1 accident, can both drivers be careless?
Discussion
If 1 car drives into the back of another and one of the drivers is found guilty of careless driving, can the other one also be found guilty of the same offence?
The reason I ask is, as I was driving down the high street looking for a parking space this guy drove into the back of me. He has since pleaded guilty to careless driving. Now the witness (ex policeman that knew the other driver and claims to have seen the crash) is saying I braked too sharply when I was looking for a parking place and that was careless driving. Is there some quota for careless driving convictions in Essex?
Merry Christmas
The reason I ask is, as I was driving down the high street looking for a parking space this guy drove into the back of me. He has since pleaded guilty to careless driving. Now the witness (ex policeman that knew the other driver and claims to have seen the crash) is saying I braked too sharply when I was looking for a parking place and that was careless driving. Is there some quota for careless driving convictions in Essex?
Merry Christmas
Is there some quota for careless driving convictions in Essex?
Definately quotos for motoring offences in Essex...
In THEORY I reckon that two drivers in an accident could be guilty... if one had been more alert it might not have happened (say a head-on incident).
As for this particular scenario... er... doesn't make much sense to me. Surely if the guy who hit you was paying more attention, then it wouldn't have happened?
Surely you can argue that he should have been aware of your aims and intensions...? Hence, you were driving more slowly..
Sorry, don't KNOW the "actual" answer..
According to a mate who works in an insurance company, if they go in the back of you pretty much whatever the circumstances, its their fault.
If they were at the correct braking distance they would never had hit you.
The only circumstance that I am aware would change anything is if you were a drink driving in which case fault automatically falls to the drink driver.
If they were at the correct braking distance they would never had hit you.
The only circumstance that I am aware would change anything is if you were a drink driving in which case fault automatically falls to the drink driver.
Just deny it,
you are expected to be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear.
basically he should have been able to stop, even if your brakes were efficient enough to stop you _dead_.
what if a pedestrian decided to cross behind you, presumably he would have hit them too, whether you had braked for a space or not.
... sorry particularly pipped off at people following too close today due to someone 6 inches from my bumper all the wet and slippy way home last night.
CH
you are expected to be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear.
basically he should have been able to stop, even if your brakes were efficient enough to stop you _dead_.
what if a pedestrian decided to cross behind you, presumably he would have hit them too, whether you had braked for a space or not.
... sorry particularly pipped off at people following too close today due to someone 6 inches from my bumper all the wet and slippy way home last night.
CH
Would agree with all posts above, and would like to add I would be looking at a letter of complaint (sent recorded, a copy sent to a newspaper) to the head of the Essex Police asking about this cops judgement, and of course as he was biased was he attempting to pervert the course of justice?!?!?!
Be careful not to confuse insurance company policy with the legal aspects of the Road Traffic Act.
In the circumstances described it may be possible for both drivers to be prosecuted for Driving without due care etc.
If it can be proven that you braked hard on purpose to catch out the driver following you, then it may be the case that only you would be prosecuted. There is a advisory duty on drivers following other vehicles, to maintain a safe stopping distance. If as a result of encroaching an accident occurs because the following vehicle collides with the rear of the vehicle in front then it is correct to assume that only the following driver is to blame.
You'd never prove an offence of perverting the course of justice, unless you had sufficient proof. Involving the press at this stage (if you are considering a complaint) is a bad move, as information that should remain subjudice will be exposed by you in the public domain..
>> Edited by **999** on Friday 20th December 14:42
In the circumstances described it may be possible for both drivers to be prosecuted for Driving without due care etc.
If it can be proven that you braked hard on purpose to catch out the driver following you, then it may be the case that only you would be prosecuted. There is a advisory duty on drivers following other vehicles, to maintain a safe stopping distance. If as a result of encroaching an accident occurs because the following vehicle collides with the rear of the vehicle in front then it is correct to assume that only the following driver is to blame.
You'd never prove an offence of perverting the course of justice, unless you had sufficient proof. Involving the press at this stage (if you are considering a complaint) is a bad move, as information that should remain subjudice will be exposed by you in the public domain..
>> Edited by **999** on Friday 20th December 14:42
**999** said: If it can be proven that you braked hard on purpose to catch out the driver following you, then it may be the case that only you would be prosecuted.
I don't think braking for a space would count?!?!
You'd never prove an offence of perverting the course of justice, unless you had sufficient proof.
I'd get a complaint in PDQ. Strange that the witness knew the following driver and it is the police officer witness who claims he braked too sharply. Just a radical coincidence no doubt.
Jason F said:
**999** said: If it can be proven that you braked hard on purpose to catch out the driver following you, then it may be the case that only you would be prosecuted.
I don't think braking for a space would count?!?!
You'd never prove an offence of perverting the course of justice, unless you had sufficient proof.
I'd get a complaint in PDQ. Strange that the witness knew the following driver and it is the police officer witness who claims he braked too sharply. Just a radical coincidence no doubt.
Steady...I'll repeat the advice...
'Braking for a space' - which bit of the Highway Code is this filed under? This type of braking could result in a prosecution as well. It's simply bad driving and if an accident happens due you taking this type of action, well the guy following you may have been too close, but with a witness or two, you'd be in deep sh1t....Fact
By going to the press you put your 'complaint' into the public domain,therefore immediately questioning your credibility and motivation for making the complaint will be questionable...Fact.
To prove perverting the course of justice or even attempting to pervert the course of justice, you need an amount of substantial and tangible evidence. Mere supposition or indeed even uncorroborated evidence, is not sufficient. That's life and it's also a fact.
Now if you wish to dispute the advice, fine, you're entitled to think and say what you want.
However I'm trying to provide advice based on my experience and my knowledge of the Police and Legal systems. Now you get that for free, no-ones forcing me to do this and I don't have to remind you about the other, rather long thread regarding Madcop. I am not a replacement for him and don't intend to be, but as I visit this forum for news about my marque, I feel strangely obliged to help those that are misled by the sometimes unhelpful and uninformed comments of others.
I will remain a visitor of these forums and will if I see the need, offer advice in the form of realistic and sometimes cynical,clinically cold fact.
>> Edited by **999** on Monday 23 December 10:46
Jason F said: Would agree with all posts above, and would like to add I would be looking at a letter of complaint (sent recorded, a copy sent to a newspaper) to the head of the Essex Police asking about this cops judgement, and of course as he was biased was he attempting to pervert the course of justice?!?!?!
The original post states that the witness is an ex-policeman not a serving officer, so I would go easy on the old complaint letter.
**999** said:
'Braking for a space' - which bit of the Highway Code is this filed under? This type of braking could result in a prosecution as well. It's simply bad driving and if an accident happens due you taking this type of action, well the guy following you may have been too close, but with a witness or two, you'd be in deep sh1t....Fact
Good point 999 BUT if the poster was originally driving slowly - in accordance with someone looking for a parking space - and possibly indicating (although he doesn't say whether he was or not). Then surely the whole case hinges on what he "expected actions" where likey to be.
If, by the manner of his driving, you would normally expect him to slow down further, or stop. Then you would expect him to break - maybe even quite sharply. He would have been much more likely to be at fault if he had suddenly accelerated away and caused an accident.
Most people assume that the driver of the following car is totally to blame for collisions with the car in front. I'm not sure if thats always correct. Supposing the car in front panic brakes for no obvious reason and you hit him. I would suggest that the first driver could be partially at fault. What about a pedestrian who runs onto a zebra crossing without giving a driver reasonable notice of his intentions to cross the road. Would the driver be totally at fault if he hit the pedestrian, I don't think so. In the posting above, if the poster was indicating and travelling slowly whilst obviously looking for a parking space then I think he would be blameless. If on the other hand he slammed on the brakes when he saw a space at the side of him then the driver behind wouldn't have been given reasonable notice of his intentions to brake & possibly stop the car? I'm not sure how the Law see this but civil law would probably see it as a more grey area. Good luck anyway. Just my 2 cents worth.
boosted ls1 said: Most people assume that the driver of the following car is totally to blame for collisions with the car in front. I'm not sure if thats always correct. Supposing the car in front panic brakes for no obvious reason and you hit him. I would suggest that the first driver could be partially at fault. What about a pedestrian who runs onto a zebra crossing without giving a driver reasonable notice of his intentions to cross the road. Would the driver be totally at fault if he hit the pedestrian, I don't think so. In the posting above, if the poster was indicating and travelling slowly whilst obviously looking for a parking space then I think he would be blameless. If on the other hand he slammed on the brakes when he saw a space at the side of him then the driver behind wouldn't have been given reasonable notice of his intentions to brake & possibly stop the car? I'm not sure how the Law see this but civil law would probably see it as a more grey area. Good luck anyway. Just my 2 cents worth.
You're absolutely correct...that's what I've been trying to say..
The legal position is quite clear, if you slam your brakes on to catch the other driver out, that's a deliberate action and with (I stress with) sufficient eveidence the driver braking could be prosecuted. I f you do this on a motorway then you could be facing a dangerous driving prosecution..
Thanks for the advice so far. I would just like to clarify that the guy who drove into the back of me has been found guilty of careless driving. I assumed this meant that the court decided his "below reasonable standard" driving caused the accident. This is why I do not get it that I can still be found to be careless for the same accident.
I didn't think driving was like football where the ref can yellow card 2 players for the same foul.
Happy New Year
I didn't think driving was like football where the ref can yellow card 2 players for the same foul.
Happy New Year
trev r said: Thanks for the advice so far. I would just like to clarify that the guy who drove into the back of me has been found guilty of careless driving. I assumed this meant that the court decided his "below reasonable standard" driving caused the accident. This is why I do not get it that I can still be found to be careless for the same accident.
I didn't think driving was like football where the ref can yellow card 2 players for the same foul.
Happy New Year
I'm afraid you're wrong - more than one driver can be guilty i.e. you can both be reckless/careless or whatever. To clarify :- you're travelling at 60 on a dual carriageway NSL, a car drives up to your rear bumper.... at this point he could be guilty of careless/reckless driving... you slam your brakes on and he runs into the back of your car...you could now be guilty of at least reckless driving and the other driver is still guilty of careless or reckless. Does this make sense ?
If 1 car drives into the back of another and one of the drivers is found guilty of careless driving, can the other one also be found guilty of the same offence?
It is possible but unlikely. Careless driving is defined as 'the standard of driving fell far bellow that of a careful and competent driver. If that definition of the driver in front applies, then it is possible as stated.
The reason I ask is, as I was driving down the high street looking for a parking space this guy drove into the back of me. He has since pleaded guilty to careless driving. Now the witness (ex policeman that knew the other driver and claims to have seen the crash) is saying I braked too sharply when I was looking for a parking place and that was careless driving. Is there some quota for careless driving convictions in Essex?
Merry Christmas
I doubt if there is any such quota system for careless driving convictions. They would be no different from quotas expected for overweight vehicles or indeed some criminal offences.
Have you been summonsed?
Have you been requested to attend a Police station for an interview or had the Police attend your home to ask you about the accident and subsequently caution and report you for the offence?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff