Undue care and attention!!

[mrtfool]

My wife is being done for undue care and attention. The summons says that she hit a stationary car in the road. Here is what happened in brief form. At a set of temporary traffic lights, traffic pulled away 30 yards down the road she all of a sudden saw car in fronts brake lights come on, slammed on her brakes (in wet) and couldnt stop in time. Summons says cars were stationary but no way that can be as we had all just pulled away from lights. The first thing the lady said was Sorry I just slammed the brakes on, he pulled out on me. What happened was another driver pulled out in front of traffic on opposite side of road, women braked and wife didnt stop in time. Also if the drivers were stationary he would have to have been pulling in to a petrol station that clearly has a no entry sign. What is more likely is that he was coming out of the exit of the petrol station. Can courts do her for undue care when the statement of fact isnt right? Surely its not undue care just because there was an accident? It was caused by another driver undue care which had an unfortunate effect. There were no injuries. It was wet. How were cars stationary when we had all just m,oved off from temp traffic lights? Your help on this would be appreciated as I dont want to fight in court if got no chance but dont see why wife should be punished for something that didnt happen. Let me know if you need any more info. Mr T

[Ethel]

It is nearly impossible to win in this situation - the argument will always be that your wife should have left enough distance between her car and the vehicle in front to stop safely. The fact that the road was wet simply means she should have been aware of this and left a bigger gap.

[bednobs]

sorry mr t, but the way you have descirbed things, IS undue care and attention. You should always leave room to be able to stop 9especially in the wet) so that if the car in front had to do an ememrgency stop, you would be able to stop. imagine if in your story, instead of a car pulling out, a child ran out, or an out of control pram came in the road - you wouldnt be trying to say it was the prams fault would you?
It is an accident - ut caused by your wife not paying attention to the conditions or the gap between her car and the one in front

[Toureman]

It is Undue care, your wife was careless for driving to close to the car in front.

All the other things you say are irelevent.

[mrtfool]

I think it all rubbish. No one is allowed to have an accident without it being called undue care and attention. Just feel sorry for her. Has anyone heard of no points and a driving awareness course. I think as does my wife that in the long run it would be of great help. As a biker I have done some advanced courses and they help you see things that no other person looks for. Anyway nevermind. Oh last thing, the bloke that pulled out in front of everyone and caused the situation, how do I make sure the full anger of our fantastically fair and just law system hits him too?
Thanks for your replies.

[mrtfool]

Oh and anyone reckon that because the summons description is wrong that there is a loophole?

[sigma]

If this was just a rear end shunt, why were the police involved and how did it get this far ?.

[Lakitu]

I'm just wondering the same thing, Sigma. I ran up the back of someone last Summer. The police were called as a matter of course, but charges were not even discussed :0/

[mrtfool]

Someone on the scene called them I suppose and then this turned up on our doorstep. Hey ho

[R1Geezer]

It's not showing "DUE" care. Undue care would be showing too much care!

[New Judge]

Just to be pedantic, the offence is one of "Careless Driving". Care (whether due or undue) does not come in to it.

To answer your question mrtfool, the circumstances you describe most certainly do indicate that careless driving occurred. It was not an accident. Your wife did not leave sufficient distance between her and the car in front to be able to stop in the prevailing conditions. Yes, it happens all the time and no, not everybody is prosecuted for it, but it is still so nonetheless.

The maximum penalty is a fine of �2,500 and the imposition of 9 penalty points, or a period of disqualification. The incident you describe is at the lower end of seriousness and the realistic outcome is a fine of about one week�s income (reduced by up to a third if she pleads guilty) and three points.

[mrtfool]

I very much appreciate your answer. Thanks. I do think though that the justice system is absolutely rubbish though. Thats just my opinion from personal experience. Its not careless, there are so many cars on the road these days that these things are realistically going to happen and they do ever day. Its not as if driving isnt expensive enough these days. If the incident requires it then yes throw in the points and fine. If some one does not leave enough room and runs someone over, goes into the back of someone at a high speed causing injury and so on. If someone has a bump 2 people exchange details then why do it. Just because the police turn up...yes lets do her. Oh and if she decides to put her case up in a court of law and defend what she thinks lets give her extra punishment. The bottom line is the police were called we are going to punish you if you say anything apart from your right we will crush you. Sorry if you are a judge or have been but I think your system is a joke, it does work sometimes but the rest well your just part of a system that bullies. P.S Respectfully
MrT

[mrtfool]

And how do you account for the people above that had rear end shunts?

[mrtfool]

LOL If it is not an accident WHAT IS AN ACCIDENT??

Sorry only loads of questions because you seem very knowledgable.

I cannot see how you can have an accident anymore. Surely they dont exist.

[New Judge]

It�s not my system, mrtfool, it is our system. It is the system we have which says that careless driving is that which falls below the level expected of a careful and competent driver.

Careful and competent drivers are expected to take note of the Highway Code. Para 126 of the Code (and indeed commons sense) says that you should be able to stop in the distance you can see to be free of obstruction. If the vehicle in front stops immediately you will then be able to avoid a collision. If a rear end collision does occur because insufficient space has been left it will be because the following driver has not taken advice from the Highway Code. The collision may be accidental (as opposed to deliberate) but a court will take the view that it occurred because of the careless driving of the following driver.

Apart from vehicle damage rear-end collisions can cause considerable injuries to the (blameless) occupants of the car in front. Even at low impact speeds, �whiplash� injuries to the spine can cause considerable pain and sometimes even lead to permanent disability.

You are almost right when you say that road traffic �accidents� do not occur any more. They rarely occurred in the past and equally rarely do so now. In most cases they are more properly described as �incidents� where one of the parties has not behaved as they should have done the road. Rear end collisions have always seen the rear driver prosecuted if the police are involved. It�s nothing new.

Of course your wife can plead not guilty and have the matter heard by means of a trial. She would be extremely foolish to do so as she will almost certainly be found guilty for the reasons I have outlined.

Sorry it may not be what you want to hear, but that�s certainly the way it is.

[Skyline D]

I would say this example meets the very definition of careless driving. It's unlucky the police got involved and you can curse your luck over that but otherwise I really don't see the argument against it being anything but careless driving. That's what it was.

[Golf38]

On the roads, accident doesn't exist. A collision is always somebody's fault, its just whether the police consider the fault so serious to prefer charges.

Hence why the police call such matters Road Traffic Collisions (RTC) and not Road Traffic accidents (RTA) anymore.

[Kerry511]

Hi I was hit whilst stationary into car. The lady that went into the back of me admitted to myself and the police at the scene of the accident that she took her eyes off the rd because her child was asking for the toilet!!!. The traffic criminal justice sent me a letter saying they will not be doing her for undue care and attention!!!! Why is this?? At the scene the police told me she would be done for it!.