NIP and summons on the same day!!!

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Can I ask you if there are regulations for push bikes or other non mechanically propelled vehicles like skateboards that would be the same?

If a pedal cycle or skateboard is in collision with a car then S170 would only apply to the car driver :crazy:

Unfortunately there is no requirement by law for bicycles/skateboards etc to be registered and/or have insurance on the roads (admittedly skateboards should never be on the road but the pavements are generally included as part of the highway) - so they do not have to comply with this part of the RTA.

In cases where a collision between a car and a bicycle occur - and the pedal cyclist was at fault, the car driver should pursue for damages through the civil courts unless there is evidence the cyclist had been riding dangerously/carelessly/inconsiderately and as such the police (hopefully) would build a case for the CPS to decide on.

Hope this helps!

Mark
 
I never knew you had to report damage to someone elses animal. I thought if you ran over a dog you could carry on driving if you fealt like it.

Interesting question though, if you wish to call the police do you ring 999 or is there another number to call?

Only certain animals. You can run over the cat, guinea pig, pet rat, parrot etc with impunity. Quoting from UnMarked's copy of the RTA:

(8) In this section "animal" means horse, cattle, ass, mule, sheep, pig, goat or dog.

I recall some conversation on this on whether you should try to stop if an animal runs out in front of you even if you thereby run the risk of causing another accident - I seem to recall that if it was an animal in the list above you should try to stop but otherwise your erratic driving in trying to avoid the animal can count against you for insurance/liability purposes. Anyone else remember something like that? I'm sure I've got it wrong somewhere because it sounds bizarre.
 
Only certain animals. You can run over the cat, guinea pig, pet rat, parrot etc with impunity. Quoting from UnMarked's copy of the RTA:

(8) In this section "animal" means horse, cattle, ass, mule, sheep, pig, goat or dog.

I recall some conversation on this on whether you should try to stop if an animal runs out in front of you even if you thereby run the risk of causing another accident - I seem to recall that if it was an animal in the list above you should try to stop but otherwise your erratic driving in trying to avoid the animal can count against you for insurance/liability purposes. Anyone else remember something like that? I'm sure I've got it wrong somewhere because it sounds bizarre.

Personally I wouldn't jeapordise the control of my vehicle for the sake of an animal. Unless that is the animal was very large and impacting with it would result in a very serious prang.
 
Any of the first four will kill you if you hit them hard enough ..

The car knocks their spindley legs out from under them and they come over the bonnet and through the windscreen .... quite a few people have been killed with horse / moocow collisions .....
 
If one is driving with reasonable care then they should be able to stop if they encounter an animal of any size. Would attempting to avoid a horse really mean loss of control, if so I'd be thinking about whether I was driving too close to the edge and not in control anyway.
What if it was a person.?
 
They'd just bounce over the roof , its the weight of the cow / horse that keeps them down and through the windscreen .....
 
Ah, so we should really be avoiding animals and running people down willy nilly..:rolleyes:
 
I was making a ( low quality admittedly ) joke .... ;)
 
If one is driving with reasonable care then they should be able to stop if they encounter an animal of any size. Would attempting to avoid a horse really mean loss of control, if so I'd be thinking about whether I was driving too close to the edge and not in control anyway.
What if it was a person.?
Fine if the animal is stationary - but like people animals have a habit of doing stupid things, not looking, suddenly leaping out from behind parked cars, hedges etc, or in the horse case, over hedges.

Taking PXWs point, and extending it to cars, if faced with the choice between a ditch and the front wing of someone who has just decided to swerve onto your side of the road, not stop a red light etc. I've aways though it better to make some kind of contact with the other vehicle as it makes the insurance claim more straight forward. I've never been presented with this choice in practice, so don't know if I'd be able to overcome my natural reaction to avoid a collision, whilst at the same time assessing the best option with regard to injury/insurance etc.
 
As remember it W210 stated he was unaware of the exchange of paintwork until he got home so had no cause to stop.

Not being aware of an accident is a statutory defence to failure to stop or report .

It was famously used by a judge who was accused of reversing into another car in the car park outside his court - he claimed he was unaware of any collision because he had the radio on !

IIRC , he was let off with being ordered to pay for the damage to the other car .
 
Not being aware of an accident is a statutory defence to failure to stop or report .

It was famously used by a judge who was accused of reversing into another car in the car park outside his court - he claimed he was unaware of any collision because he had the radio on !

IIRC , he was let off with being ordered to pay for the damage to the other car .


Yes but the OP was aware, all be it when he got home so there for should have reported it..
 
Sounds like a genuine lack of knowledge would be a good argument to run where it's tue.
 
Last edited:
Reviving a VERY old thread...
If you're reading this - the court case already happened.

What happened in the end? (hope you don't mind me asking)

M
 
He got off. Case thrown out for procedural cockups by the authorities
(Details back a page or so)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom