Free Traffic Legal Advice
General discussion => The Flame Pit => Topic started by: anon1010101 on August 03, 2024, 01:51:09 pm
-
Sounds like they are trying to put the frightners on your coworker. Especially if it was them who rolled back into the van rather than the van moving forward into the car (you imply both in your description: which was it?). That also seems to be very low speed (how fast was it?), making a whiplash claim a bit dubious.
An accusation about mobile phone use without some additional evidence is unlikely to go anywhere. Where was this witness anyway?
Wait and see what happens, and whether the police do anything. If they do ask about the driver, the correct driver's details must be provided. If asked, the coworker can simply deny using their phone. One person's word against another.
P.S. A cynically minded person might see this whole thing as a cash-for-crash/insurance scam.
All of this ^^^^^
-
I tended to find, years ago, that when I had the phone on the passenger seat it was usually in the footwell by the first roundabout. Similar if it was on lap with Google maps or similar.
Clearly it was very gentle knock if an untethered phone remained in the driver's lap.
-
But that’s not what Rookie was saying.
-
Does the regulation not say hand-held?
I think Andy and I have done this recently.
The legislation says a device is to be treated as "hand held" ...if it is, or must be, held at some point whilst being used. So it's my view that if, say, a driver sets up a call before beginning to drive, then puts the phone on his lap and begins driving, and continues with the call, he has committed an offence. The phone meets the definition of hand held and he is using it whilst driving. Andy cited a similar situation, but instead of placing the phone on his lap before driving, the driver locks it in the boot and continued the call after he had set off (presumably either on loudspeaker with him shouting, or via Bluetooth or something).
The problem is the legislation does not say the phone has to be held in the hand for the offence to be made out. It simply defines what a hand held phone is and makes an offence of using it whilst driving.
I imagine it would be for a court to decide the issue and I have a suspicion they would be more likely to find against the driver in my hypothetical situation than in Andy's.
-
If the police wish to act upon any information then they would write to the registered keeper.
Who is the registered keeper, your company(you are writing on behalf of a company, yes) or perhaps this is a lease company?
If your company receives a notice from the police and you want to know how to respond then there's a forum just for you.
The problem with hypothetical questions is that the thread has the capacity to grow and grow and grow...
While nature abhors a vacuum, forums can thrive on them!
Have you submitted an accident report to your insurer?
-
What would the process be, would we more likely recieve a letter from the police asking us to declare the driver and automatically recieve a letter for whatever they decide, or are they more likely to conduct an investigation?
I know it's all hypophetical, but just looking for some tips on what the standard process on all this generally is
Thanks all
-
A court may decide a phone on a lap is being held for the purposes of the legislation as its being ‘held up’ by the driver, not supported by anything else, I wouldn’t say that was a wholly incorrect decision if they did.
Does the regulation not say hand-held?
-
A court may decide a phone on a lap is being held for the purposes of the legislation as its being ‘held up’ by the driver, not supported by anything else, I wouldn’t say that was a wholly incorrect decision if they did.
Maybe trying not to drop the phone impacted their ability to use the pedals correctly, doesn’t seem a very safe option to me.
I’m guessing the other driver though he was on the phone as he kept looking down at it, or maybe as he had it in his hand right after the collision to get out?
-
I'd be interested to know where this "independent witness" was and how they gave their details to the 3rd party... on a motorway.
-
It was moving off from stopped traffic speeds apparently, so sub 5mph easily
The way he described it was that he crept forward, maybe a bit too hasty, and before he realised it they were rolling back rather than moving forward so he sharply breaked but it was too late and they collided, I'd honestly say the accident may have been more his fault than theirs from my pov on how it's been described to me, or both slightly at fault, but I know he's more worried about the mobile phone claim - apparently it's an "independent witness"
-
Whiplash injury is very unlikely at speeds under 15mph according to a forme Met Police traffic officer I used to know.
-
Sounds like they are trying to put the frightners on your coworker. Especially if it was them who rolled back into the van rather than the van moving forward into the car (you imply both in your description: which was it?). That also seems to be very low speed (how fast was it?), making a whiplash claim a bit dubious.
An accusation about mobile phone use without some additional evidence is unlikely to go anywhere. Where was this witness anyway?
Wait and see what happens, and whether the police do anything. If they do ask about the driver, the correct driver's details must be provided. If asked, the coworker can simply deny using their phone. One person's word against another.
P.S. A cynically minded person might see this whole thing as a cash-for-crash/insurance scam.
-
A bit of a weird one,
Coworker took the van on a site visit, and on the way back, went into the back of someone up a steep hill on the motorway in stop/start traffic.
No dash cam footage, the other person in the car had a passenger.
They phoned up an hour or so later to the office for the specific insurance details (that the coworker didn't know, but provided the policy provider, our details etc), which were passed along to them
They phoned back another hour or so later and said that their passenger now has whiplash and they have a witness that saw the coworker on the phone - as far as they implied, no physical evidence, but a witness and would be reporting this to the police along with their insurance.
Coworker says that's no true, phone was on his lap with audio sat nav directions as the van didn't have a car mount and their was a diversion in place when he set off.
And he went into the back of them because they rolled back slightly as they took their handbrake/breaks off to move off.
How does this work? We've notified insurance, but how will the police get involved now normally? Do they just issue a Section notice or do they do a full on investigation etc.