Due care and attention?
Discussion
Opinions please...
The younger brother of a friend of mine (18, I think) was involved in a rear end shunt a while back, and has recently been told the police are considering a due care and attention charge. Assuming I'm getting the full story, he slid into someone on a wet road (no ABS) whilst in traffic. Wasn't speeding or anything, so sounds like a fairly routine shunt. To compound matters, the car behind, which DID have ABS, then hit him.
Think the lad is a bit put out that he's getting charged, whilst the guy behind, despite having ABS, which you'd have thought would help in those circumstance, would appear to be escaping unpunished.
Does anyone have any suggestions as to the best course of action and likely outcomes here? He doesn't have any points, but obviously has only been driving for a year.
The younger brother of a friend of mine (18, I think) was involved in a rear end shunt a while back, and has recently been told the police are considering a due care and attention charge. Assuming I'm getting the full story, he slid into someone on a wet road (no ABS) whilst in traffic. Wasn't speeding or anything, so sounds like a fairly routine shunt. To compound matters, the car behind, which DID have ABS, then hit him.
Think the lad is a bit put out that he's getting charged, whilst the guy behind, despite having ABS, which you'd have thought would help in those circumstance, would appear to be escaping unpunished.
Does anyone have any suggestions as to the best course of action and likely outcomes here? He doesn't have any points, but obviously has only been driving for a year.
What do you think ABS would have achieved for him and did not achieve for the chap behind him?
ABS will not stop anyone in a shorter distance than someone without.
I cannot think why only your mate is being considered for prosecution. Does he have his facts right and how would he know if the other driver was to be prosecuted anyway?
If he was driving so close or not paying attention enough to be able to stop on a wet road (or a dry one for that matter) behind a vehicle that had already stopped, he will have committed an offence of 'without due care'.
Unless he has reasonable cause or mittigating circumstances, then I am afraid he is looking at conviction and at least 3 points on his licence.
ABS will not stop anyone in a shorter distance than someone without.
I cannot think why only your mate is being considered for prosecution. Does he have his facts right and how would he know if the other driver was to be prosecuted anyway?
If he was driving so close or not paying attention enough to be able to stop on a wet road (or a dry one for that matter) behind a vehicle that had already stopped, he will have committed an offence of 'without due care'.
Unless he has reasonable cause or mittigating circumstances, then I am afraid he is looking at conviction and at least 3 points on his licence.
gone said:Er! Demonstrably it will. If the wheels lock - as suggested by the phrase, "slid into ... on a wet road" - then the friction between the tyre and the road is less than if the wheels do not lock (for example, as effected by an ABS). As a consequence of this, the stopping distance of a vehicle with ABS will be measureably less that that of the same vehicle without ABS. Of course, in the accident described, vehicle weights, steering attitudes and speeds are unknown (to us).
ABS will not stop anyone in a shorter distance than someone without.
Still, it seems (on the face of it, and there might well be more we don't know) to be unjust to charge one and not the other.
Streaky
streaky said:
gone said:
ABS will not stop anyone in a shorter distance than someone without.
Er! Demonstrably it will. If the wheels lock - as suggested by the phrase, "slid into ... on a wet road" - then the friction between the tyre and the road is less than if the wheels do not lock (for example, as effected by an ABS). As a consequence of this, the stopping distance of a vehicle with ABS will be measureably less that that of the same vehicle without ABS. Of course, in the accident described, vehicle weights, steering attitudes and speeds are unknown (to us).
Still, it seems (on the face of it, and there might well be more we don't know) to be unjust to charge one and not the other.
Streaky
The only thing ABS will do is allow you to steer at maximum braking efficiency.
Demonstrably there is little difference between the abilities of either in a straight line under emergency braking if you are too close to the vehicle in front!
Technically it ought to do so but, we live in the real world unfortunately
I agree that it is unfair to go for one and not the other but we do not know that this is the case. I would imagine it is purely supposition.
>> Edited by gone on Friday 25th June 06:41
gone said:
The only thing ABS will do is allow you to steer at maximum braking efficiency.
>> Edited by gone on Friday 25th June 06:41
As always there are exceptions to the rules. Snow/gravel better off without TC and where the grip varies across the width (say mud on the nearside) then ABS outperforms normally brakes.
First things first is to write a very strongly worded letter to the police. They sent me a letter saying they were considering prosecution for due care a while back - i won't bore you with the details but it was grossly unfair. Anyway I wrote a letter back saying as much and that I would defend my case to the bitter end. Then they dropped it. Just make it as hard as possible for them - don't appear apologetic at all. If they don't think they'll get a conviction then they won't prosecute.
Good luck with it,
Cheers,
Rob.
Good luck with it,
Cheers,
Rob.
Er - can I be really harsh. If he was paying due care and attention or not being reckless he would have been at a safe stopping distance for the conditions. Thats of course the worst line plod could take and the most officious one. Not a personal attack btw since I live in the real world and can't driving in the slipstream of the car in front. . . If he does get done - its harsh, if not its lucky!
Dave
p.s. good thing there wasn't an unbelted baby in the car in front. . . (controversial again!)
Dave
p.s. good thing there wasn't an unbelted baby in the car in front. . . (controversial again!)
If you think that the police back off simply because you send a strongly worded letter then you are living in a dream world.
If the case was dropped then there were likely other reasons. I can tell you from experience that if people took the "Make it as hard for them as possible" line we would often meet the task head on and have the Courts decide.
Equally if you take that view then dont be surprised when you get the full force back. If you want to kick back at the system then fine, but most likely it will bite you even harder.Its a much better tact to put your arguements reasonably and then you might get a similar response.
If the case was dropped then there were likely other reasons. I can tell you from experience that if people took the "Make it as hard for them as possible" line we would often meet the task head on and have the Courts decide.
Equally if you take that view then dont be surprised when you get the full force back. If you want to kick back at the system then fine, but most likely it will bite you even harder.Its a much better tact to put your arguements reasonably and then you might get a similar response.
WildCat said:
Was someone injured in this?
One of our reps saw a rear end shunt at traffic lights. Policer were not interested in attending as "accidents like this are common place and no-one has been injured."
That's what I was thinking. Did the police attend the scene? If not what evidence do they have he was driving without due care? Seems very unusual for the police to be interested in a fairly common occurance unless someone complained.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff