Accident caused by driver on phone - police not interested!

InsideInsurance

alleycat` wrote: »

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(?)

No, but without due care is even harder to prove than chatting on a mobile which is why the new offence was created. Based on the ratio of car accidents to driving offence prosecutions its a tiny proportion that are considered worth prosecuting.

You really shouldnt have to ask your second question assuming the OP is telling the truth. They were a stationary car, why do you think its even possible that they should have to pay damage to the car in front?

The only way the OP could be held responsible for the damage to the car in front is if they had hit that car first and the van behind then hit them in turn

catkins

My husband is not going to claim for whiplash or anything else despite almost everyone we know telling him he should! There is no way he would lie and say he had suffered an injury when he hadn't. The guy driving the car in front that OH hit (well touched really) is however claiming whiplash! Guess some people want to make as much out of it as they can.


OH's insurance has said they are going to claim on the Transit driver's insurance for the car OH hit as it wasn't his fault - he was pushed into the car in front by the force of the Transit hitting him.


OH told his insurance company that the Transit driver was on his mobile - not sure though if they will or can take that any further. OH said the woman he spoke to said it was wrong that the police were not interested

Quentin

catkins wrote: »

.....The guy driving the car in front that OH hit (well touched really) is however claiming whiplash! Guess some people want to make as much out of it as they can.

You weren't even there yet make out there is something wrong claiming for injuries caused by someone else's negligence.

Your husband has been lucky, the driver he hit not so.

You cannot use your guessing powers to suggest something is amiss in the injured party claiming for his injury.

InsideInsurance

catkins wrote: »

OH told his insurance company that the Transit driver was on his mobile - not sure though if they will or can take that any further. OH said the woman he spoke to said it was wrong that the police were not interested

The insurer wont do anything with it. Driving using a mobile phone handset is a criminal offence and insurers are interested in the civil matters.

The TP has rear ended a stationary vehicle and so on the phone or not liability shouldnt be an issue. Only in the remote chance that he tries to claim you cut him up and slammed on the brakes etc could there ever be any interest in anything else like this and that would only surface if that type of allegation was made.

C_Mababejive

Golden rule,,if someone rear ends you,,dont get out of the car...assume the position,clutch your back/neck/whatever...

Spicy_McHaggis

C_Mababejive wrote: »

Golden rule,,if someone rear ends you,,dont get out of the car...assume the position,clutch your back/neck/whatever...

And if you're still in there when the emergency services arrive be prepared to have the roof cut off.

C_Mababejive

Spicy_McHaggis wrote: »

And if you're still in there when the emergency services arrive be prepared to have the roof cut off.

Yes,especially if your car is an old banger/clearly a write off...

Tilt

AFAIK you have to formally tell the police that you wish to make a statement to the effect that the other driver had committed an offence which you are alleging caused the accident. I believe that the police are then obliged to investigate your complaint and file a report to the CPS who decide whether to prosecute or not.BUT without sufficient evidence, it is highly likely they will decide to do the latter.

It happened to me once; a milk lorry turned out of a petrol station on a dual carriageway while I was passing in the outside lane. The milk lorry's side sliding doors were open and the resulting "tilt" of the lorry exiting the petrol station caused a number of crates to topple out of the lorry spilling dozens of milk bottles onto the road, some of them hitting my car.

As the road was effectively blocked, the police turned up and asked if I was injured. I told them I wasn't BUT I would like to report the lorry driver for having an insecure load. The police tried to 'fob me off' by saying that it wasn't necessary as no one was injured. But knowing that if the TP driver was prosecuted may assist speed up my insurance claim, I insisted so the police DID take a statement and the driver was charged.

Spicy_McHaggis

Tilt wrote: »

AFAIK you have to formally tell the police that you wish to make a statement to the effect that the other driver had committed an offence which you are alleging caused the accident. I believe that the police are then obliged to investigate your complaint and file a report to the CPS who decide whether to prosecute or not.BUT without sufficient evidence, it is highly likely they will decide to do the latter.

It happened to me once; a milk lorry turned out of a petrol station on a dual carriageway while I was passing in the outside lane. The milk lorry's side sliding doors were open and the resulting "tilt" of the lorry exiting the petrol station caused a number of crates to topple out of the lorry spilling dozens of milk bottles onto the road, some of them hitting my car.

As the road was effectively blocked, the police turned up and asked if I was injured. I told them I wasn't BUT I would like to report the lorry driver for having an insecure load. The police tried to 'fob me off' by saying that it wasn't necessary as no one was injured. But knowing that if the TP driver was prosecuted may assist speed up my insurance claim, I insisted so the police DID take a statement and the driver was charged.

The police make the decision to prosecute for careless not the CPS. As the driver ran into the back of a vehicle what do you think confusing the issue with the phone would add to the prosecution?

Tilt

Spicy_McHaggis wrote: »

The police make the decision to prosecute for careless not the CPS. As the driver ran into the back of a vehicle what do you think confusing the issue with the phone would add to the prosecution?

No, I think you will find that the police decide whether to charge someone with an offence, the decision to prosecute is made by the CPS (clue is in the title; Crown PROSECUTION Service)

http://www.cps.gov.uk/victims_witnesses/reporting_a_crime/decision_to_charge.html