Ultimately I'm to blame, I didn't see her when I glanced over my left shoulder to reverse as she was in the blind spot, no excuses, but as i stated in the original post the distance i travelled in reverse was around 3 ft.

What does the distance covered have to do with anything?

As for a locus of cameras, the high street in question does have CCTV, I suppose I could request this based on the alleged severity of the injuries she claims for. My dash cam has also captured her walking away from the scene as well.

I'd stop worrying about this aspect if i were you, you've reported it to the old bill, even if you were late doing so they seem to be ok with you, it's now between the injured party and your insurer.

Whatever the circs of the tesco lorry, you physically touched a pedestrian on a crossing, so basically you are at fault.

If the injured person tries to milk the claim, then thats for the insurer to deal with, no doubt they have experience of injury claims and at what cost point to start more in depth investigations.

I think GB is right about most of this difficult situation. It is a very unfortunate incident with lots of contributory factors. However ultimately it comes down to hitting a pedestrian on a road crossing. Given the nature of the incident and apparent lack of serious injury I expect this to be settled by your insurer for a modest sum. You will have lost your no claims and have an increase in premium to contend with. If that is the extent of your liability in this you are quite lucky. It could have been much worse. Hitting an elderly person or a child for example. It may be, or maybe not, that at this moment this young ladies friends are urging her to exaggerate the claim for injury. This is sometimes how things are in this world. Hope it all works out well for you and her.

Cheers Concrete

Hi All, - updated today after a phone call from the a local police constable.

They want to interview me under caution for the offence of careless driving in a few weeks time. The PC was very pleasant and asked if I wanted a solicitor, which I said I did.

So, they are pursuing a prosecution here by the looks of it. Having never been in this situation before, I'm not sure whether I have a defence at all, interested to hear what others might thinking / would do under similar circumstances.

thanks P

All down to how good the solicitor is at motoring laws and procedures and then how your case is put to the Magistrates.

This is worth a read:

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/careless-driving-drive-without-due-care-and-attention-revised-2017/

as it gives you an idea of the sentences which can be given.

Nothing to do with CPS yet - Police will be putting file together to pass to CPS for decision on whether on to prosecute.

You need to discuss with your brief before the interview - you don't want to say something that makes it 'worse'.

3. You can use duty, but if you can sort your own from day 1.

Agreed - I wouldn't go into that interview under caution, because that's what it'll be, without a proper solicitor, if you can get one experienced in motoring cases, so much the better.

They'll get you to talk and incriminate yourself if you are not careful.

Agreed, less said the better.

Hello,

I am assuming after all this you have learnt to actually turn around and look behind when reversing and not just glance over your shoulder, You might also consider that as an adult she is capable of taking a few knocks, had that been a child you may very well be facing a charge of causing death by dangerous driving had that child hit their head on the pavement.

So forget about your own cctv, if it was in the front of the car it wont help you, high street cameras are usually operated by either private people or the council so you will have a job getting hold of it, also the police do not have to share squat with you or your solicitor until you have been formerly charged.

Where the police have a case is simply that this pedestrian was on a crossing, in the eyes of the law there is NO EXCUSE OR REASON for doing this, also as already stated you where travelling the wrong way in reverse so that is also against you. The fact that you have admitted wrong is in your favour, but, they are holding all the aces and you only have a pair of 2's, if you make them work for it then it will end badly for you. If they have invited you to go in for an interview I suggest you do it sooner rather then later and with a solicitor, if they have to issue a warrant for your arrest then you have already lost

Injuries to a pedestrian are not always obvious, esp internal had injuries, if she refused to go to the hospital and could walk away then I would not read too much into that, if I read your article right she had to try 3 times before she could, so that in itself tells me she had injuries that you could not see.

My advice, get the interview under caution done with a solicitor, tell the truth sticking to the facts in such a way that they feel you are not trying to hide from what happened, and hope that all you get is a fine and points.

Worst case scenario is they could get you sit an assessment test for 2 hours, or get you to resit your test from the beginning, that means theory, hazard perception and the practical.

The insurance company will wait until the case has been heard before they will act on what ever the courts decide.

I had the "treatment" once from Bedfordshire traffic ( known even then by their own colleagues as the "Black Rats").

I was trying to get to the office by J5 M1 but the M1 was blocked and stopped at J13 where I diverted onto B roads to try to get around the blockage.At an overpass with no access slips a bit further down the motorway near Ridgemont I stopped, pulled onto a wide grass verge to get off the road, got out of the driver's door intending to cross over on foot to look south down the motorway to see what was going on. As I got out of the car two things happened simultaneously - a fireman in full gear, white helmet (Station officer?), breathing apparatus etc ( it turned out it was a chemical incident) emerged from the hedge on the south side of the road having climbed up from the motorway, and a Dolomite Sprint at full chat came around the long bend across the overpass, saw the fireman and panic braked, locked it all up, slid sideways hit the kerb and rolled it onto it's side a bit further down the road. I'm stood on the kerb thinking " Sh!t - I'm glad I didn't get to crossing the road"

The two blokes climbed out of the Sprint unhurt - they were test drivers from BL Abingdon and then the black rats turned up.

The Dolomite driver had obviously told them a good tale because the plod tried to get me to admit that I had been involved. I just told them what happened but they had me follow them to Ampthill police station.for an interview.

They kept asking silly questions like "why was this mysterious fireman- climbing through the hedge?"

And I'm saying "How should I know, why don't you find him and ask him?"

After a while they could see that I just kept telling the same story - (the truth) - but they kept looking all round the firm's car for damage, there wasn't any.

So they let me carry on with my day after saying "You need to be more careful"

I let that one go as I was glad to get away from two of Bedfordshire's finest!

Thanks for the update .. wish you well for the interview.

OK - interview with the PC tomorrow, did a final check with LV - they've received nothing from the lady I bumped into. Not sure how to read that, given we are 3 months on now.

I'll update after the interview.

Appreciate the support I've received here so far.

Hi All,

Update on what's happened:

Attended the under caution interview with the PC and duty solicitor on Saturday morning. It turned out that the solicitor was himself an ex traffic police officer of over 30 years.

Prior to the interview the solicitor was shown the CCTV footage that they had, which I was not shown until I was under caution. I then explained to the solicitor the reasons I had to do what I did, i.e. reverse, thus bumping into the pedestrian. His words were that the pedestrian had some level of culpability and that out of the possible 3 outcomes, i.e. 1. No action, 2. Driver awareness course, 3. Points and a fine for careless driving, he believed that by explaining exactly what I'd done, and the reasons why, the police would be recommending the driver awareness course.

The under caution interview then took place, I was firstly shown the CCTV footage, which was a view from the Tesco store camera, directly pointing out onto the zebra crossing. What I didn't see from my dashcam footage was the fact that when I actually stopped I was 2/3 on the zebra crossing. At the point when i started to reverse that's when the pedestrian stepped onto the crossing and my car pushes her over. She was around 6 inches away from my car when she started to walk past it.

As I stated earlier in the OP, and this was confirmed by the CCTV, my car moves back around 1 metre, it also shows the fact that the pedestrian did not hit her head on my car, as she stated at the time, and in fact she lost balance and fell on her elbow. I asked to see the footage twice and stated that I hadn't realised that i was 2/3 on the crossing when the car stopped.

During the interview the PC asked me a number of times, did i drive carelessly? Or words to that effect. A number of you here stated that I should be very careful with admitting "liability", and that less is more, but my answer to this question each time was to admit that I had bumped into the pedestrian, and had i looked over my right shoulder rather than my left shoulder, then i might have seen her. But that's not what i did, so I accept that I'm at fault. I described this as an accident, that had mitigating circumstances, but that ultimately my car made contact with the pedestrian pushing her onto the floor.

I also explained that I had dash cam footage and this explained the situation with the parked Tesco vehicle, the fact the gap was closed by another vehicle and the reason why i had to reverse. The solicitor and the PC asked if they could have copies of this, and of course I agreed.

The interview lasted around 15-20 minutes in total.

After the interview was over, the PC stated that he would review the notes he had taken in order to define the outcome, and that he would be in touch once he'd seen the dashcam footage. He then stated "off the record" I shouldn't worry too much if I was you, we deal with people who are significantly more awkward and less honest than you, but of course this is off the record.

On returning home, I sent the dashcam footage off to both the police and the solicitor, and later I received an email from the PC stating that he would be talking to his Sergeant later that weekend and he would then let me know the outcome.

I received a phone call from the PC this morning, stating that whilst the pedestrian has a level of culpability, ultimately i bumped into her, causing her minor injuries and that he would be pursuing the careless driving charge, but that I would be invited to attend a driver awareness course and I would not receive a fine or points on my licence.

I stated I was very grateful that this was his decision and fully accepted that this was the right outcome in my opinion.

Letter will come in the post and we go from there. I'm not sure whether I need to inform the insurance company, anyone know?

So, I was lucky, in not causing serious injury, and I learn a lesson, and from what i hear about driver awareness courses, anything that helps to keep you learning about driving has to be a good thing.

Finally, thanks to all for the advice, encouragement, and good luck wishes, it was much appreciated.

Paul

Edited by paul45 on 11/11/2019 at 09:17

I have been following this from day 1 and am pleased that you have a good outcome. You no doubt realise that you had a copper with a degree of common sense and fair play.

A sensible and pragmatic approach. This is not always the case hence my comment from August about being in the hands of police and CPS.

The situation is similar to one a friend was in. Reversed out of a parking space. Stopped to let one person walk across back of car. Didn't see second person and 'ran them over'.

Police charge was for dangerous driving and CPS agreed. Almost three years to get to Court and high chance of prison sentence.

A few days before trial some evidence which had been asked for for almost two years prior was available and it was more than enough to kill the prosecution's case.

Without it the case could easily have gone the other way and the individual could now be inside.

Thanks for the update Paul. Quite an experience for you and all concerned. Is the lady who you collided with alright too? I hope so. It looks like this case has been subject to common sense. The facts of the incident played out on CCTV, honest accounts of actions and no silly or vindictive participants in the process. Given the circumstances could easily have led to worse outcome I think justice has been served. If the unfortunate lady is now recovered and uninjured then the whole thing has concluded well.

Cheers Concrete

Hi All,

In terms of her injuries - as far as I know (and according to the PC on Saturday) there was only minor bruising but nothing else. So I assume she is now fully recovered.

Definitely common sense prevailed and as others have said, the PC in question was a decent bloke, who could weigh up what happened and assign the right amount of responsibility. Telling the truth and it being backed up by the CCTV, not trying to dodge responsibility, but explaining the mitigating circumstances seems to have swung the decision towards the outcome of the awareness course, which as I've said seems fair given all the evidence.

As for the CCTV, the solicitor advised that if the insurance company need it, they can then approach the police independently.

if I had my time again - another look across all mirrors and check over the right shoulder before moving, might have prevented this, as i still think that entering the gap with what i could see at the time, and the dash-cam backs that up, was the right call.

Cheers P

Hi All,

Final update post "driving without due care and attention course" last week.

First - cost - £165 (Through a 3rd party supplier called TTC)

Booked online, although I was limited to one course being available near Bath, which was around 45 miles from home in Wiltshire in the time limit allowed by the police unless I wanted to receive a fixed penalty / 3 points or contest the matter in court. As I have previously mentioned I was always prepared to accept the outcome of going on the course.

I have not driven a manual for around 17 years, and the only vehicles that this course operated were manuals, but more of that later.

Start time 08:45, first check of drivers licence (and the pre-course joining material stated "both parts" even though according to the DVLC, the second paper part has been effectively abandoned since 2015. So, I took one of the printed versions you can get offline from the DVLA when you hire a car. Even though it was not required - despite SWMBO looking for it whilst I was working away to no avail....

Next - an eye test of two random vehicles in the car park, followed by the course itself.

There were 12 of us on the course, and although you were under no legal obligation to state the reason you were on the course, most people, including myself disclosed their offence. These ranged from cutting up an unmarked police car, to eating a packet of crisps whilst driving. One individual did not actually know (or hadn't been given this by the police) the reason he had to attend the course, which I found (and so did the instructor) quite strange, although this conversation was taken offline later. Two individuals had been reported by cyclists via head-cam footage for passing too close / fast. Definitely one to be aware of.....

I was then actually given the choice of an automatic, given that another individual originally slated for this vehicle had been driving a manual for 4 weeks seeing as her other automatic vehicle was off the road, so I was lucky.

The morning session was all about identification of hazards, leaving adequate gaps, defining risks, blame attribution and was useful, including the session regarding how we all call ourselves average - but this equates at 7-9 out of 10, due to our own biases, it hasn't happened to me before, so i will continue to take this risk etc.

It did require individuals to engage with both the presenter and each other and one lady had to be removed - I'm guessing for "a quiet word" as she was not taking part. But she came back and said a few words at least.

After lunch we met our instructor who was going to take us out in his car for the practical side of the course whereby two of us would take it in turns to drive and put in practice what we'd learned on the morning session.

I was with the lady who had cut up the unmarked police car, and she had a number of, what I can only describe as anger management issues with other drivers. She had already collected 9 points through 3 speeding offences and had she not attended this course she would have been facing a ban. The instructor was very good, and his first comments about my driving was I was too centred on the middle of the road. My excuse being where I drive the outer edges of the road are mostly potholed and therefore I tend to avoid that, but his point was I wasn't using all of the road, which I might need at some point.

The other area he focused on was ensuring that when approaching a junction / roundabout etc., was to leave a decent gap between yourself and the car in front, I try to do that on the basis that it gives you an escape lane, but his tip was always ensure that you can see the tyres on the road of the vehicle in front. This gives you the necessary room - good point.

The other driver had real problems sticking to the 20 mph limits that we drove a lot in (we were on the eastern side of Bristol for most of the afternoon, and there were a lot of 20 mph areas) It amazed me how close people want to drive behind you at that speed. His only tip here being, stick to the limit and don't be intimidated, and leave your space in front as your escape lane.

His car was a Toyota hybrid, first time I've ever driven this type of car, and driving for 3.5 hours around Bristol it achieved 62 MPG, pretty impressive. It was a little gutless for my liking, but, on balance better than I expected.

Finally I received a letter last week stating that I had completed the course successfully and that no further action would be taken, but I would not be offered another course within 3 years if i committed the same offence.

So, I learned a few things, and I hope this post (as long as it is...) was useful in sharing my experience with others.

Cheers,

Paul

Nice little earner these courses, you have a job to get onto some of them due to demand.and their location. With so many drivers on the road committing offences the courses are but a drop in the ocean to try to educate a small percentage. Near where I live there is one of those know your speed devices which flash your speed as you approach. The speed limit is 30 in a populated area. Vehicles frequently go through at 50plus and the real idiots much higher. I tried ringing the Wales Safety Partnership which deploys the camera vans and straight away they are defence quoting times and dates when they last were on this road. Clearly they cannot be everywhere and there must be plenty of scope to catch the unwarily elsewhere. I am sure the average law abiding are grateful to be offered the courses to avoid points and insurance penalties. On the road these days it is not so much as what you do its getting caught and this seems to be very unlikely.

I liked the article giving details of the course, so thank you for that. It did remind me of a couple of things I was taught even in the car test, like being able to see the bumper of the car in front, the additional reason being that if you get hit from behind there is less chance of you being pushed into the car in front, and significantly less damage.

it is also true what you said, many cars are forced to zigzag in the road because of potholes, a friend of mine done both front tyres on the same thing.

I do wonder if they do these course they must surely offer or arrange to have both options for people who only have an automatic as they cannot drive a manual, and will not be insured in any manual car.

When I done my speed awareness course they did not do the eye test, so that is new or maybe just for that particular offence, i do not know which.

I remember on the news that they done a roadside test on drivers before and the result was shocking, a large minority got stopped from driving any further because of poor eyesight and had to get a taxi or arrange to be picked up, does anyone have the same eye vision at 60 then they did at 18 ~ most do not, but the law does not force drivers to get it checked once they past their test. I have long since thought that testing should be done every 5/10 years to make sure you still have what it takes to drive.

https://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/inews-lifestyle/cars/more-than-7000-motorists-a-year-stripped-of-their-driving-licence-because-they-cant-see-1366373

Edited by A Driver since 1988, HGV 2006 on 04/02/2020 at 15:59