Didn't swap details when rear ended

TooManyPoints

Yes. "Under subsection (2)" means "if required to do so".

I couldn't be bothered to get involved in this spat but the above is what I said in post #8 about three days ago (having refreshed my memory with S170 of the RTA)::

You don't need to report this to the police as you both stopped and decided no exchange of details was necessary

.

It is fairly obvious that if you go to the Nick and say "I've been involved in an accident. We both stopped but decided it was not necessary to exchange details so I've come here to report the matter" you would be swiftly shown the door. An offence under S170 actually carries a maximum sentence of six month's custody and is one of the very few motoring offences for which custody is an option. The idea of it is to protect motorists and others from drivers who fail to stop or fail to offer their details following an accident. It is not designed to clog up the desks of local Nicks.

Car_54

TooManyPoints wrote: »

I couldn't be bothered to get involved in this spat but the above is what I said in post #8 about three days ago (having refreshed my memory with S170 of the RTA)::

.

It is fairly obvious that if you go to the Nick and say "I've been involved in an accident. We both stopped but decided it was not necessary to exchange details so I've come here to report the matter" you would be swiftly shown the door. An offence under S170 actually carries a maximum sentence of six month's custody and is one of the very few motoring offences for which custody is an option. The idea of it is to protect motorists and others from drivers who fail to stop or fail to offer their details following an accident. It is not designed to clog up the desks of local Nicks.

I agree, but is there any case law to support our interpretation?

TooManyPoints

I don’t really understand what your interpretation is. The statute is quite clear:

(2)The driver…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.

Which is clear enough. It then goes on to say:

(3) If for any reason the driver…does not give his name and address under subsection (2) above, he must report the accident.

The statute only places an obligation on a driver to give details “…if required to do so by any person having reasonable grounds for so requiring.” But he wasn’t required to do so. It was mutually agreed (with the only person having reasonable grounds to ask) that no such exchange was necessary. The “any reason” is not any reason whatsoever. It is only “any reason under subsection (2)”. I really see no difficulty with the statute as it stands. It covers the OP’s scenario without any further interpretation being necessary. There is not a snowball in hell’s chance of a charge being brought under S170 under these circumstances.

The confusion began with this:

“Technically you do need to report the accident to the police. For a non injury accident the requirement is to stop and exchange vehicle reg numbers and names and addresses. If you don't do this then the accident needs to be reported.”

Which is at odds with the statute. No exchange is necessary if nobody asks (and no reporting is necessary if no exchange is made on that basis). The AA advice is not ambiguous. It is incomplete and therefore incorrect. It is often said that police officers are the very worst people from whom to seek legal advice. Perhaps we should add motor mechanics to that list

Warwick_Hunt

TooManyPoints wrote: »

I don’t really understand what your interpretation is. The statute is quite clear:

(2)The driver…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.

Which is clear enough. It then goes on to say:

(3) If for any reason the driver…does not give his name and address under subsection (2) above, he must report the accident.

The statute only places an obligation on a driver to give details “…if required to do so by any person having reasonable grounds for so requiring.” But he wasn’t required to do so. It was mutually agreed (with the only person having reasonable grounds to ask) that no such exchange was necessary. The “any reason” is not any reason whatsoever. It is only “any reason under subsection (2)”. I really see no difficulty with the statute as it stands. It covers the OP’s scenario without any further interpretation being necessary. There is not a snowball in hell’s chance of a charge being brought under S170 under these circumstances.

The confusion began with this:

“Technically you do need to report the accident to the police. For a non injury accident the requirement is to stop and exchange vehicle reg numbers and names and addresses. If you don't do this then the accident needs to be reported.”

Which is at odds with the statute. No exchange is necessary if nobody asks (and no reporting is necessary if no exchange is made on that basis). The AA advice is not ambiguous. It is incomplete and therefore incorrect. It is often said that police officers are the very worst people from whom to seek legal advice. Perhaps we should add motor mechanics to that list

Technically you do need to report it.

Car_54

TooManyPoints wrote: »

I don’t really understand what your interpretation is. The statute is quite clear:

(2)The driver…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.

Which is clear enough. It then goes on to say:

(3) If for any reason the driver…does not give his name and address under subsection (2) above, he must report the accident.

The statute only places an obligation on a driver to give details “…if required to do so by any person having reasonable grounds for so requiring.” But he wasn’t required to do so. It was mutually agreed (with the only person having reasonable grounds to ask) that no such exchange was necessary. The “any reason” is not any reason whatsoever. It is only “any reason under subsection (2)”. I really see no difficulty with the statute as it stands. It covers the OP’s scenario without any further interpretation being necessary. There is not a snowball in hell’s chance of a charge being brought under S170 under these circumstances.

The confusion began with this:

“Technically you do need to report the accident to the police. For a non injury accident the requirement is to stop and exchange vehicle reg numbers and names and addresses. If you don't do this then the accident needs to be reported.”

Which is at odds with the statute. No exchange is necessary if nobody asks (and no reporting is necessary if no exchange is made on that basis). The AA advice is not ambiguous. It is incomplete and therefore incorrect. It is often said that police officers are the very worst people from whom to seek legal advice. Perhaps we should add motor mechanics to that list

I agree entirely. But a number of previous posters did not.

unholyangel

Car_54 wrote: »

Yes. "Under subsection (2)" means "if required to do so".

They are 2 separate offences though. You could use not being required as a defence to an offence under subsection 2 but not 3.

If what you think was true, then someone who damaged a parked car would not be committing an offence as long as they stopped the car because the owner wasn't there to require their details.

Marvel1

Warwick_Hunt wrote: »

Technically you do need to report it.

Which part is technically?