Accused of careless/not stopping - what happens from here?
Discussion
Received a letter though the post yesterday (form 963) requesting details of the rider of my motorbike re. Fail to stop and careless driving.
I know what this likely relates to - on the date in question a elderly (60ish) woman (black, wearing all black) ran from behind a stopped bus (50 yards between 2 separate pedestrian crossings) in front of me when riding in normal flowing traffic. My inclination was she was likely trying to get the bus immediately behind me. Owing to her being all black, it being dark, oncoming headlights, poor street lighting and light drizzle she was near invisible until right in front of me. I anchored on and somehow avoided her as she fell and face planted the road.
I stopped and called an ambulance as she'd cut her lip. When the ambiance said they'd be at least 45 mins I carried on to work.
Issue is the forms have the option of naming a driver for a collision - there was none, she fell over in front of me so I can't answer that section - or saying where I was at the time given (likely about 3 miles down the road on my way to work as the time is after I'd left).
I know I have to fill in the form else face 6 points - I can't fill in the first bit as nothing happened and I'd otherwise be implicating myself so leaning toward the second, as I was 3 miles away (which isn't untrue) at the time given.
Issue is what happens from here. Obviously I'm not at fault and have not had an accident but how best do I tell the police (and the woman by proxy) to go away forcefully?
I know what this likely relates to - on the date in question a elderly (60ish) woman (black, wearing all black) ran from behind a stopped bus (50 yards between 2 separate pedestrian crossings) in front of me when riding in normal flowing traffic. My inclination was she was likely trying to get the bus immediately behind me. Owing to her being all black, it being dark, oncoming headlights, poor street lighting and light drizzle she was near invisible until right in front of me. I anchored on and somehow avoided her as she fell and face planted the road.
I stopped and called an ambulance as she'd cut her lip. When the ambiance said they'd be at least 45 mins I carried on to work.
Issue is the forms have the option of naming a driver for a collision - there was none, she fell over in front of me so I can't answer that section - or saying where I was at the time given (likely about 3 miles down the road on my way to work as the time is after I'd left).
I know I have to fill in the form else face 6 points - I can't fill in the first bit as nothing happened and I'd otherwise be implicating myself so leaning toward the second, as I was 3 miles away (which isn't untrue) at the time given.
Issue is what happens from here. Obviously I'm not at fault and have not had an accident but how best do I tell the police (and the woman by proxy) to go away forcefully?
Yeah I get that i'm going to have to fill out the form, likely a step ahead of myself as I'm thinking to do nothing more than that at this stage.
Obviously I don't want this woman trying to scam me, even after stopping to help when I had zero obligation to do so.
I'm also rather time (and cash) limited atm (60-70 hours in the office, wife in zero pay maternity, house under refurb, the charity I chair hitting reporting/bumps and a 10m old baby) so need this to just go away.
I do tend to over-think things but my next risk is them then trying to organise a voluntary interview? - I can't see a time that diaries will align/they'll just try and ask loaded questions. After that it's the insurance company - they need to be kept well away (after all nothing happened) as I can barely afford the £3k pa total motor insurance premiums as it is.
Obviously I don't want this woman trying to scam me, even after stopping to help when I had zero obligation to do so.
I'm also rather time (and cash) limited atm (60-70 hours in the office, wife in zero pay maternity, house under refurb, the charity I chair hitting reporting/bumps and a 10m old baby) so need this to just go away.
I do tend to over-think things but my next risk is them then trying to organise a voluntary interview? - I can't see a time that diaries will align/they'll just try and ask loaded questions. After that it's the insurance company - they need to be kept well away (after all nothing happened) as I can barely afford the £3k pa total motor insurance premiums as it is.
Edited by kiethton on Thursday 8th February 12:59
The Selfish Gene said:
sounds to me like she will be looking for insurance and compensation route.
Why else would someone fall over and then go to the trouble to chase details down via the police.
This is my risk (that I can't afford - our motor insurance total is over £3k a year) and why I've got such a foxtrot Oscar attitude - all I did was avoid a potential accident of her own making and help her after that!Why else would someone fall over and then go to the trouble to chase details down via the police.
Don't get me wrong it was close but there is no way a motorbike can hit 80kg of what's basically fridge feeezer and stay upright without a mark to the bodywork, a mark to the 3 year old layer of dirt or without moving the mirrors (which I swear could be moved by a strong fart)
OverSteery said:
kiethton said:
Obviously I'm not at fault
I am no expert, but although you may well not be at fault, I don't think that is obvious.There does not need to be impact for you to cause an accident. If you were failing to take sensible care and suitable speed when passing a stationary bus where pedestrians could reasonably be expected, then you may bear some responsibility.
ISTR that when an ambulance is required, regardless of fault, a vehicle's insurer will pay for it? This may apply here, even though no contact was made.
I avoided the collision (still not sure how, thank god this bike has ABS). The issue is one of her own making.
XR said:
Was it the lady who fell that made a note of your reg number or were there other witnesses, possibly dascams etc
Don't think so, although another random woman of same age/demographic (not sure if related or what) came over afterwards (not a witness to the fall) and took a photo - I asked her what she was doing at the time - was the first I heard of the accusation. I literally laughed and said that I'd only stopped to help her up and carried on leaving. The biggest issue for me is that as a posh sounding white bloke I'm a rather soft target in that locale so the risk of fake witnesses is real, hence my anxiety.
LosingGrip said:
Freakuk said:
If there was a collision surely there would be damage to your bike or you....
You would have likely have been knocked off if you hit a person let's be honest.
I'd be getting some legal advice from a specialist bike solicitor before completing any forms, sorrymate.com may be able to help but they may only deal in SMIDSY type cases.
Doesn't have to be contact for there to have been a RTC. You would have likely have been knocked off if you hit a person let's be honest.
I'd be getting some legal advice from a specialist bike solicitor before completing any forms, sorrymate.com may be able to help but they may only deal in SMIDSY type cases.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/secti...
Owing to the presence of a vehicle...
If she said she ran because she didn't see you and tripped over, then that would be a RTC under the above.
My mum had similar with a moped rider. They pulled out of a side road in front of her, panicked, grabbed a load of front brake in the wet and fell off. Mum stopped to make sure he was OK. He said it was all his fault etc.
Few weeks later she gets a NIP for careless/fail to stop/fail to report. And her insurance company were informed.
Police took no action (wasn't interviewed). And insurance company didn't pay out.
Technically she didn't comply with section 170 as she didn't give her VRM, address or insurance details. She believed that because she didn't hit anyone she didn't need to.
whimsical ninja said:
This is a slightly unusual chain of events. Normally the police would be called to a personal injury accident; presumably from the way it was reported to the ambulance they didn't realise it was an accident and, I'm guessing, didn't think to pass it on to the police.
This definitely sounds like it counts as an RTC for Road Traffic Act purposes and while ignorance of the law is not a defence etc etc, you clearly did stop and your call to the ambulance shows you were in good faith as regards the "fail to stop" element. I honestly don't know what your obligations re reporting are if the other party concerned doesn't ask for your details (including insurance as personal injury). That's something you'd need to ask legal advice. Had the police been called out they would have taken your details. Rectifying things quickly might work in your favour.
This may be nothing more than a retrospective enquiry into something the police would normally have attended and investigated at the roadside (in which case you would have most likely been asked questions under caution about what had happened).
Finally, if this gets anywhere near a court, I'd suggest you quickly lose the attitude.
Said on the 999 call that somebody ran out in the road front of me, this was the outcome (45 mins before an ambulance - we all know to double it and I had to be in work so left)This definitely sounds like it counts as an RTC for Road Traffic Act purposes and while ignorance of the law is not a defence etc etc, you clearly did stop and your call to the ambulance shows you were in good faith as regards the "fail to stop" element. I honestly don't know what your obligations re reporting are if the other party concerned doesn't ask for your details (including insurance as personal injury). That's something you'd need to ask legal advice. Had the police been called out they would have taken your details. Rectifying things quickly might work in your favour.
This may be nothing more than a retrospective enquiry into something the police would normally have attended and investigated at the roadside (in which case you would have most likely been asked questions under caution about what had happened).
Finally, if this gets anywhere near a court, I'd suggest you quickly lose the attitude.
I fail to see the attitude point, I've only articulated what happened but do accept I'm contrite/don't react well to BS (a function of my job)
martinbiz said:
kiethlton said:
Thanks yes, I'll fill out the form and post it back in a few weeks' time
Absolutely no point in hanging out your response, send it back in a timely manner. Remember you only have 28 days from the date on the noticemartinbiz said:
kiethton said:
martinbiz said:
kiethlton said:
Thanks yes, I'll fill out the form and post it back in a few weeks' time
Absolutely no point in hanging out your response, send it back in a timely manner. Remember you only have 28 days from the date on the noticeIt will still need reporting on renewal as a possible pending prosecution
Saying as I had this a decade ago - I was pulled over for speeding, but as the "charge date" was after the renewal date I didn't have to pay the extra that year. Every little helps given the cost, especially as there is no way I'm taking any responsibility (literally zero) here.
Is there any way to stop the police sharing information? Obviously this is a GDPR mis-use/scam facilitation
Worst case of so, to choke off the insurance angle, although the above has mentioned not doing so but if so I'm strongly considering having a cease and desist letter (with stated claims/damages in the event they don't comply) sent to the accuser if things do go down the insurance route. That way I'd at least have a civil claim for costs after any event.
Edited by kiethton on Thursday 8th February 21:32
Edited by kiethton on Thursday 8th February 21:39
Gareth79 said:
paddy1970 said:
C) When responding to Form 963, follow the guidance of your solicitor closely. If the form does not accurately cater to the specifics of your incident (e.g., because there was no collision with another vehicle), your solicitor can advise on the best way to convey this information. They may suggest including a detailed account of the incident in your own words, clarifying that there was no collision but rather an incident where you acted to prevent harm.
From memory, I think Idris Francis' case ruled that you have to complete and sign the form, you can't convey the requested information in a format of your choosing.
martinbiz said:
kiethton said:
Gareth79 said:
paddy1970 said:
C) When responding to Form 963, follow the guidance of your solicitor closely. If the form does not accurately cater to the specifics of your incident (e.g., because there was no collision with another vehicle), your solicitor can advise on the best way to convey this information. They may suggest including a detailed account of the incident in your own words, clarifying that there was no collision but rather an incident where you acted to prevent harm.
From memory, I think Idris Francis' case ruled that you have to complete and sign the form, you can't convey the requested information in a format of your choosing.martinbiz said:
kiethton said:
martinbiz said:
kiethton said:
Gareth79 said:
paddy1970 said:
C) When responding to Form 963, follow the guidance of your solicitor closely. If the form does not accurately cater to the specifics of your incident (e.g., because there was no collision with another vehicle), your solicitor can advise on the best way to convey this information. They may suggest including a detailed account of the incident in your own words, clarifying that there was no collision but rather an incident where you acted to prevent harm.
From memory, I think Idris Francis' case ruled that you have to complete and sign the form, you can't convey the requested information in a format of your choosing.Thinking was that if we play events on a few stages and they think to make a claim - a C&D nips that in the bud and gives me evidence to get expenses claimed, I can't just take a day off work without my salary being paid...
If nothing has happened it's more than reasonable to ask whether GDPR applies to the police giving away my information...
How would you answer the form, B asks about the person involved in the collision, C asks where A (registered keeper) was at the time.
Edited by kiethton on Thursday 8th February 22:35
siremoon said:
kiethton said:
I was in a row of decently-spaced free flowing traffic. The stopped bus was oncoming, the vehicle immediately behind me was another bus. There was a pedestrian crossing 50 yards away (in either direction). I saw the shadow waiting for the van in front, next thing I know she's there in front of me, falling over.
I avoided the collision (still not sure how, thank god this bike has ABS). The issue is one of her own making.
With my motorcycle instructor hat on let's just take a moment to look at the hazards. Dark, oncoming headlights, poor street lighting and light drizzle. Stationary oncoming bus (presumably at a bus stop). Pedestrian crossing 50 yds ahead. "van in front". "free flowing traffic". I avoided the collision (still not sure how, thank god this bike has ABS). The issue is one of her own making.
Devil's advocate time.
What is the number 1 hazard when riding a motor bike? "Didn't see 'im guv". So the highest risk to the OP as he approached the scene of this incident was some half wit coming the other way pulling out and overtaking the stationary bus. Did you take any steps to mitigate that obvious risk to you such as adjusting your road positioning to leave space and get a better view? As about 75% of riders seem to think they're immortal then possibly not. Would the incident have been avoided if you had? Maybe. Plus a pedestrian stepping out from behind a bus is a very obvious risk which every driver/rider should be aware of.
"van in front". Had the woman stepped out 2 seconds earlier and obliged the van in front to make an emergency stop then had you left sufficient distance from the van to avoid hitting it should it stop suddenly, bearing in mind the presumably wet road surface? Again about 75% of riders would not have so possibly not. If you had been further back from the van would the incident have been avoided? Maybe.
Same thing with "Pedestrian crossing 50 yds ahead". You clearly knew this was there so was your road positioning and distance from the van appropriate to mitigate the risk of the van stopping at the crossing and/or such that you could see a pedestrian attempting to cross?
"free flowing traffic". Were you observing the speed limit?
It maybe that the darkness, poor visibility etc caused any witnesses to believe you had struck the woman especially as you say it was very close. The woman may even believe you struck her.
I'm not saying you necessarily committed any traffic offences, but based on the description of what happened, you may have been able to do more to lessen the risk of an incident like this happening. My number one rule when riding a motor bike is that if I rely on everyone else doing the right thing then my next stop is likely to be the mortuary. Next time it might not be a woman emerging from behind the bus, it might some brainless moron in a 4x4 checking their facebook.
When I say free flowing traffic, the van in front was ~15m ahead, the road was wide enough for over 3 buses to pass each other. There was no oncoming traffic beyond a stopped bus. The lack of speed and awareness was why I was able to stop despite road and weather conditions surely?
martinbiz said:
GasEngineer said:
Yes. OP posted pictures about halfway down page 3.
Yes I saw that, what I meant, perhaps badly worded by me, is we have not seen all the paperwork , there will be at least 1 or possibly 2 more pages to go with that, the first covering page I guarantee will mention alleged offences. But again there is nothing to stop the OP giving the information on a separate letter together with his version of events There was also another detailed form of my info which is separate and that I apparently not legally have to complete.
People have said get legal advice, issue is my current situation makes that a no-go unless the police cover the cost of it. Don't think I've got legal on the bike (third party insured due to post code/low value) and I don't want to touch any insurer in case they put a mark on my file - this would send my other car insurance bills to +£5k a year.
So, it continues.
I returned the form as required and had it sent back in early March, with a hand written post-it note attached telling me to fill in section B - the section asking for the driver at the time of the collision. This is despite the form (photo below) saying to fill in either that section *or* section C (which I did complete).
They also asked for "evidence", difficult to provide so far beyond the event. Needless to say this was sent back without a return envelope. I've sat on it as I've complied with my requirements.
I then had a phone call yesterday chasing this form and threatening prosecution for not completing it (while simultaneously saying that I had returned it). They gave a phone number which does not connect (tried 5 times) and said an email address which I get bounce-backs for different spellings of the name given.
Now contemplating next actions. Part of me is leaning toward waiting on a summons for failure to provide information at which time I can point to the form that I returned, that they acknowledge that I did return in time, allowing all other bits to time out.
I returned the form as required and had it sent back in early March, with a hand written post-it note attached telling me to fill in section B - the section asking for the driver at the time of the collision. This is despite the form (photo below) saying to fill in either that section *or* section C (which I did complete).
They also asked for "evidence", difficult to provide so far beyond the event. Needless to say this was sent back without a return envelope. I've sat on it as I've complied with my requirements.
I then had a phone call yesterday chasing this form and threatening prosecution for not completing it (while simultaneously saying that I had returned it). They gave a phone number which does not connect (tried 5 times) and said an email address which I get bounce-backs for different spellings of the name given.
Now contemplating next actions. Part of me is leaning toward waiting on a summons for failure to provide information at which time I can point to the form that I returned, that they acknowledge that I did return in time, allowing all other bits to time out.
That's the thing - I have filled it in correctly - the document says fill in B OR C, I filled in C. They want me to fill in B which I can't do.
I've written a cover note to go back with the original (unchanged) form and will post it away on Tuesday if I can get a stamp etc over the weekend.
If I've followed the inductions on the initial letter (as I have) I'd be happy to go to court, get it thrown out and a days pay on their account for my troubles
I've written a cover note to go back with the original (unchanged) form and will post it away on Tuesday if I can get a stamp etc over the weekend.
If I've followed the inductions on the initial letter (as I have) I'd be happy to go to court, get it thrown out and a days pay on their account for my troubles
guitarcarfanatic said:
kiethton said:
That's the thing - I have filled it in correctly - the document says fill in B OR C, I filled in C. They want me to fill in B which I can't do.
I've written a cover note to go back with the original (unchanged) form and will post it away on Tuesday if I can get a stamp etc over the weekend.
If I've followed the inductions on the initial letter (as I have) I'd be happy to go to court, get it thrown out and a days pay on their account for my troubles
You are going to end up with 6 points and a fine - I appreciate you think you are in the right here, but you have been involved in an accident (whether making contact or not). Just play the game, jeez! I've written a cover note to go back with the original (unchanged) form and will post it away on Tuesday if I can get a stamp etc over the weekend.
If I've followed the inductions on the initial letter (as I have) I'd be happy to go to court, get it thrown out and a days pay on their account for my troubles
1) I've not been involved in any accident
2) I was not in the location at the time alleged
I can't reply in any other way without perjuring myself
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff