On 10th October my wife was involved in an accident which resulted in her car being written off, and damage to two others.

She was turning right from a main road into a side road, when a car came over the crest of the brow on the main road in the opposite direction, 'T-boning' her car and pushing it into a vehicle waiting to turn right out of the side road.

It would seem that my wife didn't check sufficiently rigorously whether there was any oncoming traffic before she made the turn.

All 3 drivers were questioned by police at the scene, but (to the best of our knowledge) none provided official statements, or were asked to sign anything. My wife did not admit any liability or blame.

At the scene, the first words to my wife of the lady in the car turning right out of the side road were "that was not your fault! Where did that car come from?!" The implication being that it had perhaps been going too fast (although it was a 60 zone). Another couple who stopped (& who weren't questioned) also said to us (and took the trouble to contact us a week later in order to do so) that they thought that the oncoming car had been going too fast.

There were no skid-marks, and despite the fact that there had been no-one behind my wife, the oncoming car had taken no evasive action, such as swerving to the right (where the road was empty). There was some speculation that she had been on her mobile phone.

The policeman who questioned my wife suggested to her that it was possible that she would be charged with careless driving, which might in turn lead to a fine and 3 points on her licence, or else a driving course. She was given no incident reference number, nor any names or numbers of any of the officers on the scene, or any means of contacting the police to find out about the case.

The insurance claim was duly processed, and my wife was deemed to be at fault. We didn't question this, as the policeman had suggested that this was the case, and at the time we had no real reason to disagree (in the same way that if you drive into the back of someone, regardless of how quickly they've stopped, you're deemed to be the guilty party).

In the absence of any means of finding out what was happening, we asked a Police friend of hours (local station bobby) for advice. He said that the chances were, that for the amount of paperwork it would involve, there was a good chance that nothing would come of it, and we were probably best just keeping quiet. When we mentioned the speculation that the other lady may have been driving too fast and/or on her mobile phone, he said that they wouldn't usually investigate mobile phone records etc unless there was a fatality.

The scene of the accident is something of a local blackspot. We've heard that there has been another such accident there since my wife's, and there have certainly been many more there in the past (a handful per year).

I had been led to believe, that if the police were going to prosecute, then they would have to serve notice of this within 28 days. The reason I am writing is that yesterday, 27th November, my wife received a letter from Hampshire Police informing her that "it has been decided that you will be prosecuted for the offence of careless driving". This is the only mention of prosecution - the rest of the letter deals with the alternative recourse of attending a driving course. Nowhere is there mention that it might be a "Notice of Intention to Prosecute" - it's just a letter, as opposed to any sort of form.

While the letter was received on 27th November, the letter itself is dated 6th November. In the same envelope was another letter and some documentation from Driving Services. All of this was concerned with the details of the driving course. Driving Services' letter was dated 26th November. We have retained the envelope, but it has no date or postmark on it. It is pre-franked.

Clearly the driving course option is preferable to prosecution, points on her licence and a fine. Given the choice, my wife would take this. However, this would cost £165, and I'm not entirely sure that were she to decline the offer of the course, the police could prosecute her now anyway.

I have no legal knowledge, nor prior experience of this sort of situation. I would be extremely grateful if anyone who has take the time to read this far (thanks for that!) could possibly see their way to share with me the benefit of their knowledge and experience, as relevant to my wife's case.

Many thanks in advance to anyone who can help.

All the best

Where there has been an accident there is no requirement to serve a notice of intended prosecution within 14 days (or at all). Generally, a course is the only sure way to avoid points.

Coincidentally, this afternoon I bumped into a guy who has just done one of these courses. From your wife's perspective it might be useful to quote his description of it: "And I thought I was a good driver until I went there. It fried my brain but I realise now what I was not seeing and how far I wasn't looking". At £165 it sounds like an excellent investment.

If its 165 quid for several hours of 'roadcraft' training its a bargain.

Quotes from HO87's friend are apt.

the trainng (which was not 'forced' on me as an alternative to a prosecution) has saved me from two major mishaps - both caused by other vehicles doing sudden 'bad things' I hasten to add - and both times I knew it was the training that saved me (and my passengers). plus other benefits, less wear and tear on the car, smoother travel etc etc.

If smoother progress is the result it is likely, although not certain, that the change in driving style produces better economy. This means lower fuel and servicing bills so the course pays for itself over time and then moves you into profit...........

Many thanks for all your comments. I agree entirely that the training is probably extremely good value for money, and am certain that my wife, and my pocket, would ultimately benefit hugely from it.

However, I am still slightly troubled by the fact that she might not actually have been to blame, and would in accepting the training, effectively be accepting fault in the accident, without having given so much as a signed statement. This will doubtless be recorded on her driving record, and may be cited as "past form" should she ever be involved in another incident in the future. This is quite apart from the implications for her insurance of having been deemed "at fault".

It strikes me that the police have perhaps not followed due process in getting to where they have today, and something just doesn't seem right about her being blamed on the strength of a couple of brief questions in the heat of the moment, and not so much as a statement taken from anyone.

Again, I'd welcome the thoughts of anyone with more experience of this sort of thing than me.

Thanks in advance for your time.

This may seem a little trite (but I obviously wasn't there!)....

Assuming it's not too far from where you live, why not drive over the crest (where the other driver appeared from) at the prevailing speed limit (please be very careful though!) and see what the visibility/timing would have looked like from the oncoming driver's perspective (OK, it's not 100% fair as the road conditions may vary and you'll be particularly alert) and/or make the same manoeuvre your Wife made and see what this shows?

I'm not accusing anyone, but it might be that your Wife glanced and was slow or hesitant making the turn, but equally the other driver could have been paying insufficient attention? I don't expect this will prove innocence or gulit in a legal context, but might give you an idea of the 'fairness' (or not) of the case against your Wife?

No, you're right - that doesn't sound an unreasonable thing to try. Thanks for that.

Can anyone comment on how the police have handled this? ie. no statements, no contact for 7 weeks, and then a letter saying "you're to blame". Particularly when both witnesses other than the main parties have independently contacted to us to say that they thought the other driver was going too fast.

If this sort of thing is par for the course, then fair does, but it just seems to lack the required degree of rigour to me.

Thanks again.

I think you seem to be hung up on what people have said about them thinking the car who hit your wives car was speeding. You have already mentioned it was a 60mph zone and to honest are these witnesses capable of recognising 50mph, 60mph or even if they were speeding at 60plus mph, I couldn't ! And even if the person was speeding (which is a seperate matter for the police) the fact you wife pulled out infront of an oncoming vehicle without clear observation makes her guilty of the driving without due care and attention, sorry but thats how it reads.

I think the good advice given here is accept the course, pay the £165 and take it as a lesson learnt.

Thanks for your opinion. I'm sure you're right.

Does anyone have any answers to the points I raised?

Quite simply, the onus of responsibility was your wife's. She was turning right across the traffic flow of a carriageway to effect a right turn. The responsibility was no-one else's - and she misjudged the other vehicle's speed.

Arthur,

I bow to your omniscience. How you can absolutely deduce the facts of the situation from the information posted in this thread leaves me in awe.

I could have got as far as a presumption of fault for a driver turning right across a main road, but to be able to state conclusively that the driver who came over the brow of the hill was not driving to fast for the conditions and the distance ahead he could see was clear, contrary to the reports of 2 witnesses, is truly astonishing.

If your wife is being offered the course then this is in lieu of prosecution. She will have no points and that, bottom line, is what will count in the overall scheme of things. Whilst some form of record may be maintained (conceivably even as an official caution) there is nothing to be declared to the insurers beyond the accident.

Whilst I most certainly do not subscribe to PC speak I do agree with the approach to what were once called road traffic accidents now known as road traffic collisions. In a substantial proportion of cases responsibility is shared to some degree or other by both parties and it is likely that you wife shares some responsibility for the incident she was involved in much as the other driver concerned. I'd suggest that the approach being employed is actually quite enlightened and constructive, compared with those employed by other forces.

It may well be that the other driver is also being offered a similar course - though hopefully not on the same date! [cynical mode]After all, there's bound to be some margin in this for the force/contractor delivering the course itself[/cynical mode].

Thank you for your enlightening reply Hotel Oscar.

Although I may not have sounded like it, I have fully accepted that the best course of action for us would be for my wife to do the course, which she now doubtless will.

I was just interested to hear what the correct procedure for dealing with this sort of thing is. As I said, something just didn't feel right about the way it was handled; to my mind there was a lack of rigour.

As I said, the insurance claim has been settled. My wife was rightly or wrongly deemed to have been fully at fault. I reiterate, this without any statements having been taken, indeed any communication whatsoever with the police since the 45 minutes immediately post the accident, and the only two other witnesses consulted both having stated that they thought the other driver was going too fast.

andy_foster, thanks for your level-headed-ness. You're right, that if my wife had checked, begun her turn, and then a car come over the crest at 90mph (>40m/s), assuming late braking due to distraction, the oncoming car would have been upon her very quickly. I'm not saying that this is necessarily what happened, and the fact that the car was a mangled mess, yet my wife and two very young sons toddled & were carried away from it with no ill-effects, perhaps gives a suggestion of the speed of impact.

Maybe I should just bow down to the experience of the officers concerned in this case. I do think though, that visible, transparent due process has a place in strengthening the public's trust in how the police go about their work. In this case, it is the lack of it that has fueled my doubts and concerns.

At the same time, I appreciate the amount of needless paperwork and bureaucracy to which the police (medics*/teachers*/most public servants*) are subject these days, and share their frustrations. Somewhere there's clearly a balance to be found. From where I stand, I can't blame them for our police friend's opinion that their a attitude would have been to get it resolved with a minimum of fuss and paperwork.

Thanks to all who have contributed for their time, experience and opinions.

Safe motoring one and all.

*delete as appropriate


edited to add: If it means less of a council tax burden on us all, then I have no issue at all with the local constabulary taking a cut from the price of the driving course. Particularly if my wife avoids points and/or a "record".

If you had read my reply you will note that I did not state that the other driver wasn't speeding (or driving too fast) ... rumours of my omniscience are therefore unfounded.

If the other driver were speeding it may be determined a contributing factor but it was still the responsibility of the driver crossing the carriageway to make sure that the road was clear enough for her to complete her manouevre.