Knocked off my bike

glynb

Hi, a few weeks ago a lady jumped a red and hit me side on knocking me off my motorbike. Police attended and and watched the sequence of the lights (4 seconds from hers going on red to mine going green) and then asked me if I would like to prosecute for careless driving. As the woman was very heavily pregnant and had 2 young kids, I told the police officer that I didn't as she was banged to rights so to speak. I have 2 witnesses who seen everything who stopped to helped me and gave me their details.

I then got a call from my solicitor saying she is denying it and she went through an amber light!

So, I called the police back and told them I'd like to prosecute as I felt it needed to be proven lawfully that she is in the wrong. Only to be told I cant prosecute as it was a "now or never" thing?? Is this correct?

So, what do I do from here? It's my bike I'm more worried about, Only got it in May so I still owe finance to the tune of 3k on it! (3rd party F&T insurance too!).

Glyn

scotsbob

You notify your insurance company and give them the information about the police officers attending and their details. I presume they will have a record. You are then claiming from her insurance.

Captaincodpiece

glynb wrote: »

Hi, a few weeks ago a lady jumped a red and hit me side on knocking me off my motorbike. Police attended and and watched the sequence of the lights (4 seconds from hers going on red to mine going green) and then asked me if I would like to prosecute for careless driving. As the woman was very heavily pregnant and had 2 young kids, I told the police officer that I didn't as she was banged to rights so to speak. I have 2 witnesses who seen everything who stopped to helped me and gave me their details.

I then got a call from my solicitor saying she is denying it and she went through an amber light!

So, I called the police back and told them I'd like to prosecute as I felt it needed to be proven lawfully that she is in the wrong. Only to be told I cant prosecute as it was a "now or never" thing?? Is this correct?

So, what do I do from here? It's my bike I'm more worried about, Only got it in May so I still owe finance to the tune of 3k on it! (3rd party F&T insurance too!).

Glyn

No that's not the case, for a prosecution to occur the information must be laid before a court to apply for a summons within 6 months.

However I would like to point out that it is not your decision on who gets prosecuted. The police gather the evidence and initially decide on the strength of their case. They can decide on prosecution for some offences while others require a decision from the crown prosecution service.

Did you speak to an officer who attended or a call handler?

Edit: if they police have written to the other driver informing her that no action will be taken against her. Then it woul help matter if you have fresh evidence, something not known at the time a decision not to prosecute was made.

tykesi

glynb wrote: »

Hi, a few weeks ago a lady jumped a red and hit me side on knocking me off my motorbike. Police attended and and watched the sequence of the lights (4 seconds from hers going on red to mine going green) and then asked me if I would like to prosecute for careless driving. As the woman was very heavily pregnant and had 2 young kids, I told the police officer that I didn't as she was banged to rights so to speak. I have 2 witnesses who seen everything who stopped to helped me and gave me their details.

I then got a call from my solicitor saying she is denying it and she went through an amber light!

So, I called the police back and told them I'd like to prosecute as I felt it needed to be proven lawfully that she is in the wrong. Only to be told I cant prosecute as it was a "now or never" thing?? Is this correct?

So, what do I do from here? It's my bike I'm more worried about, Only got it in May so I still owe finance to the tune of 3k on it! (3rd party F&T insurance too!).

Glyn

An amber light means stop at the stop line unless to do so would cause an accident. I'm sure she'd have to prove somehow that this would have happened, your witnesses will be better than her at saying what actually happened.

Captaincodpiece

tykesi wrote: »

An amber light means stop at the stop line unless to do so would cause an accident. I'm sure she'd have to prove somehow that this would have happened, your witnesses will be better than her at saying what actually happened.

I'm sure any prosecution would have to prove she went through on red.

For conviction it would have to be beyond reasonable doubt.

For insurance purposes on the balance of probability.

[Deleted User]

Pregnant and kids or not, I wouldn't have hesitated to prosecute. People play the "oh I am pregnant" card all the time as an excuse to drive dangerously.

Captaincodpiece

Deleted_User wrote: »

Pregnant and kids or not, I wouldn't have hesitated to prosecute. People play the "oh I am pregnant" card all the time as an excuse to drive dangerously.

That's not your decision to make.

InsideInsurance

If you have witnesses to the matter then what she says simply extends the timeline rather than changing the result.

A criminal prosecution would make little difference and given the timescales for it would probably happen after your civil case is dealt with unless both sides decided to wait until the outcome of the criminal action

Captaincodpiece

InsideInsurance wrote: »

If you have witnesses to the matter then what she says simply extends the timeline rather than changing the result.

A criminal prosecution would make little difference and given the timescales for it would probably happen after your civil case is dealt with unless both sides decided to wait until the outcome of the criminal action

Can you just clarify what you said.

You say criminal after the civil case.

Should it not be criminal first bearing in mind timitation of proceedings?

InsideInsurance

Captaincodpiece wrote: »

Can you just clarify what you said.

You say criminal after the civil case.

Should it not be criminal first bearing in mind timitation of proceedings?

The civil matter of settling insurance claims normally is done without even issuing court proceedings and as such is much quicker. Assuming the OP doesnt have injuries which need time to heal etc before quantum can be set the probability is that civil is settled before criminal.

Where this isnt the case is where the criminal side is investigating something that is key to the civil case too and the insurers decide to await the criminal case as its easier to do so than to try and investigate the same themselves.

Take this example, Driver A is drunk and whilst waiting at a red traffic light falls asleep at the wheel. Driver B is waiting behind A, sees the light go green and pulls away assuming A will be doing the same and goes into the rear end of A. Gets out, sees A still passed out at the wheel and calls the police who says they will look to prosecute A for drink driving.

In the above case the insurers for B would admit liability and deal with the damage to A. The criminal case is irrelevant to liability as whilst a criminal offence was seemingly committed B still hit a stationary vehicle which was there to be seen and avoided.

Civil and Criminal are two totally separate things and what is a criminal offence doesnt necessarily impact what is the torte of negligence.

UnderPressure

Is it not against the terms of your finance agreement to only have 3rd party insurance...............