Someone drove into my rear and drove off.

Sarah715

so sorry to hear this happened, hope you get it all sorted!!

Sgt_Pepper_2

brat wrote: »

This is what I would like to see, not what is available at the moment under current legislation or sentencing provision. We should not have legislation in place where walking away from a crash cannot be punished more severely than hanging around (if drunk).

The problem is there is no evidence they are drunk.

brat

Sgt_Pepper wrote: »

The problem is there is no evidence they are drunk.

You're short of a hobby mate...

Sgt_Pepper_2

brat wrote: »

You're short of a hobby mate...

Why do you automatically assume they are drunk rather than disqualified, no licence, insurance or wanted?

You're lacking some basic policing skills if you actually are one.

hethmar

So sorry to hear about this, know how you feel. I do hope something comes up on the CCTV to help you. Have you spoken to your insurers?

BTW, son had an artic scrape all along the side of his new car at traffic lights and then drive off. He followed, flashed some police going the other way and good on them, they followed him, spoke to him and then went off lights flashing and caught up with the lorry. They told son it often happens and the driver isnt even aware he has done the damage. Luckily the driver put his hands up and didnt dispute the accident. But good on the boys in blue, I doubt he would have got the same result without them.

brat

Sgt_Pepper wrote: »

Why do you automatically assume they are drunk rather than disqualified, no licence, insurance or wanted?

OK, this needs spelling out for the hard of thinking. :think:

If a person makes off from a crash, the reason for him doing so is usually at least one of the following;

1. Uninsured
2. Disqualified
3. Unlicensed
4. Fears the consequence of punishment for his dangerous driving.
5. Under the influence of drink or drugs

If the driver is eventually traced the following day there is only one of this list that would be unlikely to be prosecutable. See if you can work it out. I've given you a bit of a clue.

If a court could punish for fail to stop/report RTA as if the driver were over the drink drive limit, or as if he had failed to provide, it could achieve two things,

1. It could act as a disincentive for failing to stop/report
2. It would properly punish those who do fail to stop/report.

Recently, we attended a crash in a rural area. As we tipped up, the driver and passenger ran off into the woods. We caught the passenger who named the driver, and stated he ran off because he had been drinking at the local young farmers Christmas party. We got a statement from him and an off duty cop who was at the party stating that he had been drinking.
The driver came to the police station the following day where he blew zero. He said he ran off because he was scared of the police.
This lad will plead guilty to the offences of careless driving and failure to report the accident. But his punishment is likely to mean that he will be allowed to continue driving, while the aggravated drink drive offence he would have been charged with had he hung around at the scene would have seen him getting at least a 21 month ban. It's a failing of the justice system that I believe should be addressed.

You're lacking some basic policing skills if you actually are one.

I get on just fine thanks.

Sgt_Pepper_2

brat wrote: »

OK, this needs spelling out for the hard of thinking. :think:


If a person makes off from a crash, the reason for him doing so is usually at least one of the following;

1. Uninsured
2. Disqualified
3. Unlicensed
4. Fears the consequence of punishment for his dangerous driving.
5. Under the influence of drink or drugs

If the driver is eventually traced the following day there is only one of this list that would be unlikely to be prosecutable. See if you can work it out. I've given you a bit of a clue.


If a court could punish for fail to stop/report RTA as if the driver were over the drink drive limit, or as if he had failed to provide, it could achieve two things,

1. It could act as a disincentive for failing to stop/report
2. It would properly punish those who do fail to stop/report.

Recently, we attended a crash in a rural area. As we tipped up, the driver and passenger ran off into the woods. We caught the passenger who named the driver, and stated he ran off because he had been drinking at the local young farmers Christmas party. We got a statement from him and an off duty cop who was at the party stating that he had been drinking.
The driver came to the police station the following day where he blew zero. He said he ran off because he was scared of the police.
This lad will plead guilty to the offences of careless driving and failure to report the accident. But his punishment is likely to mean that he will be allowed to continue driving, while the aggravated drink drive offence he would have been charged with had he hung around at the scene would have seen him getting at least a 21 month ban. It's a failing of the justice system that I believe should be addressed.


I get on just fine thanks.

Your a sharp one ain't you. I'd already given you four of your five.

It's good to see your force allows you specials to attend proper jobs.;)

brat

Sgt_Pepper wrote: »

Your a sharp one ain't you. I'd already given you four of your five.

At least your failure to further argue the issue that you raised shows that the penny did eventually drop.

It's good to see your force allows you specials to attend proper jobs.;)

A special! That's a start I suppose! :rotfl:

londonTiger

i read doing 50mph as "going very fast above the speed limit, and collided, hit the brakes asnd decelerated a little before the collision, but was not enough to stop the vehicle".

Why do MSErs go to town on people over small technicalities?

atrixblue.-MFR-.

the above is spam and your not allowed to reprasent a company here without express permission to do so from the MSE team. i advise you delete your post or it will disapear.