Car accident - driver drove off - not claiming liabilty?

ILW

There is virtually no chance of the police being able to prosecute the driver without any independent witnesses. What do you expect them to do and what would expect the driver to be charged with?

real1314

ILW wrote: »

There is virtually no chance of the police being able to prosecute the driver without any independent witnesses. What do you expect them to do and what would expect the driver to be charged with?

Driving off?

Readily prosecutable. Tracks in the grass form evidence, as does the OPs statement, and the other driver's statement no doubt admitting that he was in a collision from which he left the scene.

Evidence of the collision should show that the other driver struck from the left and then went across to the central reservation; showing his failure to drive with due care/dangerous driving.

I'm sure there should be plenty of evidence, given the OPs version of events.

Plod should not be allowing such things to blithely pass, and should not be encouraging insurance fraud. :cool:

ILW

They probably have more important things to deal with. i think it unlikely they are going to send out the full CSI team, close the road for a few hours whilst they take casts of tyre tracks etc and check hours of CCTV for a dented bumper.

Where is the insurance fraud?

pendulum

real1314 wrote: »

Driving off?

Readily prosecutable. Tracks in the grass form evidence, as does the OPs statement, and the other driver's statement no doubt admitting that he was in a collision from which he left the scene.

Indeed. If the other driver admitted he knew of the collision he should have been arrested on the spot. He possibly may have claimed he did not realise there had been an accident though; who knows?

Dashcams For the Win.

pendulum

ILW wrote: »

They probably have more important things to deal with.

If they can put so much effort in to catching speeders then they can damn well investigate hit and run.

real1314

ILW wrote: »

They probably have more important things to deal with. i think it unlikely they are going to send out the full CSI team, close the road for a few hours whilst they take casts of tyre tracks etc and check hours of CCTV for a dented bumper.

Where is the insurance fraud?
Where the plod suggested swapping phone numbers and keeping insurance out of it.

Yes, of course, more important things to deal with. Erm, is driving off an offence? Then they should be dealing with it.
It's hardly a petty squable, the driver who left had no idea of what had happened to the others, and clearly did not care.

But hey, let's allow people to drive off, no problem. eh?

I wonder if there is a correlation between plod not dealing with bad driving and the rise in insurance costs?

Or alternatively, I wonder how people would feel if a driver who killed turned out to have been dealt with in this way?

If you are happy to pay extra insurance for this sort of driver, who cares not a jot for other road users, then perhaps you can pay my share of the increased premiums for them. £200 a year should cover it.


In point of fact, he does NOT have to deny liability, and his insurance company cannot insist that he does. He can freely admit liability, if he wishes, and his insurance company cannot do anything about it.

:cool:

real1314

ILW wrote: »

They probably have more important things to deal with. i think it unlikely they are going to send out the full CSI team, close the road for a few hours whilst they take casts of tyre tracks etc and check hours of CCTV for a dented bumper.

Where is the insurance fraud?

Oh, and before this one, you asked what they could prosecute. When I told you, you changed to "but it's not important enough";

Are you getting claustrophobic in that corner? But stick to your guns, don't actually look at anything being said. backing down might show that you can actually read, review and *think* ! :cool:

ILW

real1314 wrote: »

Oh, and before this one, you asked what they could prosecute. When I told you, you changed to "but it's not important enough";

Are you getting claustrophobic in that corner? But stick to your guns, don't actually look at anything being said. backing down might show that you can actually read, review and *think* ! :cool:

If the culprit denied driving off saying "they did not notice" or similar what would the cost be to take to full court hearing? I suspect thousands. The police make decisions like this all the time as if they prosecuted every single minor offence (with little provable evidence) the system just could not cope.

Just like any court, we only have OPs word for what happened.

mcjordi

the police will have checked the other driver was insured.. its not up to the police to say use insurance companies.. thats up to the 2 drivers

real1314

ILW wrote: »

If the culprit denied driving off saying "they did not notice" or similar what would the cost be to take to full court hearing? I suspect thousands. The police make decisions like this all the time as if they prosecuted every single minor offence (with little provable evidence) the system just could not cope.

Just like any court, we only have OPs word for what happened.

It won't cost "thousands" to check for damage on the 2 vehicles, and to check the grass at the scene to establish that an incident did occur, although it seems entirely likely that the other driver admitted a collision, otherwise, why would the plod be suggesting the action they did?

You're sticking with the "too much hassle to do anything" line; 10/10 for determination. I hope you stick with it if you suffer something that they could act on, like maybe an assault, or burglary, or another motor offence? In fact why don't we just forget plod and level up one-to-one?

I'm not sure why you are so keen to see a lacksadasical approach, but hey-ho, good luck if something happens to you.
They can prosecute 37mph in a 30 zone, but not driving away?

I though it was actually CPS that should decide if prosecution should occur?

oh, and yes, we only have the OPs word. So i have based my comments on the evidence available. The OP could have given a fair account, or they could have been cutting up the other relentlessly, giving them the V's, swerving all over the road, braking and accelerating, driving without insurance, speeding, no MOT, in a HGV after 27 hours solid driving.

But that's all speculation. Comment on what is stated is the only valid advice, unless the statement seems radically improbable. Do you have anything to suggest the OPs account is radically improbable?

dig lazarus, dig. :cool: