RTC Investigation
Discussion
I was involved in an RTC a few weeks ago. I've just had a letter from the investigating officer at my local constabulary saying that they're sending questionnaires out to witnesses and wish to interview me about the collision under caution.
I understand that the caution is a standard thing so that it is an "under oath" interview?
It isn't quite clear to me why they're investigating this. I would have thought that the police would leave it to the insurance companies to apportion blame. Can anyone shed some light on this? Is it that they're investigating to pin charges of DWDC or something on me or the other party? Or is it just to see if any charges are necessary?
Alex.
I understand that the caution is a standard thing so that it is an "under oath" interview?
It isn't quite clear to me why they're investigating this. I would have thought that the police would leave it to the insurance companies to apportion blame. Can anyone shed some light on this? Is it that they're investigating to pin charges of DWDC or something on me or the other party? Or is it just to see if any charges are necessary?
Alex.
Bing o said:
Some more details about the crash would help...
But I would say DWDC may be a possible charge
But I would say DWDC may be a possible charge
As above,more information about the crash is needed to give a decent view on this. However if they are interviewing anyone then i would say it is with a possibility to bring charges to one of the drivers.
Thanks for your responses. Details of the accident are below. I'll try to be as factual as possible, making no assumptions (unless stated).
I was driving my car turning right off a main road into a side road and had a head-on collision with a motorbike at the junction. A witness, who didn't actually see the accident, heard the motorbike "hoofing it" up the side road. There were two other witnesses, but I don't know what they saw / heard. Fortunately, the motorbike rider walked from the accident (although was taken to hospital for a check-up).
I'm sure (and was at the time) that I looked to see if anything was coming up the side road before turning and didn't see anything. I query whether the bike had its headlight on, as the first I knew of the incident was the impact. The side-road has parked cars down both sides and is wide enough for single-file traffic. There was work being done on the pavement so the entrance to the road was restricted by those orange temporary pavement barriers.
The bike was a write-off. I assume that the bike was going fairly fast as it disintegrated, with some plastic bits reaching the far side of the road.
My car was fully insured, taxed, etc. I gave a negative breath sample (standard practice for my local constabulary to breath test all involved). I have a clean, valid driving license. The bike was registered to someone else, although insured by the rider. One of the policemen who attended the scene said that the V5 was probably in the post to the DVLA. The rider looked to be around 16-17 years of age, so I assume that he'd recently bought his first bike? He was wearing a helmet. In my opinion his other clothing (jeans, tracksuit top, trainers) was inappropriate and included no high-visibility wear.
Thanks in advance,
Alex.
I was driving my car turning right off a main road into a side road and had a head-on collision with a motorbike at the junction. A witness, who didn't actually see the accident, heard the motorbike "hoofing it" up the side road. There were two other witnesses, but I don't know what they saw / heard. Fortunately, the motorbike rider walked from the accident (although was taken to hospital for a check-up).
I'm sure (and was at the time) that I looked to see if anything was coming up the side road before turning and didn't see anything. I query whether the bike had its headlight on, as the first I knew of the incident was the impact. The side-road has parked cars down both sides and is wide enough for single-file traffic. There was work being done on the pavement so the entrance to the road was restricted by those orange temporary pavement barriers.
The bike was a write-off. I assume that the bike was going fairly fast as it disintegrated, with some plastic bits reaching the far side of the road.
My car was fully insured, taxed, etc. I gave a negative breath sample (standard practice for my local constabulary to breath test all involved). I have a clean, valid driving license. The bike was registered to someone else, although insured by the rider. One of the policemen who attended the scene said that the V5 was probably in the post to the DVLA. The rider looked to be around 16-17 years of age, so I assume that he'd recently bought his first bike? He was wearing a helmet. In my opinion his other clothing (jeans, tracksuit top, trainers) was inappropriate and included no high-visibility wear.
Thanks in advance,
Alex.
alexpresland said:
I query whether the bike had its headlight on, as the first I knew of the incident was the impact.
& clothing included no high-visibility wear.
I would be quite careful if I were you.
You seem to be making out that you did not see a motorcycle that you collided head on with.
You also say that you had just entered this side road, therefore the bike must have been slowing down for the junction, you on the other hand were speeding up away from the junction.
Neither headlights nor high vis clothing are legal requirements for motorcycles in the UK.
Looks like DWDC to me.
It is hard to say or comment on this without hearing all the evidence from the witness or other motorcyclist.However if you have turned into this road as he was coming to the junction then it may well be that they are looking to blame you for it.As said above you only have to wear a helmet by law you do not have to wear anything else or have your lights on.When i was last involved in an accident they sent me a statement through the post to fill out.The only person who was asked to go to the police station and make a statement under caution was the one who was charged and prosucuted for dwdc.
If the witnesses say there was no lights on the bike you may have some backup there but you do say yourself your not sure.
In response to some of the coments in your post
1)Bikes will tend to disintegrate on impact with a car especially the plastic faired types and does not mean they were going really fast(ie 30mph head on into a car)
2)The comment about it being his 1st bike due to his age.He would have passed either cbt or m/cycle test so this can not really have any influence on who is to blame.
I dont mean to sound funny and no offence itended but it seems like you may be trying to blame him for it.
In response to some of the coments in your post
1)Bikes will tend to disintegrate on impact with a car especially the plastic faired types and does not mean they were going really fast(ie 30mph head on into a car)
2)The comment about it being his 1st bike due to his age.He would have passed either cbt or m/cycle test so this can not really have any influence on who is to blame.
I dont mean to sound funny and no offence itended but it seems like you may be trying to blame him for it.
Let me get this straight, are you saying the bike was travelling on the road that you were turning into? I'm picturing a T junction, with you turning right from the major road into the minor road. If this is the case, in order to hit head on, one of you had to be on the wrong side of the road. Did you cut the corner when you were turning? If he had overshot the junction I can see that he could have collided with the side of your car but not hit you head on. The only other way I can you colliding head on would be if he was travelling towards you as you made the right turn, on the other side of the major road. Your post suggests this is not the case.
So at night you turn off main road into a side street, which due to parking either side, only has room/space for one lane of moving (car) traffic. For the biker to be at fault, he would either have been travelling at an excessive speed or without lights, if these do not apply, then the vehicle entering the side street would have to be at fault, since the driver of the same should have seen that the road (side street) ahead was not clear to proceed.
alexpresland said:
...heard the motorbike "hoofing it" up the side road.
Bikes rev higher than cars, and the exhaust note, especially on singles and twins, can give the impression that the bike is "roaring" when in fact the rider is simply using a responsive gear. Of course, this time the rider might well have been hoofing it up the road.
alexpresland said:
There were two other witnesses, but I don't know what they saw / heard. Fortunately, the motorbike rider walked from the accident (although was taken to hospital for a check-up).
At least there was *some* luck floating around on that day, everyone being uninjured being the most important thing from all this. If one of the parties is charged with something, at least nobody has anything worse to live with after the event.
alexpresland said:
In my opinion his other clothing (jeans, tracksuit top, trainers) was inappropriate and included no high-visibility wear.
Personally, I like to wear something more protective. Howver, if one is just riding around town, some people find going over board with body armour, etc, to cumbersome and clunky. After all, cyclists can reach urban traffic speeds wearing nothing more than a skimpy lycra outfit.
As for high-vis, it only helps if other road users are actually looking in the first place. The same goes for day time running lights. There are also circumstances where headlamps make you less visible, such as when a low sun is behind you. Of course, if the bike was running without lights at night, that's going to make it a lot harder to see.
It may seem that I'm jumping to conclusions and siding with the biker. I don't want to give that impression at all. I wasn't there, and I'm aware that bikers do just as many stupid things as any other class of road user.
I do feel the need to set the record straight on the visibility thing though. Whilst I can't say that I've conducted a scientific exercise, in my experience drivers fail to see me with the same frequency whatever I'm wearing. The only thing that seems to have helped so far is being more aware of my own road positioning, and more frequent use of the horn.
Thanks for everyone's responses. I'll try to answer them in this email and provide some more information that I've missed. I'm sorry if some of you think that I'm trying to shift blame - I'd rather leave the investigation which will now happen to determine that. If I've messed up enough in my driving to warrant DWDC then I accept that - again, the investigation will determine that.
My original question centred around my lack of understanding of what would trigger the police to hold an investigation - as I doubt that they investigate every incident. I'd appreciate information from people know about police decision processes in this area. For the record, I mentioned the rider's approximate age because it may have triggered someone to say "the police always investigate a collision if a minor (someone under 18) is involved".
I took some photos at the scene and have reviewed them. My car ended up mostly in the main road and about 1 metre into the side road. I was about 40cm over the central line of the side road, the rest of the vehicle being on the left-hand side of the side road (looking from the main road). The damage to my car was all on the nearside (passenger side), with the windscreen smashed in the centre bottom (I assume where the rider's helmet hit it).
My interpretation of the photos: I think that I hit the bike when it was on the main road. The bike may have entered the main road from the wrong side of the side road. Hindsight tells me that cutting the corner, however slightly, is never a good idea. My opinion is therefore that the blame lies somewhere between the two parties.
If people can shed some light on what would have triggered the police to investigate, that'd be appreciated. Had this been two cars, do you think / know that they would still be investigating?
Alex.
My original question centred around my lack of understanding of what would trigger the police to hold an investigation - as I doubt that they investigate every incident. I'd appreciate information from people know about police decision processes in this area. For the record, I mentioned the rider's approximate age because it may have triggered someone to say "the police always investigate a collision if a minor (someone under 18) is involved".
I took some photos at the scene and have reviewed them. My car ended up mostly in the main road and about 1 metre into the side road. I was about 40cm over the central line of the side road, the rest of the vehicle being on the left-hand side of the side road (looking from the main road). The damage to my car was all on the nearside (passenger side), with the windscreen smashed in the centre bottom (I assume where the rider's helmet hit it).
My interpretation of the photos: I think that I hit the bike when it was on the main road. The bike may have entered the main road from the wrong side of the side road. Hindsight tells me that cutting the corner, however slightly, is never a good idea. My opinion is therefore that the blame lies somewhere between the two parties.
If people can shed some light on what would have triggered the police to investigate, that'd be appreciated. Had this been two cars, do you think / know that they would still be investigating?
Alex.
In terms of what would trigger an investigation i would say one of the following
1)One of the drivers is making an accusation of dwodc etc
2)One of the witnesses is making an accusation of dwodc etc
3)One of the parties suffered an injury
4)The police have looked at the scene and beleive one of the drivers was dwodc etc.
I know you said everyone was uninjured and he only went to hospital for a check up.However the next morning the whiplash etc starts to come out and then the police have an injury RTC to investigate so that could be one way.
Have you had any update since the rider went to hospital as to how he is.You should be able to phone the police station and speak to the officer to find out what is happening ie is someone being investigated for a driving offence.
1)One of the drivers is making an accusation of dwodc etc
2)One of the witnesses is making an accusation of dwodc etc
3)One of the parties suffered an injury
4)The police have looked at the scene and beleive one of the drivers was dwodc etc.
I know you said everyone was uninjured and he only went to hospital for a check up.However the next morning the whiplash etc starts to come out and then the police have an injury RTC to investigate so that could be one way.
Have you had any update since the rider went to hospital as to how he is.You should be able to phone the police station and speak to the officer to find out what is happening ie is someone being investigated for a driving offence.
That would have been my next question, did the motorcyclist live or visited a house in the side street, and if so what side of the street and how near to the the junction was that house. My other question would be the type of bike, was it a vespa type or something similar, these being nippy that can be driven off pavements between parked vehicles. Was the impact head on with the bike or side on, indicating that the bike came across your path.
I believe the motorcyclist has triggered the police investigation for reasons of an insurance claim.
I believe the motorcyclist has triggered the police investigation for reasons of an insurance claim.
It's not for us to forensically investigate who is at fault, but in respect of the OPs quedtion, yes, they are considering DWDC for sure; they keep their options open, subject to what happens in interview under caution. You are entitled to the benefit of a criminal law solicitor for such an interview, and such service is available under Criminal Legal Aid; pick one at choice, and give them a call.
Even if there was evidence of a DWDC charge, this sounds liek the kind of situation whereby if either driver/rider was considered to be at fault, then the Police would offer one of these "Driver Improvement" courses as an alternative to a prosecution. Irrespective of fault, if this is offered, then the hassle of this is much less than the hassle of court proceedings, so it's *probably* worth accepting...
Just my tuppeneth worth...
Even if there was evidence of a DWDC charge, this sounds liek the kind of situation whereby if either driver/rider was considered to be at fault, then the Police would offer one of these "Driver Improvement" courses as an alternative to a prosecution. Irrespective of fault, if this is offered, then the hassle of this is much less than the hassle of court proceedings, so it's *probably* worth accepting...
Just my tuppeneth worth...
ean218 said:
alexpresland said:
I query whether the bike had its headlight on, as the first I knew of the incident was the impact.
& clothing included no high-visibility wear.
I would be quite careful if I were you.
You seem to be making out that you did not see a motorcycle that you collided head on with.
You also say that you had just entered this side road, therefore the bike must have been slowing down for the junction, you on the other hand were speeding up away from the junction.
Neither headlights nor high vis clothing are legal requirements for motorcycles in the UK.
Looks like DWDC to me.
That may be true but it's completely unfair. If some t
t wants to ride his m'bike without lights or vis gear then he gets what he deserves. I nearly ran over a bloke on a back road a couple of weeks ago because he was stooping over his push bike in the dark with no street lights for miles in the middle of the road (NSL). I can guarantee that I would have got the blame for killing him even though I did absolutely nothing wrong (doing less than the limit and paying full attention as I proved by violently avoiding him). I nearly stopped and went back but thought if he's really that stupid then he deserves it.....
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff