make that little proviso clear.

cyclonebri1

NigeWick wrote: »

That'll be because there won't be one. By going straight to the Police and reporting the collision, you are complying with Section 3.

(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.

You did not previously make that little proviso clear.

This is going on that long that I think we've all lost track of what was actully said earlier. We all knew that. However;
It appears that the definition of STOP is the point of contention

sebdangerfield

Seb I do know the severity of not stopping, all you linked examples show this, but then again they were ALL hit and run accidents, ie, the offenfer did not stop at all even for a few seconds, do you agree?

But by your own definition, all of them must have come to a comlete standstill after the bump.

I can understand the Police spinning you a yarn, whats the point when you both failed to stop. You ended up reporting the matter even later than the other guy.

I really don't understand why you think this part of the law's to blame. This is one of the most practically written pieces of legislation in recent years.

cyclonebri1

sebdangerfield wrote: »

But by your own definition, all of them must have come to a comlete standstill after the bump.

I can understand the Police spinning you a yarn, whats the point when you both failed to stop. You ended up reporting the matter even later than the other guy.

I really don't understand why you think this part of the law's to blame. This is one of the most practically written pieces of legislation in recent years.

Now don't get ridiculous.

You can hit someone a glancing blow in the side, you can bounce a pedestrian over the bonnet. Neither of these involve coming to a stop and do constitute failing to stop

We both failed to stop? How on earth can you say that?, get real. I stood there watching the car reverse away, how do you think I got the number, through the mirror?:rolleyes:. The other driver came to a complete standstill, backed away a couple of feet, or maybe bounced back, then engaged reverse and legged it. He was by definition stationary or stopped for probably 5 secs

Exactly, it is one of the most "practical" bits of law, it it written to take into account that there will be occaisions where section 2 cannot be rigidly adhered to hence section 3.

If you can quote anywhere where someone has failed to report at the scene and been prosecuted after giving good reason to the police then I'll back down and accept that the advice I was given by a serving police officer was wrong. The failing to stop is an absolute, agreed never said different, but it is defined nowhere that I can find.

sebdangerfield

Calm down! You've already scared off Paul, who sent me a PM as he can't be bothered to post on here because of your tone.

I'm not going to keep posting the same thing bri, Lee v Knapp was one of the cases i've refered to already.The case law was brought because of that exact thing. Knapp drove off and reported it to Police later. The case law was brought because it needed to be determined how far one must go to to attempt to exchange details.

If you can quote anywhere where someone has failed to report at the scene and been prosecuted after giving good reason to the police

Its exactly this that shows you don't get it. You will be prosecuted......It's for the court to decide if the reason is good enough!!!!!

cyclonebri1

sebdangerfield wrote: »

Calm down! You've already scared off Paul, who sent me a PM as he can't be bothered to post on here because of your tone.

I'm not going to keep posting the same thing bri, Lee v Knapp was one of the cases i've refered to already.The case law was brought because of that exact thing. Knapp drove off and reported it to Police later. The case law was brought because it needed to be determined how far one must go to to attempt to exchange details.



Its exactly this that shows you don't get it. You will be prosecuted......It's for the court to decide if the reason is good enough!!!!!

I had grave doubts about Paul intentions when he entered the debate. I apologise to him as I don't like it when I see a newbie harassed in a 1st post.
But the apology is reservedly given tho', when a newbies 1st words on a forum are "Now who's the !!!!!!?", (yes I know he was only quoting a heated exchange from me), then it does become confrontational.


The driver that hit us wasn't, which is the reason I've stuck to my guns. I'll reread that case and get back

Right this is what makes it so dam ludicrous in my view, the highlights are mine;

Quote;
In Hallinan v DPP1 a passenger had fallen and injured herself when the bus on which she was travelling halted sharply. No damage was caused to any property nor injury suffered by anyone else. The High Court held that the bus driver had to stop his vehicle. If he had done so and had then decided that it was best to go on, the obligation in the statute to stop would have been satisfied. In those circumstances the stop would not have been a long one. Thus, wherever an accident occurs, a driver must stop immediately and if he fails to do so he does not satisfy the requirement of the RTA 1988, s 170(2).
1 (1998) Times, 7 May.
.

sebdangerfield

But the apology is reservedly given tho', when a newbies 1st words on a forum are "Now who's the !!!!!!?", (yes I know he was only quoting a heated exchange from me), then it does become confrontational.

No Bri, it already was confrontational. You called Nige and I !!!!!!. You made it confrontational.

All Paul was dong, in his first post I may add, was standing up for us when it's quite obvious you don't really have any real understanding or training in law.

I'd love to quote what he put in the PM but I think you'd be embarrased. Unless you've got anything to add to this, like realising what the law is very simply asking for us to do or bringing somthing more than just argumentative, petty jibes when someones got less posts than you I think i'll take my leave. Sad really, I'm aware of many forums where a little legal understanding from someone with the relevent training would be welcomed.