blonde poker forum

My missus had a crash this morning, everyone involved is fine, she went into the back of someone who had to stop abruptly, because someone very quickly pulled out in front of him, then drove off after seeing the accident.

An RAC roadside assistant saw the accident, I dont have all the details, but he said it was the car that drove off that caused the accident.

Personally I am not bothered whose fault it is.

The problem is, that a woman on the side of the road told the person who she crashed into that my missus was on the phone at the time. I know she would never use her phone while driving, and she swears she wasnt using it. Also I am sure the call records etc would prove this. I believe her 100%.

This not only puts her in a difficult position insurance wise, it is also the sort of thing that could get her in serious trouble. Its one of those things that is very hard to prove or disprove, but is the sort of thing that sticks like mud in these sort of disputes.

Just wondering what the best course of action would be to 'clear her name' so to speak. The other person involved said 'don't worry I wont tell anyone' but that is hardly concrete.

Again, not worried about the claim itself as such, it usually ends up being the person behinds fault no matter how unavoidable it was, just dont want her to get in any trouble.

Anyone got any experience of tricky claims like this?

Friend of mine had a tricky claim where someone claimed he wasn't wearing his seat belt.

By sticking to the 'yes I was' defence he was fine.

Just tell your mrs to stick to 'no I wasn't on the phone' and she'll be fine.

Unless it can be proved she wasn't there's nothing anybody can do.

Sorry but the person who hits from behind is almost always at fault by virtue of driving to close.  

Also never believe anyone who says "I won't tell" - their no claims is on the line and they clearly weren't at fault, either the driver who pulled out or your wife was.

This.

This but, like Doubleup said, she'd F'ed as she was too close to the other car so she will get hit for that I would think.

Whether she was on the phone is obv easily proven through call history and eye-witnesses are notoriously unreliable so the other person won't be believed anyways.

Just looking at the time on your phone is illegal while driving, call history etc is irrelevant. 

Btw not scaremongering Barry just can't see it being an issue, just let the insurance sort it.

Really not going to be an issue

Third party would have to prove.

Just counter with you saw her using a vibrator when it happened

Thanks all, that put my mind at ease. Like most have said, I think we are screwed as its almost always the car behind who is liable, its just the worry about her getting into some bigger trouble for the false phone witness lady that had my mind racing.

Tsk women drivers

it can be proved from phone records if it comes to that but i would not worry at all.

Utter bollocks.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/2695/regulation/2/made

Amendment of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986

2.  The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986(1) are amended by inserting after regulation 109—

“Mobile telephones

110.—(1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a road if he is using—

(a)a hand-held mobile telephone; or

(b)a hand-held device of a kind specified in paragraph (4).

(2) No person shall cause or permit any other person to drive a motor vehicle on a road while that other person is using—

(a)a hand-held mobile telephone; or

(b)a hand-held device of a kind specified in paragraph (4).

(3) No person shall supervise a holder of a provisional licence if the person supervising is using—

(a)a hand-held mobile telephone; or

(b)a hand-held device of a kind specified in paragraph (4),

at a time when the provisional licence holder is driving a motor vehicle on a road.

(4) A device referred to in paragraphs (1)(b), (2)(b) and (3)(b) is a device, other than a two-way radio, which performs an interactive communication function by transmitting and receiving data.

(5) A person does not contravene a provision of this regulation if, at the time of the alleged contravention—

(a)he is using the telephone or other device to call the police, fire, ambulance or other emergency service on 112 or 999;

(b)he is acting in response to a genuine emergency; and

(c)it is unsafe or impracticable for him to cease driving in order to make the call (or, in the case of an alleged contravention of paragraph (3)(b), for the provisional licence holder to cease driving while the call was being made).

(6) For the purposes of this regulation—

(a)a mobile telephone or other device is to be treated as hand-held if it is, or must be, held at some point during the course of making or receiving a call or performing any other interactive communication function;

(b)a person supervises the holder of a provisional licence if he does so pursuant to a condition imposed on that licence holder prescribed under section 97(3)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (grant of provisional licence);

(c)“interactive communication function” includes the following:

(i)sending or receiving oral or written messages;

(ii)sending or receiving facsimile documents;

(iii)sending or receiving still or moving images; and

(iv)providing access to the internet;

(d)“two-way radio” means any wireless telegraphy apparatus which is designed or adapted—

(i)for the purpose of transmitting and receiving spoken messages; and

(ii)to operate on any frequency other than 880 MHz to 915 MHz, 925 MHz to 960 MHz, 1710 MHz to 1785 MHz, 1805 MHz to 1880 MHz, 1900 MHz to 1980 MHz or 2110 MHz to 2170 MHz; and

(e)“wireless telegraphy” has the same meaning as in section 19(1) of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949(2).”



Should you fail to see why i said utter bollocks then perhaps you should find a news article reporting on a court of law judgement helpful. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1220999/Jimmy-Carr-gets-phone-driving-charge-Mr-Loophole-tells-court-He-telling-joke.html


Sandy

Was always led to believe it was the case, http://www.motorlawyers.co.uk/offences/mobile_phone.htm  (second from bottom)

I wouldn't want anyone who issues that advice helping me. The fees for a specialist seem quite cheap, perhaps this is why.

10.—(1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a road if he is using

(a)a hand-held mobile telephone; or

(b)a hand-held device of a kind specified in paragraph (4).

(6) For the purposes of this regulation—

(a)a mobile telephone or other device is to be treated as hand-held if it is, or must be, held at some point during the course of making or receiving a call or performing any other interactive communication function;



I dare say people have been convicted (or accepted 3 points and £60) just for appearing to hold a phone, check the time etc. However they didn't use the law to defend themselves properly. The law is clear. You must be making a call or using an interactive function. Holding it or looking at the time is neither.

Sandy

Best idea would be to speak to someone with experience in the industy...  (http://blondepoker.com/forum/index.php?topic=36262.0)

Unless you have the details of the car who drove away it will get settled 50/50.  If the RAC guy wasn't there then it would almost def go down as a fault claim for your wife.  They can't prove your wife was/wasn't on the phone and wouldn't even bother trying for a bump.

Naturally I am now the taxi to work and back for her now, but hasnt all been a pain. When I fetched her yesterday, I had a chat with her boss who told me a very funny story of a crash he had.

He has a very bad reputation as a food hoover at work, nobody can leave any grub lying around when he is in the office. He was apparently driving along trying to stuff a McDonalds down his gullet at the same time, when he went into the back of another car. He got out the car and the woman in front accused him of not paying attention, he retorted back that she stopped way to quick for it to be avoidable, she said she saw him eating while he was driving, which he denied. Until she pointed out he had a large piece of Fillet of Fish stuck to his ear.

No idea why, but the fact he has ginger hair makes it funnier to me.

It's the fact its a fillet of fish that makes me laugh. who would order that?

yes that also adds an element of comedy to it for some reason