Apart from the fact that, in retrospect, it would have been better for
your wife to have gone to the house and assessed the situation
personally and in a bit more detail, and left her own details, she did
at an early stage try to do that, and, as required, reported it to the
police. I can't see too many problems resulting from the action she
actually took, particularly on the initial information presented to
her by her colleague that the kid was okay.

I agree with you, she did go back to the house a short while later, but only
the care taker was there and she gave my wife her number.
She then called the mother to enquire about the boy.

But she should really have called the police there and then.


Whilst you wife is obviousy concerned about the child's injuries, in
any contact to enquire about the child with e.g. the mother she should
not discuss the circumstances of the accident or any issues of blame
or guilt - i.e say nothing that would prejudice her insurers position
(that will be a condition of her insurance cover). The ordinary punter
is usually unaware of the principles of negligence and may say things
which compromise the issues.

The only contacts she had was with the mother, the father and the owner of
the bus company.
They did not discuss the accident itself. Everybody was more concerned about
the health of the boy.

The mother was, understandably, upset with my wife and this is when she
started using words like 'hit and run'.
But my wife did not want to get involved in an argument over who is right or
wrong.


Toom


Now that it has been reported we are happy to leave it to the
authority/insurers to tell us what to do next.
It is clear now that the mother has not laid a charge of hit and run, or any
charge as far as I can tell.
But maybe she will on Monday or something.

Sims

"Percy Picacity" wrote in message
...
Of course, many people habitually do inappropriate or thoughtless
things, like driving at 30mph in this situation. But I would in
this situation (which I meet daily) slow down to 15 or 20 mph if I
could leave at least 10 feet between me and the bus, and walking
pace if I could not. I would be looking under the bus as I
approached and I would not worry about delaying the traffic behind
me, or being late for work. I am fairly sure I could not then hit a
child however much it tried, as they regularly do.

Unfortunately the idea that speed is bad has also taught people that staying
at the speed limit is safe - so if the kid runs out it`s not their fault,
they where going at a safe speed - 30mph say. Just a shame that people
aren`t taught correctly that the safe speed is the appropriate speed, not
whatever a sign says. I know plenty of 30mph roads that would be just as
safe at 60. Equally I know a few 60mph roads that it isn`t possible to hit
60mph on due to the road conditions. One is a VERY twisty country road, the
longest straight is about 200 yards long with a sharp corner at either end.
The best i`ve ever managed to do down there is 50mph. Incidentally, the
road is very rarely used, NEVER has pedestrians, horses or the like on, and
due to the hedges you can see what is round the next corner. :-)

Simon

HIT AND RUN
My vechile was hit in a car park just as I arrived at it , luckily
an off duty policeman saw it and told me to go immediatly to local police
station , ...... i felt as though i was treated like scum and guilty of
doing
something just for reporting it ....in the end the driver was found guilty
fined £250 , 6 points on his licence and his legal aid status investigated
as the judge did not believe self employed plumber was earning less
than £50 a week as he had claimed.

My point here is that the "LAW" can treat Hit and Run very seriiously ..
if your wife is charged , expect it to be ugly . In the above case the
plumber
reversed into my car an "apprently" did not know he had hit my car , which
is feasible and in this case clealry his punishment seems harsh .... further
he apprently moved house without telling police so ended up with warrent
against him , the police apprently then appeared one morning at 6am and
arrested him at his new address ........... again seems harh for reversing
into a car and possibly not even knowing ...but then moving without telling
the police and not turning upto court , as you didnt get the citation ... is
a different offence.

I suppose my point is if she ends up "IN" the system as a hit and run driver
dont expect any mercy. Personally i think your wife was in the wrong , the
police
and an AMBULANCE should have been called immedialty. How anyone
can drive away from such situation without having had the child looked
over i beyond me , but thats just my opinion ....and i suppose your wifes
adrenalin simply told her to get home , a kind of protection mechanism.

Insurance Implications

A taxi driver friend hit a DRUNK pedestrian at 4am in the morning on a
slipway onto mortorway , the idiot had to climb a barrier and traverse
3 lanes to hide behind some bushes and then walk out just as the taxi
appeared ...the "poor" chap had his leg broken.The motorway was closed
etc , traffic cops cleared my friend of any wrongdoing and no charges were
raised .................... no more was heard for 2-3 years when the drunkn
idiot
found a No-Win no fee lawyer , the insurance company within 14 days
paid out £15k on the basis a judge would find the driver 5% to blame
in any case and it was cheaper to settle than to ...in the insurance
comapnaies
words " pay £100k in lawyers fees" to defend the case ...... my friend
immedialty
was hit with 3 years "back" increased in insurance premiums which totalled
around £7k AND .... the really funny bit about it ...he was told he had to
pay the
£7k in SEVEN DAYS

The moral of this is even when everyone tells you you hve done right ,
inurance
companies will find a way to screw you ...dont take it personally ... you
have
choice of either paying up or increasing your blood pressure and increasing
your
chances of a heart attack ....only you can decide on the balance py off
effect
of that one based on your won health


Sometimes lifes not fair ............. hope the lads ok

In message , at 21:35:05 on Fri, 19
Sep 2008, Simon remarked:
It is clear now that the mother has not laid a charge of hit and run,
or any charge as far as I can tell.

Do we have a system in the UK where people can "press charges", whether
or not the police and CPS agree it's a good idea?
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 21:35:05 on Fri, 19
Sep 2008, Simon remarked:
It is clear now that the mother has not laid a charge of hit and run,
or any charge as far as I can tell.

Do we have a system in the UK where people can "press charges", whether
or not the police and CPS agree it's a good idea?

AFAIK, the Home Secretary's children are both boys..

--
Sue

On 20 Sep, 11:35, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 21:35:05 on Fri, 19
Sep 2008, Simon remarked:

It is clear now that the mother has not laid a charge of hit and run,
or any charge as far as I can tell.

Do we have a system in the UK where people can "press charges", whether
or not the police and CPS agree it's a good idea?
--
Roland Perry

People can draw attention to or give info that an offence may have
occurred, and request investigation. There is no offence or charge of
'hit and run' - that's purely a generic description of not stoppping,
and of leaving the scene to avoid accountabiltiy. In this case any
breach of legal requirements following an accident deems minor and
technical rather than intentional, and that, and any question of
charges relating to driving behaviour would be a matter for the police
and CPS.. The mother can only intervene to the extent of holding them
accountable for investigating. Otherwise the injuries are a civil
matter.

Toom

In message
, at
14:00:22 on Sat, 20 Sep 2008, Toom Tabard
remarked:
It is clear now that the mother has not laid a charge of hit and run,
or any charge as far as I can tell.

Do we have a system in the UK where people can "press charges", whether
or not the police and CPS agree it's a good idea?

People can draw attention to or give info that an offence may have
occurred, and request investigation. There is no offence or charge of
'hit and run' - that's purely a generic description of not stoppping,
and of leaving the scene to avoid accountabiltiy. In this case any
breach of legal requirements following an accident deems minor and
technical rather than intentional, and that, and any question of
charges relating to driving behaviour would be a matter for the police
and CPS..

Whereas when we see USA-based cops shows, such prosecutions often appear
to fail when the injured party "doesn't press charges". Here I think the
police/CPS can act anyway.

The mother can only intervene to the extent of holding them
accountable for investigating.

Which doesn't give them any real power. "We investigated and decided not
to prosecute" is all they will hear. I had that when my two-week-old car
was written off by someone rear-ending me when I was stopped at a red
traffic light. A certainty for at least careless driving you'd have
thought; and the police attended promptly, helped the driver behind into
an ambulance, swept the glass of the road etc). But apparently not.

Otherwise the injuries are a civil matter.

So beware the ambulance-chasing lawyers.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message
, at
14:00:22 on Sat, 20 Sep 2008, Toom Tabard
remarked:
It is clear now that the mother has not laid a charge of hit and run,
or any charge as far as I can tell.

Do we have a system in the UK where people can "press charges", whether
or not the police and CPS agree it's a good idea?

People can draw attention to or give info that an offence may have
occurred, and request investigation. There is no offence or charge of
'hit and run' - that's purely a generic description of not stoppping,
and of leaving the scene to avoid accountabiltiy. In this case any
breach of legal requirements following an accident deems minor and
technical rather than intentional, and that, and any question of
charges relating to driving behaviour would be a matter for the police
and CPS..

Whereas when we see USA-based cops shows, such prosecutions often appear
to fail when the injured party "doesn't press charges". Here I think the
police/CPS can act anyway.

The mother can only intervene to the extent of holding them
accountable for investigating.

Which doesn't give them any real power. "We investigated and decided not
to prosecute" is all they will hear. I had that when my two-week-old car
was written off by someone rear-ending me when I was stopped at a red
traffic light. A certainty for at least careless driving you'd have
thought; and the police attended promptly, helped the driver behind into
an ambulance, swept the glass of the road etc). But apparently not.

I suspect that part of it is that they know that the offender is going
to be punished anyway - via their insurance premiums and the loss of the
policy excess.

If the driver had been drinking, was uninsured, no licence, etc or the
car wasn't roadworthy, no MOT, etc - then they would have.

Almost every accident has a significant element of careless driving and
it is quite a difficult thing to prove that the level of carelessness
was so above normal at to warrant prosecution. Whereas, all the other
things like insurance, etc are quick and easy.

Plus, of course, the other driver's recollection of events would
undoubtedly be different than your own. You reversed into him, what with
it being a new car with strange controls, an easy mistake to make..Or
that your brake lights weren't working and you stopped without warning
whilst the lights were on green. Without an independent witness (or
CCTV) showing that the lights were red when he hit you...

--
Sue

In message , at 15:20:04
on Sat, 20 Sep 2008, Palindrome remarked:
Almost every accident has a significant element of careless driving and
it is quite a difficult thing to prove that the level of carelessness
was so above normal at to warrant prosecution.

Although the average barrack-room lawyer claims that being hit from
behind is a dead cert blame-wise.

Whereas, all the other things like insurance, etc are quick and easy.

Plus, of course, the other driver's recollection of events would
undoubtedly be different than your own. You reversed into him, what
with it being a new car with strange controls, an easy mistake to
make..Or that your brake lights weren't working and you stopped without
warning whilst the lights were on green. Without an independent witness
(or CCTV) showing that the lights were red when he hit you...

I had a passenger, other witnesses, and there were probably skid-marks.
What happened was that I was stopped at the head of the queue at a
traffic light controlled pedestrian crossing and a heavy courier-bike
overtook the queue and slammed on his brakes at the last minute,
crashing into my rear at significant speed to throw my car ten feet
across the crossing, having just missed the car behind me (luckily there
were no pedestrians in front of me).

That would have been quite a feat of "reversing".

The damage was sufficient to write off a brand new car that at today's
prices was worth about £20k (in fact it was repaired, but the eventual
cost was more than buying a new one, once the value of the wreck was
taken into account, which makes it technically a write-off. The main
inconvenience was the three months it took - during which time the cost
of a rental car was ticking away).
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 15:20:04
on Sat, 20 Sep 2008, Palindrome remarked:
Almost every accident has a significant element of careless driving
and it is quite a difficult thing to prove that the level of
carelessness was so above normal at to warrant prosecution.

Although the average barrack-room lawyer claims that being hit from
behind is a dead cert blame-wise.

Whereas, all the other things like insurance, etc are quick and easy.

Plus, of course, the other driver's recollection of events would
undoubtedly be different than your own. You reversed into him, what
with it being a new car with strange controls, an easy mistake to
make..Or that your brake lights weren't working and you stopped
without warning whilst the lights were on green. Without an
independent witness (or CCTV) showing that the lights were red when he
hit you...

I had a passenger, other witnesses, and there were probably skid-marks.
What happened was that I was stopped at the head of the queue at a
traffic light controlled pedestrian crossing and a heavy courier-bike
overtook the queue and slammed on his brakes at the last minute,
crashing into my rear at significant speed to throw my car ten feet
across the crossing, having just missed the car behind me (luckily there
were no pedestrians in front of me).

That would have been quite a feat of "reversing".

The damage was sufficient to write off a brand new car that at today's
prices was worth about £20k (in fact it was repaired, but the eventual
cost was more than buying a new one, once the value of the wreck was
taken into account, which makes it technically a write-off. The main
inconvenience was the three months it took - during which time the cost
of a rental car was ticking away).

I was thinking of the general case as to why the police don't prosecute
for careless driving (on its own and with no other person being
seriously injured or dead) very often. Passengers are seldom
independent. Unless the police accident investigation team turn up
(which could take hours and leave a road closed all day and won't happen
at all unless there is serious injuries/fatalities), things like skid
marks and road conditions become matters of argument, rather than fact.
Witnesses evaporate or produce contradictory versions, particularly over
speeds and distances. It all makes such cases messy and involved and
*generally* not worth the effort.

Of course prosecuting him wouldn't have saved your car from being
written off, or the costs, delays, etc. It may even have delayed it - if
insurance companies left things until a court case was settled. Not
turning up for trial a couple of times isn't that unusual. Plus you (and
the other witnesses) would have had to get to court to give evidence,
etc, etc. MAybe two or three times. All fuss and bother and for what..

I know, it's really annoying. BTDTGTTS.

--
Sue