Why aren't rear end shunters prosecuted ?
Discussion
Ooer missus,
If I drove in to the rear end of the car in front (which I don't make a habit of), I'd imagine the two main reasons were that I was driving too fast / too close to the car in front or that I wasn't paying attention to the fact that the car in front had stopped.
With this in mind, why are people not prosecuted for driving without due care or attention for the thousands of rear end shunts that happen every day ?
If I drove in to the rear end of the car in front (which I don't make a habit of), I'd imagine the two main reasons were that I was driving too fast / too close to the car in front or that I wasn't paying attention to the fact that the car in front had stopped.
With this in mind, why are people not prosecuted for driving without due care or attention for the thousands of rear end shunts that happen every day ?
ledfoot said:
Let's nick these dummies and maybe then tailgaters would become a thing of the past.
And nicking speeders, has made speeding a thing of the past? Of course not !
An interesting viewpoint. speed over a given limit can be perfectly safe and, it could be argued, that low speed rear end shunts can, also, be perfectly safe.
The problem that I have is that people who are having low speed accidents may well end up having high speed accidents. I think it is right to target/prosecute such drivers.
I let a woman out in frnt of me onto the A40 on Monday as we sat and queued. She then drove on slowly about 50yrds.
Unfortunately for her the car in front was only about 49.5 yards away.
I feel very good for letting her out. As an independent witness, I can say that she was driving without due care and attention. I saw that both parties stopped, noted her reg and drove on.
This is the main problem with prosecuting rear end shunts -- there are a million witnesses and no witness details. The chap in front will probably be ok, and his insurers might just get her to pay without settling knock for knock.
First thing to do in an accident is look for witnesses and get the to stop - otherwise blame will be miscast.
Then tend to the dying...
Unfortunately for her the car in front was only about 49.5 yards away.
I feel very good for letting her out. As an independent witness, I can say that she was driving without due care and attention. I saw that both parties stopped, noted her reg and drove on.
This is the main problem with prosecuting rear end shunts -- there are a million witnesses and no witness details. The chap in front will probably be ok, and his insurers might just get her to pay without settling knock for knock.
First thing to do in an accident is look for witnesses and get the to stop - otherwise blame will be miscast.
Then tend to the dying...
Why prosecute? Who's it going to help or what will it achieve?
The person will very likely already been seen by the insurance companies involved to be to blame (not necessarily though) and they will be in for some expense and inconvenience.
A society where we are afraid of blame, claim, prosecution for the most minor of mistakes is not a happy one.
The person will very likely already been seen by the insurance companies involved to be to blame (not necessarily though) and they will be in for some expense and inconvenience.
A society where we are afraid of blame, claim, prosecution for the most minor of mistakes is not a happy one.
Problem is that drivers who do shunt from the rear are apparently more likely to do it again.
According to a few sources, Roadcraft being one the theory is that even in open/shut cases the shunters still attach the blame to somewhere other than themself, such as 'it was wet', 'they braked to hard', 'why did they stop, the road was clear' and so on when, the real cause was their own inattention, failure to leave a suitable gap, aggresive driving or combination of said factors.
Perhaps points on a license and a proper re-education programme would help solve this.
I am not saying we should have blame and claim because the responsibility is not solely with the offending driver but with the whole road safety campaign, driver training and education system however, in each individual case if a driver hits another from behind it is a result of their driving being sub standard.
According to a few sources, Roadcraft being one the theory is that even in open/shut cases the shunters still attach the blame to somewhere other than themself, such as 'it was wet', 'they braked to hard', 'why did they stop, the road was clear' and so on when, the real cause was their own inattention, failure to leave a suitable gap, aggresive driving or combination of said factors.
Perhaps points on a license and a proper re-education programme would help solve this.
I am not saying we should have blame and claim because the responsibility is not solely with the offending driver but with the whole road safety campaign, driver training and education system however, in each individual case if a driver hits another from behind it is a result of their driving being sub standard.
I did say "maybe" it would stop some of the tailgaters.
Eventually, of course, it will as they will accumulate points and lose their license. 6 points for a rear ender means 2 and you're out. Perfect.
An end to all those hours sitting stationary on motorways because some numpty drives too close and causes an accident.
Eventually, of course, it will as they will accumulate points and lose their license. 6 points for a rear ender means 2 and you're out. Perfect.
An end to all those hours sitting stationary on motorways because some numpty drives too close and causes an accident.
My dad drive's far to close to the vehicle in front & when a passenger in his car (as rare as possible), I sometimes find myself pushing an imaginary brake pedal.
In my car, regardless of the speed I travel, I'd like to think passengers feels safe & relaxed.
I just wonder that if you go around constantly hitting people up the arse, if points on your license would make you change their driving style.
I'm not convinced that extra insurance premiums have an effect on people, especially your company car / van / lorry driver, where he probably has no idea what his company pays in insurance premiums.
For the BIB out there, when you attend rear end shunts and ask what happened, I would have thought the answer "The car in front stopped & I wasn't concentrating" would lead to a prosecution, but may be not then ?
In my car, regardless of the speed I travel, I'd like to think passengers feels safe & relaxed.
I just wonder that if you go around constantly hitting people up the arse, if points on your license would make you change their driving style.
I'm not convinced that extra insurance premiums have an effect on people, especially your company car / van / lorry driver, where he probably has no idea what his company pays in insurance premiums.
For the BIB out there, when you attend rear end shunts and ask what happened, I would have thought the answer "The car in front stopped & I wasn't concentrating" would lead to a prosecution, but may be not then ?
RUSSELLM said:
Ooer missus,
If I drove in to the rear end of the car in front (which I don't make a habit of), I'd imagine the two main reasons were that I was driving too fast / too close to the car in front or that I wasn't paying attention to the fact that the car in front had stopped.
With this in mind, why are people not prosecuted for driving without due care or attention for the thousands of rear end shunts that happen every day ?
The Police haven't the time or resources to investigate every RTA. Hence most of these go unreported. Bloody hell, if everybody was convicted for CD10 after an RTA, we'd all be getting banned, and then where would the government get it's fuel duty?
My day ALL accidents reported were fully dealt with and damage only rear end shunters prosecuted for due care, (but note not all shunters are due care - Scott v Warren 1957).
Came the enlightenment and if Plod attended and damage only/ no injury, names and addresses exchanged and that was it. But if Injury then I do understand that Plod takes an interest and may put in a process file. I gather the arguement on Police resources being tied up for what is basically an Insurance job plays a part whereas in my day we thought we were doing a service and helping Joe Public by prosecuting the wrongdoer bearing in mind a conviction goes a long way to help in an Insurance claim. Who better than Plod to help Joe by getting all the details and ensuring job done right.
If as much attention was given to bad driving behaviour as there is to speed cameras that concrete slab may be a better place for all of us.
dvd
Came the enlightenment and if Plod attended and damage only/ no injury, names and addresses exchanged and that was it. But if Injury then I do understand that Plod takes an interest and may put in a process file. I gather the arguement on Police resources being tied up for what is basically an Insurance job plays a part whereas in my day we thought we were doing a service and helping Joe Public by prosecuting the wrongdoer bearing in mind a conviction goes a long way to help in an Insurance claim. Who better than Plod to help Joe by getting all the details and ensuring job done right.
If as much attention was given to bad driving behaviour as there is to speed cameras that concrete slab may be a better place for all of us.
dvd
mk6fiesta said:
I drove into the back of someone in March 03. On entry to a r'bout, both approaching about 20mph, he doesnt touch his brake lights (so I presume he is entering the r'bout) - I look over my right shoulder to check entry is safe - look back and - oh shit he has stopped (actually on the r'bout!)
Greasy, wet road + no abs = wallop!
Unmarked Vulva on the scene literally within 30 secs, said he has seen it happen and that although technically he could book me, why would he want to?
Accident was totally my fault and I dont mind admitting it, but what benefit would a DWDCA charge bring?
It would have left a bigger dent in my wallet, more hassle with insurance, a blemish on my license and a general disdain for the Police.
Each situation is different and a blanket policy like you suggest is unworkable (and wrong!) IMHO.
This is my point, he'd have happily fined you & give you points had you approached the island at 34mph, but because you've ploughed in to someone, he couldn't care less.
Surely with almost any accident the person was driving without undue care, else they wouldnt have crashed in the first place?!
I have had the misfortune to have a low speed collision into the back of someone. Turning right off a main road at a staggered junction, as I turned right, someone started nudging out from a slip road immediately to my left almost hitting my car, as I then braked and moved round them noticed that the car in front of me had stopped as someone was coming towards them on totally the wrong side of the road as they had got fed up with queuing. Slight knock to her car, no damage to mine, exhanged ins details and she was quite happy that not my fault and admitted there was nothing I could have done to avoid her.
Now I am the only one who collided, yet I was busy taking avoiding action from one idiot who wasnt looking where they were going, whilst the lady in front of me was taking avoiding action from another idiot!
And no I dont tailgate, I always leave an appropriate distance between myself and the vehicle ahead
>> Edited by SpudGunner on Saturday 8th October 19:16
RUSSELLM said:
I drove into the back of someone in March 03. On entry to a r'bout, both approaching about 20mph, he doesnt touch his brake lights (so I presume he is entering the r'bout) - I look over my right shoulder to check entry is safe - look back and - oh shit he has stopped (actually on the r'bout!)
Greasy, wet road + no abs = wallop!
Unmarked Vulva on the scene literally within 30 secs, said he has seen it happen and that although technically he could book me, why would he want to?
Accident was totally my fault and I dont mind admitting it, but what benefit would a DWDCA charge bring?
It would have left a bigger dent in my wallet, more hassle with insurance, a blemish on my license and a general disdain for the Police.
Each situation is different and a blanket policy like you suggest is unworkable (and wrong!) IMHO.
This is my point, he'd have happily fined you & give you points had you approached the island at 34mph, but because you've ploughed in to someone, he couldn't care less.
Whilst we are taking a lot of generalisations here, I quite agree. And whilst this is the projected effect of policing (which includes speed traps) it means that the honest citizen feels like he is being persecuted, which is a wrong and sad state of affairs.
The unfortunate ending of the story is I really dont think that it is the fault of the police doing the job whatsoever, more the face of the system in general.
Bit of a side issue, but at my last place, our driver was hit head on by a girl, she was looking in her bag for a tape, didnt notice a left hand bend & hit him on his side of the road.
When I arrived, the roof was off her Skoda & the force of the pedals shooting up, forced her bones through the skin at her knees... quite a mess.
Our Transit van & driver didn't look to good either.
Had she been prosecuted earlier for messing about with tapes, reading maps, looking at her mobile or whatever else she does, would her driving improved & the accident been avoided ?
I can't see the logic in fineing someone for using thier mobile phone, but ignoring the fact that they are staring out of a side window, when the prefered view would be ahead (or at least the same direction the vehicle is travelling in)
When I arrived, the roof was off her Skoda & the force of the pedals shooting up, forced her bones through the skin at her knees... quite a mess.
Our Transit van & driver didn't look to good either.
Had she been prosecuted earlier for messing about with tapes, reading maps, looking at her mobile or whatever else she does, would her driving improved & the accident been avoided ?
I can't see the logic in fineing someone for using thier mobile phone, but ignoring the fact that they are staring out of a side window, when the prefered view would be ahead (or at least the same direction the vehicle is travelling in)
'Cos they can't make money out of it, 'cos you can't prove it easily.
If a trafpol sees it, then yes they can, but otherwise I suspect it's one persons word against another .... i.e. NFA.
Same problem as with anything else ..... trafpol detect all sorts of traffic crime besides speeding (and probably pick up a fair few villains as a consequence of this) but they are *expensive* and *cost money*. Scameras *make* money.
If a trafpol sees it, then yes they can, but otherwise I suspect it's one persons word against another .... i.e. NFA.
Same problem as with anything else ..... trafpol detect all sorts of traffic crime besides speeding (and probably pick up a fair few villains as a consequence of this) but they are *expensive* and *cost money*. Scameras *make* money.
mk6fiesta said:
...and told me I had been daft (to which I totally agreed) and then left.
My point being I dont think I was driving without due care. Failure to predict and allow for the ensuing sitaution - yes!
Without due care - no...
KB_S1 said:
...Roadcraft:- the shunters still attach the blame to somewhere other than themself, such as 'it was wet', 'they braked to hard', 'why did they stop, the road was clear' and so on when, the real cause was their own inattention, failure to leave a suitable gap, aggresive driving or combination of said factors.
Interesting thread.
A roundabout I use several times daily is a terrible junction. I consider many roundabouts in the UK are badly designed, but this one (Bassets Pole, a38 nr. Sutton Coldfield) must be the worst.
Basically, the 'sweep' or 'feed', ie the curve of the road onto the roundabout is too pronounced. What that means when you're stationary is that, to be able to see what is on the roundabout, you end up almost looking over your shoulder. Instead of looking through your door window, you are looking through a tiny gap formed by the door pillar, seat belt and head rest. Because you are looking so much to the right, the car in front is no longer in your perirheral vision. So a person sees a gap coming, sets off to zip into the gap but the car in front isnt, and bang, bobs your uncle.
For foriegn trucks their problem is even worse. The cab of an artic has to turn so much that the driver of a left hooker loses all sight of the island, and the only way, and I really mean the only way, a LHD truck can get on to the island is to creep slowly onto it, regardless of what's coming. That gives some motorists a problem, I can tell you.
I've never had a bump there - in fact, despite many misdemeanours in the past I've still yet to make car-to-car contact - but I reckon there is more than one rear end shunt at that island every single day.
On a different angle - I know none of you want to hear this, but a mate of mine (hope he doesn't read this) has ploughed into the back of the car in front more times than I've had hot dinners. In his company car, that is. He's never pranged his own cars and so has full no claims bonus.
A roundabout I use several times daily is a terrible junction. I consider many roundabouts in the UK are badly designed, but this one (Bassets Pole, a38 nr. Sutton Coldfield) must be the worst.
Basically, the 'sweep' or 'feed', ie the curve of the road onto the roundabout is too pronounced. What that means when you're stationary is that, to be able to see what is on the roundabout, you end up almost looking over your shoulder. Instead of looking through your door window, you are looking through a tiny gap formed by the door pillar, seat belt and head rest. Because you are looking so much to the right, the car in front is no longer in your perirheral vision. So a person sees a gap coming, sets off to zip into the gap but the car in front isnt, and bang, bobs your uncle.
For foriegn trucks their problem is even worse. The cab of an artic has to turn so much that the driver of a left hooker loses all sight of the island, and the only way, and I really mean the only way, a LHD truck can get on to the island is to creep slowly onto it, regardless of what's coming. That gives some motorists a problem, I can tell you.
I've never had a bump there - in fact, despite many misdemeanours in the past I've still yet to make car-to-car contact - but I reckon there is more than one rear end shunt at that island every single day.
On a different angle - I know none of you want to hear this, but a mate of mine (hope he doesn't read this) has ploughed into the back of the car in front more times than I've had hot dinners. In his company car, that is. He's never pranged his own cars and so has full no claims bonus.
mk6fiesta said:
My point being I dont think I was driving without due care. Failure to predict and allow for the ensuing sitaution - yes!
If you drive into the back of another vehicle, you have self-evidently failed to exercise 'due care'. Should you automatically be prosecuted? Compare:
- a driver who exceeds an arbitrary speed limit, does not cause or become involved in an accident or cause alarm or distress to anybody, but is nevertheless prosecuted and possibly faces the loss of licence and livelihood
- a driver whose driving is self-evidently careless, causes (perhaps substantial) damage to other person's property, distress, inconvenience etc and escapes without any sanction and, possibly, at zero personal cost if driving his employer's vehicle
Given that comparison, I'd say the self-evidently careless driver should be prosecuted every time - but perhaps lesser fine if he can show he is personally affected by insurance consequences and perhaps reduced penalty points if he agrees to take additional training.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff