due care & attention
Discussion
A friend of mine recently had an accident after losing control of his car on a bend, He simply took the corner a little too fast slid out and hit a parked car. He has now recieved what i imagine is a NIP for due care. Seems to me this is simply an accident. There were no witnesses no one was injured besides himself and the insurance company are of course paying for the damage. Do they have a case?
Just tell them he lost concentration for a second when he spilled his beer 
Seriously though, if there are no witnesses, and no one phoned the police, I don't see how they can sue the driver for anything, he can just say he sneezed or something. Unless the car was split in two and it was obvious he was speeding...
>> Edited by hedders on Saturday 4th October 20:31
Seriously though, if there are no witnesses, and no one phoned the police, I don't see how they can sue the driver for anything, he can just say he sneezed or something. Unless the car was split in two and it was obvious he was speeding...
>> Edited by hedders on Saturday 4th October 20:31
hedders said:
Just tell them he lost concentration for a second when he spilled his beer
Seriously though, if there are no witnesses, and no one phoned the police, I don't see how they can sue the driver for anything, he can just say he sneezed or something. Unless the car was split in two and it was obvious he was speeding...
Unless there was a mecahnical defect which was contributory to the loss of control and collision, then the act states that the basis of driving carefully is being that of a 'careful and competant driver'. Losing control whatever the reason if down to human error shows a lack of competance and therefore fits the definition of the offence.
It is not normal for CPS to prosecute people involved in single vehicle accidents with no injury to anyone else. This is not a single vehilce accident and the driver was careless in his approach to the bend (as I read it!) therefore case proved!
Lucky that the driver who was going too fast for the conditions didn't hit the small child who was walking along the pavement that Hedders mentioned.
It's this type of driving that gives ammunition to those who wish to lower speed limits and clutter the roads with traffic calming measures. Tell your friend to drive within his limits or learn how to control a car properly.
Well guilty.
Derek
It's this type of driving that gives ammunition to those who wish to lower speed limits and clutter the roads with traffic calming measures. Tell your friend to drive within his limits or learn how to control a car properly.
Well guilty.
Derek
I actually do agree with you alan.
the way the event was originally described, the driver admitted going to fast and losing control.
My point is that without that admission, how could they possibly sue him? there are too many possible reasons you could invent if there were no witnesses.
>> Edited by hedders on Sunday 5th October 13:01
the way the event was originally described, the driver admitted going to fast and losing control.
My point is that without that admission, how could they possibly sue him? there are too many possible reasons you could invent if there were no witnesses.
>> Edited by hedders on Sunday 5th October 13:01
streaky said:
The hazards might be unseen ... but they should be anticipated.
Whilst this is generaly sound advice, you cannot realisticly drive around anticipating somethign like spilled diesel etc. on every bend in the road. Ice is a little different as you can predict if it's likely to have formed by the recent temperatures etc.
sqwib said:
He lost control and hit a parked vehicle. He's guilty, and no amount of lying through his teeth about actual or imagined hazards can alter this.
yeah ok, and no one here has ever had a skid or a spin? he who is innocent may cast the first stone & all that. Punishment is the accident, why be mean spirited? we could all bleat on about the what haves & might bes, but in the end no harm done.
sqwib said:
He lost control and hit a parked vehicle. He's guilty, and no amount of lying through his teeth about actual or imagined hazards can alter this.
oh yea it.
his inharance will pay up for damage and load him.
if he dont the local tax colectors will rob him and give him so points so his insharance can load him some more.
my advive lie and lie some more.
Mr2Mike said:Yes you can. Is there a smell of (eg) diesel fuel in the air, is the road surface a different colour, is part of it more reflective than the rest, is the route just after a lorry or bus depot (at which they are likely to have filled up)?
The hazards might be unseen ... but they should be anticipated.
Whilst this is generaly sound advice, you cannot realisticly drive around anticipating somethign like spilled diesel etc. on every bend in the road. Ice is a little different as you can predict if it's likely to have formed by the recent temperatures etc.
To survive on the road today you must anticipate at all times. Re-action is a poor substitute for pro-action.
madcop said:
Just tell them he lost concentration for a second when he spilled his beer
Seriously though, if there are no witnesses, and no one phoned the police, I don't see how they can sue the driver for anything, he can just say he sneezed or something. Unless the car was split in two and it was obvious he was speeding...
Unless there was a mecahnical defect which was contributory to the loss of control and collision, then the act states that the basis of driving carefully is being that of a 'careful and competant driver'. Losing control whatever the reason if down to human error shows a lack of competance and therefore fits the definition of the offence.
It is not normal for CPS to prosecute people involved in single vehicle accidents with no injury to anyone else. This is not a single vehilce accident and the driver was careless in his approach to the bend (as I read it!) therefore case proved!
Does that mean that every time someone goes into the back of a car at say a roundabout they get done for due care?
I dont really understand this surly everyone who has an accident could be charged with the same?
The facts speak for themselves.
If you are unable to stop in time and hit a vehilce in frontthen that equals driving without due care. Hit a parked car then it is the same. That said, before CPS will prosecute there would normally be other factors to make the offence more serious, the classic one being an injury caused to a third party.
Derek
If you are unable to stop in time and hit a vehilce in frontthen that equals driving without due care. Hit a parked car then it is the same. That said, before CPS will prosecute there would normally be other factors to make the offence more serious, the classic one being an injury caused to a third party.
Derek
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff