crash law

NigeWick

sebdangerfield wrote: »

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.

NigeWick

Chippy_Minton wrote: »

Do you have any factual evidence to support this?

Section 170 of the Road Traffic Act is the factual evidence.

sebdangerfield

I think he's going to explode.

NigeWick

sebdangerfield wrote: »

I'll just carry on practicing the same law that been so succesfull for me so far thanks.

So are all of those quotes wrong? More interestingly, were you actually a Police officer?

I am pleased that you have been a success and I hope that you use a spell checker when writing to your clients.

Which quotes? The ones you tried to use to prove your case and were shown to be incorrect?

I'll PM you the link to my autobiography if you like. :beer:

Chippy_Minton_2

NigeWick wrote: »

Section 170 of the Road Traffic Act is the factual evidence.

So you can't give an example, just as I thought.:rolleyes:

I'd sick to your legal aid shoplifters.:p

NigeWick

sebdangerfield wrote: »

I think he's going to explode.

Nah, I'm having too much fun. :j

Chippy_Minton_2

NigeWick wrote: »

I'll PM you the link to my autobiography if you like. :beer:

Stick it on here so we can all have a :rotfl:read.

NigeWick

Chippy_Minton wrote: »

So you can't give an example, just as I thought.

I do not need an example as Section 170 of the Road Traffic Act "speaks for itself."

NigeWick

Chippy_Minton wrote: »

Stick it on here so we can all have a :rotfl:read.

THAT would be advertising and it's not allowed.

I would just like to thank everybody here for the entertainment as I have not had so much fun since the Utility Warehouse thread was locked. Thanks folks.

Chippy_Minton_2

NigeWick wrote: »

I do not need an example as Section 170 of the Road Traffic Act "speaks for itself."

So it’s all hypothetical and never actually happened.

Your good with these motoring loopholes, I bet Mr Freeman has lost all his midlands clients.