What does "stop" actually mean after an RTA?
Discussion
In the thread about car vs cyclist today, it was said:
Now, the other day, my wife was knocked over by a car. She was crossing a street. A vehicle that had already passed the crossing point decided they had made a navigational error and proceeded to reverse back onto the intersection without looking. My wife was knocked to the ground.
The driver apparently stopped, looked around, gesticulated to (presumably) indicate "sorry, I didn't see you, I made a wrong turn, err, are you ok?" and then drove off.
Had my wife walked up to the driver's window then the driver might have exchanged details; she didnt' so the point is moot.
So, the driver did stop, but did not get out or do anything more than look around, wave arms, pause for a few moments, and then drive off.
I imagine there might be case law on this, but what, in the RTA sense, does "stop" actually mean? Get out of the car and enquire? Stop for a defined period of time? Tarry awhile until satisfied that the other party is not going to ask for your details?
My wife does have the registration of the car FWIW.
Aretnap said:
Snowboy said:
The car is. Therefore it's an RTA.
But only the driver has to stop and give details. Law here.Road Traffic Act said:
The driver of the mechanically propelled vehicle must stop and, if required to do so by any person having reasonable grounds for so requiring, give his name and address and also the name and address of the owner and the identification marks of the vehicle.
The driver apparently stopped, looked around, gesticulated to (presumably) indicate "sorry, I didn't see you, I made a wrong turn, err, are you ok?" and then drove off.
Had my wife walked up to the driver's window then the driver might have exchanged details; she didnt' so the point is moot.
So, the driver did stop, but did not get out or do anything more than look around, wave arms, pause for a few moments, and then drive off.
I imagine there might be case law on this, but what, in the RTA sense, does "stop" actually mean? Get out of the car and enquire? Stop for a defined period of time? Tarry awhile until satisfied that the other party is not going to ask for your details?
My wife does have the registration of the car FWIW.
LoonR1 said:
There are some other words after stop. They seem to say "and give details". I think that should suffice for an explanation
Yes, I know, I quoted them in the OP 
"...must stop and, if required to do so by any person having reasonable grounds for so requiring, give his name and address..."My wife didn't "require" the person to give details. My wife was sitting on the ground feeling shaken. The driver had stopped. The driver did not offer the details, but the law says "if required" not "must offer." The driver did not get out of the car.
Hence my question: how much "stop" is enough "stop"? Stop and wait to see if anyone is going to "require" your details? Get out and talk to people?
My gut feeling is that the driver in this case "failed to stop" but the law seems (un)remarkably silent as to the test.
skwdenyer said:
Yes, I know, I quoted them in the OP "...must stop and, if required to do so by any person having reasonable grounds for so requiring, give his name and address..."
My wife didn't "require" the person to give details. My wife was sitting on the ground feeling shaken. The driver had stopped. The driver did not offer the details, but the law says "if required" not "must offer." The driver did not get out of the car.
Hence my question: how much "stop" is enough "stop"? Stop and wait to see if anyone is going to "require" your details? Get out and talk to people?
My gut feeling is that the driver in this case "failed to stop" but the law seems (un)remarkably silent as to the test.
Seriously? "...must stop and, if required to do so by any person having reasonable grounds for so requiring, give his name and address..."My wife didn't "require" the person to give details. My wife was sitting on the ground feeling shaken. The driver had stopped. The driver did not offer the details, but the law says "if required" not "must offer." The driver did not get out of the car.
Hence my question: how much "stop" is enough "stop"? Stop and wait to see if anyone is going to "require" your details? Get out and talk to people?
My gut feeling is that the driver in this case "failed to stop" but the law seems (un)remarkably silent as to the test.
Lee v Kanpp (1967) I believe. The driver in that case stopped for a couple of seconds and buggered off before anyone had chance to ask for his details. The High Court ruled that "stop" means stop for long enough for other interested parties to make inquiries of you, and upheld his conviction. There's no precisely defined amount of time - as with many things it depends on what's reasonable in the circumstances. If there's nobody around to ask for your details to (eg you hit a parked car and the owner's not about) you're not expected to wait indefinitely, but if you don't give your details at the scene for any reason you do have to report the accident to the police as soon as possible.
Hope your wife's OK. The requirement only applies if the accident caused injury, or damage to certain types of property, so if she was fine then he didn't actually commit the offence. Of course if he drives off without stopping to find out if she's OK then he doesn't know whether he's committing an offence or not, and I don't think a mistaken belief that no injury was caused would provide a defence, especially if he made little or no effort to check.
Hope your wife's OK. The requirement only applies if the accident caused injury, or damage to certain types of property, so if she was fine then he didn't actually commit the offence. Of course if he drives off without stopping to find out if she's OK then he doesn't know whether he's committing an offence or not, and I don't think a mistaken belief that no injury was caused would provide a defence, especially if he made little or no effort to check.
LoonR1 said:
skwdenyer said:
Yes, I know, I quoted them in the OP "...must stop and, if required to do so by any person having reasonable grounds for so requiring, give his name and address..."
My wife didn't "require" the person to give details. My wife was sitting on the ground feeling shaken. The driver had stopped. The driver did not offer the details, but the law says "if required" not "must offer." The driver did not get out of the car.
Hence my question: how much "stop" is enough "stop"? Stop and wait to see if anyone is going to "require" your details? Get out and talk to people?
My gut feeling is that the driver in this case "failed to stop" but the law seems (un)remarkably silent as to the test.
Seriously? "...must stop and, if required to do so by any person having reasonable grounds for so requiring, give his name and address..."My wife didn't "require" the person to give details. My wife was sitting on the ground feeling shaken. The driver had stopped. The driver did not offer the details, but the law says "if required" not "must offer." The driver did not get out of the car.
Hence my question: how much "stop" is enough "stop"? Stop and wait to see if anyone is going to "require" your details? Get out and talk to people?
My gut feeling is that the driver in this case "failed to stop" but the law seems (un)remarkably silent as to the test.
Aretnap said:
Lee v Kanpp (1967) I believe. The driver in that case stopped for a couple of seconds and buggered off before anyone had chance to ask for his details. The High Court ruled that "stop" means stop for long enough for other interested parties to make inquiries of you, and upheld his conviction. There's no precisely defined amount of time - as with many things it depends on what's reasonable in the circumstances. If there's nobody around to ask for your details to (eg you hit a parked car and the owner's not about) you're not expected to wait indefinitely, but if you don't give your details at the scene for any reason you do have to report the accident to the police as soon as possible.
Hope your wife's OK. The requirement only applies if the accident caused injury, or damage to certain types of property, so if she was fine then he didn't actually commit the offence. Of course if he drives off without stopping to find out if she's OK then he doesn't know whether he's committing an offence or not, and I don't think a mistaken belief that no injury was caused would provide a defence, especially if he made little or no effort to check.
Thank you.Hope your wife's OK. The requirement only applies if the accident caused injury, or damage to certain types of property, so if she was fine then he didn't actually commit the offence. Of course if he drives off without stopping to find out if she's OK then he doesn't know whether he's committing an offence or not, and I don't think a mistaken belief that no injury was caused would provide a defence, especially if he made little or no effort to check.
She was unharmed, but shaken. Interesting that the offence is complete if she were injured, but incomplete if the driver makes no effort to find out if injured!
In reality, might the reasonable test be that one needs to stop long enough to ascertain if any of the conditions (injury, damage) have been met and, if so, a little while longer to see if anyone "requires" your details?
skwdenyer said:
Aretnap said:
Lee v Kanpp (1967) I believe. The driver in that case stopped for a couple of seconds and buggered off before anyone had chance to ask for his details. The High Court ruled that "stop" means stop for long enough for other interested parties to make inquiries of you, and upheld his conviction. There's no precisely defined amount of time - as with many things it depends on what's reasonable in the circumstances. If there's nobody around to ask for your details to (eg you hit a parked car and the owner's not about) you're not expected to wait indefinitely, but if you don't give your details at the scene for any reason you do have to report the accident to the police as soon as possible.
Hope your wife's OK. The requirement only applies if the accident caused injury, or damage to certain types of property, so if she was fine then he didn't actually commit the offence. Of course if he drives off without stopping to find out if she's OK then he doesn't know whether he's committing an offence or not, and I don't think a mistaken belief that no injury was caused would provide a defence, especially if he made little or no effort to check.
Thank you.Hope your wife's OK. The requirement only applies if the accident caused injury, or damage to certain types of property, so if she was fine then he didn't actually commit the offence. Of course if he drives off without stopping to find out if she's OK then he doesn't know whether he's committing an offence or not, and I don't think a mistaken belief that no injury was caused would provide a defence, especially if he made little or no effort to check.
She was unharmed, but shaken. Interesting that the offence is complete if she were injured, but incomplete if the driver makes no effort to find out if injured!
In reality, might the reasonable test be that one needs to stop long enough to ascertain if any of the conditions (injury, damage) have been met and, if so, a little while longer to see if anyone "requires" your details?
In addition, if required to do so by any person having reasonable grounds for so requiring them, you must give your name and address and also the name and address of the owner and the identification marks of the vehicle to any person so reasonably requiring them.
Further more in injury case there is a requirement to produce an insurance certificate.
Anyone not doing the above must report at Police station or to a Constable as soon as reasonably practicable or in any case within 24hours.
p1esk said:
Jasandjules said:
Did she get the plate?
Apparently she did.That would at least be a caution or grounds for the driver to be asked to attend a local station.
Check the reg on MID...
XCP said:
OP says the lady was shaken. Shock is an injury. I realise it is also a clinical condition, but I wondered if that applied in this case.
Butterworths (quoted here) says that injury "may well extend to nervous shock". It doesn't cite a case though, suggesting that the question hasn't actually been decided by a higher court.skwdenyer said:
She was unharmed, but shaken. Interesting that the offence is complete if she were injured, but incomplete if the driver makes no effort to find out if injured!
In reality, might the reasonable test be that one needs to stop long enough to ascertain if any of the conditions (injury, damage) have been met and, if so, a little while longer to see if anyone "requires" your details?
I don't think so. Subsection 1 is quite explicit in that "this section applies in a case where... an accident occurs by which (damage or injury is caused)". If there's no damage or injury caused then the section doesn't apply, and what follows is irrelevant. Trying to read it as imposing a duty to stop in some circumstances where no damage or injury is caused would stretch the wording to breaking point, IMHO.In reality, might the reasonable test be that one needs to stop long enough to ascertain if any of the conditions (injury, damage) have been met and, if so, a little while longer to see if anyone "requires" your details?
It also fits in with the position that motoring offences are generally wholly objective ones (were your speeding? Was your alcohol level over the limit?) rather than subjective ones (did you thing you were speeding? Did you think you were drunk?). Buggering off without checking for injury or damage is analogous to necking a few whiskeys and driving without caring whether you're over the limit or not. It's silly, reckless and inconsiderate, but it's not illegal - so long as you get lucky and no damage was actually caused, or your blood alcohol level does stay below the limit. If you do later find out that there was an injury, or that you were over the limit, you have no grounds for complaint when you get convicted.
cptsideways said:
I would be reporting that ASAP, there are usually good reasons why people don't stop, usually uninsured, drunk, drugs etc etc. Any legitimate person would have at least gotten out of the car & asked if ok.
I agree with you on the "any legitimate person" argument; what I was surprised at was the lack of statute and/or guidance (that I could find) as to what was actually required.This happened in Central London in daylight. However, there are places I've been where, late at night, I wouldn't want to stop and get out of the car if I didn't have to having been involved in some sort of minor incident (not really places specifically, but places where there's a crowd of "trouble" hanging around IYSWIM especially if the incident involved some of the trouble).
From what I've read and has been said here, it seems a little vague. The onus seems to be upon the party receiving the injury (or a third party) to "require" the driver to give the details, not for the driver to see if it is necessary for them to volunteer them, or to wait a pre-determined (or even "reasonable") period of time in order to see if any person with "reasonable grounds for so requiring" to ask for the details.
In my hypothetical "rough spot" would it be reasonable for me to sit in my car with the doors locked and wait to see how things unfolded? If there seemed to be no injury, and if nobody asked me for my details, could I then drive away without being guilty of the offence?
Extending that if, in the case of my wife, the driver believed the exchange of "waving arms" indicate that my wife was ok, could the driver apply the same principle and drive off without any further ado?
cptsideways said:
Check the reg on MID...
Will do; thanks for the reminder of MID's existence!OP, you are required to stop long enough for anyone who has reasonable grounds to require details from you to ask for them. The length of time depends on the circumstances. In the situation you have described - if the driver had injured your wife and the duty had arisen - he would not have complied with the duty because your wife had no chance to request details.
Nervous shock is a legal term used to describe psychiatric illness caused by witnessing or being involved in a traumatic event. Being 'shaken' is not a psychiatric illness and it appears from the OP's description that the driver had no duty to stop.
Nervous shock is a legal term used to describe psychiatric illness caused by witnessing or being involved in a traumatic event. Being 'shaken' is not a psychiatric illness and it appears from the OP's description that the driver had no duty to stop.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff