|
bicycleshorts
1,557 posts
30 months
|
zygalski said: Welshbeef said: Imagine if you had risen into a child.... Err. I'll pass on that one. 
|
|
|
Mill Wheel
4,989 posts
65 months
|
Sicob said: 3 Pages in, and not one sketch of the accident, no pic requests of GF. Standards dropping on here. Isn't it a sticky at the top of the thread..? It should be! 
|
|
|
Vaux
1,489 posts
85 months
|
Fastdruid said: Because there was an injury. Does s170 say that?
|
|
|
Fastdruid
1,208 posts
21 months
|
Vaux said: Fastdruid said: Because there was an injury. Does s170 say that? Yes, I'm afraid my highlighting didn't work as I'd planned (I'm not sure why, I presume the extra square brackets confused it) but 1a, 5a and 6a/6b apply http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/sectio...170 Duty of driver to stop, report accident and give information or documents. (1)This section applies in a case where, owing to the presence of a [F1mechanically propelled vehicle] on a road [F2or other public place], an accident occurs by which— (a) personal injury is caused to a person other than the driver of that [F1mechanically propelled vehicle], or (b)damage is caused— (i)to a vehicle other than that [F1mechanically propelled vehicle] or a trailer drawn by that [F1mechanically propelled vehicle], or (ii)to an animal other than an animal in or on that [F1mechanically propelled vehicle] or a trailer drawn by that [F1mechanically propelled vehicle], or (iii)to any other property constructed on, fixed to, growing in or otherwise forming part of the land on which the road [F3or place] in question is situated or land adjacent to such land. (2)The driver of the [F1mechanically propelled vehicle] must stop and, if required to do so by any person having reasonable grounds for so requiring, give his name and address and also the name and address of the owner and the identification marks of the vehicle. (3)If for any reason the driver of the [F1mechanically propelled vehicle] does not give his name and address under subsection (2) above, he must report the accident. (4)A person who fails to comply with subsection (2) or (3) above is guilty of an offence. (5)If, in a case where this section applies by virtue of subsection (1)(a) above, the driver of [F4a motor vehicle] does not at the time of the accident produce such a certificate of insurance or security, or other evidence, as is mentioned in section 165(2)(a) of this Act— (a)to a constable, or (b)to some person who, having reasonable grounds for so doing, has required him to produce it,the driver must report the accident and produce such a certificate or other evidence.This subsection does not apply to the driver of an invalid carriage. (6)To comply with a duty under this section to report an accident or to produce such a certificate of insurance or security, or other evidence, as is mentioned in section 165(2)(a) of this Act, the driver— (a)must do so at a police station or to a constable, and (b)must do so as soon as is reasonably practicable and, in any case, within twenty-four hours of the occurrence of the accident. (7)A person who fails to comply with a duty under subsection (5) above is guilty of an offence, but he shall not be convicted by reason only of a failure to produce a certificate or other evidence if, within [F5seven] days after the occurrence of the accident, the certificate or other evidence is produced at a police station that was specified by him at the time when the accident was reported.
|
|
|
STHi
12,443 posts
46 months
|
This thread is brilliant and follows the usual rule of PH poster is never in the wrong.
So here's a question for all saying that the cyclist was at fault. If you were driving down a road and someone pulled out on you from a minor road would you expect to be blamed for the accident?
Secondly, the cyclist has 3 years to make a claim for an injury. He will win if he does. Firstly becasue the OPs OH is at fault and secondly because he is the more vulnerable road user. The latter souldn't really happen, but it is moot anyay, as the first point overrides any subsequent discussion.
The speed of the cyclist is irrelevant, not least because if you can assess his speed, you can see him and therefore should stop and give way, not run into him!
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
jazzyjeff
3,504 posts
128 months
|
STHi said: If you were driving down a road and someone pulled out on you from a minor road would you expect to be blamed for the accident? I would if they were stationary at the time.
|
|
|
Deva Link
26,903 posts
114 months
|
My missus got done for careless driving when a cyclist rode off the footpath opposite a T junction into the front of her car.
|
|
|
streaky
18,227 posts
118 months
|
jazzyjeff said: STHi said: If you were driving down a road and someone pulled out on you from a minor road would you expect to be blamed for the accident? I would if they were stationary at the time. Which is a debatable point ... Especially without witnesses. Streaky
|
|
|
Vaux
1,489 posts
85 months
|
Fastdruid said: Yes, I'm afraid my highlighting didn't work as I'd planned (I'm not sure why, I presume the extra square brackets confused it) but 1a, 5a and 6a/6b apply
(5)If, in a case where this section applies by virtue of subsection (1)(a) above, the driver of [F4a motor vehicle] does not at the time of the accident produce such a certificate of insurance or security, or other evidence, as is mentioned in section 165(2)(a) of this Act—
(a)to a constable, or
(b)to some person who, having reasonable grounds for so doing, has required him to produce it,the driver must report the accident and produce such a certificate or other evidence.This subsection does not apply to the driver of an invalid carriage. (5) says if you don't produce a certificate of insurance you need to report it. If you provide the details as in (2) and show insurance, I don't see s170 says you still have to go and find a Police station or constable to report to.
|
|
|
otolith
19,345 posts
73 months
|
STHi said: So here's a question for all saying that the cyclist was at fault. If you were driving down a road and someone pulled out on you from a minor road would you expect to be blamed for the accident? If you hit a stationary object because you were going too fast to stop in the distance you could see to be clear, would you expect to be blamed for it?
|
|
|
Jujuuk68
211 posts
26 months
|
otolith said: STHi said: So here's a question for all saying that the cyclist was at fault. If you were driving down a road and someone pulled out on you from a minor road would you expect to be blamed for the accident? If you hit a stationary object because you were going too fast to stop in the distance you could see to be clear, would you expect to be blamed for it? If I was cycling on the road, following anothe car which had stopped in traffic and whacked it up the arse, then clearly thats fault. If however, you are in a dedicated cycle lane, on the major road, and a car pulls out on you because it failed to sight you, but then stopped because it had failed to see it was clear to complete its manoevere as well, right in front of you, but just happened to become stationary at that moment, in your path, then I would NOT expect to be blamed for it. Two versions of the accident, one more likely than the other, and one where one driver has the greater onus to take care. It's a tough one, but frankly falling off a bike onto tarmac, at even 15 mph, isn;t like comming off your bmx bike in the woods - its likely to cause a greater injury even at soft tissue level, that most of the whiplash claims that scumbags get away with.
|
|
|
STHi
12,443 posts
46 months
|
otolith said: If you hit a stationary object because you were going too fast to stop in the distance you could see to be clear, would you expect to be blamed for it? I love the fact that evryone is hanging off the "stationary" aspect. It can't be proven that she was stationary. Also, if I dart out of a side road, then stop just in front of you, then it's still your fault? Somehow I doubt it. This is all semantics, Whether you agree with me or not is irrelevant, I know how this claim would settle and I know how a court would find in the absence of independent witness(es).
|
|
|
Geoff38
355 posts
115 months
|
streaky said: Which is a debatable point ... Especially without witnesses.
Streaky back from work and ready to rant again.. why is it debatable ? the OP said the car was stationary , fact. no witness means no one can say either way except the person involved. unless the actual cyclist joins in and disputes the incident then why can't the OP be believed to be telling the truth , he has nothing to gain by trying to blame the cyclist. ( and he isn't ) and how do you exchange documents with the cyclist who does not have any ?? after the only major RTA I have been involved in , I phoned the police to be told "is anyone hurt ? - no , ok we're not interested ,here's your crime number for the insurance company - bye" And yes I was stationary , really . so was the 7.5ton truck infront of me that I got rammed into by the pickup truck that did not brake when I had the cheek to stop in front of it. must have been My fault for stopping as required by the highway laws. 2nd rant of the day over have a nice evening G and yes I have had a bad day at work and need to vent some frustration 
|
|
|
otolith
19,345 posts
73 months
|
STHi said: otolith said: If you hit a stationary object because you were going too fast to stop in the distance you could see to be clear, would you expect to be blamed for it? I love the fact that evryone is hanging off the "stationary" aspect. It can't be proven that she was stationary. Also, if I dart out of a side road, then stop just in front of you, then it's still your fault? Somehow I doubt it. This is all semantics, Whether you agree with me or not is irrelevant, I know how this claim would settle and I know how a court would find in the absence of independent witness(es). The fact is that neither of us were there, but you seem to think you know better what happened than the person who was there - based entirely upon prejudice, as far as I can see.
|
|
|
Fastdruid
1,208 posts
21 months
|
Vaux said: Fastdruid said: Yes, I'm afraid my highlighting didn't work as I'd planned (I'm not sure why, I presume the extra square brackets confused it) but 1a, 5a and 6a/6b apply
(5)If, in a case where this section applies by virtue of subsection (1)(a) above, the driver of [F4a motor vehicle] does not at the time of the accident produce such a certificate of insurance or security, or other evidence, as is mentioned in section 165(2)(a) of this Act—
(a)to a constable, or
(b)to some person who, having reasonable grounds for so doing, has required him to produce it,the driver must report the accident and produce such a certificate or other evidence.This subsection does not apply to the driver of an invalid carriage. (5) says if you don't produce a certificate of insurance you need to report it. If you provide the details as in (2) and show insurance, I don't see s170 says you still have to go and find a Police station or constable to report to. Not how I read it at all but it may be the intention. As others have said, if there is no injury the police aren't interested. I doubt they would be seriously interested in anything further for a minor graze but I'm 100% sure you have to report it within 24 hours if just to show the insurance. http://www.motorlawyers.co.uk/offences/failing_to_...http://www.theaa.com/motoring_advice/legal-advice/...http://www.roadtrafficlawdirect.com/uncategorized/...Seems I missed that it's 5-10 points too.
|
|
|
Rich_W
4,172 posts
81 months
|
jazzyjeff said: I would if they were stationary at the time. Sorry but b  ks! You're driving down the main road. I pull out from a side street when you are 10foot from me, see you, panic and stop. Whose at fault? Happened exactly like that to an associate of mine. He ended up T boning their Alfa. Insurance sided with him and Alfa driver lost his no claims. Running into the back of someone is an entirely different scenario and Yes, in that case it's the person behinds fault.
|
|
|
Vaux
1,489 posts
85 months
|
Fastdruid said: From your last link: "1. Provided you comply with the requirements to stop, exchange information and in injury cases to produce your insurance, there is no automatic obligation to report an accident to the police." Based purely on the words in s170, I'm still not seeing this oft quoted requirement to have to report injury RTCs if you've complied with the exchange of information.
|
|
|
Fastdruid
1,208 posts
21 months
|
Vaux said: Fastdruid said: From your last link: "1. Provided you comply with the requirements to stop, exchange information and in injury cases to produce your insurance, there is no automatic obligation to report an accident to the police." Based purely on the words in s170, I'm still not seeing this oft quoted requirement to have to report injury RTCs if you've complied with the exchange of information. Difference between exchanging information and exchanging information *and* producing your insurance. Do you carry your insurance documents round with you?
|
|
|
johnpeat
3,335 posts
134 months
|
KevinA3DSG32 said: You can advise all you like, the fact remains it is a legal requirement to report it. You can quote laws until your underpants explode - we live in the real world and in the real world people use common sense rather than just following 'the law' to the letter (in every walk of life, every minute of the day). If she goes to the Police, what will happen (at least in my experience) is she'll be given a producer (so she must take all her documents with her) and be treat like a criminal. I know this because I've done it - I reported hitting a dog and ended-up being summonsed for driving without a licence (despite having a perfectly valid one!!) and then (stupid me didn't learn) reported a drink driver and ended-up AGAIN being told to produce MY documents whilst the Police did f k all about the reported drunk driver (but tried as hard as they could to suggest I wasn't properly insured when I was!!) This is because, in their tiny arrogant minds, the Police only see 'potential criminals' in everything they do. If the OP's GF does to report this, their first thought will be "what has she got to hide - let's tear through this to see if we can find something to charge her with". Tis an idiot who gives the Police (or the Tax Man or the Vat Man or whoever) 1 ounce of information they do not need to know UNLESS THEY ASK  Oh - and whilst ignorance of the law is no excuse, "injury" is a pretty vague term - I mean a bruised tow is an injury but are we really talking about that?
|
|
|
badyaker
150 posts
31 months
|
FFS
Cyclist wakes up with a sore neck and a bruised knee. Who's to say he didn't sleep funny?
It was dealt with at the scene. They're grown ups. Get over it.
Insurance will probably take the chance to up your premium
Police will either tell your insurance (see above) and do nothing, or look for a prosecution where there is none. Forget it.
|
|
