We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Car Accident caused by a Local Council Dustbin Lorry
Options
Comments
-
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/170Section 170.
So you're relying on "owing to the presence of" the bin wagon in the reporting section to establish that the wagon was definitely involved?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
...
Hmm. It's tenuous. By that logic, if somebody swings out to overtake a parked car and hits a car coming the other way, the keeper of the parked car is involved and needs to provide their details, too.0 -
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/170
So you're relying on "owing to the presence of" the bin wagon in the reporting section to establish that the wagon was definitely involved?
Hmm. It's tenuous. By that logic, if somebody swings out to overtake a parked car and hits a car coming the other way, the keeper of the parked car is involved and needs to provide their details, too.
It's not tenuous if the bin lorry hadn't reversed nor would the OP's mum.0 -
...which is merely opinion from somebody who admits to panicking, their passengers (related parties), and somebody whose view was obscured by the car that promptly reversed into theirs.0
-
...which is merely opinion from somebody who admits to panicking, their passengers (related parties), and somebody whose view was obscured by the car that promptly reversed into theirs.
Either the bin lorry reversed or it didn't. Opinion doesn't matter would that driver have reversed if it hadn't?0 -
Nobody's suggesting it didn't reverse.
That, alone, does not mean it was involved in the collision.
Equally, nobody's suggesting there was any physical contact with the OP's mum's car.
So - the question is when a vehicle that's merely in the vicinity becomes "involved" in somebody else's collision caused by a panicked over-reaction.
Hence drawing a parallel with a parked car being overtaken. Would you suggest the keeper of that parked car is "involved"?0 -
Nobody's suggesting it didn't reverse.
That, alone, does not mean it was involved in the collision.
Equally, nobody's suggesting there was any physical contact with the OP's mum's car.
So - the question is when a vehicle that's merely in the vicinity becomes "involved" in somebody else's collision caused by a panicked over-reaction.
Hence drawing a parallel with a parked car being overtaken. Would you suggest the keeper of that parked car is "involved"?
Show me where in Section 170 the vehicle must make contact with another vehicle to be involved and I'll be happy to be corrected.
By your logic you could run someone off the road and as long as you don't make contact with them you're not involved.0 -
So the parked car being overtaken...?Show me where in Section 170 the vehicle must make contact with another vehicle to be involved and I'll be happy to be corrected.
As far as the insurance is concerned, that's correct. The police may well be interested from the point of view of DWDC&A, but that's a very different question. There's no suggestion of that here.By your logic you could run someone off the road and as long as you don't make contact with them you're not involved.0 -
Show me where in Section 170 the vehicle must make contact with another vehicle to be involved and I'll be happy to be corrected.
By your logic you could run someone off the road and as long as you don't make contact with them you're not involved.
How do you run them off the road without making contact?
There has to be a definitive to being involved .0 -
So the parked car being overtaken...?
As far as the insurance is concerned, that's correct. The police may well be interested from the point of view of DWDC&A, but that's a very different question. There's no suggestion of that here.
Says who?
And the police would record it as a non stop accident if they were going to investigate due care.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.9K Life & Family
- 257.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards