In message , The Todal
writes

"The Todal" wrote in message
...

"Paul H" wrote in message
...
"Dave N" wrote in message
...
PCPaul wrote:
Strange that the Police won't get involved in a fail-to-report -
especially when it might actually be an easy enough one to get strong
evidence for.

I understood that it happened in a leisure centre car park, which would
mean that it didn't happen "on a road".


I read a couple of cases about a year ago where some insurance companies
wouldn't pay out because of the accident happening in a private car
park -
they claimed that the insurance is only covered on a public highway. In
one
of the cases the insurance company won because of the car being in a
"parking bay". However in the other case the insurance company lost - the
driver went up a kerb and hit someone (again inside the private car
park).
IIRC it was said in these cases that the road traffic act extends to
private
car parks where the public have unhindered access.

I can't give references as I said it was about a year ago but i'll have a
look and see if I can find them.
IANAL

You may be thinking of Cutter.


http://www.publications.parliament.u...t/jd981022/cla
rke01.htm

I have a vague memory that the Road Traffic Act was then amended so that
insurance policies do cover accidents in car parks, but I'm not sure if
I'm
right.

Now I have checked: the original s143 of the RTA required you to be insured
for accidents on "a road" and the phrase "or other public place" was added
by regulations in 2000.

But so far as I can determine, s170 (duty of driver to stop and report)
has not been amended to include locations other than on a road:-

"(1) This section applies in a case where, owing to the presence of a
mechanically propelled vehicle on a road, an accident occurs by which.."

AIUI, there is no offence of failing to stop in this situation. BICBW

--
Dave N

N.B. Mail to nospam is rejected. Reply-To does work.

On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 14:10:09 +0000, Dave N
wrote:

Now I have checked: the original s143 of the RTA required you to be insured
for accidents on "a road" and the phrase "or other public place" was added
by regulations in 2000.

But so far as I can determine, s170 (duty of driver to stop and report)
has not been amended to include locations other than on a road:-

"(1) This section applies in a case where, owing to the presence of a
mechanically propelled vehicle on a road, an accident occurs by which.."

AIUI, there is no offence of failing to stop in this situation. BICBW

Does that mean that if you run over someone in a pub car park, you are
legally entitled to speed off into the distance without stopping?
Handy thing to know if you would prefer not to speak with the police
until there has been sufficient time for your kidneys to increase the
amount of blood in your alcohol stream.

--
Cynic

In message , Cynic
writes
On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 14:10:09 +0000, Dave N
wrote:

Now I have checked: the original s143 of the RTA required you to be insured
for accidents on "a road" and the phrase "or other public place" was added
by regulations in 2000.

But so far as I can determine, s170 (duty of driver to stop and report)
has not been amended to include locations other than on a road:-

"(1) This section applies in a case where, owing to the presence of a
mechanically propelled vehicle on a road, an accident occurs by which.."

AIUI, there is no offence of failing to stop in this situation. BICBW

Does that mean that if you run over someone in a pub car park, you are
legally entitled to speed off into the distance without stopping?
Handy thing to know if you would prefer not to speak with the police
until there has been sufficient time for your kidneys to increase the
amount of blood in your alcohol stream.

As I said above, ICBW. If you know of any other amendments or statutes
to show me that I am wrong regarding s170 RTA, please speak now ...

--
Dave N

N.B. Mail to nospam is rejected. Reply-To does work.

As I said above, ICBW. If you know of any other amendments or
statutes to show me that I am wrong regarding s170 RTA, please speak
now ...



Me looking for any excuse to extend coffee break (from laying loft
insulation).

The amendments to the RTA were made by S.I. 2000/726 which did deal with
this. The ex note said "For the purpose of complying with the
directives these Regulations amend the 1988 Act first by extending the
insurance requirement to the use of vehicles in public places other than
roads and, secondly, by making provision for the reporting of accidents
and the production of insurance documents where an accident occurs in a
public place."


The amendments by Reg (6) were

"In section 170 (duty to stop and report accident)-

(a) in subsection (1), after "on a road" there shall be inserted " or
other public place",

(b) in subsection (1)(b)(iii), after "the road" there shall be inserted
" or place"."

What puzzles me a bit is that the Statute Law database shows the amndts
to s.143 but does not show these amendments to s.170. But they all have
the same commencement date (3/4/2000). Odd.

--
Robin

"Paul H" wrote in
:

[snip]

I read a couple of cases about a year ago where some insurance
companies wouldn't pay out because

[...]

Why are insurance companies such ****ing arseholes?

I understand the need to prevent fraud, and to minimise paying out, but
sometimes insurance companies seem to a lot more effort finding loopholes
in their own policies than they need to.

neverwas wrote:
As I said above, ICBW. If you know of any other amendments or
statutes to show me that I am wrong regarding s170 RTA, please speak
now ...



Me looking for any excuse to extend coffee break (from laying loft
insulation).

The amendments to the RTA were made by S.I. 2000/726 which did deal with
this. The ex note said "For the purpose of complying with the
directives these Regulations amend the 1988 Act first by extending the
insurance requirement to the use of vehicles in public places other than
roads and, secondly, by making provision for the reporting of accidents
and the production of insurance documents where an accident occurs in a
public place."


The amendments by Reg (6) were

"In section 170 (duty to stop and report accident)-

(a) in subsection (1), after "on a road" there shall be inserted " or
other public place",

(b) in subsection (1)(b)(iii), after "the road" there shall be inserted
" or place"."

What puzzles me a bit is that the Statute Law database shows the amndts
to s.143 but does not show these amendments to s.170. But they all have
the same commencement date (3/4/2000). Odd.

Thank you. I did check the Statute Law database and noticed the
amendment to s143, but that there was none to s170. I plead guilty to
not thinking to double-check the S.I. itself. As you say, it's odd that
this amendment hasn't been noted against the RTA, since the database
claims that "all revised legislation has been updated at least to the
end of 2001".

The "help" pages contain this text:- "The Statute Law Database is the
official revised version of the statute book for the UK in electronic
form. 'The statute book' is a term we use to mean all the primary
legislation of a public general nature in force at any particular time.
SLD is published 'by Authority', which means that it is published with
the authority of the Crown. Previously accessible only to a limited
number of users in government, SLD was made publicly available online,
free of charge, on 20 December 2006."

In other words, the database describes itself as being authoritative, in
which case how are errors to be resolved in an authoritative manner? It
cannot be right that the text is quietly altered, if there is no audit
trail of the reason for the alteration or even the fact that it was altered.

Contradictions such as you have just discovered might lead to perverse
decisions.

--
Dave N

N.B. Mail to nospam will be rejected. The "Reply-To" does work.

On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 22:30:07 +0000, Dave N wrote:

neverwas wrote:
As I said above, ICBW. If you know of any other amendments or
statutes to show me that I am wrong regarding s170 RTA, please speak
now ...



Me looking for any excuse to extend coffee break (from laying loft
insulation).

The amendments to the RTA were made by S.I. 2000/726 which did deal
with this. The ex note said "For the purpose of complying with the
directives these Regulations amend the 1988 Act first by extending the
insurance requirement to the use of vehicles in public places other
than roads and, secondly, by making provision for the reporting of
accidents and the production of insurance documents where an accident
occurs in a public place."


The amendments by Reg (6) were

"In section 170 (duty to stop and report accident)-

(a) in subsection (1), after "on a road" there shall be inserted " or
other public place",

(b) in subsection (1)(b)(iii), after "the road" there shall be inserted
" or place"."

What puzzles me a bit is that the Statute Law database shows the amndts
to s.143 but does not show these amendments to s.170. But they all
have the same commencement date (3/4/2000). Odd.

Thank you. I did check the Statute Law database and noticed the
amendment to s143, but that there was none to s170. I plead guilty to
not thinking to double-check the S.I. itself. As you say, it's odd that
this amendment hasn't been noted against the RTA, since the database
claims that "all revised legislation has been updated at least to the
end of 2001".

The "help" pages contain this text:- "The Statute Law Database is the
official revised version of the statute book for the UK in electronic
form. 'The statute book' is a term we use to mean all the primary
legislation of a public general nature in force at any particular time.
SLD is published 'by Authority', which means that it is published with
the authority of the Crown. Previously accessible only to a limited
number of users in government, SLD was made publicly available online,
free of charge, on 20 December 2006."

In other words, the database describes itself as being authoritative, in
which case how are errors to be resolved in an authoritative manner? It
cannot be right that the text is quietly altered, if there is no audit
trail of the reason for the alteration or even the fact that it was
altered.

Contradictions such as you have just discovered might lead to perverse
decisions.

More to the point, is there anywhere for 'an interested party', e.g. us
as men in the street, to report these problems?

I just have this strange feeling that there is a mass of springy red tape
hidden just beneath the surface...

snipped, since the database
claims that "all revised legislation has been updated at least to the
end of 2001".

People are in the chain and will make mistakes occasionally?

snip
In other words, the database describes itself as being authoritative,
in
which case how are errors to be resolved in an authoritative manner?
It
cannot be right that the text is quietly altered, if there is no
audit
trail of the reason for the alteration or even the fact that it was
altered.

I doubt very much it holds itself out as authoritative in the sense of
being equal to (let alone superior to) the Queen's Printer copy of the
enactment. But I must admit I am surprised to see no health warning.

More to the point, is there anywhere for 'an interested party', e.g.
us
as men in the street, to report these problems?

Why not use the feedback form
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/Feedback.aspx? I've just tried it.

--
Robin

In message , neverwas
writes
snipped, since the database
claims that "all revised legislation has been updated at least to the
end of 2001".

People are in the chain and will make mistakes occasionally?

snip
In other words, the database describes itself as being authoritative,
in
which case how are errors to be resolved in an authoritative manner?
It
cannot be right that the text is quietly altered, if there is no
audit
trail of the reason for the alteration or even the fact that it was
altered.

I doubt very much it holds itself out as authoritative in the sense of
being equal to (let alone superior to) the Queen's Printer copy of the
enactment. But I must admit I am surprised to see no health warning.

More to the point, is there anywhere for 'an interested party', e.g.
us
as men in the street, to report these problems?

Why not use the feedback form
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/Feedback.aspx? I've just tried it.

I sent them an email earlier as well. Hopefully we'll get replies.

--
Dave N

N.B. Mail to nospam is rejected. Reply-To does work.

"bealoid" wrote in message
...

I understand the need to prevent fraud, and to minimise paying out, but
sometimes insurance companies seem to a lot more effort finding loopholes
in their own policies than they need to.

A few years ago, my mate had his VW Golf stolen and burned out.
It had factory GTi wheels on it (the car wasn't a GTi, the wheels were on it
when he bought the car), which is the reason his insurance company refused
to pay out.
"Altered from standard" without informing the ins co.

I wish I could remember which co. it was...

--

Tony Bond / UncleFista

www.bradford7.co.uk

Love is like a snowmobile, speeding across the frozen tundra.
Which suddenly flips, pinning you underneath.
At night the ice-weasels come...