HELP! HIT AND RUN! Can almost make out the plate!!!

[Dashmellow]

Thanks for playing. Don't quit your day job.

He doesn't exactly have a job. He spends nearly 24/7 as a self appointed pundit on a dash camera forum.

 

[Nigel]

That's not true! According to Tony's thread she only spoke to the police after they showed up at her door. THAT does not fulfill the requirement to REPORT the accident within 24 hours.

It's very odd how you keep rationalizing her behavior and offering your own personal interpretation of your laws.

The law HR quoted doesn't say that you have to report the incident at a specific place, part 6a says "must do so at a police station or to a constable", so if a police constable conveniently appears at your door then you can report it to him, which appears to be what happened.

As HR says:

In Tony's case, the person met the 24 hr time limit.

So there was no crime and the police had no reason to do anything other than to carry out their job of exchanging contact details, which they appear to have done very promptly.

 

[TonyM]

@Nigel you keep saying there was no crime in my case.

The UK Road Traffic Act considers both "Driving without due care and attention (careless driving)" and "Driving without reasonable consideration" as traffic offences that are punishable in court. In my opinion, straying into the path of an oncoming vehicle would count under one or the other of these offences.





And finally, failure to stop / report an accident is also a traffic offence. Guidance from the CPS is that the driver should

report the accident to a police constable or police station as soon as reasonably practicable and in any case within 24 hours. The duty to report means 'as soon as reasonably practicable': (Bulman v Bennett [1974] RTR 1). It does not mean the driver has 24 hours within which to report the collision.

Sources:
https://www.cps.gov.uk/crime-info/driving-offences
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/road-traffic-charging
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/road-traffic-summary-offences#_Toc536179988

 

[Dashmellow]

The law HR quoted doesn't say that you have to report the incident at a specific place, part 6a says "must do so at a police station or to a constable", so if a police constable conveniently appears at your door then you can report it to him, which appears to be what happened.

If your interpretation of your laws is accurate, then this is the most absurd and poorly crafted statute I have ever heard of. What kind of incompetent legislative body would create a law with an enormous loophole for the perpetrator to walk through? It is clear that the woman had no intention of meeting her obligation to report the accident she caused. If not for @TonyM having captured her license plate number there would have not been a constable at her door at all. And just because she confessed to being the operator of the vehicle to the officer at that time she gets a free pass? How ridiculous! This was a person who failed to report an incident because she thought no one would find out that she was the perpetrator up until the point where she got caught!

Once again, I'll state that our laws here in the USA that actually hold people accountable for their behavior is much to be preferred. She would have been charged with the crime of leaving the scene of an accident.

 

[Kremmen]

I have to agree. UK law in a lot of places is useless.

We are far too soft and if it does get to court we have senile judges who seem to let everyone off.

 

[HonestReview]

The law HR quoted doesn't say that you have to report the incident at a specific place, part 6a says "must do so at a police station or to a constable", so if a police constable conveniently appears at your door then you can report it to him, which appears to be what happened.

As HR says:

So there was no crime and the police had no reason to do anything other than to carry out their job of exchanging contact details, which they appear to have done very promptly.

Irrelevant. The argument you made is that Hit and Run isn't a crime in the UK. Whether or not the police acted in @TonyM's case has no bearing on the UK's law regarding the criminality of leaving the scene of an accident. Long story short. You have 24 hours to contact the Constable or it becomes a crime.

Period.

 

[Nigel]

@Nigel you keep saying there was no crime in my case.

The UK Road Traffic Act considers both "Driving without due care and attention (careless driving)" and "Driving without reasonable consideration" as traffic offences that are punishable in court. In my opinion, straying into the path of an oncoming vehicle would count under one or the other of these offences.

View attachment 58631

View attachment 58630

And finally, failure to stop / report an accident is also a traffic offence. Guidance from the CPS is that the driver should

Sources:
https://www.cps.gov.uk/crime-info/driving-offences
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/road-traffic-charging
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/road-traffic-summary-offences#_Toc536179988

If you want to prosecute for failure to report the accident, you need proof that it was reasonably possible to do it sooner, probably it was, but you don't have that proof. The police could have waited 24 hours to ensure a crime was committed before visiting, but it is the job of the police to prevent crimes, not to ensure they take place!

On the driving, there are probably several laws that could be used, but they all have the problem that we do not know why she was on the wrong side of the road, it is possible that it was not her fault. My view is that your video does not have enough evidence for a prosecution to succeed.

I do think that it was either careless or dangerous driving, and I doubt she would have reported it if the constable had not found her within 24 hours, but to get a conviction needs proof. To get it through the CPS also requires that it is in the public interest to do so, and I suspect it would fail there too.

For insurance purposes, there is no issue, clearly her insurance should pay for all repairs etc., and then hit her with an increased premium next renewal, or maybe even refuse to insure her depending on past history.

 

[HonestReview]

I have to agree. UK law in a lot of places is useless.

We are far too soft and if it does get to court we have senile judges who seem to let everyone off.

The Police "chose" not to act after making contact. I am sure if @TonyM pressed the matter, there may have been more action. Police probably figured they got woman's info and we'll be lazy. It doesn't sound like @TonyM bothered to pursue the criminal matter further or pressed for action thereafter.

 

[HonestReview]

If you want to prosecute for failure to report the accident, you need proof that it was reasonably possible to do it sooner, probably it was, but you don't have that proof. The police could have waited 24 hours to ensure a crime was committed before visiting, but it is the job of the police to prevent crimes, not to ensure they take place!

On the driving, there are probably several laws that could be used, but they all have the problem that we do not know why she was on the wrong side of the road, it is possible that it was not her fault. My view is that your video does not have enough evidence for a prosecution to succeed.

I do think that it was either careless or dangerous driving, and I doubt she would have reported it if the constable had not found her within 24 hours, but to get a conviction needs proof. To get it through the CPS also requires that it is in the public interest to do so, and I suspect it would fail there too.

For insurance purposes, there is no issue, clearly her insurance should pay for all repairs etc., and then hit her with an increased premium next renewal, or maybe even refuse to insure her depending on past history.

Again, @TonyM's case DOES NOT CHANGE THE LAW. It appears @TonyM DID NOT pursue or press for the police to take criminal action for the "Hit and Run". Police spoke to her, got her information, and @TonyM went about his life. Police were lazy and said whatever, matter closed.

I am sure if @TonyM pressed the police and demanded charges be filed, escalating it to superiors, action might have been taken.

None the less, leaving the scene and NOT reporting the accident within 24 hrs is a crime. Period.

 

[HonestReview]

@Nigel you keep saying there was no crime in my case.

The UK Road Traffic Act considers both "Driving without due care and attention (careless driving)" and "Driving without reasonable consideration" as traffic offences that are punishable in court. In my opinion, straying into the path of an oncoming vehicle would count under one or the other of these offences.

View attachment 58631

View attachment 58630

And finally, failure to stop / report an accident is also a traffic offence. Guidance from the CPS is that the driver should

Sources:
https://www.cps.gov.uk/crime-info/driving-offences
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/road-traffic-charging
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/road-traffic-summary-offences#_Toc536179988

Road Traffic Act 1988

An Act to consolidate certain enactments relating to road traffic with amendments to give effect to recommendations of the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission.

www.legislation.gov.uk

The Law seems a bit vague on the stopping part. Because here it says if you don't provide your information, you have 24 hours to report the accident and provide it to police or party that was hit. So I guess I could stop, say are you OK, then drive away. Going to the police station and reporting the incident within 24 hours. Providing my information.

None the less, the law 100% does not allow you to leave the scene, Drive Away, and Not Report a Hit and Run.

We all agree except @Nigel.

At least that's how I read this law....Maybe there are other's the compliment or override parts of it (changes) since 1988?

LAW:

170 Duty of driver to stop, report accident and give information or documents.

(1)This section applies in a case where, owing to the presence of a [F1mechanically propelled vehicle] on a road [F2or other public place], an accident occurs by which—

(a)personal injury is caused to a person other than the driver of that [F1mechanically propelled vehicle], or

(b)damage is caused—

(i)to a vehicle other than that [F1mechanically propelled vehicle] or a trailer drawn by that [F1mechanically propelled vehicle], or

(ii)to an animal other than an animal in or on that [F1mechanically propelled vehicle] or a trailer drawn by that [F1mechanically propelled vehicle], or

(iii)to any other property constructed on, fixed to, growing in or otherwise forming part of the land on which the road [F3or place] in question is situated or land adjacent to such land.

(2)The driver of the [F1mechanically 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.

(3)If for any reason the driver of the [F1mechanically propelled vehicle] does not give his name and address under subsection (2) above, he must report the accident.

(4)A person who fails to comply with subsection (2) or (3) above is guilty of an offence.

(5)If, in a case where this section applies by virtue of subsection (1)(a) above, the driver of [F4a motor vehicle] does not at the time of the accident produce such a certificate of insurance F5... or other evidence, as is mentioned in section 165(2)(a) of this Act—

(a)to a constable, or

(b)to some person who, having reasonable grounds for so doing, has required him to produce it,

the driver must report the accident and produce such a certificate or other evidence.

This subsection does not apply to the driver of an invalid carriage.

(6)To comply with a duty under this section to report an accident or to produce such a certificate of insurance F6... or other evidence, as is mentioned in section 165(2)(a) of this Act, the driver—

(a)must do so at a police station or to a constable, and

(b)must do so as soon as is reasonably practicable and, in any case, within twenty-four hours of the occurrence of the accident.

(7)A person who fails to comply with a duty under subsection (5) above is guilty of an offence, but he shall not be convicted by reason only of a failure to produce a certificate or other evidence if, within [F7seven] days after the occurrence of the accident, the certificate or other evidence is produced at a police station that was specified by him at the time when the accident was reported.

 

[Nigel]

@TonyM DID NOT pursue or press for the police to take criminal action for the "Hit and Run". Police spoke to her, got her information, and @TonyM went about his life. Police were lazy and said whatever, matter closed.

I don’t believe it is for TonyM to decide if a prosecution should take place, that is for the police to decide, they don’t need Tony’s approval or instruction. And in this case I don’t think they had proof of any crime.

 

[HonestReview]

I don’t believe it is for TonyM to decide if a prosecution should take place, that is for the police to decide, they don’t need Tony’s approval or instruction. And in this case I don’t think they had proof of any crime.

Police can be lazy...... A person has a choice on whether to press charges. Police figured we got X person's information. Screw it.

@TonyM, I'm not happy with that explanation. I want to speak to a superior. Going up food chain until someone listens.

Yes, the police ultimately are the ones who process and send charges to prosecutor to determine if there's a crime. But sometimes, you have to PRESS the issue and make police "do their job".

 

[TonyM]

Next time I'm involved in an accident, I'll exchange details and do the whole insurance thing to cover my own expenses etc.

I'll also send the video to the police department that reviews dashcam videos and let them decide whether they want to take the matter further. I don't think I should be telling them how to do their job. But I can provide information to help them do it.

 

[Nigel]

The police need information to do their job, and the more they get the better they can do it. In the UK, dealing with crime is their job, not ours.

 

[KANNINA 2.0]

If your interpretation of your laws is accurate, then this is the most absurd and poorly crafted statute I have ever heard of. What kind of incompetent legislative body would create a law with an enormous loophole for the perpetrator to walk through?

Having lived in the UK for 4 years, well... I'd totally believe Nigel...

Don't support him, but I'd believe...

The police everywhere in the UK are less than useless. Courts not much better.

 

[HonestReview]

Next time I'm involved in an accident, I'll exchange details and do the whole insurance thing to cover my own expenses etc.

I'll also send the video to the police department that reviews dashcam videos and let them decide whether they want to take the matter further. I don't think I should be telling them how to do their job. But I can provide information to help them do it.

Sometimes, you have to "Hold Someone's Hand" and guide them in the right direction. Providing the video would have definitely helped the police "do their job". You shouldn't have to babysit your local Police Force, but there's no substitute for laziness and stupid. Meaning, sometimes you have to give a bit of vocal push back to make things happen.

Always wise to get a plate and insurance information!

 

[Dashmellow]

Having lived in the UK for 4 years, well... I'd totally believe Nigel...

Don't support him, but I'd believe...

The police everywhere in the UK are less than useless. Courts not much better.

I suppose it's important to make a distinction between the police, the laws and the the court's willingness and ability to adjudicate the laws.

Nevertheless, I completely get what you are saying, especially about the UK police. I recall a video that was featured on the evening news here last summer where police in London were attempting to deal with a crowd of drunken revelers who had descended on the pubs when the Covid lockdown was first lifted. Instead of dispersing, the crowd started yelling epithets and throwing beer bottles at the group of police officers who immediately proceeded to run away. I remember thinking that's not how things would go here in the U.S.

 

[KANNINA 2.0]

I suppose it's important to make a distinction between the police, the laws and the the court's willingness and ability to adjudicating the laws.

Nevertheless, I completely get what you are saying, especially about the UK police. I recall a video that was featured on the evening news here last summer where police in London were attempting to deal with a crowd of drunken revelers who had descended on the pubs when the Covid lockdown was first lifted. Instead of dispersing, the crowd started yelling epithets and throwing beer bottles at the group of police officers who immediately proceeded to run away. I remember thinking that's not how things would go here in the U.S.

Yeah. I saw a video of 3-4 constables trying to corral a guy with a knife. Of course, they were all unarmed, and he was chasing them around--while they took turns running from him.

What an embarrassment. We all know how THAT would have ended here...

 

[country_hick]

Police can be lazy...... A person has a choice on whether to press charges. Police figured we got X person's information. Screw it.

@TonyM, I'm not happy with that explanation. I want to speak to a superior. Going up food chain until someone listens.

Yes, the police ultimately are the ones who process and send charges to prosecutor to determine if there's a crime. But sometimes, you have to PRESS the issue and make police "do their job".

Have you ever tried that? You can not make someone do their job correctly unless you can fire them.

 

[country_hick]

Yeah. I saw a video of 3-4 constables trying to corral a guy with a knife. Of course, they were all unarmed, and he was chasing them around--while they took turns running from him.

What an embarrassment. We all know how THAT would have ended here...

Actually, UK police are trained to disarm a knife wielding suspect. Things may not have been as they seemed. The UK wants voluntary cooperation instead of fear and force. I tihnk the UK model is better. It protects the people from quick tempered triggers.