1 accident, can both drivers be careless?
Discussion
Having read all the advice by 999 I would concur with what he says.
My own feelings about this are such that where a parking place is concerned, if the driver looking for the space, saw it and reacted quickly out of necessity to obtain the space and in his/her haste to get into the space, failed to check the rear view mirror prior to an equivalent emergency stop to facilitate the entry to the space, then they would have some culpability towards the accident happening.
Situations where someone or something jumps out in front of a driver and he reacts by emergency braking to avoid the ensuing inevitable collision would not have any culpability if struck from behind as the mirror check would be of no use (other than to see who was going to collide with the rear of your vehicle).
The haste in which some drivers stop to obtain advantage for their own convenience would not negate them from the definition of careless driving.
The court would simply examine whether it was absolutely necessary for the first driver to have stopped quickly. I would say from experience that they would probably decide that it was not necessary to stop quickly to obtain a parking space as another would no doubt have become available somewhere else locally (maybe even within a specified and pay to park car park) and the reason for stopping quickly was only to serve the convenience of the driver who could not be bothered to walk another 100 yards or so.
A careful and competent driver should have seen the space well in advance, indicated early and slowed down in a reasonable fashion after checking it was safe to do so by a mirror check to see that the following traffic would not be caused to react sharply, even if the following vehicle was too close.
If that was not possible to perform in a safe and reasonable manner, then a careful driver would have ignored the space and looked for another one, even if it meant inconvenience (walking further)to them by so doing.
A careless driver would have seen the space late, slammed on the brake without indicating or checking who was behind in the panic that someone else may sneak into the space before them.
I am not suggesting that this is what happened in these particular circumstances but I do see this type of behaviour from time to time, especially around town centre areas where 'on street' parking is limited and often full.
I would say that there are very few circumstances when hitting someone from behind would not find you fitting into the definition of careless driving.
The ex-serving officer is no longer subject of Police discipline regulations, so a complaint against police through the proper channels would be futile. As stated by 999, it is possible that there is a perverting justice situation but it would be very difficult to prove without furhter evidence other than hearsay and supposition. The ex-officer may well even have seen the incident as is suggested by the thread!
My own feelings about this are such that where a parking place is concerned, if the driver looking for the space, saw it and reacted quickly out of necessity to obtain the space and in his/her haste to get into the space, failed to check the rear view mirror prior to an equivalent emergency stop to facilitate the entry to the space, then they would have some culpability towards the accident happening.
Situations where someone or something jumps out in front of a driver and he reacts by emergency braking to avoid the ensuing inevitable collision would not have any culpability if struck from behind as the mirror check would be of no use (other than to see who was going to collide with the rear of your vehicle).
The haste in which some drivers stop to obtain advantage for their own convenience would not negate them from the definition of careless driving.
The court would simply examine whether it was absolutely necessary for the first driver to have stopped quickly. I would say from experience that they would probably decide that it was not necessary to stop quickly to obtain a parking space as another would no doubt have become available somewhere else locally (maybe even within a specified and pay to park car park) and the reason for stopping quickly was only to serve the convenience of the driver who could not be bothered to walk another 100 yards or so.
A careful and competent driver should have seen the space well in advance, indicated early and slowed down in a reasonable fashion after checking it was safe to do so by a mirror check to see that the following traffic would not be caused to react sharply, even if the following vehicle was too close.
If that was not possible to perform in a safe and reasonable manner, then a careful driver would have ignored the space and looked for another one, even if it meant inconvenience (walking further)to them by so doing.
A careless driver would have seen the space late, slammed on the brake without indicating or checking who was behind in the panic that someone else may sneak into the space before them.
I am not suggesting that this is what happened in these particular circumstances but I do see this type of behaviour from time to time, especially around town centre areas where 'on street' parking is limited and often full.
I would say that there are very few circumstances when hitting someone from behind would not find you fitting into the definition of careless driving.
The ex-serving officer is no longer subject of Police discipline regulations, so a complaint against police through the proper channels would be futile. As stated by 999, it is possible that there is a perverting justice situation but it would be very difficult to prove without furhter evidence other than hearsay and supposition. The ex-officer may well even have seen the incident as is suggested by the thread!
Thanks for explaining it as clearly as possible. I expect the magistrates will assume I didn't check the mirror before I braked, but how can I prove I did when its just my word against an ex-policeman and the following driver ? I wish I had a passenger or had thought "Find a witness" as soon as it happened, but I mistakenly believed it was obviously not my fault. It was just incredibly bad luck for me that the ex-policeman witness saw the crash and knows the other driver but I don't want sympathy just good advice, for which, once again, I am very grateful.
trev r said: Thanks for explaining it as clearly as possible. I expect the magistrates will assume I didn't check the mirror before I braked, but how can I prove I did when its just my word against an ex-policeman and the following driver ?
You cannot prove that you checked your mirror. They will have to take your word for that if you give evidence on oath. You may be asked why you continued to stop if you saw the following driver close to you as a further question as to yourguilt or innocence.
I wish I had a passenger or had thought "Find a witness" as soon as it happened, but I mistakenly believed it was obviously not my fault. It was just incredibly bad luck for me that the ex-policeman witness saw the crash and knows the other driver but I don't want sympathy just good advice, for which, once again, I am very grateful.
I wish lots of things as you do
. Sadly we cannot re-write history. I take it you have been summonsed as you state you write about 'the magistrates assuming' If you are to contest this offence, then you have to prove that your standard of driving did not fall bellow that of a careful and competent driver.
Regardless of what the witness might have seen or says, it is up to you to prove that you did not slip bellow the defintion of careless driving. A slightly ar5e about face standard where innocent until proven guilty is concerned I know, but the fact is there was an accident and an allegation against you in effect means you have to bat it off by provong you were not guilty rather than the prosecution proving you were, if that makes sense.
All the prosecution have to prove is that there was an element of careless driving which maybe by the use of the independant
witness! You will be innocent of the offence however until you are convicted although you have to prove your innocence in court.
Maybe I should spend more time planning my defence and less time moaning about it, but I assume that I will be "proven" guilty because I am not an ex-policeman and have no witness to back me up! There are duplicated factual errors with regard to the model and registration of my car in the statements against me, is there any point in attempting to use these to question the validity of the accusations?
trev r said: Maybe I should spend more time planning my defence and less time moaning about it, but I assume that I will be "proven" guilty because I am not an ex-policeman and have no witness to back me up! There are duplicated factual errors with regard to the model and registration of my car in the statements against me, is there any point in attempting to use these to question the validity of the accusations?
You will be proven guilty if you do not do something positive to protest your innocence. That requires some research on your part into how the procedures actually work and some knowledge of case law in relation to driving without due care. You can either do that yourself or throw lots of cash at a lawyer to do it for you.
All you need to do is throw an element of doubt on the evidence that the prosecution put before the court. If there are procedural or factual errors, then you should challenge them in court on the day without letting the prosecution know you have found them prior to the case being heard.
The fact that the index number and make etc are wrong, should not really make too much difference to the prosecution unless they are on the statement of facts on the summons. Would it not be possible that another accident occurred with the model car and index number that are the inaccurate ones? ( I would say it was unlikely but so are many things in life and there would be an elemnt of doubt thrown in)
I would imagine that the driver that hit you would have known if he had hit another car with those details. The fact that they are inaccurate will not stop the case going before the magistrates but you need to throw as much confusion into the procedings as you can, especially if it is a prosecution cock up!
If registration numbers and other facts are wrong, then an element of doubt will creep into the case and it has more of a chance of being thrown out by the magistrates. Alternatively you have to convince them that your standard of driving did not fall bellow the standard set in law (which is very much subjective).
If you are completely stuck, post me the details off line, if you can scan all the statements and the summons that you have, so much the better if I can see them.
Or even just punt another, already parked, car out of the way like that woman in Andover
madcop said:
A careless driver would have seen the space late, slammed on the brake without indicating or checking who was behind in the panic that someone else may sneak into the space before them.
I am not suggesting that this is what happened in these particular circumstances but I do see this type of behaviour from time to time, especially around town centre areas where 'on street' parking is limited and often full.
. I echo Madcop's advice about the court. DO NOT go in thinking you will loose. Make sure you have all of the facts and evidence straight. See if can access the court records for the other drivers case (are they public records?) and see what he claims happened.
Did you check your mirror before stopping? Did you indicate? Did you slow down fairly progressively or jump on the brakes? Where you already traveling very slowly and in a manner which should have lead the other driver to expect you to stop (no good on it's own but with other facts it will add weight). What was the other driver doing (looking in the mirror, on the phone, looking at the skirt walking donw the street)? This will show how much attention he was payin you - would he have noticed anything you did in time? How far behind was the car when you made the decision to stop?
All of these, and anything else you can dig up in your research, should help you.
Having said all of that do atleast consider what the penalties are and how they will affect you if you loose. You always need a contingency plan for if the worst happens.
Excellent advice from 999 and Madcop; its pretty obvious that both parties could be at fault. If you were driving without due consideration for other road users then common sense says you are not taking your duty of care seriously enough, and therefore driving carelessly - no matter how stupid and careless the other party.
Now, if you had been braking hard because you thought a pedestrian, possibly a child, looked as if they were about to step out from the pavement, I seriously doubt that any magistrate would be able to find you guilty of driving without due care. Even if that thought had been completely wrong, it would be hard to prove that your intention had not been honourable and that you were not in fact exercising extreme care.
Now, if you had been braking hard because you thought a pedestrian, possibly a child, looked as if they were about to step out from the pavement, I seriously doubt that any magistrate would be able to find you guilty of driving without due care. Even if that thought had been completely wrong, it would be hard to prove that your intention had not been honourable and that you were not in fact exercising extreme care.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff