Woman put her shopping behind my car and I crushed it by accident

Kernel_Sanders

Aretnap wrote: »

You certainly should have given your details, regardless of whose fault you thought it was. If you didn't, expect a NIP for failure to stop/report if she does go to the police station.

Added - hmmm, maybe not


A shopping bag doesn't seem to fall into any of those categories.

I thought you had to report squashing a dog but not a cat. Have things moved on so that we now have to report squashing cat food?

facade

dacouch wrote: »

Why you not reverse into the parking space

Because if you do that, despite leaving 2 feet of space between your back bumper and the white line, and having a huge fluorescent sign

"THIS TAILGATE OPENS DOWN, IT WILL STILL DO SO IF YOUR BONNET IS UNDERNEATH IT SO DO NOT PARK YOUR VEHICLE TOO CLOSE"

The car behind will park touching your rear bumper and you can't open the back to put your shopping in, even after you have rammed the trolley down the side of your car and the one next to it to get near the boot.

londonTiger

thenudeone wrote: »

###THIS IS NOT A REPORTABLE ACCIDENT###

I have already given the link but I will spell it out 'cos many posters seems to have missed it.

Road Traffic Act 1988

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 [mechanically propelled vehicle] on a road [or other public place], an accident occurs by which—
(a)personal injury is caused to a person other than the driver of that [mechanically propelled vehicle], or
(b)damage is caused—
(i)to a vehicle other than that [mechanically propelled vehicle] or a trailer drawn by that [mechanically propelled vehicle], or
(ii)to an animal other than an animal in or on that [mechanically propelled vehicle] or a trailer drawn by that [mechanically propelled vehicle], or
(iii)to any other property constructed on, fixed to, growing in or otherwise forming part of the land on which the road [or place] in question is situated or land adjacent to such land.

(2)The driver of the [mechanically propelled 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.
etc..

There is no injury to people or animals and no damage to roadside property or to another vehicle = NOT A REPORTABLE ACCIDENT.

There is no obligation to stop, give name and address or insurance details or report it to police.

thanks, i can sleep easy.

neilmcl

thenudeone wrote: »

###THIS IS NOT A REPORTABLE ACCIDENT###

I have already given the link but I will spell it out 'cos many posters seems to have missed it.

There is no obligation to stop, give name and address or insurance details or report it to police.

So what is this bit about then -

(2)The driver of the [mechanically propelled 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.
etc.

I would have thought the women had reasonable enough grounds.

thenudeone

neilmcl wrote: »

So what is this bit about then -
I would have thought the women had reasonable enough grounds.

At the beginning of s.170 it says: "This section applies in a case where..." and goes on to list some critera

If the criteria in (1) are satisfied, then the driver must do (2).

If the criteria in (1) are not met [which they aren't in this case], they don't have to do (2).

Bantex_2

Ultrasonic wrote: »

The Highway Code has the following to say about hazard warning lights (rule 116):



I must admit I didn't know you weren't supposed to use them apart from on motorways and unrestricted dual carriageways, and I'm sure I've broken this particular rule in the past.

That said, I'm afraid I would have a bit of a chuckle to myself at someone who felt the need to put them on to reverese out of a parking space.

Hazards lights are for stopping on double yellows when you are only going to be a couple of minutes. Everybody knows that. It's the law.

WTFH

Was it on a road, in a public car park or in a private car park?

Mark_Mark

WTFH wrote: »

Was it on a road, in a public car park or in a private car park?

That would make absolutely no difference at all. Its a place to which the public had access so for the purposes of the road traffic act it would be in a public place.

WTFH

Mark_Mark wrote: »

That would make absolutely no difference at all. Its a place to which the public had access so for the purposes of the road traffic act it would be in a public place.

I wasn't thinking about the road traffic act, just who could sue whom for what.

Mark_Mark

WTFH wrote: »

I wasn't thinking about the road traffic act, just who could sue whom for what.

Go on then what's your thinking?


Interested to see where you are going with this one.