Accident caused by driver on phone - police not interested!

catkins

My husband was involved in an accident yesterday. He was on the motorway when the queue of cars in front of him stopped. As he stopped he saw in his mirror that the vehicle behind was not slowing at all. He also saw the driver was using a mobile.


The car behind slammed into him and sent him into the car in front although there was no real damage done to the car in front. Our car, on the other hand, is a write off. It's an estate car and the back is pushed right in. It was a Transit van that hit him. The vehicle behind the Transit hit it because he says the Transit driver literally only braked when he hit our car. Also as he was behind a Transit he could not see the queue of vehicles in front which had stopped


Anyway my husband called the police who, when they turned up, breathlysed the drivers. My husband told the police that the guy in the Transit had been on the phone but the police said as no one had been injured it didn't matter! My husband asked why, if they only care if someone has been injured, they stop people for using their phones but the police would not answer.


I am thankful that my husband was not hurt but so angry at the police. They pick and choose what and who they will prosecute. I know someone who was done for using a mobile while stopped at traffic lights and yet they don't want to know about someone causing an accident!

notanewuser

Your husband probably was injured in a shunt like that!

hollie.weimeraner

Unfortunately it's down to cost as much as anything else (and probably lack of independent witnesses). As the Transit went into the back of your husband then he will be unable to deny liability and as no-one claimed they weren't injured the police would not have to record the accident.

They will usually only seize mobile phones and forensically examine them (which is what would be required to prove the other driver was using it at the time) in the case of serious or fatal accidents.

In the case of anything other than a very minor rear end shunt I would always recommend telling any attending police that I was injured, that way they will at least record the accident. (Whiplash and back injuries have a habit of manifesting themselves the day after)

harveybobbles

I;m sure the van driver will be claiming off the guy who went into the back of him.. The fact that driver is saying he couldnt see past the van is a poor excuse and basically admits they were driving too close to the van.

I would go to the GP and get it logged on file that hubby was involved in an accident, just incase.

neilmcl

catkins wrote: »

I am thankful that my husband was not hurt but so angry at the police. They pick and choose what and who they will prosecute. I know someone who was done for using a mobile while stopped at traffic lights and yet they don't want to know about someone causing an accident!

No, they prosecute based on available evidence. Your husband's word against theirs really isn't sufficient I guess.

You could always make an official complaint.

alleycat`

Surely it wouldn't take the police much more than knowing the time the accident occurred to see if a call was in progress?

It shouldn't need forensic anything just a RIPA request or equivalent?

I would certainly assume your insurance company would be interested in this fact if the car your husband was "shunted" into makes a claim against you for injury down the line.

The person that crashed into the van has limited scope as you should always leave sufficient room.

Generally i'd say It's well worth recording the accident with the Doctors to have on file in case anything does materialize over the next few days.

InsideInsurance

alleycat` wrote: »

Surely it wouldn't take the police much more than knowing the time the accident occurred to see if a call was in progress?

It shouldn't need forensic anything just a RIPA request or equivalent?

I would certainly assume your insurance company would be interested in this fact if the car your husband was "shunted" into makes a claim against you for injury down the line.

The person that crashed into the van has limited scope as you should always leave sufficient room.

Generally i'd say It's well worth recording the accident with the Doctors to have on file in case anything does materialize over the next few days.

Being on a call isnt illegal, its using the handset itself that is. Unless the transit driver owns up then he'll just say he was hands free and therefore one persons word against another is not going to achieve "beyond reasonable doubt" for a criminal prosecution.

The shunt is irrelevant unless TP2 makes a claim and then its fairly simple to ascertain if OP hit TP2 and then TP1 hit them or if TP1 shunted the OP into TP2. TP2 for all intents and purposes is an independent witness and the number of impacts they felt clarifies matters.

ben_m_g

alleycat` wrote: »

Surely it wouldn't take the police much more than knowing the time the accident occurred to see if a call was in progress?

It shouldn't need forensic anything just a RIPA request or equivalent?

I would certainly assume your insurance company would be interested in this fact if the car your husband was "shunted" into makes a claim against you for injury down the line.

The person that crashed into the van has limited scope as you should always leave sufficient room.

Generally i'd say It's well worth recording the accident with the Doctors to have on file in case anything does materialize over the next few days.

I recall one of those police camera shows that distinctly stated that the could have checked the drivers call history, but chose not to as no other drivers where involved.

I find the route taken by the police in this story odd.

Spicy_McHaggis

hollie.weimeraner wrote: »

Unfortunately it's down to cost as much as anything else (and probably lack of independent witnesses). As the Transit went into the back of your husband then he will be unable to deny liability and as no-one claimed they weren't injured the police would not have to record the accident.

They will usually only seize mobile phones and forensically examine them (which is what would be required to prove the other driver was using it at the time) in the case of serious or fatal accidents.

In the case of anything other than a very minor rear end shunt I would always recommend telling any attending police that I was injured, that way they will at least record the accident. (Whiplash and back injuries have a habit of manifesting themselves the day after)

So your advice is to lie about being injured?

neilmcl wrote: »

No, they prosecute based on available evidence. Your husband's word against theirs really isn't sufficient I guess.

You could always make an official complaint.

Complaint about what?

alleycat` wrote: »

Surely it wouldn't take the police much more than knowing the time the accident occurred to see if a call was in progress?

It shouldn't need forensic anything just a RIPA request or equivalent?

I would certainly assume your insurance company would be interested in this fact if the car your husband was "shunted" into makes a claim against you for injury down the line.

The person that crashed into the van has limited scope as you should always leave sufficient room.

Generally i'd say It's well worth recording the accident with the Doctors to have on file in case anything does materialize over the next few days.

Good idea, but what if he refuses to give you the phone number?

alleycat`

Spicy_McHaggis wrote: »

Good idea, but what if he refuses to give you the phone number?

I kind of assumed he'd hand it over as contact details when swapping insurance information.

I imagine it doesn't have to be the "that" number he gave put people often don't consider things like this and often hang themselves.

As to if he was hands free or not, i was first trying to easily establish the driver was on the phone or not.

RIPA requests aren't that hard for the police to make anymore and i suspect in many instances they probably can "dip" basic data without involving anyone above a rubber stamp.

Even if a hands free kit is installed it doesn't mean you can't be then prosecuted for driving without due care and attention, etc.

I'm not sure in this type of shunt if the OP or the person who actually instigated the crash is responsible for the damage to the car at the front of the pile(?)

If it was likely to be the OP i'd want the van driver investigated fully to mitigate any possible losses to myself (future insurance premiums are likely to be up anyway).

Spicy_McHaggis

alleycat` wrote: »

I kind of assumed he'd hand it over as contact details when swapping insurance information.

I imagine it doesn't have to be the "that" number he gave put people often don't consider things like this and often hang themselves.

As to if he was hands free or not, i was first trying to easily establish the driver was on the phone or not.

RIPA requests aren't that hard for the police to make anymore and i suspect in many instances they probably can "dip" basic data without involving anyone above a rubber stamp.

Even if a hands free kit is installed it doesn't mean you can't be then prosecuted for driving without due care and attention, etc.

I'm not sure in this type of shunt if the OP or the person who actually instigated the crash is responsible for the damage to the car at the front of the pile(?)

If it was likely to be the OP i'd want the van driver investigated fully to mitigate any possible losses to myself (future insurance premiums are likely to be up anyway).

All a waste of time to get a due care, considering he ran into the back of someone.