crash law

sebdangerfield

and how long do you get to report an `accident` after its happened...

9 points seems a bit harsh! Yes, as the accident was with one of the animals designated by the RTA 1988 as reportable i.e a horse she must stop and exchange details. As there were no mitigating circumstances this would need to be done at the time of the bump.

That really is a fairly harsh penalty, are you sure there were no other offences?

deano19690

It was 3 points for failing to stop
and 6 points for failing to report the accident

She may have got off lighter if she had gone to the court and explained the circumstances, but she just sent the form back as guilty and didn`t go.

NigeWick

sebdangerfield wrote: »

My satisfaction is simply to state the truth, backed up by the relevent fact, act and section so everybody can see.

You being not able to understand the act does not make me wrong. I have tried to explain it to you but obviously have not found the language that you can readily follow. Sorry about that.

sebdangerfield

Nige, you're starting to look a little silly now.

In all my posts i've backed up the fact with proof from the actual act and case law and other relevent places. You have not done this.

When asked about my legal background and relevent knowledge on this subject i've explained this a few pages back. You have not done this.

I've explained all relevent parts of the act including the legal definitions of the more ambigous words and phrases purpously used in this act. You have just stated utter rubbish like, sliding scales of relevent documents and not reporting a fatal accident if the the driver's passengers admit fault!

It's blatantly obvious you have no knowledge of this act whatsoever. It's people like you who can't admit when they know nothing of value and are not willing to learn from thos who do that ruin forums like this.

NigeWick

sebdangerfield wrote: »

It's blatantly obvious you have no knowledge of this act whatsoever.

>>>I'm junior partner of a firm in Birmingham.<<<
I was a Police Constable for over 22 years and dealt with a lot of crashes. Somebody previously posted this:-

Originally Posted by Road Traffic Act 1988
Duty of driver to stop, report accident and give information or documents.
170.— (1) This section applies in a case where, owing to the presence of a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place, an accident occurs by which—

(a) personal injury is caused to a person other than the driver of that mechanically propelled vehicle, or
(b) damage is caused—

(i) to a vehicle other than that mechanically propelled vehicle or a trailer drawn by that mechanically propelled vehicle, or
(ii) to an animal other than an animal in or on that mechanically propelled vehicle or a trailer drawn by that mechanically propelled vehicle, or
(iii) to any other property constructed on, fixed to, growing in or otherwise forming part of the land on which the road or place in question is situated or land adjacent to such land.

(2) The driver of the mechanically propelled 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 mechanically propelled 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 a motor 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 seven 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, a$$, mule, sheep, pig, goat or dog.


Which part are you saying I am wrong with? I am presuming it is where I stated that the driver of a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road fatally injures another person and does not need to report it to the Police.

Imagine this:- I am the driver of a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road complying with all aspects of our country's law and you are walking along the footpath at the side of the road with a loved one. For some reason known only to yourself you leap into the path of my vehicle and are killed instantly. I stop and speak to your loved one. (S)He agrees that you were entirely at fault and I am blameless. I provide my name & address and state that I am the owner/registered keeper of the vehicle. I have my valid certificate of insurance with me and show it to your loved one. I even write down all the details of my vehicle, driving licence, insurance certificate, MOT certificate and registration document and hand the paper to your loved one. I then ask for your name and address, am provided with it and write these details down for my insurance purposes, even though you caused no damage to my vehicle or the road when the nearside rear tyre went over your head. Having swapped all relevant details, I drive on.

Nobody in their right mind would do this of course but I think you will see that the act has been complied with.

cyclonebri1

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.


Let's get real guys, everyone with a conscience will do the right thing, ie, wait, report etc but the law does give an excuse, Seb doesn't like the term opt out, for driving off after an incident

sebdangerfield

Ironicaly enough Nige, its the very first bit.

Originally Posted by Road Traffic Act 1988
Duty of driver to stop, report accident and give information or documents.
170.— (1) This section applies in a case where, owing to the presence of a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place, an accident occurs by which—

(a) personal injury is caused to a person other than the driver of that mechanically propelled vehicle, or

In killing me, you would cause personal injury to me and would therfore would have the duty to stop, report the accident to Police and give details.

Bri yet again, the offence you're refering to is the offence to stop and exchange details. If you can do that in a femto/nano/quodro second then your fine.

sebdangerfield

Let's get real guys, everyone with a conscience will do the right thing, ie, wait, report etc but the law does give an excuse, Seb doesn't like the term opt out, for driving off after an incident

Bri, its not me not liking it. I'm just giving advice. I've defended hundreds of people for exactly what you're saying you can legaly do, you simply can't!

If you read the section, the offence is not failing to stop. That's what it's shortend to. The offence is failing to stop and exchange details. If you can do that in the moment of standstill then fair play to you but i'd love to see you get that across to a stipe in court! If any of you take a second to read the actual act its not exactly rocket science! It's one of the only pieces of legislation that's easy to understand in not written in in depth legal speak.

cyclonebri1

Hmmm Seb, I really can't see any stipeduary magistrate standing out in favour of an act the really does not close down the offence??

The act as written clearly gives space for not exchanging details at the scene?

It'a not me and you that are at loggerheads here, it's the dam law and common sense.

sebdangerfield

I agree Bri. I've enjoyed the banter. I'm not trying to prove i'm right, i'm trying to show you that this does happen. I've enough experience of it after all.

For example, this guy hit a child and went to the Police only 30 minutes after the accident. He wasn't driving dangerously or commiting any other offences.

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

Here's another which includes both offences of failing to stop and exchange and failing to report. Again, no other driving offences were disclosed.

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

Another, where the driver failed to stop and exchange and failed to report. Both offences again being used, so no opt out. Again, no other driving offences disclosed.

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

Judge John Sessions told Jasvins: "You bear no responsibility for Mrs Wilkins's death.
"This needs to be made clear if there is to be public understanding of the sentence." refering to the fail to stop offence.

I'm just trying to explain that the two offences are totally seperate and as a result there is no opt out. The confusion lies in the part that allows mitigating circumstances when it's impossible to exchange details. But thats so few and far between, it really is when its impossible to to what is required.