Accused of careless/not stopping - what happens from here?

[bigothunter]

Foss62 said:

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…
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.

Direct quote from Slater and Gordon, Road Traffic Accident Lawyers. Clearly you know better.

https://www.slatergordon.co.uk/newsroom/research-o...

[martinbiz]

bigothunter said:

Foss62 said:

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…
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.

Direct quote from Slater and Gordon, Road Traffic Accident Lawyers. Clearly you know better.

https://www.slatergordon.co.uk/newsroom/research-o...

A They are not motoring specialists by any means

B They have a history of out of date info on their site

C The HC is not legislation

[GasEngineer]

martinbiz said:

GasEngineer said:

youngsyr said:

I'd just fill in the form with exactly what it asked for and nothing more, what else can you do?

It seems like they are asking for the details of the driver involved in the collision, but as the OP says - there was no collision. He can't therefore fill in what they are asking for.

The S172 form will not say that it will ref an alleged incident listing several possible ALLEGED offences, standard stuff. The OP ignores the the request at his peril, especially as someone who is worried about ins costs

The form asks for the "Name of driver at the time of the collision" not alleged collision etc.

[turbomoggie]

kiethton said:

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.

[limpsfield]

turbomoggie said:

kiethton said:

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.

The struggle is real.

[siremoon]

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".

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.

[kiethton]

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".

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.

I'm an advanced driver (albeit car) and yes, all was considered - I was actually running early for work so wasn't in a huge rush either.

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?

[W124Bob]

Long shot but if there was bus was behind you, it might have captured footage of the fall. If you can contact the company they may be able supply the footage.

[OverSteery]

kiethton said:

I'm an advanced driver (albeit car) and yes, all was considered - I was actually running early for work so wasn't in a huge rush either.

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?

You clearly firmly believe that you were not responsible for this lady's fall. Let's accept that you are right - the fact you stopped does give some good evidence that your speed and attentiveness was appropriate.

Alas you are trying to convince the wrong audience. An incident did occur and the pedestrian appears to be claiming you were responsible.

You need to defend this view in the correct forum (ie not an online one).

Failing to cooperate with the Police isn't likely to support your position. Like it or not, this is a process you need to engage with constructively.

[Sebring440]

OverSteery said:

kiethton said:

I'm an advanced driver (albeit car) and yes, all was considered - I was actually running early for work so wasn't in a huge rush either.

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?

You clearly firmly believe that you were not responsible for this lady's fall. Let's accept that you are right - the fact you stopped does give some good evidence that your speed and attentiveness was appropriate.

Alas you are trying to convince the wrong audience. An incident did occur and the pedestrian appears to be claiming you were responsible.

You need to defend this view in the correct forum (ie not an online one).

Failing to cooperate with the Police isn't likely to support your position. Like it or not, this is a process you need to engage with constructively.

But, but, he's an "advanced driver"!

[martinbiz]

GasEngineer said:

martinbiz said:

GasEngineer said:

youngsyr said:

I'd just fill in the form with exactly what it asked for and nothing more, what else can you do?

It seems like they are asking for the details of the driver involved in the collision, but as the OP says - there was no collision. He can't therefore fill in what they are asking for.

The S172 form will not say that it will ref an alleged incident listing several possible ALLEGED offences, standard stuff. The OP ignores the the request at his peril, especially as someone who is worried about ins costs

The form asks for the "Name of driver at the time of the collision" not alleged collision etc.

Does it? As we haven't seen any more paperwork it's bit hard to say don't you think?

For what feels like the umpteenth time, if he is that averse to using their form he can give the info they require in a signed and dated letter, he can then also add his version of events to said letter

[ScoobyChris]

martinbiz said:

Does it? As we haven't seen any more paperwork it's bit hard to say don't you think?

For what feels like the umpteenth time, if he is that averse to using their form he can give the info they require in a signed and dated letter, he can then also add his version of events to said letter

The S172 we received stated:

"If you were the driver at the time of the alleged offence, please fill in and sign section A over the page."

Seems pretty clear cut that the first step is naming the driver. Second step will then be defending the alleged offences.

Chris

[sherbertdip]

To some extent I agree with the OP about not filling details about the collision, if there was no collision.

If it is possible as some have stated fill in the form section a? about your details, then send back with a covering letter saying why you were not able to fill in any other relevant section.

However, before doing any of that I would arrange a first discussion with a motoring specialist solicitor.

[qwerty360]

siremoon said:

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.

The fact that he apparently managed to stop clear of colliding, is evidence that he had mitigated. (see every example of twitter where a cyclist complains about driver action, usually with a few 100 responses of 'why didn't the cyclist stop/slow' ignoring that the only reason they aren't paste is they did stop...)


But there was a collision (ped falling to ground is still a collision per Road traffic act afaik) and his vehicle was involved (emergency stop to avoid hitting ped). I would argue that the fall (even if due to the ladies negligence in running out) was likely related to the presence of your vehicle (tripping while reacting because they think they are about to be run over). Doesn't mean you were negligent (you stopped clear...)

So there was a collision the vehicle was involved in.

Trying to be clever on the police paperwork or delaying is daft IMHO.
1. You don't want to be arguing about whether the reply was in time if it is delayed in postage etc
2. You want to give your side sooner rather than later - witness testimony is generally given more credence the closer it is to the incident time.
3. You want the police to gather other evidence ASAP (may also want to try to get some yourself), e.g. that your motorbike is undamaged, because the sooner they do it, the less someone can argue you got it repaired in the meanwhile; The more likely that the bus company or surrounding businesses will still have CCTV from busses or the bus driver will remember; etc.

Fill it in with the location of the incident (timings will be rough) and that you were driving;

Include a separate cover letter that debates your involvement in the collision with basic explaination as to why details weren't exchanged/handed over later (ped ran out between busses, panicked when they realised you were there and tripped over while you were doing an emergency stop;).



If the police are busy dealing with you playing barracks lawyer then they aren't doing anything that will exhonerate you. Making there lives hard for the sake of it will just annoy them (lets give them subconcious motivation to try and convict you...)

[GasEngineer]

martinbiz said:

GasEngineer said:

martinbiz said:

GasEngineer said:

youngsyr said:

I'd just fill in the form with exactly what it asked for and nothing more, what else can you do?

It seems like they are asking for the details of the driver involved in the collision, but as the OP says - there was no collision. He can't therefore fill in what they are asking for.

The S172 form will not say that it will ref an alleged incident listing several possible ALLEGED offences, standard stuff. The OP ignores the the request at his peril, especially as someone who is worried about ins costs

The form asks for the "Name of driver at the time of the collision" not alleged collision etc.

Does it? As we haven't seen any more paperwork it's bit hard to say don't you think?

For what feels like the umpteenth time, if he is that averse to using their form he can give the info they require in a signed and dated letter, he can then also add his version of events to said letter

Yes. OP posted pictures about halfway down page 3.

[semisane]

Sebring440 said:

But, but, he's an "advanced driver"!

You appear to revel in other peoples misfortune and rarely add any value.

OP - a family member had a similar situation in a car / child ran out in front of him.

Found it really stressful but filled out the relevant forms (I think his insurance helped him out as possible claim) stating child ran out / tripped / but no contact. Finally came back with no further action as no damage on car or child. No ambulance etc etc.

Good luck

[DP1]

bigothunter said:

Pica-Pica said:

The 60ish = elderly is my contentious issue.

Over 65 is geriatric territory

[vonhosen]

sherbertdip said:

To some extent I agree with the OP about not filling details about the collision, if there was no collision.

Hasn't she collided with the floor?
It doesn't have to be him that she collided with.
She's apparently alleging her injury occurred because of him.
He is refuting that, not his presence at the incident.

By all means get legal advice (quickly), but don't ignore the form.

[AyBee]

OverSteery said:

You clearly firmly believe that you were not responsible for this lady's fall. Let's accept that you are right - the fact you stopped does give some good evidence that your speed and attentiveness was appropriate.

Alas you are trying to convince the wrong audience. An incident did occur and the pedestrian appears to be claiming you were responsible.

You need to defend this view in the correct forum (ie not an online one).

Failing to cooperate with the Police isn't likely to support your position. Like it or not, this is a process you need to engage with constructively.

Sounds to me like he's trying to convince himself tbh. Agree on the rest of what you put.

[NikBartlett]

On the other side of the coin, if a pedestrian's actions had caused you to fall off you bike and break a wrist, would you then be able to take the pedestrian to court ? Or are we in the situation now where pedestrians ( and to a lesser extent extent cyclists ) are almost above the law here ? I appreciate that these road users are soft, squishy and easily damaged but where is the sense of self preservation?