Accused of careless/not stopping - what happens from here?
Discussion
Harry H said:
As said above, there was no contact and as far as you're concerned a woman fell over in front of you crossing the road and you stopped to assist. Once you knew an ambulance was on it's way you carried on with your journey. There was no heavy braking, no use of ABS. You were in complete control at all times That's it.
Just one of a few posts that seem to be modifying the OP's account and putting words into his mouth for some bizarre reason. The OP said "I avoided the collision (still not sure how, thank god this bike has ABS). The issue is one of her own making"
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.
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.
kiethton said:
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.
Something similar happened to me, whilst turning left and slowing due to a narrow entrance a pedestrian proceeded to walk towards the very edge of the pavement (and nearly into the side of the car). I stopped when I was able to do so (as I heard a loud noise from the person) and walked back (even though no contact was made) and they had gone.
A few weeks later I received a letter saying that I had hit the person and they had sprained their ankle as a result.
I contacted the case officer and was advised to send a cover letter. I also sent some clear pictures of the car, drew a diagram and invited the police to contact me if they wished to view the car, etc. I also asked if I could be provided with any additional information/proof of injuries.
A month or so after I got confirmation that no further action would be taken.
A few weeks later I received a letter saying that I had hit the person and they had sprained their ankle as a result.
I contacted the case officer and was advised to send a cover letter. I also sent some clear pictures of the car, drew a diagram and invited the police to contact me if they wished to view the car, etc. I also asked if I could be provided with any additional information/proof of injuries.
A month or so after I got confirmation that no further action would be taken.
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 noticekiethton 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 noticeAn outstanding/incomplete claim is maybe the most common reason for other companies refusing to quote/insure at renewal date.
Not sure if yours will fall into this category, but one to be very wary of.
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
The old lady or scammer as you so eloquently put it is out the equation for now, it is the police you are dealing with
Edited by martinbiz on Thursday 8th February 21:20
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:
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:
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.
That case actually concluded the opposite, that a separate letter is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of S172 if it gives the info required and is signed and dated. There is nothing to stop the OP from filling in the form and also attaching a separate letter with further info if neededGareth79 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.
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.bigothunter said:
Vulnerable road user (pedestrian) sustained minor injuries (inc cut lip). Perhaps I'm just pessimistic, but the outcome of this case will be interesting.
Off-topic but related. After digging around, just discovered this new rule:
Cars indicating to turn left or right must give way to cyclists coming from behind and going straight on
Didn't realise that before and could have been caught out. Thanks OP for the inspiration
I don’t know why you keep posting this sort of nonsense? Avoiding cutting up cyclists on your inside when turning left was even drummed into me when I took my car and motorcycle tests in the 70s. Pretty obvious and straightforward stuff I would suggest…Off-topic but related. After digging around, just discovered this new rule:
Cars indicating to turn left or right must give way to cyclists coming from behind and going straight on
Didn't realise that before and could have been caught out. Thanks OP for the inspiration
As far as right turns go, it is quite likely that the cyclist would be deemed to be overtaking at a junction and thus more at fault than the unobservant driver.
The ‘Hierarchy’ you are obsessed with is just meant to reinforce thought processes relating to vulnerability and responsibility levels. It means that behavioural expectations around an 11 year old on a bike should be less than those for an LGV driver. There are clearly limits to this - if you brake check an LGV on your Honda 50 the lorry driver will not be prosecuted because of the ‘Hierarchy’.
The OP in this particular case has nothing to worry about regarding the ‘Hierarchy’. If there is no evidence that he did anything other than help out, then one (possibly confused) person’s word against another will not be enough to proceed. It’s completely irrelevant that he was on a motorbike and she was on foot.
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.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.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
kiethton said:
Easy, ive said I over-think things...was walked over and bullied years ago but set a line and promised that I'd never let happen again and it hasn't since - left me in very good stead. I had a very negative interaction with the police 4m ago which hasn't helped things I'd concede.
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.
Just stop. You know you are over thinking so just stop it. You're trying to work out how to get GDPR applied to the police in some way? Just take it a step at a time.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
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff