Without going too deep. If there was no damage to his vehicle or injury then its not a 'reportable' collision. The other driver is therefore under no obligation to furnish details.
Having said that there must have been something even if it was a scuff.
|
Without going too deep. If there was no damage to his vehicle or injury then its not a 'reportable' collision. The other driver is therefore under no obligation to furnish details.
Fc,
Sorry old chap, have to disagree. An accident is something that a normal member of public perceives is an accident... which could cover the unlikely scenario where there's been a bump and no one has any damage (stated case).
In this matter, as described, one vehicle has no damage and the other one does.. and the legislation states 'if owing to the presence of a motor vehicle on a road... an accident occurs'.. etc
so owing to the presence of the van an accident occurred by another vehicle and despite the fact it seems the other driver's at fault the van driver still has to comply with the RTA legislation and suppy his name and address etc...and eventually his insurance. By refusing he commits an offence...
|
By refusing he commits an offence...
True, but if I was the OP I would be very hesitant to chase it up. Frankly catching a vehicle you're trying to squeeze past would be understandable. Catching it such that you wreck a panel and rip a bumper off - that sounds like careless driving to me!
|
|
|
... so owing to the presence of the van an accident occurred by another vehicle and despite the fact it seems the other driver's at fault the van driver
I know you are right but I think the law was framed without considering all the possible implications. For example, say you parked your van [legally or illegally is not the issue] and went in to a shop. Some minutes later you come back and you are confronted by the driver of a car who says his car has been in collision with your van and the dent on his car was caused by that collision. You look at your van and neither you nor the driver can pinpoint any damage to prove where the impact with the van is alleged to have occurred. He demands your insurance details. You say to that driver "sorry mate, there is no evidence of any collision with my van. You have made up the story." [ Because either you really don't believe his story, or you know for a fact you have seen that car before a number of times in the last week, and you had observed that it had the dent already].
But according to the law, just because your van is there and even if it has no evidence of any collision, you are obliged to give your details this driver who claims to have collided with the van.
Incidentally, the Government has this to warning to drivers regarding "fault":
www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycod...8
"..be aware that even if a road traffic incident is not your fault, you may still be held liable by insurance companies."
|
|
|
so owing to the presence of the van an accident occurred by another vehicle and despite the fact it seems the other driver's at fault the van driver still has to comply with the RTA legislation and suppy his name and address etc...and eventually his insurance. By refusing he commits an offence...
This was my take on the story, because...
Exceptions can't be made for people who *think* it wasn't their fault, or there'd be mayhem.
If "it" really isn't totally their fault, their actions may still have some relevance.
I'm sure there are other reasons.
The fact that someone pushes off without providing details would arouse my suspicions that perhaps their presence was not absolutely legitimate - no insurance, perhaps? No MOT? No tax? Involved in some dodgy undertaking, maybe?
|
|
|
|
|
Why should an innocent badly parked van driver have to give his insurance details to someone who has driven into his stationary van without damaging it? Let people complain. He didn't do it and doesn't know anything about it.
Sometimes in a place where I go in the country there is pressure on parking space, don't ask me why because it doesn't bother me. But for a long time I had dead and dying cars there up to two or three at a time.
One night a sort of relation turned round prattishly in his Ford Focus, making a dog's dinner of a simple 3 pointer, and ripped the outside of its utterly carp, useless and complicated back bumper off against something else entirely. However he blamed me for having my dead Arna in the way and I saw a muddy little furious footprint against one of its rear doors.
A really carp workman often wants to blame his tools, or even someone else's.
|
>>Why should an innocent badly parked van driver have to give his insurance details to someone who has driven into his stationary van without damaging it? <<
I agree! - if it was the case that detail exchange had to legally take place in such situations, every "oick and Herbert" with a dented motor would make a living driving around looking for such situations to exploit!. Sorry O.P, i think i would head into the shadows on this one!
Billy
|
OP , you should think yourself lucky you didn't damage his van, sounds like he was being quite reasonable but your attitude probably wound him up.
If there wasn't a queue of cars stuck behind his van maybe there was there was room to get through, but your driving caused the problem.
|
With Respect,
Reading this thread triggered a memory of the woman posting a while back, about how the wind had damaged her rear door. She seemed to be saying that because there was no visible sign of a gale before she got out of the car, that the manufacturer (not her) was to blame.
OP, you drove into a parked vehicle. It seems to me you are lucky the van driver hasn`t found a small mark on his rear bumper and decided to chase you up, just for the principle of the thing , following your alleged attitude to him.
Anyway, i would just put it down to experience, but also question why a presumably VERY slow speed manoeuvre past a stationary vehicle would lead to your bumper being ripped off.
For me, the latter (awareness) would be far more of an issue than `fault`.
Wishing you well.
regards
Edited by oilrag on 13/06/2008 at 08:16
|
|
|
|
>>if it was the case that detail exchange had to legally take place in such situations every "oick and Herbert" with a dented motor would make aliving driving around looking for such situations to exploit!.
that has actually happened to me. Couple of toerags in a Vectra estate with old damage tried to claim that i'd damaged their car. Received threatening phone calls re them trashing my car one night.
Long old story (they were in a funeral procession!). I advised my ins co. of the incident and that i did not authorise them to make any payment as there was no damage to either vehicle from that incident, it being a fraudulent claim.
Eventually i had to contact their legal assistance solicitor and explain a few facts, stating i reserved the right to make a formal allegation of Attempting to Pervert the Course of Justice, that maybe their insurance company needed to investigate an Attempted Fraud and eventually when (not if) it got to court i'd be making an allegation of Perjury if they continued and gave evidence under oath.
That was the last i heard about it. Not an overly pleasant experience though, particularly as i lived less than 300 yds from the original incident and drove a distinctive car with a personal plate, so worried for a while about it being damaged.
|
p.s.
would loved to have seen their faces if they visited the address i gave them...as it was the police station i was then posted to
|
|
|
|
|
Why should an innocent badly parked van driver have to give his insurance details to someone who has driven into his stationary van without damaging it?
Don't details have to be exchanged in the case of a crash (not just by the person apparently at fault)?
|
Don't details have to be exchanged in the case of a crash (not just by the person apparently at fault)?
Not necessarily, e.g. if someone is having an aggresive rant at you because he crashed into your illegally parked vehicle, you are not obliged to give him your name and address (so as he can come round and smash your windows) as long as you report the incident to the police within a certain timeframe (IIRC 48hrs?). It sounds as if the van driver either may have no insurance so doesn't want to involve police or may just not wish to report the accient so as not to prejudice his own NCB or future insurance quotes where they ask if you've had ANY accidents in the last X years, fault or non-fault.
Due to the second reason, I would probably be the same if someone hit my car and did no damage, and if there were no witnesses I'd deny all knowlege of the accident if questioned by the plod, after all if the van driver didn't see the accident and there's no damage to his van then how does he know there even was a collision, he probably thinks the OP is a scammer trying to get some kind of compensation from him (compensation for his own inability to manouvre ???).
Edited by kith on 13/06/2008 at 14:53
|
Not necessarily e.g. if someone is having an aggresive rant at you because he crashed into your illegally parked vehicle you are not obliged to give him your name and address (so as he can come round and smash your windows) as long as you report the incident to the police within a certain timeframe (IIRC 48hrs?).
You should exchange names and addresses at the time, but the courts have accpeted over the years many watered down versions e.g. work address or contact address. I would only give out my work address and contact number. If for any reason you don't exchange n/add at the time you have to report to police;
'as soon as is reasonably practicable and in any case within 24 hours'
many people have fallen foul of the 'as soon as...etc' and wandered in after 23 hours, which depending on the excuse might not be acceptable
|
|
|
|
|
|
