Careless driving after a crash

williamgriffin

sevenhills said:

sheramber said:

How do you know they do not get convictions?

People are giving their experiences. I have had a couple of minor accidents over the last 40 years, non involved the police. Perhaps insurance companies should be informing the police about these crimes?

Our police are quite lax when you think about it, too busy perhaps.

Would you be happy to pay extra for these crimes to be dealt with?

sevenhills

Car_54 said:

How can you accuse the police of being lax about accidents they don’t hear about?
If there are no injuries there is no reason for them to get involved, unless someone makes an accusation of a criminal offence. 

What I am suggesting, is that insurers or CCTV operators should be reporting accidents so that the police can take action.

I assume the police inform local authorities or Openreach when street furniture is damaged, would that warrant a careless driving case?

williamgriffin

sevenhills said:

Car_54 said:

How can you accuse the police of being lax about accidents they don’t hear about?
If there are no injuries there is no reason for them to get involved, unless someone makes an accusation of a criminal offence. 

What I am suggesting, is that insurers or CCTV operators should be reporting accidents so that the police can take action.

I assume the police inform local authorities or Openreach when street furniture is damaged, would that warrant a careless driving case?

But if there are no injuries and all parties exchange details there is no reason for the police to be involved or even record the accident has taken place. 

born_again

And just who is going to deal with all these cases?
Police can not cope. Has to get passed CPS. Then given the backlog at courts now. Trials listed for 2022 as Crown court backlog approaches 50,000. 
Great idea add god knows how many more cases to already over stretched groups. All over a simple accident.

Wonder if OP works in the legal profession and is trying to drum up a idea that will see them raking it in...

sheramber

sevenhills said:

sheramber said:

How do you know they do not get convictions?

People are giving their experiences. I have had a couple of minor accidents over the last 40 years, non involved the police. Perhaps insurance companies should be informing the police about these crimes?

Our police are quite lax when you think about it, too busy perhaps.

NO, you said you were basing your opinion on tv programmes. Iam asking how you know that the cases in the programme were not  accused of careless/ reckless driving afterwards. I t would not be done at teh time as the police need to investigate  all the facts forst., Hence roads closed for hours after an accident to allow for that.
I have also given examples where prosecution took place long after the incident occurred.

sheramber

I was told about one incident where ,when those involved contacted the police , they were told as no one was injured there was no need to involve them but if they did come out someone would be charged.

williamgriffin

sheramber said:

I was told about one incident where ,when those involved contacted the police , they were told as no one was injured there was no need to involve them but if they did come out someone would be charged.

Charged as in sent to court? You are not required to pay for police attendance at an accident. 

sevenhills

williamgriffin said:

But if there are no injuries and all parties exchange details there is no reason for the police to be involved or even record the accident has taken place. 

But drivers that are going too fast or with an illegal car face charges, when the ones actually having accidents get no penalty at all.

williamgriffin

sevenhills said:

williamgriffin said:

But if there are no injuries and all parties exchange details there is no reason for the police to be involved or even record the accident has taken place. 

But drivers that are going too fast or with an illegal car face charges, when the ones actually having accidents get no penalty at all.

Only if caught. 

So are you happy to pay more?

TooManyPoints

 If he does offer a reasonable explanation then it falls to the prosecution to disprove his account 

They'd struggle to do that. The trial process is the prosecution presents its case and the defendant then presents his. So the prosecution cannot "disprove" the version the defendant puts forward. They can only cast doubt on it by way of cross-examination. It's up to the jury (or Bench of Magistrates) to decide which version they prefer. They have to be "sure" before they can convict and if they are not they must acquit.