They jump red lights for their own safety, then want compo !!

On 28/11/2016 23:28, MrCheerful wrote:

The "report to the police" bit only applies where there is an injury to
a third party, OR where the owner / keeper / driver of one of the
vehicles is not present.

In a case where all the drivers are present and where everyone says they
are uninjured, there is no requirement to report the collision to the
police.

The guy defended himself and it sounds like he made a guilty plea.

I actually quoted the wrong bit it should be rule 287.

+++
If another person is injured and you do not produce your insurance
certificate at the time of the crash to a police officer or to anyone
having reasonable grounds to request it, you MUST

report it to the police as soon as possible and in any case within 24 hours
produce your insurance certificate for the police within seven days.
+++

I don't see where you get guilty plea from? The guy clearly realised it
was a serious collision when he advised the cyclist to go to hospital.

Its pretty obvious that if the law didn't exist driver's would try to
avoid giving insurance details by intimidating the injured party or by
claiming that they didn't think they had to.

The law is clear, it is sensible, this driver was clearly guilty.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 29/11/2016 12:24, MrCheerful wrote:


Someone once drove into the back of my car while I was waiting to pull
out of a side road. I surveyed my damage, which was imperceptible and
said don't worry about it to the other driver, expecting him to be
pleased. He started mouthing off about MY insurance details, I assured
him that I would not be making a claim against him and drove away, he
was still shouting...........

He probably thought you were at fault. You stopped without enough
warning or brake tested him, etc.


A lot of people are very stupid and very selfish. Which is why we need
simple rules to stop them getting even more confused.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 29/11/2016 13:03, Nick wrote:
On 29/11/2016 12:24, MrCheerful wrote:


Someone once drove into the back of my car while I was waiting to pull
out of a side road. I surveyed my damage, which was imperceptible and
said don't worry about it to the other driver, expecting him to be
pleased. He started mouthing off about MY insurance details, I assured
him that I would not be making a claim against him and drove away, he
was still shouting...........

He probably thought you were at fault. You stopped without enough
warning or brake tested him, etc.


A lot of people are very stupid and very selfish. Which is why we need
simple rules to stop them getting even more confused.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus



Hard to know why he would have thought that, except trying to blame
someone else for his own mistake.
I was stationary for some while (maybe thirty seconds) before the
collision with him stopped behind me, my surmise is, maybe he expected
me to pull away and went himself without looking ahead first, or his
foot slipped off the clutch. Whatever, the crash was entirely his
fault, this was long before crash for cash etc. (30 plus years ago)

On 29/11/2016 08:48, The Todal wrote:

On 28/11/2016 21:42, JNugent wrote:
On 28/11/2016 19:27, tim... wrote:
"Judith" wrote in message
MrCheerful wrote:

http://www.pendletoday.co.uk/news/cy...t-it-1-8256230

Has the cyclist been prosecuted yet?

Going through a red light.
Lying to the police (is that actually an offence? - I don't know)

Leaving the scene of accident where a person is injured is an offence,
it's irrelevant that you think the other person caused the incident

Is it irrelevant that you have no reason to believe that anyone has been
injured (eg, because they say so)?
If that were not the case, then every accident would be reportable on
the basis that an injury might not show up until later.

He was charged with failing to report the accident to the police. Not
with failing to stop (unless the report is inaccurate).

Quite so.

That was exactly what I was addressing.

But as you know, not all traffic accidents need be reported to the
police. Broadly, an accident is reportable if there is an injury or if
there is adamage to property (including vehicles) whose owner is not
present at the scene of the incident.

I don't think everyone will necessarily be aware that if you collide
with a careless cyclist and he says "I'm all right, I'm not hurt and
don't worry it was my fault" you should still call at the nearest
convenient police station and report the accident.

"Should" or "must"?

It's an important lesson, then.

"Don't represent yourself in court when potentially facing a serious and
drastic penalty"?

I'd say so.

A good lawyer could have gotten a NCTA out of those facts.

On 29/11/2016 12:33, Nick wrote:
On 28/11/2016 23:28, MrCheerful wrote:

The "report to the police" bit only applies where there is an injury to
a third party, OR where the owner / keeper / driver of one of the
vehicles is not present.

In a case where all the drivers are present and where everyone says they
are uninjured, there is no requirement to report the collision to the
police.

The guy defended himself and it sounds like he made a guilty plea.

I actually quoted the wrong bit it should be rule 287.

+++
If another person is injured and you do not produce your insurance
certificate at the time of the crash to a police officer or to anyone
having reasonable grounds to request it, you MUST

report it to the police as soon as possible and in any case within 24 hours
produce your insurance certificate for the police within seven days.
+++

I don't see where you get guilty plea from? The guy clearly realised it
was a serious collision when he advised the cyclist to go to hospital.

Its pretty obvious that if the law didn't exist driver's would try to
avoid giving insurance details by intimidating the injured party or by
claiming that they didn't think they had to.

The law is clear, it is sensible, this driver was clearly guilty.

Not so.

The only tipping factor here which might have made the accident
reportable was an injury to the cyclist (or anyone else, though that
appears not to be an issue).

If cyclist's position at the scene was that he was not injured, and if
that is what he represented to others, the incident was not reportable.
It might have been a good idea to report it anyway, but not a legal
requirement.

The whole case turns on whether the driver knew (not suspected, or
feared) that there had been an injury. And indeed, on whether there had
been an injury caused as part of the accident.

On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 02:19:59 -0000, Phil Lee wrote:

"James Wilkinson Sword" considered Mon, 28 Nov
2016 21:38:50 -0000 the perfect time to write:

On Mon, 28 Nov 2016 21:22:34 -0000, tim... wrote:


"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Mon, 28 Nov 2016 19:27:03 -0000, tim...
wrote:


"Judith" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Nov 2016 09:11:02 +0000, MrCheerful

wrote:

http://www.pendletoday.co.uk/news/cy...t-it-1-8256230


Has the cyclist been prosecuted yet?

Going through a red light.
Lying to the police (is that actually an offence? - I don't know)

Leaving the scene of accident where a person is injured is an offence,
it's
irrelevant that you think the other person caused the incident

Since when was it compulsory to help someone? If I see someone fall off a
cliff, I don't have to report it.

OK OK, I should have said

Leaving the scene of an automobile accident which involved you ...

But I rather took that as read as it was implicit in the article

An automobile accident which was **my fault**, I should do something about it. Otherwise, no.

Then it may be justifiably assumed to be your fault, even if it
actually wasn't.
And before you go screaming about "innocent until proven guilty", that
only in criminal court. In civil cases (where liability for
compensation is decided, which may have an effect on your future
insurance premiums far in excess of any financial consequences imposed
by the criminal courts), the standard of proof is "on the balance of
probability" and your actions in fleeing the scene are likely to
damage your case beyond redemption.
People who flee the scene are _probably_ (as in, statistically likely)
trying to hide something (usually that they were ****ed as a fart when
it happened).

Or just driving off because it's clear they played no part in causing it.

--
G.A.Y. - Got Aids Yet?

On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 12:33:53 -0000, Nick wrote:

On 28/11/2016 23:28, MrCheerful wrote:

The "report to the police" bit only applies where there is an injury to
a third party, OR where the owner / keeper / driver of one of the
vehicles is not present.

In a case where all the drivers are present and where everyone says they
are uninjured, there is no requirement to report the collision to the
police.

The guy defended himself and it sounds like he made a guilty plea.

I actually quoted the wrong bit it should be rule 287.

+++
If another person is injured and you do not produce your insurance
certificate at the time of the crash to a police officer or to anyone
having reasonable grounds to request it, you MUST

report it to the police as soon as possible and in any case within 24 hours
produce your insurance certificate for the police within seven days.
+++

I don't see where you get guilty plea from? The guy clearly realised it
was a serious collision when he advised the cyclist to go to hospital.

Its pretty obvious that if the law didn't exist driver's would try to
avoid giving insurance details by intimidating the injured party or by
claiming that they didn't think they had to.

The law is clear, it is sensible, this driver was clearly guilty.

The cyclist injured himself, the driver advised him to go to hospital, the driver doesn't need to do anything else.

--
A weekend wasted is not a wasted weekend.

On 29/11/2016 21:49, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 12:33:53 -0000, Nick wrote:

On 28/11/2016 23:28, MrCheerful wrote:

The "report to the police" bit only applies where there is an injury to
a third party, OR where the owner / keeper / driver of one of the
vehicles is not present.

In a case where all the drivers are present and where everyone says
they
are uninjured, there is no requirement to report the collision to the
police.

The guy defended himself and it sounds like he made a guilty plea.

I actually quoted the wrong bit it should be rule 287.

+++
If another person is injured and you do not produce your insurance
certificate at the time of the crash to a police officer or to anyone
having reasonable grounds to request it, you MUST

report it to the police as soon as possible and in any case within 24
hours
produce your insurance certificate for the police within seven days.
+++

I don't see where you get guilty plea from? The guy clearly realised it
was a serious collision when he advised the cyclist to go to hospital.

Its pretty obvious that if the law didn't exist driver's would try to
avoid giving insurance details by intimidating the injured party or by
claiming that they didn't think they had to.

The law is clear, it is sensible, this driver was clearly guilty.

The cyclist injured himself, the driver advised him to go to hospital,
the driver doesn't need to do anything else.


Do you understand the concept of the law. You know rules that we should
follow. The law doesn't require that you understand or agree with it.

We don't *need* to follow these legal rules but bad things might happen
to us if we don't.

On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 23:27:01 -0000, Nick wrote:

On 29/11/2016 21:49, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 12:33:53 -0000, Nick wrote:

On 28/11/2016 23:28, MrCheerful wrote:

The "report to the police" bit only applies where there is an injury to
a third party, OR where the owner / keeper / driver of one of the
vehicles is not present.

In a case where all the drivers are present and where everyone says
they
are uninjured, there is no requirement to report the collision to the
police.

The guy defended himself and it sounds like he made a guilty plea.

I actually quoted the wrong bit it should be rule 287.

+++
If another person is injured and you do not produce your insurance
certificate at the time of the crash to a police officer or to anyone
having reasonable grounds to request it, you MUST

report it to the police as soon as possible and in any case within 24
hours
produce your insurance certificate for the police within seven days.
+++

I don't see where you get guilty plea from? The guy clearly realised it
was a serious collision when he advised the cyclist to go to hospital.

Its pretty obvious that if the law didn't exist driver's would try to
avoid giving insurance details by intimidating the injured party or by
claiming that they didn't think they had to.

The law is clear, it is sensible, this driver was clearly guilty.

The cyclist injured himself, the driver advised him to go to hospital,
the driver doesn't need to do anything else.


Do you understand the concept of the law. You know rules that we should
follow. The law doesn't require that you understand or agree with it.

We don't *need* to follow these legal rules but bad things might happen
to us if we don't.

The cyclist could take the reg number of the car if he wishes to make a claim. Nobody knows their insurance details, I don't even remember what company I use.

I say again, if it's (clearly) not my fault, there is no way anybody can claim, so no point in handing out details.

--
Please be bending short long rod before inserting the output firmly inwards to save health unwellness.

On Mon, 28 Nov 2016 19:27:03 -0000, "tim..." wrote:


"Judith" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 28 Nov 2016 09:11:02 +0000, MrCheerful
wrote:

http://www.pendletoday.co.uk/news/cy...t-it-1-8256230


Has the cyclist been prosecuted yet?

Going through a red light.
Lying to the police (is that actually an offence? - I don't know)

Leaving the scene of accident where a person is injured is an offence, it's
irrelevant that you think the other person caused the incident




Oh dear. Did I suggest that the person leaving the scene had not committed an
offence and should *not* have been prosecuted? No I didn't.

Did I ask if the cyclist had been prosecuted - yes I did.

Perhaps you could explain why the cyclist should not have been prosecuted.