Road Traffic Act 1988 s.170

As soon as your car is involved in an accident you need to take the following steps to ensure you do not break the law. Your duties are to stop, to give information, in some cases to produce your insurance certificate and in some cases to report the accident to the police

Preconditions

If, as a driver, you are involved in a road-traffic accident and one or more of the following occurs :

a) a person, other than yourself, is injured,

b) damage is caused to another vehicle or to someone else’s property,

c) an animal has been killed or injured, except in your own vehicle or trailer (an ‘animal’ is defined as ‘any horse, cattle, ass, mule, sheep, pig, goat or dog’)

Requirements

You must:

a) stop and remain at the scene for a reasonable period

b) give your vehicle registration number, your name and address, and that of the vehicle owner (if different), to anyone with reasonable grounds for asking for those details

c) If you do not exchange those details at the scene, you must report the accident at a police station or to a police constable as soon as you can, and in any case within 24 hours.

Further requirement in injury cases

Where injury is caused to another person, then in addition to the above you must also:

a) Produce your certificate of insurance, if anyone at the scene has reasonable grounds to see it. If you do not, you must report the accident at a police station or to a constable as soon as you can and in any case within 24 hours. You’ll need to produce your certificate of insurance. If you don’t have your certificate of insurance when reporting the accident to the police, you may take it to the police station you nominate when you report the incident. You must do this within seven days of the accident.

Offences

A failure to comply with these obligations can mean two offences are being committed: failing to stop and failing to report. It is possible to be guilty of either or both. The penalties for each offence include a maximum fine of £5,000, five to ten penalty points. The court also has the power to disqualify you from driving for either offence and is likely to do so when both offences are committed on the same occasion. Failing to stop or report an accident carries a maximum of six months’ imprisonment.

Even if there was no personal injury involved, if someone holds you responsible for the accident, they have the right to request your insurance details. This request can be made later; it does not necessarily have to be at the time of the accident. A failure to provide that information without a reasonable excuse is also an offence.

Practical advice

1. Provided you comply with the requirements to stop, exchange information and in injury cases to produce your insurance, there is no automatic obligation to report an accident to the police.

2. Accordingly it is wise to keep your insurance certificate in the vehicle.

3. Reporting the accident to the police by telephone is not sufficient and you cannot ask someone else to report for you.

4. You’re obliged to do these things not only when you are directly involved in an accident, but also if your vehicle’s ‘presence’ was a factor.

5. If you hit a cat or wild animal, there is no obligation to report it, but you must ensure that the animal is not injured or suffering. If so, it is good practice to contact the RSPCA.

6. If you have any doubts as to whether the preconditions apply, we advise you to complete the above steps as soon as the accident happens, regardless of who was at fault.

Further practical advice

7. Call 999 (112 from most mobiles) immediately if

*
any of the people involved are in need of urgent medical attention; (ask for an ambulance)
*
the road is blocked or damaged; (ask for the police)
*
someone leaves the scene without exchanging details; (ask for the police)
*
there is a hazard including risk of fire from leaking petrol
*
any suspicion that the other driver may be intoxicated through drink or drugs

8. Make sure you have the full names and addresses of the other parties involved, their vehicle registration numbers (together with make, model and colour) and the the names, addresses and policy numbers of their insurance companies.

9. Make sure you have the full names and addresses of any eye-witnesses involved (including all passengers), and their vehicle registration numbers (together with make, model and colour).

11. Always keep an accident pack in the car. This should consist of a notebook, pen and camera, or your mobile phone if this takes pictures. In the event of an accident, make a sketch at the scene. Remember to note as many details as you can such as street names, vehicle locations and direction of travel, skid marks, collision points and vehicle damage. Use the camera to take photos showing the road layout, position of vehicles and their damage (take care near busy roads).

12. Record any other details you think may be important eg. use of mobile phone, if you think the driver of the other vehicle has been drinking, weather conditions etc.

13. Make a note of, and tell your insurers about any statement made at the scene by any of the parties or witnesses. Do not discuss whose fault it was. If you do, you could create problems for you and your insurers in the handling of your claim. Do not admit liability under any circumstances.

14. This rule applies not just at the scene of the accident but also if you receive a telephone call from the other driver or his insurer after the accident.In general terms you should avoid speaking with the insurer of the negligent driver after the accident and should seek assistance from your insurance company and/or a solicitor in responding to any correspondence you might receive.

15. It will also be a condition of your insurance policy that you report the accident to your insurance company within a reasonable time, even if you do not want to claim yourself. A failure to do so can give your insurance company the right to refuse to cover you. You should report all accidents to the insurance company, whether reportable or not.

Making a claim for compensation

16. Following an accident for which you were not to blame, you are entitled to be put back into the position that you were at immediately before the accident occurred. This means that you have the right to replacement transport, the right to have your vehicle repaired to its pre-accident condition, the right to claim compensation for any loss in the value of your vehicle arising from the accident damage and the right to make a claim for personal injury to recompense you for pain and suffering arising from any personal injury sustained by you. We can advise and assist you with all of these losses.

17. You should bear in mind that, in bringing any claim for compensation, you are under a common law duty to mitigate which means that you are expected to keep resultant losses and expenses to a reasonable amount. That act of mitigation does not mean you have to suffer or make do.

18. Finally, wherever possible, you should retain receipts for items of expenditure that you incur and for which you might wish to reclaim from the negligent driver. If you wish to claim for incidental expenses – telephone calls made and letters sent, for example – then you need to keep a record of these events

Jeremy Scott

Gordon Williams, a painter and decorator from Ceredigion, Wales, was recently fined £30 for smoking in his work van. His wife paid the fine for fear of it rising to £50, as threatened in the penalty ticket.

Many of you will be familiar with the smoke-free laws that apply in the UK. Indeed, although it is a controversial subject, most people agree that workers should not be exposed to other people’s smoke. However, it seems that Mr Williams was travelling alone and therefore the only person’s health that was suffering was his own.

Thankfully, the Welsh Assembly has provided people in Mr Williams’ position with a lifeline. The regulations made by the Assembly clearly state that a vehicle does not need to be smoke-free if it is not used for work purposes by more than one person. In other words, if Mr Williams can show that he is the only worker that uses that vehicle, then he is allowed to smoke in it and does not need to display no smoking signs. It does not matter if other people use the van for non-work purposes, such as his wife being carried as a passenger. Identical provisions from the Secretary of State for Health apply in England.

Mr Williams has stated that he will be appealing the penalty ticket despite paying it. We urge him to challenge his local authority in order to curb the ticket-happy council officials who issue them without exercising common sense, and whose only response is “You can appeal”.

Robert Ward is a solicitor with roadtrafficlawdirect.com. He has worked in law for over 8 years and specialises in defending motorists.

Much debate surrounds the new sentencing guidelines that have been introduced in respect of certain driving offences where death has been the unfortunate result. Whilst some action groups have welcomed the new sentencing guidelines for these sorts of offences, others consider, for example, that a maximum of 7 years imprisonment for motorists who read or write text messages if they cause death is manifestly excessive.

The Sentencing Guidelines Council makes reference to four different types of offences, one of which is causing death by dangerous driving. According to the guidelines, prolonged, persistent and deliberate bad driving and consumption of substantial amounts of drugs or alcohol should put offenders into the most serious category of this type of offence and be given jail terms of at least 7 years.

If this is accompanied by aggravating factors, failing to stop or a very bad driving record, then the guidelines stipulate that this should attract sentences towards the maximum of 14 years.

The Council suggests that where death occurs as a result if careless driving a sentence of up to 3 years imprisonment is likely, however this sentence should be increased should any aggravating factors be present. Should the driving involve “momentary inattention” and there be no aggravating factors, then the motorist should be sentenced to community punishment, which could include a curfew requirement.

The guidelines also refer to the offence of causing death by careless driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The sentence is said to be reflective of the amount of alcohol consumed, so that the sentencing levels are similar to those of causing death by dangerous driving.

The guidelines suggest that for this type of offence, a custodial sentence of up to three years is likely, with higher sentences where there is a combination of aggravating factors. However, where the driving involved “momentary inattention” and there were no aggravating factors, an offender should be given a community sentence, which could include a curfew requirement.

In circumstances where death results for an offence involving a driving unlicensed, qualified or uninsured motorist, a maximum sentence of two years can be imposed. The level of seriousness will be based on the reasons why the motorist should not have been on the road. Driving while disqualified is considered to be the most serious and the starting point is that at 12 months imprisonment.

In all cases fines are not likely to be appropriate and where non-custodial sentences are considered appropriate, a community order should be used.

At present there is no specific charge for situations in which a person has been seriously injured as a result of a driver driving either dangerously or carelessly.

The guidelines apply to anyone sentenced on or after 4th August 2008.

Shaheen Mansoor is a Solicitor with roadtrafficlawdirect.com and has specialised in crime for five years.

Until recently, Scarborough has benefited from the former North Yorkshire Chief Constable’s policy not to introduce fixed speed cameras anywhere in the county. However, the new Chief Constable is, as yet, undecided on whether to introduce fixed speed cameras into North Yorkshire. If he does, they may well be introduced in Scarborough and on the surrounding main roads such as the A64, A165 and A171.

Speed cameras, which are officially known as road safety cameras, have been controversial. Speed cameras have many opponents but also many supporters.

It is not known what the general feeling of the people of Scarborough is towards speed cameras, although we are confident that the issue will be divisive.

We call upon the Police and the Council to consult with the people of Scarborough before introducing speed cameras in and around the town.

A point that must be raised is that the introduction of speed cameras on the A64, A165 or A171 seems a little pointless as it is rare that motorists are ever given the opportunity to exceed the speed limit on these roads near Scarborough due to the roads being single carriageway and the traffic being slowed by HGVs and agricultural vehicles. If anything, a speed camera by the side of these roads would simply be another obstacle that poses a threat to motorists if they leave the carriageway in poor weather conditions that blight North Yorkshire.

Also, it has been proven that flashing road signs that warn a driver who is going too fast are more effective. For example, in a trial on the M42, these signs showed both a greater number of cars slowing down and those that slowed remained at a lower speed for longer, compared to a speed camera sign. We urge the Police and the Council to introduce flashing road signs as an alternative to speed cameras in Scarborough.

If you have any questions in relation to speed cameras in and around Scarborough, please contact us on 0808 160 5016.

We are sure you all devotedly abide by the speed restrictions in place on our roads. However, some of you may find yourself in the position that you receive a fixed penalty, or are being taken to court, for going too fast on a road where the speed limit was not clear.

You therefore need to know what the law says about speed limit signs. Thankfully, the law is comprehensive on this subject. Unfortunately, this means the law is also ridiculously complex, so we will try to keep it simple.

Speed limits must be clearly recognisable for the obvious reason that you cannot stay within the limit if you do not know what it is.

Speed limit signs must comply with the measurement requirements laid down by law, to ensure that they are clearly readable by road users. If these legal requirements are not met, the speed limit is unenforceable and therefore any speeding ticket or prosecution for speeding should be dropped.

Speed limit signs at the beginning of the restriction must generally be illuminated during the hours of darkness and all the repeater signs should then be illuminated or be reflective.

Generally, changes in speed limits must be identified by the use of a large speed limit sign on each side of the carriageway (subject to exceptions regarding roads turning onto and off the road that the speed restriction applies to).

On 30mph roads with street lighting, large 30mph speed limit signs on each side of the carriageway will be sufficient if they are as close as practicable to the first street lamp. On 30mph roads without street lighting, there must be a large 30mph speed limit sign placed on each side of the carriageway at the beginning of the restriction with small repeater signs at regular intervals along the route.

On 40mph roads, 50mph roads and 60mph dual carriageways, large speed limit signs must be placed at the beginning of the restriction on each side of the carriageway with small repeater signs at regular intervals along the carriageway.

On 60mph single carriageways and 70mph dual carriageways without street lighting, large national speed limit signs (a black diagonal strip against a white background) must be placed on each side of the carriageway at the beginning of the restriction but repeater signs are not required.

On 60mph single carriageways and 70mph dual carriageways that have street lighting large national speed limit signs (a black diagonal strip against a white background) must be placed on each side of the carriageway at the beginning of the restriction, but they must also have small repeater signs at regular intervals.

Amazingly, there are numerous roads throughout the country where the speed limits are unclear because the above laws are not complied with. For example, in March 2008 Simon Grills successfully had a prosecution dropped by Essex Police for speeding past the most lucrative camera in England, the M11 Southbound camera near Woodford. Why? The light on the large 50mph speed limit sign was broken therefore motorists at night could not see the change in speed limit. The only way these errors will be corrected is if conscientious riders and drivers challenge tickets and prosecutions.

For further information please telephone 0808 160 5016.

The growth in the number of speed cameras deployed since the early 1990s has caused a great deal of controversy. More recently, the use of mobile speed cameras to supplement the use of fixed and hand held cameras has caused even greater controversy. A very worrying recent development is the deployment of hidden mobile cameras, as seen recently in North Wales, infamously policed by Richard Brunstrom. For those of you who might not be aware, Richard Brunstrom is the Chief Constable of North Wales Police, and was Head of Road Policing of the Association of Chief Police Officers until 2005 when he was ousted after protests from other Chief Constables.

It might be thought that the police and safety camera partnerships can place such cameras wherever they please. However, there are laws and guidance governing both the visibility of speed enforcement cameras as well as the signs which are necessary to warn drivers about speed cameras.

It is crucial to grasp the difference between the law on the one hand, and guidance on the other. Should the police fail to abide by the law when setting up a particular camera, it is likely that any evidence from that camera will be inadmissible, and not allowed in to Court. However, if the guidance is not complied with, the rule of thumb is that this will not necessarily provide a defence, and the police will be able to use the evidence from that camera in Court.

An example of the law applying to speed cameras is the legal requirement that they must be of a type approved for use by the Home Secretary. Whilst the most (in)famous is the GATSO, in its many different forms, there are now a number of devices approved for speed limit, red light and bus lane enforcement.  It is expected that enforcement cameras will be developed shortly to police no overtaking zones. If a particular type of camera is not approved, then evidence from the camera could not  be used  against you in Court.

Government Ministers, under public pressure, have now conceded that cameras should be visible to those they are seeking to catch. The guidance requires speed cameras to be yellow, if on a road with street lighting, and reflective yellow, if on an unlit road. The guidance also requires that a mobile enforcement vehicle should be identifiable as an enforcement vehicle to riders. The guidance further requires both fixed and mobile cameras to be visible from the rider’s viewpoint from at least 60 metres away if the speed limit is 40mph or less, or from 100 metres away for all higher limits.  Safety camera partnerships have not so far undertaken hidden camera enforcement but it is clear that the police have, certainly in the Conwy Valley in North Wales.

Unfortunately, these rules on camera visibility are only in the guidance, not the law. Therefore, any wronged biker will face an uphill struggle to persuade the Court that the evidence from the speed camera should be thrown out. However this is possible, especially if it can be shown to the Court that it would be unfair to admit such evidence.

There are a number of legal requirements relating to signage. Speed camera zones must be clearly signposted. Also, camera signs must be either illuminated (in the hours of darkness) or reflectorised. Camera signs and speed limit signs must comply with the measurement requirements laid down by law.  These are legal requirements (law), and any failure to abide by the requirements  will cause the police problems, as any challenge should result in the Court not accepting the evidence.

Speed camera signs should appear together with the speed limit signs, where permitted and practicable. This is called co-location.  Co-located signs on the same post should have the speed limit sign above the camera sign. Alternatively, the two signs may appear on the same board provided that the board is rectangular, has yellow or grey backing and that it does not have a border. Co-located signs can be on different posts provided that they are on the same side of the carriageway and both can be seen in the same view as the fixed camera by the rider. In addition, camera signs should be placed at intervals of around 1km throughout the route. Again, these are guidelines rather than legal requirements. As a result, it can be difficult to use them to have evidence thrown out but the police or CPS may drop the case in light of the breach of the guidelines.

The actual location of speed cameras is also governed by guidance. There are complex rules for sighting cameras, which run to many pages. However, it is always worth investigating whether a camera complies with the guidance because a wrongly placed camera may lead to the police dropping the case, or possibly the evidence being ruled inadmissible.

Whilst the guidance might be difficult to get to grips and  complex, and whilst it might not always be clear what the police should and should not be doing to comply with the guidance, what is now abundantly clear is that there is great scope to challenge speed camera evidence on the grounds of visibility, signage and location. Should you receive a notice of intended prosecution, fixed penalty notice or summons, you should carefully consider this and seek specialist legal advice, you could be pleasantly surprised at the outcome. The government rely for their revenue on riders blindly accepting the penalty or fine, whereas a challenge can often lead to a not guilty verdict, the case being thrown out or the prosecution being dropped.

For further information please telephone 0808 160 5016.

In 2004, Leeds’ A65 road from Kirkstall to Rawdon was fitted with numerous speed cameras in an effort to reduce the number of crashes and deaths that had occurred on the road. Official figures reveal that from 1997 to 2003, 90 crashes occurred, which caused 12 fatalities or near fatalities together with numerous serious and slight injuries. There are now 14 GATSO speed cameras on this stretch of road which is approximately 6 miles long. The speed cameras, which the Police insist are called safety cameras, are controversial and therefore their ability to make that stretch of road safer must be examined.

The West Yorkshire Casualty Reduction Partnership has released the figures for personal injury collisions and the number of people killed or seriously injured for each year from 1998 to 2007 for each of the cameras on that stretch of road.

It has been claimed that the speed cameras in Leeds make the roads safer. However, we have to raise the following points when considering how useful the speed cameras in Leeds are:

* Speed cameras only check one speed limit and therefore vehicles that have a lower speed limit than cars, for example HGVs, are not subject to enforcement using speed cameras. We believe most people would consider that a 44 tonne articulated lorry going 10mph over their speed limit is more serious than a small car going 10 mph over their speed limit.

* Speed cameras focus solely on speed. They do not prevent or detect other road traffic offences that are relevant to safety. For example, a driver could commit dangerous driving by overtaking in a dangerous place on the A65 in Leeds but, providing the speed camerais not triggered due to the driver’s excessive speed, they would not be caught. The number and short distance between each of these speed cameras on the A65 in Leeds will force drivers to focus more on their speedometer in fear of breaching the speed limit and less on what is happening on the road. They may notnotice other drivers undertaking unusual manoeuvres or indeed pedestrians, including children, crossing the road. This cannot make the A65 in Leeds any safer.

* Drivers who are aware of the intense speed camera enforcement on the A65 in Leeds may choose other routes to avoid the speed cameras. This may be based on a desire to drive faster than the speed limit and therefore avoid the speed cameras, or possibly drivers may be nervous with so many speed cameras and prefer a more relaxed route. Either way, it is likely that traffic will be deterred from this main route that it is suitable for fairly heavy traffic onto less suitable suburban roads.

We do not know if the speed cameras on the A65 in Leeds make that road any safer but we can be certain that they will not be removed any time soon.

The Road Safety Act 2006 was passed by Parliament in November 2006 and has come into force in stages since then.

The Act is an attempt by the Government to reduce accidents and make the roads safer. It creates, amongst other things, a new offence of causing death by driving unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured, which carries up to 2 years imprisonment. There is also an offence of causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving which is punishable by a maximum sentence of 5 years imprisonment. For the first time, criminal liability will attach to a driver’s momentary lapse of attention where it causes the death of another person.

Other important changes which drivers need to be aware of include:
An increase in the maximum penalty for careless driving from £2,500 – £5,000

The introduction of a 6 point fixed penalty notice for speeding, to be used in cases too serious for a 3 point fixed penalty notice but not serious enough for the matter to go to court.

Drink-drivers will not necessarily get their licence back following a period of disqualification.

The penalty for using a hand-held mobile phone at the wheel has increased from a fixed penalty of £30 to a fixed penalty of £60 and now attracts 3 penalty points.

Penalty points can mean an increase in your insurance costs. Also,  you do not have to be caught many times travelling just over the speed limit or using your phone before you face a driving ban of at least 6 months. In fact, if you accrue just 6 points in the first two years after passing your test you will lose your licence.

If you are summonsed to Court for a driving matter which carries the possibility of disqualification, obtaining timely advice and representation from a lawyer specialising in road traffic matters could mean the difference between keeping your licence or losing it.

If you are an employer, you can be prosecuted if you require employees to make or receive mobile phone calls whilst driving. The new offence of corporate manslaughter focuses attention on the health and safety obligations of employers. It is extremely important that employers familiarise themselves with the Road Traffic Act and implement company policies concerning the use of mobile phones and safe speeds.

If you require advice or representation in connection with any road traffic matter please do not hesitate to contact our team of qualified road traffic specialists, headed by Jeremy Scott on 0808 160 5016. In most cases free initial advice can be given and we always offer transparency and certainty with regard to the likely fees for  advice and representation.

In 1986, in a small town in Texas, the first speed camera ticket was issued. Now, over 20 years later, speed cameras may be coming to York. Steve Galloway, the Lib Dem leader of City of York Council, is putting pressure on North Yorkshire Police to introduce them at accident blackspots.

The move, as reported in the York Evening Press on 30 August 2007, comes as a result of a change in the leadership of North Yorkshire Police. The previous Chief Constable opposed the highly controversial enforcement devices but the view of the new Chief Constable, Grahame Maxwell, is unknown.

Refreshingly, Adam Briggs, Deputy Chief Constable of North Yorkshire Police, in charge of road policing, said: “Speed cameras are on the agenda but I would want to consult with the community before any decisions are taken.”

The question has to be asked: Do the people of York want speed cameras?

You will see some of the arguments for and against the use of speed cameras outlined below.

I am not suggesting that I have the answer but it is certain that the issue raises many questions.