Good news mate. Now get a beer opened!
Roymondo:
goshow:
Any RTA where an injury is caused must be reported to the police within 24hrs of the incident. There does not need to be contact between your vehicle and the injured party etc. The law states “owing the the presence of a vehicle on the road…”.
Sorry, can’t let that go without comment. The fact that someone has been injured does NOT mean that the incident must be reported to Police. The requirement is that all drivers involved STOP at the scene and give their particulars to other parties involved. If there are injuries then they must also provide their insurance details. Provided those requirements are met, there is no requirement to report to Police.
If there is a requirement to report to Police, then this must be done “as soon as practicable” with an absolute limit of 24 hours.
Sent from a sleeper pod atop a BG registered Sprinter parked just outside Crewe.
But because the OP was not aware of an accident he wouldn’t have exchanged details would he?
thamesvalley.police.uk/faq-answer?id=Q427
My previous employer’s advice.
Does still seem strange it’s taken so long. I had a claim made against me at work 3 months after it’s was supposed to happen. The CCTV overwrites after 21 days so that was no help. Luckily the claim was full of mistakes and the company insurance just told them to ■■■■ off.
Rjan:
Roymondo:
S170 does not define a “Traffic Accident” and then go on to require the drivers of all vehicles involved in the incident to stop/report etc. It is clearly worded from the viewpoint of one vehicle (i.e. where, owing to the presence of a mechanically propelled vehicle… … the driver of the mechanically propelled vehicle must stop…).Had the intention been to apply to all vehicles involved, the wording would have been along the lines of “Where, owing to the presence of any mechanically propelled vehicle(s)… …the drivers of all such vehicles must stop…”
I agree it is badly worded, but it is sensible to think that it is supposed to apply equally to any and each vehicle involved.
Otherwise, on your logic, you’d have a situation where those potentially liable for a crash would have no obligation to stop, give details, or report.
Not at all - by my logic (ie the way the law is worded) every driver who is involved in an accident where someone else is injured or someone else’s property was damaged is obliged to stop/report, regardless of blame. If no-one else is injured and no other property or vehicle damaged (again regardless of blame) there is no duty to stop/report. There’s nothing to stop such a driver from reporting it if he wants to (same as he can for any other incident of dangerous or careless driving) but my point is there is no obligation to do so.
Sent from a sleeper pod atop a BG registered Sprinter parked just outside Crewe.
Roymondo:
Rjan:
Roymondo:
S170 does not define a “Traffic Accident” and then go on to require the drivers of all vehicles involved in the incident to stop/report etc. It is clearly worded from the viewpoint of one vehicle (i.e. where, owing to the presence of a mechanically propelled vehicle… … the driver of the mechanically propelled vehicle must stop…).Had the intention been to apply to all vehicles involved, the wording would have been along the lines of “Where, owing to the presence of any mechanically propelled vehicle(s)… …the drivers of all such vehicles must stop…”
I agree it is badly worded, but it is sensible to think that it is supposed to apply equally to any and each vehicle involved.
Otherwise, on your logic, you’d have a situation where those potentially liable for a crash would have no obligation to stop, give details, or report.
Not at all - by my logic (ie the way the law is worded) every driver who is involved in an accident where someone else is injured or someone else’s property was damaged is obliged to stop/report, regardless of blame. If no-one else is injured and no other property or vehicle damaged (again regardless of blame) there is no duty to stop/report. There’s nothing to stop such a driver from reporting it if he wants to (same as he can for any other incident of dangerous or careless driving) but my point is there is no obligation to do so.
Sent from a sleeper pod atop a BG registered Sprinter parked just outside Crewe.
In this context, I fully agree.
In the context the OP describes, the injured driver is claiming there was another mpv involved, hence it should have been reported to the popo as an injury RTA + fail to stop/report.
el_presidente:
http://www.thamesvalley.police.uk/faq-answer?id=Q427My previous employer’s advice.
Helpful advice on a police website is hardly a statement of what the law actually says!
Sent from a sleeper pod atop a BG registered Sprinter parked just outside Crewe.
This isn’t simply helpful advice. It is factual advice.
In addition to the usual requirement to provide name, address of driver and registration number of the vehicle following an accident only involving damage, if someone is injured then insurance details must also be exchanged at the time, otherwise the accident must be reported to the police as soon as possible (and no later than 24 hours).
el_presidente:
This isn’t simply helpful advice. It is factual advice.In addition to the usual requirement to provide name, address of driver and registration number of the vehicle following an accident only involving damage, if someone is injured then insurance details must also be exchanged at the time, otherwise the accident must be reported to the police as soon as possible (and no later than 24 hours).
No! The requirement to stop/report only applies to one of the drivers - the injured driver of the only vehicle damaged is under no such obligation (although he can report it if he wishes, of course).
Here’s an example: You’re doing a delivery in a residential street. There’s a vehicle parked awkwardly on a corner but you go for it anyway and attempt to get round it. You ■■■■ it up, smash your mirror on a tree and bash the step on a high kerb. The only damage is to your vehicle. There is no-one around with whom to exchange particulars. By your logic you are now obliged to report this to the police.
It’s worse - you ended up smacking your head on the tree as you were hanging out the window to get a better view. It’s only a bruise and a small cut, but again by your logic you must report this? Not saying you can’t report it if you want to, but there is no legal obligation.
Roymondo:
el_presidente:
This isn’t simply helpful advice. It is factual advice.In addition to the usual requirement to provide name, address of driver and registration number of the vehicle following an accident only involving damage, if someone is injured then insurance details must also be exchanged at the time, otherwise the accident must be reported to the police as soon as possible (and no later than 24 hours).
No! The requirement to stop/report only applies to one of the drivers - the injured driver of the only vehicle damaged is under no such obligation (although he can report it if he wishes, of course).
Here’s an example: You’re doing a delivery in a residential street. There’s a vehicle parked awkwardly on a corner but you go for it anyway and attempt to get round it. You ■■■■ it up, smash your mirror on a tree and bash the step on a high kerb. The only damage is to your vehicle. There is no-one around with whom to exchange particulars. By your logic you are now obliged to report this to the police.
It’s worse - you ended up smacking your head on the tree as you were hanging out the window to get a better view. It’s only a bruise and a small cut, but again by your logic you must report this? Not saying you can’t report it if you want to, but there is no legal obligation.
This is a very simplistic scenario. That said, parked or moving, flying or sailing, the parked vehicle has a bearing on the accident as YOU (the driver) are alleging it was contributory. Further, it could have been left in a dangerous position. Of course the police will no doubt then look at your own actions for attempting a manoeuvre which resulted in the accident, thereby looking at reporting you for careless and inconsiderate. But that’s another debate.
The second part of your scenario, YOU MUST STILL REPORT IT. Again the presence of the other motor vehicle has had an effect on your actions. The wording referring to ‘other than that driver’ means the driver of the parked vehicle…the vehicle YOU are alleging has had a bearing on the accident.
Lets suppose your actions on the road cause a pedestrian to jump out of your way and (s)he injures themselves. That is a REPORTABLE injury RTC. A cyclist swerves around you as you’re parked making deliveries and clips the kerb and hurts themselves. That is also a REPORTABLE RTC.
Clearly these are technical applications of law, and not real world, but believe me - myself, CPS, and a few magistrates have applied the law as I have outlined here and if we’ve got it wrong then there are miscarriages of justice up and down the country on a regular basis.
I suggest we agree to disagree.
greendalef:
As promised here is an update;The solicitors told me they would handle everything from now on.
May I suggest you stay on the solictors case though, after all, if someone is to get a CCJ by default, it’s not going to be the solicitors but YOU.
Roymondo:
Here’s an example: You’re doing a delivery in a residential street. There’s a vehicle parked awkwardly on a corner but you go for it anyway and attempt to get round it. You ■■■■ it up, smash your mirror on a tree and bash the step on a high kerb. The only damage is to your vehicle. There is no-one around with whom to exchange particulars. By your logic you are now obliged to report this to the police.
It’s worse - you ended up smacking your head on the tree as you were hanging out the window to get a better view. It’s only a bruise and a small cut, but again by your logic you must report this? Not saying you can’t report it if you want to, but there is no legal obligation.
But in these cases, there is an accident, but the only injuries (or damaged property) are sustained by that driver. So he does not have to report - common sense.
But if you are involved in an accident where someone else sustains injury or damage, then your details must be given/reported - common sense.
For clarity, you are “involved in an accident” if the accident occurs owing to the presence of your vehicle on the road. If the accident owes nothing to the presence of your vehcile, then you are not involved.
Rjan:
But in these cases, there is an accident, but the only injuries (or damaged property) are sustained by that driver. So he does not have to report - common sense.But if you are involved in an accident where someone else sustains injury or damage, then your details must be given/reported - common sense.
I’ve never said otherwise. The assertion made was that the “innocent” driver - i.e. the bloke who was injured - had a duty to report even though there was no damage to any vehicle other than his and no injury to anyone but him. My position is that the law makes no such requirement of him.
el_presidente:
Roymondo:
… Here’s an example: You’re doing a delivery in a residential street. There’s a vehicle parked awkwardly on a corner but you go for it anyway and attempt to get round it. You ■■■■ it up, smash your mirror on a tree and bash the step on a high kerb. The only damage is to your vehicle. There is no-one around with whom to exchange particulars. By your logic you are now obliged to report this to the police.
It’s worse - you ended up smacking your head on the tree as you were hanging out the window to get a better view. It’s only a bruise and a small cut, but again by your logic you must report this? Not saying you can’t report it if you want to, but there is no legal obligation.[…]
The second part of your scenario, YOU MUST STILL REPORT IT. Again the presence of the other motor vehicle has had an effect on your actions. The wording referring to ‘other than that driver’ means the driver of the parked vehicle…the vehicle YOU are alleging has had a bearing on the accident.
I don’t follow your reasoning, and I agree with Roymondo here. The driver of the parked vehicle must report (it’s another question whether he would even know of the accident), but the injured driver does not need to report in this situation, because he has not been involved in an accident where anyone was injured other than himself.
Lets suppose your actions on the road cause a pedestrian to jump out of your way and (s)he injures themselves. That is a REPORTABLE injury RTC. A cyclist swerves around you as you’re parked making deliveries and clips the kerb and hurts themselves. That is also a REPORTABLE RTC.
I agree here, because as the driver of a vehicle, involved in an accident in which someone else is hurt, you must report.
Roymondo:
Rjan:
But in these cases, there is an accident, but the only injuries (or damaged property) are sustained by that driver. So he does not have to report - common sense.But if you are involved in an accident where someone else sustains injury or damage, then your details must be given/reported - common sense.
I’ve never said otherwise. The assertion made was that the “innocent” driver - i.e. the bloke who was injured - had a duty to report even though there was no damage to any vehicle other than his and no injury to anyone but him. My position is that the law makes no such requirement of him.
Yes I’ve read the previous posts more carefully and I agree with you on this point.
The only time an injured/damaged driver has to report, is if there are also third party injuries/damage.
In an accident where only one person suffers any kind of loss (whether that be personal injury or damaged property), that person does not have to report. But other drivers involved in the accident (if any) must report.
And in any accident involving loss by more than one person, everyone involved has to report (because such an accident logically entails every driver being involved in such a way that there is always another person, other than themselves, who have suffered loss).
Rjan:
Roymondo:
Rjan:
But in these cases, there is an accident, but the only injuries (or damaged property) are sustained by that driver. So he does not have to report - common sense.But if you are involved in an accident where someone else sustains injury or damage, then your details must be given/reported - common sense.
I’ve never said otherwise. The assertion made was that the “innocent” driver - i.e. the bloke who was injured - had a duty to report even though there was no damage to any vehicle other than his and no injury to anyone but him. My position is that the law makes no such requirement of him.
Yes I’ve read the previous posts more carefully and I agree with you on this point.
The only time an injured/damaged driver has to report, is if there are also third party injuries/damage.
In an accident where only one person suffers any kind of loss (whether that be personal injury or damaged property), that person does not have to report. But other drivers involved in the accident (if any) must report.
And in any accident involving loss by more than one person, everyone involved has to report (because such an accident logically entails every driver being involved in such a way that there is always another person, other than themselves, who have suffered loss).
The responsibility for reporting is placed on both parties as the RTA applies to both vehicles. You can’t simply say the onus is on the other driver because you hold them to blame. If both drivers took that position there would be an impasse. Quite simply, if one driver refuses to report, or does not report, it does not remove the fact that an injury RTC has occurred and must be reported.
Lets look at Raymondo’s example again…but with quoting from the RTA 1988:
Owing to the presence of a mpv (the parked car) on a road personal injury is caused to a person other than the driver of that MPV.
The driver of that MPV is not present. But it still ‘has’ a driver. It was parked there by someone - and that someone has not sustained an injury - but you have. You are not the driver of that MPV, you are the driver of the vehicle damaged and, in the process, you have sustained the injury.
You are asserting that the presence of a MPV has caused you to have an accident and sustain an injury. Of course, in the real world, it’s highly unlikely anyone would report this. But it is still classed as an injury RTC.
If you think through some scenarios, try and come up with one where you wouldn’t be required to report. There aren’t very many.
No, you are mistaken. The onus to report is placed on each driver individually (at least because one of them cannot be held responsible for the other’s (in)action). Your police experience is showing here, as under the Road Traffic Act there is no such thing as “an injury RTC” which then imposes obligations on the drivers of all vehicles involved (although there are different policies and administrative procedures/forms to fill in in the event of such an incident). There is no distinction as far as requirements to stop/report are concerned between injury and damage only incidents (although injuries do bring in the requirement to produce insurance at the scene or at the police station). Also the Act does not concern itself with apportioning blame, so there is no impasse created. The obligations of each driver are established by each asking himself:
Was whatever happened due to the presence of my vehicle on a road or other public place?
Was someone other than me injured, or another vehicle, property or animal damaged/injured?
If the answer to both is “Yes” then he must stop/report as laid out in the Act. If either answer is “No” then no such obligation is established for that driver. It doesn’t matter who he considers to be at fault or to blame. I cannot explain it in simpler terms than that - even if TVPOL’s website and operational guidelines state otherwise.
Roymondo:
No, you are mistaken. The onus to report is placed on each driver individually (at least because one of them cannot be held responsible for the other’s (in)action). Your police experience is showing here, as under the Road Traffic Act there is no such thing as “an injury RTC” which then imposes obligations on the drivers of all vehicles involved (although there are different policies and administrative procedures/forms to fill in in the event of such an incident). There is no distinction as far as requirements to stop/report are concerned between injury and damage only incidents (although injuries do bring in the requirement to produce insurance at the scene or at the police station). Also the Act does not concern itself with apportioning blame, so there is no impasse created. The obligations of each driver are established by each asking himself:Was whatever happened due to the presence of my vehicle on a road or other public place?
Was someone other than me injured, or another vehicle, property or animal damaged/injured?If the answer to both is “Yes” then he must stop/report as laid out in the Act. If either answer is “No” then no such obligation is established for that driver. It doesn’t matter who he considers to be at fault or to blame. I cannot explain it in simpler terms than that - even if TVPOL’s website and operational guidelines state otherwise.
Indeed, the RTA does not apportion blame. That was not what I was saying. My point was, if you have two drivers both claiming the other was at fault, in your scenario, both drivers would be blaming the other, so the impasse under your interpretation of the RTA would exists as neither would feel they are liable to report.
There is an obligation to report (injuries) where another vehicle was involved. Simple.
Remove the ‘my’ - it is the presence of the other MPV which is key. Remove the assumption that simply because the other MPV has not been damaged/the occupants not injured, that it is not also an ‘accident’ vehicle. It is. The presence of that other MPV has caused me to sustain injury. If they have not reported it, I must report.
The only (rare) situation I can realistically think of would be that a car has a blow out, causes no damage to other property, but the driver somehow gets injured. In that rare situation, there is no obligation to report.
As I said before, if you’re saying I’m wrong then there have been numerous miscarriages of justice, and those who enforce the act have been continually getting it wrong. Police, CPS, Courts.
el_presidente:
Rjan:
Yes I’ve read the previous posts more carefully and I agree with you on this point.The only time an injured/damaged driver has to report, is if there are also third party injuries/damage.
In an accident where only one person suffers any kind of loss (whether that be personal injury or damaged property), that person does not have to report. But other drivers involved in the accident (if any) must report.
And in any accident involving loss by more than one person, everyone involved has to report (because such an accident logically entails every driver being involved in such a way that there is always another person, other than themselves, who have suffered loss).
The responsibility for reporting is placed on both parties as the RTA applies to both vehicles. You can’t simply say the onus is on the other driver because you hold them to blame. If both drivers took that position there would be an impasse. Quite simply, if one driver refuses to report, or does not report, it does not remove the fact that an injury RTC has occurred and must be reported.
The RTA doesn’t deal with blame, only “involvement” (a shorthand for what I’ve previously described). A driver can be involved but completely faultless.
Of course, there could be an argument over whether a driver was involved, but that would be for the court to decide (if it was alleged that an involved driver failed to report).
Lets look at Raymondo’s example again…but with quoting from the RTA 1988:
Owing to the presence of a mpv (the parked car) on a road personal injury is caused to a person other than the driver of that MPV.
The driver of that MPV is not present. But it still ‘has’ a driver. It was parked there by someone - and that someone has not sustained an injury - but you have. You are not the driver of that MPV, you are the driver of the vehicle damaged and, in the process, you have sustained the injury.
Well I’ll defer to you about whether an unattended vehicle always has a driver.
But the key point in this scenario, is that only the MPV driver has the duty to report. The injured driver does not (because only he sustained loss).
In practice, if the injured driver is at fault (and so doesn’t go looking for the details of the MPV driver), and the MPV driver never learns of the accident, the accident may never be reported. The MPV driver technically commits an offence in that case, but the injured driver does not.
You are asserting that the presence of a MPV has caused you to have an accident and sustain an injury. Of course, in the real world, it’s highly unlikely anyone would report this. But it is still classed as an injury RTC.
If you think through some scenarios, try and come up with one where you wouldn’t be required to report. There aren’t very many.
It would be classed as an injury RTC, if anyone reported it!
And I can think of a large class of accidents which don’t require reporting, those being where only one vehicle is involved, and the losses are sustained purely by that driver/vehicle owner. If a tree branch falls and you collide, injuring only yourself, it is not reportable. If you lose control on the approach to your property too quickly, bursting open the driveway gates and knocking down the garden wall, that is not reportable - but if another driver (not being the owner of thr vehicle or the property) caused the same accident, it would be reportable.