Car accident - driver drove off - not claiming liabilty?

ILW

real1314 wrote: »

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:

So if the police pulled out all the stops, what would be achieved?
Possibly a conviction for failing to stop, 50 quid fine. Possible (but unlikely) a careless driving conviction £100 fine. Can you not see the police point in deciding to take it no further?

I am not saying that the OPs account is improbable, just not that likely to be provable in a court.

On your point of prosecuting at 37mph, this is as they will have hard evidence, not the word of a third party witness

Sorry but it is the way it is.

The other side of the story could be when you are being burgled and are told, "sorry we cannot send an officer today as they are tied up in court due to a number of clipped bumper incidents".

Priorities have to be made.

real1314

ILW wrote: »

So if the police pulled out all the stops, what would be achieved?
Possibly a conviction for failing to stop, 50 quid fine. Possible (but unlikely) a careless driving conviction £100 fine. Can you not see the police point in deciding to take it no further?

Guessing at fines now?

I am not saying that the OPs account is improbable, just not that likely to be provable in a court.

Based on what? Erm, fail to stop; tyres on grass; damage to vehicles?

You're now moving from "no prosecutable offence" through "waste of time or plod" and have now got to "too hard to *prove*"; I do hope you do not work anywhere near law enforcement. You come across as someone who would let almost anyone except a nice easy , non-controversial offence; walk away. Do you favour 2 cautions for school yard quarrel?

On your point of prosecuting at 37mph, this is as they will have hard evidence, not the word of a third party witness

Sorry but it is the way it is.

The other side of the story could be when you are being burgled and are told, "sorry we cannot send an officer today as they are tied up in court due to a number of clipped bumper incidents".

Or, sorry your child is dead, the driver had been reported a number of times, but, you know, it was a bit too much trouble to actually bother to do anything about their poor driving.

Priorities have to be made.

Hmm, are YOU in charge of making these priorities? Or are you just going deeper into the hole? :cool:

ILW

real1314 wrote: »

Hmm, are YOU in charge of making these priorities? Or are you just going deeper into the hole? :cool:

How many man hours would you consider reasonable for the OPs complaint? Bearing in mind that there is minor damage and no injury?

I do actually agree with your stance, but am mindful of the restraints that exist.
I would love to see a full SWAT team piling into the people that do not clear after their dogs and a full time watch put on anyone that has been convicted of child molesting. Aint going to happen though.
18 year olds have always driven like idiots and will go on doing it no matter what.

We need to live in the real world where resources are severely limited.

thenudeone

In practice, after a damage-only accident the police will normally not bother with criminal prosecutions for dangerous/careless/inconsiderate driving even when it's quite obvious who's to blame.

This is due to the high level of resources required to investigate them properly to a criminal proof standard, the subjective nature of the offences, and the high burden of proof required for a criminal prosecution. Instead, dangerous drivers effectively pay for their driving ways through the insurance pricing system.

But - the offence of failing to stop after an accident is much much easier to prosecute and much simpler to investigate. You only need to establish:
-has an accident occurred
-who was driving the vehicles involved (remember the keeper MUST tell police who was driving at any one time)
-did they stop and exchange details OR report it to police as soon as practical. This is easier than it sounds because if the other party claims to have exchanged details at the time, the police can simply ask them what details they were given. If they can't tell the police the details of the other driver and vehicle, and the other driver claims that they didn't stop, that's pretty good evidence that they didn't stop at all.

In this case the driver's already admitted it to police. But in order to use that admission in court, that admission should have been made after the driver was cautioned (You don't have to say anything ... etc.) during an interview where notes were taken by the officer at the time, in accordance with the procedures for interviewing. There's no need for an arrest - short interviews can be done anywhere. It sounds complicated but this is bread and butter stuff for a police officer; it just takes a little bit of time to ensure everything is done correctly and recorded.

Instead of doing this, it sounds more like a friendly chat has taken place between the driver and the officer.

This is the aspect which is worthy of further action, IMO. There was enough information to suspect a non-trivial traffic offence had occurred but no attempt appears to have been made to collect the evidence required to prosecute.