Driving instructor takes out scooter

[ufkacbln]

Incorrect, there is no requirement to report it to the Police at all. There is a duty for the driver to stop and provide details.
Section 170 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 covers duties.

The Police have a different view!

If a road traffic accident/collision happened on a road or a public place and the other driver failed to stop or there are injuries then you have to report the accident to the police.

The Met Police also concur:

Road traffic collisions
Section 170 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 requires drivers/ riders to report to a police officer or police station that they have been involved in an accident involving in any of the following;

• any personal injury

• damage only, where the other driver/ rider did not stop

• damage only, where names and addresses were not exchanged with the other driver/ rider/ cyclist and any other owner of property damaged (even if the other driver stopped)

Finally the actual first paragraph of Section 170 also clearly states that:

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],

Methinks I was in fact correct

 

[Noodley]

The Police have a different view!

The Met Police also concur
Methinks I was in fact correct

The Police, The Met Police (no idea why you think they are not part of The Police) and you are all incorrect.

If you had copied and pasted section 2 and 3 you'll have seen the all-important information:
2. 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.

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

So if he stops and provides the information in 2. there is no need to report.

So, methinks I am/was in fact correct.

 

[Black Sheep]

A mirror strike is a close scrape, nothing more.

is it not the same as an elbow strike on a cyclist?

there is clearly only a single lane, driver forces his way round, police should be involved if driver won't give details.

 

[vernon]

is it not the same as an elbow strike on a cyclist?

No it's not. Hitting a mirror does not impair the human, hitting an elbow does.

Did the driver refuse to give details?

 

[rich p]

Didn't it rain this afternoon?

We had showers, sometimes heavy. I had a bath

 

[ufkacbln]

The Met Police and Ask Police are two different sources that is why they concur, bith are unequivocal in the requirement to report to the Police in case of personal injury.

I could also have quoted insurance companies:

In the case of a person suffering injury you also have an obligation to report the matter to the Police "as soon as reasonably practicable" but in any event, within 24 hours.

I will not fill the rest of the space with further quotationss, but it also appears that s that the AA, the RAC, the IAM and others are also wrong

Overwhelmingly the opinion of the whole motoring world seems to be wrong?

I think that I will take my chances and put my money on the Police, and these other sources being correct

Your interpretation is (again) I am afraid in error

The second paragraph refers to providing details, it neither states, nor infers that this replaces or supercedes the requirement to report the incident to the Police as stated in paragraph 1

The third paragraph states the action that must be taken if details are not given, and again neither replaces or supercedes the requirement to report to the Police in the case of personal injury


You can of course carry on thinking that you are correct, but it would be interesting given the weight of evidence that an accident involving personal injury requires to be reported to the Police for a single piece of evidence to support your claim that this is untrue.

In cases like this where there is a legal consequence for individuals if they follow misleading advice, your (erroneous) claims to be right are insufficient and evidence should be given

 

[Noodley]

1. I think that I will take my chances and put my money on the Police, and these other sources being correct

2. Your interpretation is (again) I am afraid in error

3. You can of course carry on thinking that you are correct

1. That's good, cos my source is the Police, having attended numerous road traffic courses at Tulliallan.
2. no, it's not
3. I shall

How many of you drive with your insurance certificate in the car?

Have a guess? Do you think I might?

 

[threebikesmcginty]

Ooh look, shiny...

 

[Accy cyclist]

The car driver was out for a confrontation,his aggressive attitude as soon as he dives out the car tells you that! He doesn't use indicators,then after the incident he pulls in abruptly in front of the scooter rider. Another of the "you don't pay road tax"morons,or in this case "you don't pay enough road tax" morons!

 

[ufkacbln]

1. That's good, cos my source is the Police, having attended numerous road traffic courses at Tulliallan.
2. no, it's not
3. I shall



Have a guess? Do you think I might?

What about posting something that verifies the claim?

Atthe moment it seems atha all the references from the Police, lawyers and motoring organisations are in my favour, we have yet to see any reference that says otherwise.

 

[ufkacbln]

The car driver was out for a confrontation,his aggressive attitude as soon as he dives out the car tells you that! He doesn't use indicators,then after the incident he pulls in abruptly in front of the scooter rider. Another of the "you don't pay road tax"morons,or in this case "you don't pay enough road tax" morons!

I firmly believe in the "not enough road tax" theory.

Whenever I get the "You don't pay road tax" I state that I have a band D and a band H vehicle, they both use more petrol than their vehicle, and were more expensive as well.... .... so I pay considerably more than they do in taxes, duty and VAT

Terefore by their own argument why are they in MY way

 

[Noodley]

What about posting something that verifies the claim?

Atthe moment it seems atha all the references from the Police, lawyers and motoring organisations are in my favour, we have yet to see any reference that says otherwise.

Apart form the actual legislation you mean?

 

[Black Sheep]

No it's not. Hitting a mirror does not impair the human, hitting an elbow does.

ok, so hitting the mirror does not cause an injury in the same way hitting the elbow does, perhaps I should have said surely hitting the mirror (mounted on the bars) is the same as hitting a cyclists handle bars.

I know when I've had my motorbike's mirrors clipped I've had to fight to regain my balance and course, in this incident it could have caused a loss of control of the scooter (looked to me although it momentarily did)

 

[vernon]

ok, so hitting the mirror does not cause an injury in the same way hitting the elbow does, perhaps I should have said surely hitting the mirror (mounted on the bars) is the same as hitting a cyclists handle bars.

I know when I've had my motorbike's mirrors clipped I've had to fight to regain my balance and course, in this incident it could have caused a loss of control of the scooter (looked to me although it momentarily did)

I've suffered a mirror strike on my motor cycle and it's a lot less destabilising than a direct hit to the handle bars. The mirror is free to rotate forwards with minimal torque transferred to the bars. A direct hit to the handle bars of a cyclist is more likely to have a catastrophic effect because of the greatly reduced moment of inertia and reduced gyroscopic stabilisation of the front wheel.

Trust me, I'm a motorcycling cyclist who happens to be an applied physical scientist.

 

[Black Sheep]

I've suffered a mirror strike on my motor cycle and it's a lot less destabilising than a direct hit to the handle bars. The mirror is free to rotate forwards with minimal torque transferred to the bars. A direct hit to the handle bars of a cyclist is more likely to have a catastrophic effect because of the greatly reduced moment of inertia and reduced gyroscopic stabilisation of the front wheel.

Trust me, I'm a motorcycling cyclist who happens to be an applied physical scientist.

I accept a hit to the handle bars is more destabilising, however you appeared earlier to be passing it off as a complete non-incident, implying it nothing more than two cars involved in a 5mph car park nudge - spot of T-cut job done kind of afair. perhaps things have been lost in reading it written down compared to a face to face discussion?