I would be grateful for opinions on the following. I had what I thought was a minor accident a few months ago. I ran into the back of a car - no excessive speed was involved( about 15mph), everone seemed Ok at the scene( usual rubbing of necks) and we exchanged details.There were no independent witnesses, I got a phone call from the 3rd party the next day to say his wife had gone to hospital with a cracked bone in her neck and he had gone to the police. since then it seems to have escalated. Local police have intervewed me and said they are considering prosecuting for driving without due care and attention. Is this likely? what is the likely outcome? and what can I do to mitigate any prosecution. Hope the answers come up to the ususal high standards.
dominic
|
Dom
Bad luck as most probably Plod would not have been interested in a damage only accident and left matters to be sorted out between Insurance Companies. It used to be the rule that
ALL accidents were investigated by Plod but that changed basically to only those alleging an offence or an injury accident.
Running into the rear of the vehicle in front offends the Highway Code. Remember that bit.....
Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear.
Leave enough space between you and the vehicle in front so that you can pull up safely if it suddenly
slows down or stops......
So on the face of it your occurrence indicates driving without due care and attention, contrary to Section 3, Road Traffic Act, 1988 which is triable summarily (Mags Court) punishable by up to 2,500 pound fine, discretionary disqualification, obligatory endoresment and 3 to 11 penalty points.
Whilst mentioning out and out due care under the circumstances, stated case loophole is there under Scott v Warren (1974). A person was driving in a line of moving traffic and was unable to avoid hitting the van in front which had made an emergency stop to avoid hitting a piece of metal which had fallen off a lorry in front of the van Magistrates dismissed the case but on case stated it was said it still was a prima facie case of due care because of what Highway Code said. Divisional Court disagreed and said that due care was a matter of fact: the duty of a driver following another vehicle was, as far as reasonably possible, to take up such a position and to drive in such a fashion as to be able to deal with all traffic exigences REASONABLY to be expected.
Plod will be interviewing and taking statements from those involved and any witnesses at the end of which it will dependent on the strength of the evidence as to whether CPS will run this. If it is only one driver against the other you may have a chance but more and things do not look rosey.
DVD
|
Thanks for the info. Problem is I've picked up 3 speeding tickets over last three years - all under 40mph, all on open roads! - another 3 points before feb next year and it's a ban. No license , no job. The PC who took the statement said I was plain unlucky, there were no independant witnesses and it's only because the guy I hit went to his local police that they are even aware of it. Still at least I'll be improving Greater Manchester Police statistics, evem if their clear up rates for burglery are the worst in the country
Dom
|
Sorry, can't add any more to DVD'S usual excellent informative reply in these cases, but I sincerely hope you do not recieve a ban as you do not seem to be the type of driver that deserves such hardship, bans should be for people who are a real danger on the roads such as those who drink and drive for instance.
Mal.
|
Dom
From your previous history looks as if its walking for you if you get a summons, BUT
if you do get a summons then seek out a good Solicitor well versed in Traffic matters and a good advocate and ask him to plead ;special reasons; based on the hardship a ban would incur.
He will know what I mean. May cost you but better than being homeless and walking...
DVD
|
DVD
thanks for the message.
I\'ve already spoken to a solicitor in Manchester - he can\'t do much until or if I get a summons. If I can drag it out until next Feb I should get by as three points come off then.Although the chances are I\'d get 6 points straight back on. It\'s annoying, 20 years of 750-1000 miles aweek and it all goes pear shaped in 18 months..
dom
|
dom,
It could happen to any of us - bad luck.
£85-00 will get you membership of the IAM - help your driving and help you to look contrite if you are up in front of the beaks?
Matt35.
|
Dom,
I should try and phrase things differently, if I were you.
"I ran into the back of a car - no excessive speed was involved( about 15mph)"
I would have to agree with the second part. There WAS excessive speed involved. About 15mph.
|
Sean,
fair point, but I was trying to put it into a context compared to some of the smashes I see everyday, also I meant that it ws a fairly "straighteforward" accident, which could have been sorted out between insurance companies.
Dom
|
|
|
Apologies, Dom.
I've come to work this morning and I'm going to have a heavy week.
The other reason for my abrasiveness is that I ride a Honda Fireblade motorised bicycle.
If you had run into the back of me at 15mph, I would be even more abrasive.
Sorry, mate, and good luck.
|
The other reason for my abrasiveness is that I ride a Honda Fireblade motorised bicycle. If you had run into the back of me at 15mph, I would be even more abrasive.
Probably not half as much as the tarmac would be...
|
|
|
I recently posted about a court case i was up for for totting up. I\'ve just got back from court where I didn\'t get a ban but a fine of £250 plus costs plus 6 points - putting me on 15 points - I\'ll have to be careful for two years. the point I am making is that this came about because of a rear end shunt I had. the driver I hit reported it to the police, although there were no serious injuries, except the usual whiplash. I found out in court that the third party says I hit him at 50mph! . My evidence to the police when interviwed was that estimate that I hit him at about 12-15mph ( very little damage to my car, also no airbags set off, and how could he know what speed I was doing) the dvla solicitor made a big deal of the speed during his address, and I assume it played a part in their decision to proscecute. it is obvious that the third party has grossly exaggaerated things to make his claim better.
any comments
Dominic
|
People can be a pain. I had an extremely minor shunt, my fault entirely. I said I would pay for any repairs to the car I hit privately, rather than through the insurance, since the loss of NCD would exceed the claim value. I was keen that the insurance companies were not involved, due to their underhand way of increasing gross premiums even when NCD is unaffected. But the other driver wanted to do things "properly". I didn't tell them who my insurance company was (it's not a legal requirement to do so), but my insurance company found out through their cosy shared database. Enough of my gripe.
If you had such a minor rear end shunt, weren't you a little suspicious that the police prosecuted? Didn't they give you any clue?
If you've been to court and the case has been heard, I suspect it's too late to do anything now.
|
even my local police who interviewed me said he couldn't understand why it was going to court, and would recommend that no prosecution should follow - but obviously the CPS had other ideas. my gripe is that the third party has been allowed to make an outrageous statement without any supporting facts and this has been taken as gospel, and I suspect was one of the reasons this came to court. anyway at least I didn't get a ban.
Dom
|
dom grimes: I know someone who was prosecuted for Dangerous Driving on the evidence of one person, despite no accident or injury at all. In Court, the CPS reduced the charge to DWDC&A and said they would keep the other charge on file. (The man was advised to plead guilty by his Solicitor to avoid the more serious charge being put to the Bench.)
|
|
|