Reporting an accident?
Discussion
I was just wondering... Have the regs changed regarding reporting of (injury) accidents?
Reason I ask is that a friend of mine's stepson had a bit of a coming together with a car recently (he's 14, 50/50 accident, he had no lights & misread driver's intentions, driver failed to do proper shoulder/mirror check before turning right. BANG! He's a bit bashed up & lost half a front tooth (ouch) but he's an ugly git anyway so will be ok :) )
Anyway, their first concern was to get him patched up but when the local BiB called in the next day to take a statement they said that it should have been reported to them within 30 minutes.
They said it was new regulations and that all RTAs would be attended - by the sound of it aimed at cutting down the "go to the pub & then suddenly develop whiplash after speaking to mates" type thing. No bad thing, all in favour of that.
So just wondering, is that a new regulation (iirc, it has to be reported within 24 hours?) or is it something that Lancs BiB are trying to do in-house to cut down dodgy claims?
Don't know what the final outcome was but I'd suspect NFA - from the sound of it, it was a genuine 'accident' caused by a multiple factors/errors. No serious injuries anyway - and last I hear, his g/f (who's bike he was riding) was still speaking to him! :argue:
Reason I ask is that a friend of mine's stepson had a bit of a coming together with a car recently (he's 14, 50/50 accident, he had no lights & misread driver's intentions, driver failed to do proper shoulder/mirror check before turning right. BANG! He's a bit bashed up & lost half a front tooth (ouch) but he's an ugly git anyway so will be ok :) )
Anyway, their first concern was to get him patched up but when the local BiB called in the next day to take a statement they said that it should have been reported to them within 30 minutes.
They said it was new regulations and that all RTAs would be attended - by the sound of it aimed at cutting down the "go to the pub & then suddenly develop whiplash after speaking to mates" type thing. No bad thing, all in favour of that.
So just wondering, is that a new regulation (iirc, it has to be reported within 24 hours?) or is it something that Lancs BiB are trying to do in-house to cut down dodgy claims?
Don't know what the final outcome was but I'd suspect NFA - from the sound of it, it was a genuine 'accident' caused by a multiple factors/errors. No serious injuries anyway - and last I hear, his g/f (who's bike he was riding) was still speaking to him! :argue:
It was a long story but although the lad didn't have lights it wasn't solely down to him.
The road has street lighting but it was the maneouvres of the driver that made him think he'd been seen & the car was staying at the kerb. Followed by a sudden, unexpected maneouvre.
A good example of how partial inattention on our parts can have nasty consequences when combined with a daft kid with no lights
Two wrongs certainly didn't make a right here.
Anyway, it was crunch typical of what many of us must have had on bikes as kids so I'm not too bothered as to fault, just curious about this 30 minute thing mentioned by the BiB.
The road has street lighting but it was the maneouvres of the driver that made him think he'd been seen & the car was staying at the kerb. Followed by a sudden, unexpected maneouvre.
A good example of how partial inattention on our parts can have nasty consequences when combined with a daft kid with no lights
Two wrongs certainly didn't make a right here.
Anyway, it was crunch typical of what many of us must have had on bikes as kids so I'm not too bothered as to fault, just curious about this 30 minute thing mentioned by the BiB.
esselte said:
OK I thought you had 24hrs to report an accident though I don't know if thats true for injury ones.
Partly correct. Injury RTC must be reported as soon as you possibly can, but in any case within 24 hours.
Section 170 of the Road Traffic Act said:
170(3) If for any reason the driver of the mechanically propelled vehicle does not give his name and address under subsection (2) above, he must report the accident. He must do so as soon as reasonably practicable, and in any case within 24 hours
170(5) If, in a case where this section applies by virtue of subsection (1)(a) (personal injury), the driver of a motor vehicle does not at the time of the accident produce such a certificate of insurance or security, or other evidence, as is mentioned in section 165(2)(a) of this Act-
(a) to a constable , or
(b) to some person who, having reasonable grounds for so doing, has required him to produce it,
the driver must report the accident and produce such a certificate or other evidence.
170(6) To comply with a duty under this section to report an accident or to produce such a certificate of insurance or security, or other evidence, as is mentioned in section 165(2)(a) of this Act, the driver-
(a) must do so at a police station or to a constable, and
(b) must do so as soon as is reasonably practicable and, in any case, within twenty-four hours of the occurrence of the accident.
170(7) A person who fails to comply with a duty under subsection (5) above is guilty of an offence.
IaHa said:
Lancs' take on this will be that if there are no reasons why there should have been any delay in informing them, they would see +30 minutes to be later than 'as soon as is reasonably practicable'.
Ah-ha! That explains it, thank you. I was thinking I might be wrong about the 24hr bit but see where it's coming from now.
Interestingly, It's just made me realise that an accident I had was never reported to BiB although it did result in injury.
What's the BiB take on what should happen in a case like this?
I was rear-ended whilst at a roundabout by some guy who failed to appreciate the significance of wet roads...
Insurance details were swapped and off we went - it was only when I woke up to a collection of aches the next day that I even thought about treatment for anything. Turned out to have caused a damaged elbow due to the impact forces on this lump of jelly behind the steering wheel. Car was written off (Good old Volvo battlebus, the other car came off worse) & insurance settled with some compo for the elbow (couldn't lift anything for a fair while - as as a one-man band that's a bit difficult!).
So although it got sorted in the end, as insurance details had been exchanged and it was a day or so before real injury became apparent, it never occured to me to bother the BiB with it - but what would have been the correct course of action?
Pot Bellied Fool said:
Lancs' take on this will be that if there are no reasons why there should have been any delay in informing them, they would see +30 minutes to be later than 'as soon as is reasonably practicable'.
Ah-ha! That explains it, thank you. I was thinking I might be wrong about the 24hr bit but see where it's coming from now.
Interestingly, It's just made me realise that an accident I had was never reported to BiB although it did result in injury.
What's the BiB take on what should happen in a case like this?
I was rear-ended whilst at a roundabout by some guy who failed to appreciate the significance of wet roads...
Insurance details were swapped and off we went - it was only when I woke up to a collection of aches the next day that I even thought about treatment for anything. Turned out to have caused a damaged elbow due to the impact forces on this lump of jelly behind the steering wheel. Car was written off (Good old Volvo battlebus, the other car came off worse) & insurance settled with some compo for the elbow (couldn't lift anything for a fair while - as as a one-man band that's a bit difficult!).
So although it got sorted in the end, as insurance details had been exchanged and it was a day or so before real injury became apparent, it never occured to me to bother the BiB with it - but what would have been the correct course of action?
I suppose if the injury wasn't apparent then you couldn't have reported it at the time,though it may have been wise to do so once you knew you were hurt?
Insurance companies believe that for every one injury accident reported, another two are not reported.
Some might cynically say that the unreported injury did not actually surface until the actual value of a claim for whiplash was realised.
If these are reported later to the police, they are unlikely to take action unless they believe there was a duplicitous reason for the failure to report ASAP.
Some might cynically say that the unreported injury did not actually surface until the actual value of a claim for whiplash was realised.
If these are reported later to the police, they are unlikely to take action unless they believe there was a duplicitous reason for the failure to report ASAP.
Yeah, I can believe it.
Trouble is, whiplash is a genuine injury & all the claim fiddlers do is make everybody think "oh, yeah, yeah, of COURSE you got whiplash [wink]"
I was quite impressed when that guy hit me, he was with Directline and within a few days, they were on the phone asking me to go for an assessment with a local physio. (That was before they even knew about the elbow problem I was having). It's a good idea from their point of view, get any treatment in quick while it's still most effective & the overall claim is going to be lower, and as a brucie bonus, the assessment will pick up anyone swinging the lead. Fine by me.
Physio was very good (couldn't sort the elbow but ruled out a lot of stuff before the specialist took over) but surprised me during the assessment.
Physio: "So what do you think the problem areas are?"
Me: "I'm a little stiff - to be expected I suppose - but this elbow is giving me gyp"
[some tests later]
Physio: Do you realise you're only turning your head 50% of normal travel when looking right? You've got some whiplash."
Me: "Don't be daft, whiplash is a made up complaint for people who are taking the piss..."
Physio: "Really? Try this..." [TWIST]
Me " ARGHHH!!!"
Since then I've taken people's descriptions more seriously although I still reckon many of the claims are exaggerated - which brings us full circle to why Lancs are wanting to get BiB on the scene within 30 minutes. Can't fault it myself, genuine cases should see no change but the "where there's blame, there's a claim' crowd might feel the pinch somewhat.
Trouble is, whiplash is a genuine injury & all the claim fiddlers do is make everybody think "oh, yeah, yeah, of COURSE you got whiplash [wink]"
I was quite impressed when that guy hit me, he was with Directline and within a few days, they were on the phone asking me to go for an assessment with a local physio. (That was before they even knew about the elbow problem I was having). It's a good idea from their point of view, get any treatment in quick while it's still most effective & the overall claim is going to be lower, and as a brucie bonus, the assessment will pick up anyone swinging the lead. Fine by me.
Physio was very good (couldn't sort the elbow but ruled out a lot of stuff before the specialist took over) but surprised me during the assessment.
Physio: "So what do you think the problem areas are?"
Me: "I'm a little stiff - to be expected I suppose - but this elbow is giving me gyp"
[some tests later]
Physio: Do you realise you're only turning your head 50% of normal travel when looking right? You've got some whiplash."
Me: "Don't be daft, whiplash is a made up complaint for people who are taking the piss..."
Physio: "Really? Try this..." [TWIST]
Me " ARGHHH!!!"
Since then I've taken people's descriptions more seriously although I still reckon many of the claims are exaggerated - which brings us full circle to why Lancs are wanting to get BiB on the scene within 30 minutes. Can't fault it myself, genuine cases should see no change but the "where there's blame, there's a claim' crowd might feel the pinch somewhat.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff