Careless driving after a crash

Ditzy_Mitzy

The long and the short of this is that we, in this country, have a perfectly good civil remedy for the majority of accidents in the shape of compulsory third party insurance.  Driving is a complicated business with all sorts of variables and it's done by people, all of whom are fallible.  It doesn't make sense to criminalise an otherwise law abiding citizen over something trivial such as crashing into a litter bin.  If he has insurance, which he should have, the company pays and the bin gets fixed.  Prosecuting him simply isn't a public good, ergo does not warrant taxpayers' money being spent on it.  I'd rather my taxes went to someone who deserved them.  
There are, of course, cases where it is worthwhile to prosecute careless drivers but there needs to be some element of discretion.  Someone needs to make an assessment as to whether what happened really is worthy of criminal prosecution.  The police do a reasonable job with that.  One cannot expect all car accidents to lead to criminal action regardless of circumstances.  It's a waste of time, money and resources.  Such a notion is also not a good idea politically.  

Mickey666

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

The long and the short of this is that we, in this country, have a perfectly good civil remedy for the majority of accidents in the shape of compulsory third party insurance.  Driving is a complicated business with all sorts of variables and it's done by people, all of whom are fallible.  It doesn't make sense to criminalise an otherwise law abiding citizen over something trivial such as crashing into a litter bin.  If he has insurance, which he should have, the company pays and the bin gets fixed.  Prosecuting him simply isn't a public good, ergo does not warrant taxpayers' money being spent on it.  I'd rather my taxes went to someone who deserved them.  
There are, of course, cases where it is worthwhile to prosecute careless drivers but there needs to be some element of discretion.  Someone needs to make an assessment as to whether what happened really is worthy of criminal prosecution.  The police do a reasonable job with that.  One cannot expect all car accidents to lead to criminal action regardless of circumstances.  It's a waste of time, money and resources.  Such a notion is also not a good idea politically.  

I generally agree about not criminalising accidents but there does seem to be something of an anomaly whereby a driver with many years of experience and an accident-free driving record can be driving perfectly safely - as defined by not having an accident - yet be prosecuted for a minor speeding offence and receive penalty points on their licence, while a driver who actually causes an accident can have the whole thing dealt with via their insurance with the police never being involved and with no penalty points on their licence.

Ditzy_Mitzy

Mickey666 said:

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

The long and the short of this is that we, in this country, have a perfectly good civil remedy for the majority of accidents in the shape of compulsory third party insurance.  Driving is a complicated business with all sorts of variables and it's done by people, all of whom are fallible.  It doesn't make sense to criminalise an otherwise law abiding citizen over something trivial such as crashing into a litter bin.  If he has insurance, which he should have, the company pays and the bin gets fixed.  Prosecuting him simply isn't a public good, ergo does not warrant taxpayers' money being spent on it.  I'd rather my taxes went to someone who deserved them.  
There are, of course, cases where it is worthwhile to prosecute careless drivers but there needs to be some element of discretion.  Someone needs to make an assessment as to whether what happened really is worthy of criminal prosecution.  The police do a reasonable job with that.  One cannot expect all car accidents to lead to criminal action regardless of circumstances.  It's a waste of time, money and resources.  Such a notion is also not a good idea politically.  

I generally agree about not criminalising accidents but there does seem to be something of an anomaly whereby a driver with many years of experience and an accident-free driving record can be driving perfectly safely - as defined by not having an accident - yet be prosecuted for a minor speeding offence and receive penalty points on their licence, while a driver who actually causes an accident can have the whole thing dealt with via their insurance with the police never being involved and with no penalty points on their licence.

I'm not sure.  Speeding, assuming no issues with signing, has the requisite mens rea and, when it's going on, actus reus.  It's a fairly straightforward crime.  Careless driving is far more subjective, which is why the human element is required.  

TooManyPoints

I generally agree about not criminalising accidents but there does seem to be something of an anomaly whereby a driver with many years of experience and an accident-free driving record can be driving perfectly safely - as defined by not having an accident - yet be prosecuted for a minor speeding offence and receive penalty points on their licence, while a driver who actually causes an accident can have the whole thing dealt with via their insurance with the police never being involved and with no penalty points on their licence.

In both cases it depends heavily on whether the police are alerted to the alleged offence and they become involved. It is far easier (and more commonplace) for them to become aware of a speeding allegation than it is for them to be aware of a careless driving allegation.

Mickey666

TooManyPoints said:

I generally agree about not criminalising accidents but there does seem to be something of an anomaly whereby a driver with many years of experience and an accident-free driving record can be driving perfectly safely - as defined by not having an accident - yet be prosecuted for a minor speeding offence and receive penalty points on their licence, while a driver who actually causes an accident can have the whole thing dealt with via their insurance with the police never being involved and with no penalty points on their licence.

In both cases it depends heavily on whether the police are alerted to the alleged offence and they become involved. It is far easier (and more commonplace) for them to become aware of a speeding allegation than it is for them to be aware of a careless driving allegation.

Well yes, especially as speeding can be automatically detected, but ease of detection is not a good basis for good law.  Why not make it mandatory to report all motoring insurance claims to the police where a third party is involved?  That could be easily done, though I can hear the complaints already - too much work for police to investigate, etc etc.    But that's how things become 'accepted' rather than confronted - a bit like house burglaries really.  No one expects the police to do anything about it, just issue a crime number so the victim can claim on their home insurance.

williamgriffin

Mickey666 said:

TooManyPoints said:

I generally agree about not criminalising accidents but there does seem to be something of an anomaly whereby a driver with many years of experience and an accident-free driving record can be driving perfectly safely - as defined by not having an accident - yet be prosecuted for a minor speeding offence and receive penalty points on their licence, while a driver who actually causes an accident can have the whole thing dealt with via their insurance with the police never being involved and with no penalty points on their licence.

In both cases it depends heavily on whether the police are alerted to the alleged offence and they become involved. It is far easier (and more commonplace) for them to become aware of a speeding allegation than it is for them to be aware of a careless driving allegation.

Well yes, especially as speeding can be automatically detected, but ease of detection is not a good basis for good law.  Why not make it mandatory to report all motoring insurance claims to the police where a third party is involved?  That could be easily done, though I can hear the complaints already - too much work for police to investigate, etc etc.    But that's how things become 'accepted' rather than confronted - a bit like house burglaries really.  No one expects the police to do anything about it, just issue a crime number so the victim can claim on their home insurance.

Would you be happy to pay more for that?

TooManyPoints

Why not make it mandatory to report all motoring insurance claims to the police where a third party is involved?

What you're suggesting is completely impractical. In 2019 there were around 400,000 rear end shunts in the UK and these account for around a quarter of all road traffic collisions. So we're looking at around 1.5m collisions a year and the majority of these I would imagine, involve insurers. For the scheme to be effective every one of these incidents would have to be investigated to see if a prosecution is warranted. Even if it was automatically assumed that every rear end shunt was the fault of the driver in the rear, that would mean about 400,000 additional cases would have to be investigated and could result in either course, fixed penalty or prosecution action. If you're only going to deal with those it would be seen as unjust as possibly many more serious incidents, where blame is not so straightforward, would go without investigation. Since police often cite lack of resources to investigate far more serious crimes properly, I think this may be a non-starter.

Mickey666

TooManyPoints said:

Why not make it mandatory to report all motoring insurance claims to the police where a third party is involved?

What you're suggesting is completely impractical. In 2019 there were around 400,000 rear end shunts in the UK and these account for around a quarter of all road traffic collisions. So we're looking at around 1.5m collisions a year and the majority of these I would imagine, involve insurers. For the scheme to be effective every one of these incidents would have to be investigated to see if a prosecution is warranted. Even if it was automatically assumed that every rear end shunt was the fault of the driver in the rear, that would mean about 400,000 additional cases would have to be investigated and could result in either course, fixed penalty or prosecution action. If you're only going to deal with those it would be seen as unjust as possibly many more serious incidents, where blame is not so straightforward, would go without investigation. Since police often cite lack of resources to investigate far more serious crimes properly, I think this may be a non-starter.

In 2018 we managed to deal with 2.1 MILLION speeding offences [1], so 400,000 rear-end shunts should not be impossible to deal with, if there was the will to do so, or even 1.5m collisions.  You're right that every one of these incidents would have to be investigated, but you are also perhaps forgetting that they already ARE investigated - by the insurance companies themselves.  

All I'm suggesting is that when the at-fault driver has been identified by the insurance companies, which they always must be in order to determine the insurance payout, that they are also notified to the police (in much the same way that speed cameras notify the police of the offence) so that 3-points can be added to their licence.  The driver could then be issued with a NIP, as with speeding offences, and given the opportunity to defend themselves in court if they wish, or simply accept the penalty points.  The whole scheme could be paid for by also issuing a fine - after all, it doesn't seem too unreasonable for someone causing an accident having to pay, say, £150-£200 for the trouble caused.

[1] https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/latest-fleet-news/2019/10/25/speeding-tickets-in-2018-show-year-on-year-rise

williamgriffin

Mickey666 said:

TooManyPoints said:

Why not make it mandatory to report all motoring insurance claims to the police where a third party is involved?

What you're suggesting is completely impractical. In 2019 there were around 400,000 rear end shunts in the UK and these account for around a quarter of all road traffic collisions. So we're looking at around 1.5m collisions a year and the majority of these I would imagine, involve insurers. For the scheme to be effective every one of these incidents would have to be investigated to see if a prosecution is warranted. Even if it was automatically assumed that every rear end shunt was the fault of the driver in the rear, that would mean about 400,000 additional cases would have to be investigated and could result in either course, fixed penalty or prosecution action. If you're only going to deal with those it would be seen as unjust as possibly many more serious incidents, where blame is not so straightforward, would go without investigation. Since police often cite lack of resources to investigate far more serious crimes properly, I think this may be a non-starter.

In 2018 we managed to deal with 2.1 MILLION speeding offences [1], so 400,000 rear-end shunts should not be impossible to deal with, if there was the will to do so, or even 1.5m collisions.  You're right that every one of these incidents would have to be investigated, but you are also perhaps forgetting that they already ARE investigated - by the insurance companies themselves.  

All I'm suggesting is that when the at-fault driver has been identified by the insurance companies, which they always must be in order to determine the insurance payout, that they are also notified to the police (in much the same way that speed cameras notify the police of the offence) so that 3-points can be added to their licence.  The driver could then be issued with a NIP, as with speeding offences, and given the opportunity to defend themselves in court if they wish, or simply accept the penalty points.  The whole scheme could be paid for by also issuing a fine - after all, it doesn't seem too unreasonable for someone causing an accident having to pay, say, £150-£200 for the trouble caused.

[1] https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/latest-fleet-news/2019/10/25/speeding-tickets-in-2018-show-year-on-year-rise

No need for a NIP if there's been an accident and £150-200 fine wouldn't even be anywhere near covering the cost of your idea. 

TooManyPoints

I cannot imagine the "findings" of an insurance company in apportioning blame would hold up too well to support  a criminal conviction. Speeding is largely an objective based offence. A machine measures the speed and it is accepted as correct. Bar the very few technical defences that succeed speeding is largely cut and dried. Careless driving is not. It is a subjective test. Insurers have a different, somewhat lower, threshold for apportioning blame than a criminal court requires to secure a conviction

Any fixed penalties which were declined would have to go to court. If the defendant pleaded Not Guilty the police would have to produce evidence to show that his driving fell below the required standard. In the vast majority of cases the only evidence they would have would be the testimony of the "injured" Third Party (which they would have to formally gather). How many of them do you think would be prepared to spend a day (and usually more) at a Magistrates' Court six months or more after they had suffered a minor rear end shunt when they had seen their car repaired promptly? Because that is what will be required. As soon as word gets round that very often their "star" (i.e. only) witness fails to show and the police offered no evidence, that will see the end of the acceptance of fixed penalties.