Cautioned with Careless Driving

Cerbera_2

I crashed today into the back of another car. He had braked, but his lights mustn't have been working. I was in my company van and phoned the Police to come out. I am fine and asked the driver and passenger if they were ok, 'I think I've got a sore neck and head' they said. They were both in twenties [R plate driver]. I reckon they are after a whiplash claim as my van is branded by a major company and they assume it will be easy money.

Anyway, the officer has cautioned me with Careless Driving and I am going to the station tomorrow to a detailed account of what happened.
Anyone got advice on what to say and do?

I have a total of six points for speeding [wasn't speeding at time] but other than that I have never been involved in anything like this before.

Any help would be appreciated.

nearlyrich

As far as I am aware if you run into the back of someone you are liable for the accident, even if they set off on a clear roundabout and then stop for no apparant reason as happened to me a few years ago.

Sadly many people think a whiplash claim is their just reward for the inconvenience of the accident, maybe if they realised that it costs every driver more in increased premiums they would think twice.

I hope you get this sorted if it was a low speed shunt it seems a little harsh.

Cerbera_2

Thanks for the quick reply nearlyrich.

I have spoke with a Policeman friend. He said there is a lot of paperwork involved to follow this through and I should get away with an 'Advice and Warning'. Unless of course the other driver pursues it, which I don't think he will as it shouldn't make a difference to his claim, should it?!?

I have been told that our insurance company are one of the best and will not part with money unless they really have to!! [Like most I suppose]

RadioactiveFrog

mcguck wrote:

Thanks for the quick reply nearlyrich.

I have spoke with a Policeman friend. He said there is a lot of paperwork involved to follow this through and I should get away with an 'Advice and Warning'. Unless of course the other driver pursues it, which I don't think he will as it shouldn't make a difference to his claim, should it?!?

I have been told that our insurance company are one of the best and will not part with money unless they really have to!! [Like most I suppose]

out of interest who are you with?

Cerbera_2

Haven't a clue who the insurance company is, their reputation precedes them.
Us mere employees aren't told such information.

MarkyMarkD

Why didn't you tell the policeman who attended that the brake lights were not working? I don't accept the earlier post's statement that it's necessarily your fault. If you hit another car because it is defective and does not have working brake lights, it's their fault, not yours.

Did you consider (given the immediate whiplash suggestion) that these individuals might have DELIBERATELY disabled their brake lights in order to pursue this scam?

There have been many such deliberate accident scams, although the ones I've heard about tend to involve hire cars and many car occupants to maximise the yield and minimise the hassle for the fraudsters.

m00nie

if you hit a car from behind its your fault regardless of faulty brake lights or anything come to that matter,

Baz-Bee

m00nie wrote:

if you hit a car from behind its your fault regardless of faulty brake lights or anything come to that matter,

Sorry but there is case law that contradicts what you are saying. The case involved trafiic moving off from some traffic lights. The front car stopped without warning and the car behind ran in to it. The judge held that it would be unreasonable (and impractical) to allow a sufficient distance to develop between vehicles before the one behind could move off. Therefore, a safe thinking and stopping distance accrues over a distance and not immediately. But like everything, all cases would be examined on their individual merits.

Furthermore, if they were driving a vehicle with defective brake lights that may significantly increase the thinking and braking distance that would be required in order to stop safely. Without brake lights when actually braking? So even if you were heeding the advice given in the Highway Code for a safe distance behind the vehicle in front, it may well be insufficient in such a situation. Again, each case would need to be judged on its own individual circumstances

[Deleted User]

Baz-Bee wrote:

The judge held that it would be unreasonable (and impractical) to allow a sufficient distance to develop between vehicles before the one behind could move off.

I don't dispute the judges authority, but his sense of logic seems absurd. Why is it unreasonable or impractical to leave enough space?

MarkyMarkD

Despite Baz's post supporting mine (at least, sort of) I can't believe the logic of that legal decision either. Having a defective car is clearly a contribution to the accident. Stopping without warning, in a car which is not defective, is not contributory ... other drivers should always be aware of the risk that any car in front of them might stop without warning. Just because you are starting from rest doesn't make that any different.

BWZN93

Did anyone see third watch a couple of months ago and it showed this scam - the mother took the lights out and had the kid in the front of the car, thinking it'd be safer, and she got hit from behind, in order to make a claim. Unfortunately her kid died (but it was a tv show). Did you tell the officer there was no brake lights??? If it wasnt looked at and verified, then the bulbs cant be checked. The may try and put them back in too, and if it was later brought up, then the bulbs would be there.

However, in pretty much all circumstances, it is the following drivers fault in the case of a shunt from behind, although if there were found to be no brake lights, then I doubt very much a court would blame you. Its also against the law to have defective brake lights - Ive been pulled for having one out.

Jo xx