should I pay for accident?

Quentin

bigjl wrote: »

It seems simple that the person that isn't legally on the road should be blameworthy in an accident.

Good point. Say I back out of my drive and knock a cyclist down and kill him. It turns out the cyclist is an escaped prisoner and should never have been on the road, but locked up. I'll use your ridiculous defence, and get his estate to pay for the dent in my boot!

esmerobbo

Quentin wrote: »

Good point. Say I back out of my drive and knock a cyclist down and kill him. It turns out the cyclist is an escaped prisoner and should never have been on the road, but locked up. I'll use your ridiculous defence, and get his estate to pay for the dent in my bonnet!

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

mikey72

Must be a pain if your tax or MOT just ran out, and you missed it, or if one of your tyres is a bit bald.

sniper005

mikey72 wrote: »

And I always thought they were witnesses at the trial later, and then the judge and jury decided based on their evidence, and that of the defence. It's amazing how the police think it works.

Absolutely right! I attend an RTC. Deal with any casualties. Take measurements. Check all relevant documents. Write a report, maybe even a prosecution file. Magistrates/jury decide guilt/apportion blame. Court sentences.
Police gather evidence. They don't decide guilt.
On a personal note though, if you can't see, don't move the car until you can.

NeverAgain_2

...Police gather evidence. They don't decide guilt...

Quite so.

They are respected expert witnesses.

If a police accident investigator tells a court his reconstruction of events indicated the car was doing 80mph when it hit the tree, that account is likely to be accepted.

A police officer's word is more likely to be challenged if he is giving evidence in a non-motoring case, such as an assault.

mikey72

sniper005 wrote: »

.........On a personal note though, if you can't see, don't move the car until you can.

Always good advice.
Do you meet many people who drive if they can't see?

sniper005

mikey72 wrote: »

Always good advice.
Do you meet many people who drive if they can't see?

Errrrm, only dog handlers. But they can`t read or write either. Their dog does it all for them.:D

optimus_primera

You wasn't driving to close to save fuel were you ??

Gene_Hunt_2

bigjl wrote: »

I have been on scene at several hundred RTC's and the Traffic Police make all kinds of measurements, survey the scene of the RTC to apportion blame.

Only for serious and fatals.;)

Gene_Hunt_2

bigjl wrote: »

If it isn't then it shouldn't have been on the road and wil be considered at fault.

Only for fatals when the driver is disqualified, has no licence or insurance. Section 3ZB RTA 88. Though not entirely at fault.;)