What does involved in an accident mean?
Discussion
I was on a single track road with passing places driving my wife's Fiesta when I met a minibus coming the other way. We both saw each other from a distance but as he was coming up towards a passing place, I carried on. Unfortunately he didn't stop when he reached the passing place but carried on towards me. The road was about twelve feet wide with a 3 foot grass verge then a ditch on either side. We couldn't get past each other without both of us running with one wheel on the verge. I assume he thought I would do this. I know the road quite well and am aware that the verge is soft and slippy so had no intention of going off the tarmac to pass, so I stopped and waited for him to reverse back to the passing place he had just gone by (about 40 feet back, the nearest one behind me was 300 metres back round a blind bend).
He stopped on the road in front of me and gestured to the effect that I should pull over onto the verge so that he could pass me. I refused and gestured that he should reverse back into the passing place so that I could pass without going off road.
He got annoyed and drove up onto the verge to get past, the verge gave way and he slipped into the ditch along side me. The bus ended up lying partially on it's side and underside, absolutely stuck.
I got out and offered help, he refused as no-one was hurt and he had already called for recovery but asked for my insurance details . I refused to give my details as as far as I'm concerned, I wasn't involved in an accident. I was fully stopped when he drove off the road without any help from me. Our vehicles never touched.
Fast forward to last night, two policemen turned up at my house to charge me for failing to stop at the scene of an accident and refusing to give my details. (I can only assume that the bus driver took my registration number.) I gave a statement giving full details of what happened, pointing out that I hadn't actually been 'involved' in the accident and as far as I'm aware they didn't actually charge me. I can't remember exactly what they said, but it was along the lines of them making a report to the Procurator Fiscal (Scotland) and I'd find out if it was being taken further.
Can anyone advise what being involved in an accident actually means? It seems to me that I wasn't involved but was merely a witness to a one vehicle incident. I haven't reported anything to my insurance and don't intend to.
He stopped on the road in front of me and gestured to the effect that I should pull over onto the verge so that he could pass me. I refused and gestured that he should reverse back into the passing place so that I could pass without going off road.
He got annoyed and drove up onto the verge to get past, the verge gave way and he slipped into the ditch along side me. The bus ended up lying partially on it's side and underside, absolutely stuck.
I got out and offered help, he refused as no-one was hurt and he had already called for recovery but asked for my insurance details . I refused to give my details as as far as I'm concerned, I wasn't involved in an accident. I was fully stopped when he drove off the road without any help from me. Our vehicles never touched.
Fast forward to last night, two policemen turned up at my house to charge me for failing to stop at the scene of an accident and refusing to give my details. (I can only assume that the bus driver took my registration number.) I gave a statement giving full details of what happened, pointing out that I hadn't actually been 'involved' in the accident and as far as I'm aware they didn't actually charge me. I can't remember exactly what they said, but it was along the lines of them making a report to the Procurator Fiscal (Scotland) and I'd find out if it was being taken further.
Can anyone advise what being involved in an accident actually means? It seems to me that I wasn't involved but was merely a witness to a one vehicle incident. I haven't reported anything to my insurance and don't intend to.
JM said:
Did the police give anything away, as in the other driver is making out you did something wrong/forced him off the road?
The police just said that I'd been reported as being involved in the accident. When I told them I'd been stopped at the time (and so had the bus initially before he drove off the road) they seemed to accept what I'd said. Either they were good at not giving anything away or they hadn't directly heard anything to the contrary. One of them said something about it not being up to me to make the call as to whether I was involved or not and that I should have given details anyway. They were very non-committal as to how they thought it would play out.Stick to your story. You hadn't done anything wrong and it was the driver of the third party vehicle who decided to make the decision to drive onto the grass verge causing his vehicle to be damaged.
If you were stationary at the time, you hadn't done anything to take evasive or avoiding action. He merely took the decision to go off roading rather than reverse back.
If you were stationary at the time, you hadn't done anything to take evasive or avoiding action. He merely took the decision to go off roading rather than reverse back.
Tricky, I know of someone who pulled out on a cross roads and stopped when they saw a car belting along from the left, the oncoming car skidded and veered left and tore its wheel off on the kerb... The guy was completely stopped was found to have caused the accident !!!
Yes I was surprised but my friend was the one who's insurance had to pay out and he wasnt impressed at all.
Yes I was surprised but my friend was the one who's insurance had to pay out and he wasnt impressed at all.
If owing to the presence of a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place an accident occurs........
You can be involved in an accident without colliding with anything or suffering damage yourself & the requirements under Sec 170 RTA 1988 will apply to you.
Having those obligations doesn't mean that you will be held to be at fault, but you have to comply with the obligations.
You can be involved in an accident without colliding with anything or suffering damage yourself & the requirements under Sec 170 RTA 1988 will apply to you.
Having those obligations doesn't mean that you will be held to be at fault, but you have to comply with the obligations.
hman said:
Tricky, I know of someone who pulled out on a cross roads and stopped when they saw a car belting along from the left, the oncoming car skidded and veered left and tore its wheel off on the kerb... The guy was completely stopped was found to have caused the accident !!!
Yes I was surprised but my friend was the one who's insurance had to pay out and he wasnt impressed at all.
Can't see any problem with this, if your friend hadn't have pulled out the other car wouldn't have had to take avoiding action and there wouldn't have been an accident so your friends is liable.Yes I was surprised but my friend was the one who's insurance had to pay out and he wasnt impressed at all.
The op situation is completely different.
k that ssounds to me like the guy in the bus is probably trying to justify how he ended up stuck in a ditch to his boss - i imagine his side of the story would be something like you come flying round a bend and he had to swerve to avoid you etc etc.
I certainly wouldn't have given my details over if it happened as you said either, keep us posted how it goes i am interested in the outcome
I certainly wouldn't have given my details over if it happened as you said either, keep us posted how it goes i am interested in the outcome
Ignore blame for the accident. That is a different issue.
The questions that have to be asked are:
Was there an accident where damage/injury was caused? The answer would appear to be yes.
Did is occur owing to your presence? Or, to put it another way, if your car was not there, would the accident have occurred? If the answer is yes then there is an argument that the accident was reportable. Being stationary does not exclude you.
The questions that have to be asked are:
Was there an accident where damage/injury was caused? The answer would appear to be yes.
Did is occur owing to your presence? Or, to put it another way, if your car was not there, would the accident have occurred? If the answer is yes then there is an argument that the accident was reportable. Being stationary does not exclude you.
Derek Smith said:
Ignore blame for the accident. That is a different issue.
The questions that have to be asked are:
Was there an accident where damage/injury was caused? The answer would appear to be yes.
Did is occur owing to your presence? Or, to put it another way, if your car was not there, would the accident have occurred? If the answer is yes then there is an argument that the accident was reportable. Being stationary does not exclude you.
Thanks Derek, well put, that sort of makes sense of what the policeman was trying to say, but I have to argue that it is a matter of degree.The questions that have to be asked are:
Was there an accident where damage/injury was caused? The answer would appear to be yes.
Did is occur owing to your presence? Or, to put it another way, if your car was not there, would the accident have occurred? If the answer is yes then there is an argument that the accident was reportable. Being stationary does not exclude you.
If there was a badly parked car at the side of the road with no driver in it and the bus slid into the ditch while trying to go round it, would the driver who had parked it there be responsible for reporting the accident even though he wasn't present? If there was a tree growing on the opposite verge, would the guy who planted it 40 years before be responsible? A bit extreme I know, but an extension of the same argument.
As I've said above, it's a matter of degree and we start to get into dangerous territory if we extend responsibility for reporting to innocent parties who weren't very directly involved.
Derek Smith said:
Ignore blame for the accident. That is a different issue.
The questions that have to be asked are:
Was there an accident where damage/injury was caused? The answer would appear to be yes.
Did is occur owing to your presence? Or, to put it another way, if your car was not there, would the accident have occurred? If the answer is yes then there is an argument that the accident was reportable. Being stationary does not exclude you.
^^^THIS.The questions that have to be asked are:
Was there an accident where damage/injury was caused? The answer would appear to be yes.
Did is occur owing to your presence? Or, to put it another way, if your car was not there, would the accident have occurred? If the answer is yes then there is an argument that the accident was reportable. Being stationary does not exclude you.
You ask "what does being involved in an accident mean". It means whatever happened wasn't done on purpose, and you were a part of the proceeding.
brrapp said:
Derek Smith said:
Ignore blame for the accident. That is a different issue.
The questions that have to be asked are:
Was there an accident where damage/injury was caused? The answer would appear to be yes.
Did is occur owing to your presence? Or, to put it another way, if your car was not there, would the accident have occurred? If the answer is yes then there is an argument that the accident was reportable. Being stationary does not exclude you.
Thanks Derek, well put, that sort of makes sense of what the policeman was trying to say, but I have to argue that it is a matter of degree.The questions that have to be asked are:
Was there an accident where damage/injury was caused? The answer would appear to be yes.
Did is occur owing to your presence? Or, to put it another way, if your car was not there, would the accident have occurred? If the answer is yes then there is an argument that the accident was reportable. Being stationary does not exclude you.
If there was a badly parked car at the side of the road with no driver in it and the bus slid into the ditch while trying to go round it, would the driver who had parked it there be responsible for reporting the accident even though he wasn't present? If there was a tree growing on the opposite verge, would the guy who planted it 40 years before be responsible? A bit extreme I know, but an extension of the same argument.
As I've said above, it's a matter of degree and we start to get into dangerous territory if we extend responsibility for reporting to innocent parties who weren't very directly involved.
A parked & unattended vehicle would not be driven off & the driver wouldn't be present to furnish the required details to anybody who may require them.
Your circumstances are not synonymous with either of those.
The question over liability for the accident is an entirely separate issue to the legal obligations under Sec 170 RTA 1988.
It is entirely possible for somebody to not be held at fault for the collision but be guilty of failing to comply with Sec 170 RTA.
brrapp said:
Thanks Derek, well put, that sort of makes sense of what the policeman was trying to say, but I have to argue that it is a matter of degree.
If there was a badly parked car at the side of the road with no driver in it and the bus slid into the ditch while trying to go round it, would the driver who had parked it there be responsible for reporting the accident even though he wasn't present? If there was a tree growing on the opposite verge, would the guy who planted it 40 years before be responsible? A bit extreme I know, but an extension of the same argument.
As I've said above, it's a matter of degree and we start to get into dangerous territory if we extend responsibility for reporting to innocent parties who weren't very directly involved.
It is often a case of degree, or as lawyers say - they are the ones who want it vague - it is a fact to be proved (except in a language they call latin).If there was a badly parked car at the side of the road with no driver in it and the bus slid into the ditch while trying to go round it, would the driver who had parked it there be responsible for reporting the accident even though he wasn't present? If there was a tree growing on the opposite verge, would the guy who planted it 40 years before be responsible? A bit extreme I know, but an extension of the same argument.
As I've said above, it's a matter of degree and we start to get into dangerous territory if we extend responsibility for reporting to innocent parties who weren't very directly involved.
The point is that you were driving your car. It was stationary but still being driven. Had you just left it parked there, there might have been other offences but not failing to comply.
Whilst ignorance of the law is no defence, it can be a mitigating factor. I can see your point of view and perhaps whoever makes the decision whether or not to prosecute will also.
vonhosen said:
brrapp said:
Derek Smith said:
Ignore blame for the accident. That is a different issue.
The questions that have to be asked are:
Was there an accident where damage/injury was caused? The answer would appear to be yes.
Did is occur owing to your presence? Or, to put it another way, if your car was not there, would the accident have occurred? If the answer is yes then there is an argument that the accident was reportable. Being stationary does not exclude you.
Thanks Derek, well put, that sort of makes sense of what the policeman was trying to say, but I have to argue that it is a matter of degree.The questions that have to be asked are:
Was there an accident where damage/injury was caused? The answer would appear to be yes.
Did is occur owing to your presence? Or, to put it another way, if your car was not there, would the accident have occurred? If the answer is yes then there is an argument that the accident was reportable. Being stationary does not exclude you.
If there was a badly parked car at the side of the road with no driver in it and the bus slid into the ditch while trying to go round it, would the driver who had parked it there be responsible for reporting the accident even though he wasn't present? If there was a tree growing on the opposite verge, would the guy who planted it 40 years before be responsible? A bit extreme I know, but an extension of the same argument.
As I've said above, it's a matter of degree and we start to get into dangerous territory if we extend responsibility for reporting to innocent parties who weren't very directly involved.
A parked & unattended vehicle would not be driven off & the driver wouldn't be present to furnish the required details to anybody who may require them.
Your circumstances are not synonymous with either of those.
The question over liability for the accident is an entirely separate issue to the legal obligations under Sec 170 RTA 1988.
It is entirely possible for somebody to not be held at fault for the collision but be guilty of failing to comply with Sec 170 RTA.
If you don't accept the synonymy of the tree or unattended vehicle above, would you consider instead a row of three parked cars with the drivers sitting in them ready to drive off before the accident occurred? Which, if any , of the three would be committing an offence by refusing to give details to the driver of crashed bus? All are mechanically propelled vehicles with the drivers present and able to give details so by your logic would be covered by the Act.
As above, I believe that the degree of involvement has to be taken into consideration before determining liability for compliance with the act and in my case, I hope that my involvement was insignificant enough for it to be considered irrelevant under the act.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff