Careless driving after a crash

sevenhills

I have noticed that drivers, more often than not, don't get any sort of driving conviction after crashing their vehicle, even when the police are aware. Am I right in thinking that, for minor crashes? I get my opinion from watching endless TV cop programs 

Here is a quote from the BBC about Tiger Woods crash ""A reckless driving charge has a lot of elements into it, this is purely an accident," Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva told reporters."

EssexExile

Tiger woods is famous and the crash happened in America, nothing to do with what happens to ordinary people in the UK.

williamgriffin

Tiger Woods crashed in the USA, Dangerous Driving replaced Reckless this side of the pond about 3 decades ago. 

Most minor crashes here the police are not even aware of so how could they prosecute?

AdrianC

sevenhills said:

I get my opinion from watching endless TV cop programs 

Step away from the Daytime TV...

JustAnotherSaver

My TV cop programs are on in the evening  

Sandtree

The issue is the difference in how courts consider these matters:

Civil (eg insurance) - on the balance of probability - so you go into the back of them its more likely than not its your fault 
Criminal - beyond reasonable doubt - a much higher hurdle and you'd have to prove whats actually happened and that was sufficient to meet the tests for that crime. With often little evidence, no cctv, no independent witnesses etc your fairly unlikely to meet the bar

williamgriffin

Sandtree said:

The issue is the difference in how courts consider these matters:

Civil (eg insurance) - on the balance of probability - so you go into the back of them its more likely than not its your fault 
Criminal - beyond reasonable doubt - a much higher hurdle and you'd have to prove whats actually happened and that was sufficient to meet the tests for that crime. With often little evidence, no cctv, no independent witnesses etc your fairly unlikely to meet the bar

To be honest you've chosen a bad example as running into the back of someone is below the standard expected of a competent driver. 

AdrianC

JustAnotherSaver said:

My TV cop programs are on in the evening  

Daytime TV is not just about the time of broadcast.

Car_54

williamgriffin said:

Sandtree said:

The issue is the difference in how courts consider these matters:

Civil (eg insurance) - on the balance of probability - so you go into the back of them its more likely than not its your fault 
Criminal - beyond reasonable doubt - a much higher hurdle and you'd have to prove whats actually happened and that was sufficient to meet the tests for that crime. With often little evidence, no cctv, no independent witnesses etc your fairly unlikely to meet the bar

To be honest you've chosen a bad example as running into the back of someone is below the standard expected of a competent driver. 

True, but wouldn’t it still need independent evidence that A ran into B, not that B reversed into A?

TooManyPoints

True, but wouldn’t it still need independent evidence that A ran into B, not that B reversed into A?

No. All such a case would need is for B to give evidence that he was run into. If A gives evidence to the contrary the court will decide which version they prefer. If they have any doubt they must acquit.

MEM62

sevenhills said:

I have noticed that drivers, more often than not, don't get any sort of driving conviction after crashing their vehicle, even when the police are aware. 

From where are you getting your assumption that any driver involved in a crash has automatically committed an offence?  And why refer to a statement from a Sheriff in LA when US Law is irrelevant in the UK?