Hit by car, plod don't care, what can I do?
Discussion
markymarkthree said:
Its generally best to walk on the right side of a road so you can face oncoming traffic.
Single lane road. Cars head in both directions, it has passing points. So I am always facing traffic from one direction........ Though I have also been walking down this lane for 10 years now and only had two problems - this lady and one other old lady a few months ago who hit my dog (and yes, the police didn't give a t**s about that either).sidaorb said:
Just ran your scenario past a few Roads Policing friends on our FB page and they've suggested it should have been recorded as an Injury RTC and dealt with as such, combined with her Fail to Stop. The claim of damage confirms you made contact with her car and should be investigated.
Thank you. The officer who attended my house to take a statement said the same thing, and she was interviewed under caution at the station I believe. But I was called today by a different copper who said as she claims against me they are doing nothing further.I will have to escalate this.
And I haven't even mentioned she should have a dashcam of her hitting me..... Or how I know about that.....
The point of not doing anything to her because her car got scratched is utterly ludicrous. That's not how it works.
I would absolutely take this as far as you can. People like her need a proper police reprimand otherwise the next person may end up going over the bonnet and not just hit with the mirror.
I would absolutely take this as far as you can. People like her need a proper police reprimand otherwise the next person may end up going over the bonnet and not just hit with the mirror.
Sheepshanks said:
Jasandjules said:
And I haven't even mentioned she should have a dashcam of her hitting me..... Or how I know about that.....
So there's more to this than you're letting on.....?Jasandjules said:
sidaorb said:
Just ran your scenario past a few Roads Policing friends on our FB page and they've suggested it should have been recorded as an Injury RTC and dealt with as such, combined with her Fail to Stop. The claim of damage confirms you made contact with her car and should be investigated.
Thank you. The officer who attended my house to take a statement said the same thing, and she was interviewed under caution at the station I believe. But I was called today by a different copper who said as she claims against me they are doing nothing further.I will have to escalate this.
And I haven't even mentioned she should have a dashcam of her hitting me..... Or how I know about that.....
g unbelievable!Way back in the 1960s (no dashcams then!), I was walking on the grass verge of a country road when a car drove up behind me at speed and so close that it's n/s wing mirror smashed into my right hand. The car didn't stop. I managed to clock the make, model, and colour but only got a partial on the registration. The pain was so excruciating I then passed out. The next thing I remember was a woman crouched beside me asking what had happened. Turned out to be a couple who lived in the house just down the road who were out for a stroll with their dog. On hearing my explanation she sent her husband back home to phone for an ambulance and the police.
X-rays of my hand at A&E showed fractures to three of the proximal phalanges and two metacarpals. The incident made it into the local rag and the police managed to trace the car. It transpired that it had been driven by a 19 year old lad who had borrowed his father's wheels to have a joy ride with his g/f and a couple of mates.
When approached by the police (as the RK) the father wasn't overly amused. His son and and his mates all vehemently denied knowing that he had hit me but unfortunately for him, and luckily for me, his g/f who was in the front passenger seat knew otherwise and she had a conscience. The upshot was the police pursued the son for DWDCA, failure to stop, and not reporting the accident.
The use of my hand was severely curtailed for several weeks and impacted on my work. My solicitor got me a decent amount in compensation for my injury including pain and suffering which made things slightly more bearable.
If the driver is stating you 'scratched' her mirror she can't then deny contact occurred. I too would escalate it (duty inspector?) as the reason given for the NFA seems very weak to me. People like her who drive off and try to evade any responsibility are beneath contempt and need removing from the road. Even if you complain and the police still decline to take the matter further, I would be taking the matter up with her insurer. If nothing else the (potential) claim may well affect her renewal premium. It would serve her right if it does.
She could be claiming that there was no RTA, only he striking out in anger at her car damaging it because he believes she got too close to him.
ie
He claims car struck him causing an injury in RTA. Doesn't dispute whether she has a scratch on the car, after all she may have from an earlier incident, but he certainly didn't do it.
While
She claims there was no RTA, only that he struck her car in anger causing damage. Doesn't dispute that he may have a bruise, after all he may have already had one from another cause, but she certainly didn't do it.
Each has a claim & also states the other is fibbing about how damage/injury was caused.
ie
He claims car struck him causing an injury in RTA. Doesn't dispute whether she has a scratch on the car, after all she may have from an earlier incident, but he certainly didn't do it.
While
She claims there was no RTA, only that he struck her car in anger causing damage. Doesn't dispute that he may have a bruise, after all he may have already had one from another cause, but she certainly didn't do it.
Each has a claim & also states the other is fibbing about how damage/injury was caused.
vonhosen said:
She could be claiming that there was no RTA, only he striking out in anger at her car damaging it because he believes she got too close to him.
ie
He claims car struck him causing an injury in RTA. Doesn't dispute whether she has a scratch on the car, after all she may have from an earlier incident, but he certainly didn't do it.
While
She claims there was no RTA, only that he struck her car in anger causing damage. Doesn't dispute that he may have a bruise, after all he may have already had one from another cause, but she certainly didn't do it.
Each has a claim & also states the other is fibbing about how damage/injury was caused.
Except he apparently has a visible contusion on his back...ie
He claims car struck him causing an injury in RTA. Doesn't dispute whether she has a scratch on the car, after all she may have from an earlier incident, but he certainly didn't do it.
While
She claims there was no RTA, only that he struck her car in anger causing damage. Doesn't dispute that he may have a bruise, after all he may have already had one from another cause, but she certainly didn't do it.
Each has a claim & also states the other is fibbing about how damage/injury was caused.
jm doc said:
vonhosen said:
She could be claiming that there was no RTA, only he striking out in anger at her car damaging it because he believes she got too close to him.
ie
He claims car struck him causing an injury in RTA. Doesn't dispute whether she has a scratch on the car, after all she may have from an earlier incident, but he certainly didn't do it.
While
She claims there was no RTA, only that he struck her car in anger causing damage. Doesn't dispute that he may have a bruise, after all he may have already had one from another cause, but she certainly didn't do it.
Each has a claim & also states the other is fibbing about how damage/injury was caused.
Except he apparently has a visible contusion on his back...ie
He claims car struck him causing an injury in RTA. Doesn't dispute whether she has a scratch on the car, after all she may have from an earlier incident, but he certainly didn't do it.
While
She claims there was no RTA, only that he struck her car in anger causing damage. Doesn't dispute that he may have a bruise, after all he may have already had one from another cause, but she certainly didn't do it.
Each has a claim & also states the other is fibbing about how damage/injury was caused.
I've got a bruise on my arm, but it doesn't mean I got it by her car hitting me even if I claim it did.
He can have a bruise to be seen & she contend how he says he got it whilst not contending that he has it.
Mk3Spitfire said:
Agreed. Also try being more accurate about what's happened! There is a big difference between the "plod done nuffin" line, and police attended, took a statement, interviewed (?) driver, and decision taken to NFA due to lack of evidence!
Yes, more happened. The next week, she drove past slowly and her husband got out of a vehicle following her and threatened me....... Then he said he had a dashcam of me hitting their car - I said great, the cops will want that then.I think a dashcam would be great evidence. I also think if they have destroyed it because it shows her hitting me plod should be interested in that too. I also don't believe that a person should get away with such conduct because there is no independent witness. If she'd run me down and I'd been crippled and left in a wheelchair for life, can she just say the same thing? No witness, no problem?
ETA - and I noted the attendance at my house in my post at 20.10 or so....
And Red, I am not sure what she is claiming. I was initially told she was claiming I was walking towards her when I lashed out and scratched her car as she went past. The phone message now just says I "hit" her vehicle.
I also note that I called the police within 1 minute of being hit by the car. She called them to report my "criminal damage" after her Husband had threatened me and after her insurer had contacted her. I am sure that is perfectly normal conduct though and not in any way suspicious.
Edited by Jasandjules on Friday 19th August 07:58
The thread title is misleading imo. They've investigated and decided they're unlikely to unravel the claim and counter claim.
Keep pushing imo (politely, you wouldn't want to seem to anger easily...), but you might have to accept they've dodged it. Hopefully the whole experience has been enough of a shock and she'll take more care in future.
Keep pushing imo (politely, you wouldn't want to seem to anger easily...), but you might have to accept they've dodged it. Hopefully the whole experience has been enough of a shock and she'll take more care in future.
FGB said:
Did the threat come before or after you reporting the incident to the police.
If the threat was after I'd progress it further - If not I'd chalk it down to experience.
Threat was after. Incident was reported to police within one minute of being hit by car, threat was about a week later. Police were informed about threat as well, along with the fact they have a dashcam.If the threat was after I'd progress it further - If not I'd chalk it down to experience.
Jasandjules said:
FGB said:
Did the threat come before or after you reporting the incident to the police.
If the threat was after I'd progress it further - If not I'd chalk it down to experience.
Threat was after. Incident was reported to police within one minute of being hit by car, threat was about a week later. Police were informed about threat as well, along with the fact they have a dashcam.If the threat was after I'd progress it further - If not I'd chalk it down to experience.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff