New Careless Driving Offences - helpful ?

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
Post Reply
hoogerbooger
Posts: 673
Joined: 14 Jun 2009, 11:27am
Location: In Wales

New Careless Driving Offences - helpful ?

Post by hoogerbooger »

Have just read this on new offences, which seems not necessarily helpful to the victim:
https://www.leighday.co.uk/latest-updat ... ighDay_Law

My Missus was sent the above, Leigh Day having dealt with her case of being taken out by a driver (British Cycling membership cover).

As the article says there is a risk that assigning blame to errant drivers may be less likely to be agreed between parties. In my Missus's case the agreement that the driver was to blame was critical to the releasing of funds ( up front from any final settlement) to start paying for proper physio and care. That available via the national health and social care simply wasn't enough/available. If a driver faces a possible jail term they are unlikely to agree where a case looks contestable...to any degree. Thinking back to our experience that could mean:

1) failure to get adequate physio early enough to allow a good/complete(almost)recovery [ albeit it still took about 4 years with an ongoing indefinite programme of exercises needed]
2) far more wrangling over formal statements and paper work.....which was a big headache anyway, when you are dealing with the prospect of not necessary recovering to where you were before.
3) much more CBT probably needed......cos your head gets screwed up....even if you think you're dealing with it.

If we hadn't been through the experience I would just have looked at the offences, and thought good, bad drivers who cause serious injury can go to jail.

I'm no expert in law and process, but it now looks like we have potential for Police action ( having to have regard to the law and offences) to lead to extra grief for victims ( helpless caught up in a longer winded more adversarial situation). Perhaps we should be happier when the careless driver only gets driving awareness training ( as lame and unfair as it may seem at the time)?
Last edited by hoogerbooger on 18 Aug 2022, 4:46pm, edited 1 time in total.
old fangled
slowster
Moderator
Posts: 4629
Joined: 7 Jul 2017, 10:37am

Re: New Careless Driving Offences - helpful ?

Post by slowster »

For those also bringing civil claims for the serious injury they have suffered it may mean they have to wait longer for liability to be determined, where they are to some degree dependant on the conclusion of the criminal case.
I am not a lawyer, but I am sceptical that Leigh Day's comment above will prove to be a significant issue. If a criminal prosecution is possible or the police/CPS have started a prosecution, that is not a bar to an injured party making a civil claim for injury as a result of negligent driving.

If a driver has been convicted of careless driving, that does mean that an associated civil claim for damages for injury etc. will succeed, because the standard of proof for the criminal prosecution is higher than for the civil action. If a driver is found to have committed an offence beyond all reasonable doubt, then by definition they will be liable for injuries and damaged caused.

However, if a driver contests a charge of careless driving and there is currently an inevitable long delay before the trial, that does not stop or delay any associated civil action. The civil action will not affect the criminal trial. Moreover, the driver's insurer will not want to waste money trying to fight a hopeless case defending the civil action, and the various rules/laws governing the handling of such civil claims require the driver (or rather their insurer/the solicitors appointed) to respond to each stage of the claim within very short time windows.

It is not in the insurer's interest to drag things out or delay, if it is clear that the driver is likely to lose if the case went to a civil court. I would expect that within a matter of weeks the dispute would quickly move to the stage where it was no longer about liability, but about quantum, i.e. how much the damages should be. It's possible that the insurer might seek to reduce the amount of damages based on contributory negligence, but that is a separate matter.

I think solicitors like Leigh Day will tend to overstate the potential negative consequences of new legislation in press releases, not least because the underlying message they aim to convey is that people need their services. I would pay much more attention if CUK raise concerns about the issue.
Jules59
Posts: 420
Joined: 16 Jan 2019, 2:34pm

Re: New Careless Driving Offences - helpful ?

Post by Jules59 »

I think solicitors like Leigh Day will tend to overstate the potential negative consequences of new legislation in press releases, not least because the underlying message they aim to convey is that people need their services. I would pay much more attention if CUK raise concerns about the issue.

Indeed - they have a vested interest
hoogerbooger
Posts: 673
Joined: 14 Jun 2009, 11:27am
Location: In Wales

Re: New Careless Driving Offences - helpful ?

Post by hoogerbooger »

Noted. But once you have an accident or see a loved one mashed up you start appreciating their role more.
Last edited by hoogerbooger on 19 Aug 2022, 9:11am, edited 2 times in total.
old fangled
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: New Careless Driving Offences - helpful ?

Post by thirdcrank »

I think a recent example of an incident where a charge of causing serious injury by careless driving might have been appropriate was the driver who inadvertently pressed the accelerator instead of the brake, injuring several people including children. (This was recently linked on the "lenient sentences for drivers who kill" thread, even though nobody was killed.)

viewtopic.php?p=1712759#p1712759

Earlsfield school crash: Woman who ran over children and parents fined £3k

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-62337283
MikeF
Posts: 4339
Joined: 11 Nov 2012, 9:24am
Location: On the borders of the four South East Counties

Re: New Careless Driving Offences - helpful ?

Post by MikeF »

thirdcrank wrote: 13 Aug 2022, 11:54am I think a recent example of an incident where a charge of causing serious injury by careless driving might have been appropriate was the driver who inadvertently pressed the accelerator instead of the brake, injuring several people including children. (This was recently linked on the "lenient sentences for drivers who kill" thread, even though nobody was killed.)

viewtopic.php?p=1712759#p1712759

Earlsfield school crash: Woman who ran over children and parents fined £3k

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-62337283
I'm still puzzled why there is or needs to be a distinction between careless and dangerous driving - both are dangerous and can cause serious injury.
"It takes a genius to spot the obvious" - my old physics master.
I don't peddle bikes.
Pete Owens
Posts: 2442
Joined: 7 Jul 2008, 12:52am

Re: New Careless Driving Offences - helpful ?

Post by Pete Owens »

MikeF wrote: 13 Aug 2022, 9:32pm I'm still puzzled why there is or needs to be a distinction between careless and dangerous driving - both are dangerous and can cause serious injury.
To reflect the seriousness of the culpability as opposed to the consequences.

Just the act of operating a motor vehicle at all (or indeed a bicycle) in a public space however carefully could possibly result in death or serious injury, but it would be absurd to describe all vehicle use as "dangerous".
MikeF
Posts: 4339
Joined: 11 Nov 2012, 9:24am
Location: On the borders of the four South East Counties

Re: New Careless Driving Offences - helpful ?

Post by MikeF »

Pete Owens wrote: 13 Aug 2022, 11:03pm
MikeF wrote: 13 Aug 2022, 9:32pm I'm still puzzled why there is or needs to be a distinction between careless and dangerous driving - both are dangerous and can cause serious injury.
To reflect the seriousness of the culpability as opposed to the consequences.

Just the act of operating a motor vehicle at all (or indeed a bicycle) in a public space however carefully could possibly result in death or serious injury, but it would be absurd to describe all vehicle use as "dangerous".
That's not a reason for having a distinction. Seriousness and culpability could be reflected simply by the punishment for each case.
"It takes a genius to spot the obvious" - my old physics master.
I don't peddle bikes.
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: New Careless Driving Offences - helpful ?

Post by thirdcrank »

At a theoretical level, there's no reason why the Road Traffic Act should not not be amended so that eg careless driving = dangerous driving.

I think the problems arise with the administration of justice; in this case the probable increase in jury trials. From its creation, the CPS only coped by simply not prosecuting so many traffic cases, particularly summary "due care" cases as had been police practice. A single-defendant jury trial needs a courtroom (which includes other rooms such as the jury retiring room) a judge + officials, prosecuting counsel (with or without an instructing solicitor) defence counsel + instructing solicitor. That's before you get to the rugby (union) team of jury members (12 for the jury, three spares to ensure random selection.)
Barrowman
Posts: 441
Joined: 8 Jan 2022, 6:35pm

Re: New Careless Driving Offences - helpful ?

Post by Barrowman »

Another issue is the Legal Burden of proof in Criminal and Civil Cases , Criminal is beyond reasonable doubt, Civil is balance of probabilities .
hoogerbooger
Posts: 673
Joined: 14 Jun 2009, 11:27am
Location: In Wales

Re: New Careless Driving Offences - helpful ?

Post by hoogerbooger »

Sorry can't work out how to cut up Slowsters text. I've added comments in italics..in brackets

slowster wrote: 12 Aug 2022, 5:48pm
For those also bringing civil claims for the serious injury they have suffered it may mean they have to wait longer for liability to be determined, where they are to some degree dependant on the conclusion of the criminal case.
I am not a lawyer, but I am sceptical that Leigh Day's comment above will prove to be a significant issue. If a criminal prosecution is possible or the police/CPS have started a prosecution, that is not a bar to an injured party making a civil claim for injury as a result of negligent driving.

(Agree)

If a driver has been convicted of careless driving, that does mean that an associated civil claim for damages for injury etc. will succeed, because the standard of proof for the criminal prosecution is higher than for the civil action. If a driver is found to have committed an offence beyond all reasonable doubt, then by definition they will be liable for injuries and damaged caused.

( this will be 18 months + down the line so is of no use to gaining early access to funds for care)

However, if a driver contests a charge of careless driving and there is currently an inevitable long delay before the trial, that does not stop or delay any associated civil action. The civil action will not affect the criminal trial. Moreover, the driver's insurer will not want to waste money trying to fight a hopeless case defending the civil action, and the various rules/laws governing the handling of such civil claims require the driver (or rather their insurer/the solicitors appointed) to respond to each stage of the claim within very short time windows.

( My recollection is that the solicitors acting for the victim need to be happy that there is at least a 50% chance of winning the civil case. My point was not to do with cases where there was no chance of winning, it was in cases where liability (majority of liability) is contestable and whether the prospect of a potential criminal charge may affect the chances of th edriver and their insurers agreeing liability. Where the likely criminal outcome is a naughty boy driving awareness course ...there is less jeopardy for the driver, if liability is accepted in the civil case.. but with the new laws liability may not be accepted or take much longer, or go to court to resolve....at least that's my concern...but I'm an ecologist not a lawyer)

It is not in the insurer's interest to drag things out or delay, if it is clear that the driver is likely to lose if the case went to a civil court. I would expect that within a matter of weeks the dispute would quickly move to the stage where it was no longer about liability, but about quantum, i.e. how much the damages should be. It's possible that the insurer might seek to reduce the amount of damages based on contributory negligence, but that is a separate matter.

(Agree, and this is like our case. It was clear cut when I discussed it with the Police on the day...and didn't take long for the drivers insurers to agree liability. But my concern is about cases that are more contestable and the timescale to any eventual agreement on liability of the driver....as only then can a funding stream from the final quantum of the settlement start)


I think solicitors like Leigh Day will tend to overstate the potential negative consequences of new legislation in press releases, not least because the underlying message they aim to convey is that people need their services. I would pay much more attention if CUK raise concerns about the issue.


( I note your view, and agree that Solicitors in this role will always "big-up" their role, but I can see no real reason in your argument to change my concern that it may not be a helpful change in law for some victims. The devil will be in the detail of how separate it is possible to keep the civil case (and it's lower level of proof ) from the criminal case...and whether there are ways to accept liability in the former without prejudicing the drivers position for a possible criminal case. Funds for care for serious injuries will be needed as soon as you are booted out of hospital to make space..........waiting 18 months for a potential trial or even 6 months can mean the victim ends up with a more incomplete recovery .. plus all the mental grief of the processes - civil and criminal)


IS there a lawyer in the house ?


old fangled
slowster
Moderator
Posts: 4629
Joined: 7 Jul 2017, 10:37am

Re: New Careless Driving Offences - helpful ?

Post by slowster »

hoogerbooger wrote: 18 Aug 2022, 5:30pm whether the prospect of a potential criminal charge may affect the chances of th edriver and their insurers agreeing liability
It won't.

Accepting liability in the civil case has no impact on an associated criminal trial. It will not count as evidence or an admission of guilt in the criminal trial. Most such civil cases are settled well before getting anywhere near going to court - consequently there is no court decision about liability, and the payment is usually made 'without admission of liability'.

Insurers will not be able or willing to delay dealing with and settling a civil claim in such circumstances simply because the driver is facing the possibility of a criminal charge. The driver does not get to decide how the civil claim is handled, because the nature of motor insurance is such that the insurer cannot wash their hands of the matter if the driver does not cooperate with their insurer. Motor insurance is compulsory by law, so the insurer MUST pay any claim for third party injury where the driver is held responsible, regardless of what the driver wants them to do. Even if the driver tells them not to or asks that they delay dealing with the claim until the outcome of their criminal prosecution, the insurer will not do so. There are a number of legal deadlines that the insurer MUST meet in responding to and defending a claim, so they are not allowed to delay (and they will want to avoid needless delay because it will increase their costs). Failure to meet those deadlines virtually guarantees a default judgement against the driver. So if the driver tries to interfere and delay the claim, the insurer will simply ignore them and instruct the solicitors to negotiate and settle.
Post Reply