Starmer involved in cycle collision whilst he was driving

A careful read of the regulations shows you're wrong
https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q894.htm

willnottolerateracism wrote:

A careful read of the regulations shows you're wrong
https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q894.htm

Thanks! I was under the impression that when there was an injury you must inform the police. 

kie7077 wrote:

A careful read of the Guardian article implies that Starmer was driving the car that hit the cyclist, he waited until an ambulance arrived but didn't report the accident to the police, instead the police contacted him and told him he'd better report it.

Starmer ought to know that if you're involved in an accident then you have to report it.+

The cyclist's arm was injured.

Maybe. OTOH there was certainly no intent or effort that I could see at evasion. I think we can be charitable and view that as oversight

Captain Badger wrote:

kie7077 wrote:

A careful read of the Guardian article implies that Starmer was driving the car that hit the cyclist, he waited until an ambulance arrived but didn't report the accident to the police, instead the police contacted him and told him he'd better report it.

Starmer ought to know that if you're involved in an accident then you have to report it.+

The cyclist's arm was injured.

Maybe. OTOH there was certainly no intent or effort that I could see at evasion. I think we can be charitable and view that as oversight

The Grauniad says that the Met said:

“The driver of the car had stopped at the scene and exchanged details with the cyclist but had left before officers arrived.

“The male cyclist received a minor injury to his arm and was taken to hospital by LAS as a precaution.

“Officers later attempted to contact the driver of the car and left a message advising him to report the matter to police.

“The driver of the car subsequently attended a north London police station. He was not arrested or interviewed under caution.

... which seems more like 'didn't report it until the police asked him to', I'm afraid.

OTOH, exchanged details at the scene and did report it (eventually) is still way better than Chris Grayling's behaviour over that dooring incident.

brooksby wrote:

 

... which seems more like 'didn't report it until the police asked him to', I'm afraid.

OTOH, exchanged details at the scene and did report it (eventually) is still way better than Chris Grayling's behaviour over that dooring incident.

Sure, I wasn't disputing that, merely that I would question whether we can conclude there is any attempt to avoid police involvement. The exchange of details, remaining at the scene, and reporting when prompted suggests oversight, rather than obfuscation

re your last paragraph, deffo!

That's a bit of pedantry there isn't it?  It said he gave his details to a BTP officer at the scene.

Your comment is assuming all lawyers know every aspect of the law which is plain wrong - they specialise just like everybody else. How often do you think as a barrister or DPP he dealt with minor traffic incidents?

I think most people would be happy to leave a scene knowing a police officer had our details.

kie7077 wrote:

Starmer ought to know that if you're involved in an accident then you have to report it.+

Hmm but from the article you give a link to:

“He spoke to a British Transport Police officer who attended the scene and swapped details with the officer and the other individual involved."

If I'd spoken to a transport police officer at the scene I may have made the same mistake and assumed that counted as a report as well.

stomec wrote:

 

“He spoke to a British Transport Police officer who attended the scene and swapped details with the officer and the other individual involved."

If I'd spoken to a transport police officer at the scene I may have made the same mistake and assumed that counted as a report as well.

There does seem to be conflict in the reports, and at this stage it's certainly feasible that a BTP officer was present at the time, but not the local constabulary officers who were dispatched to the scene. My understanding is BTP deals primarily with the rail network, and are distinct from traffic or local cops.

At face value of that, I don't believe Starmer's actions are unreasonable (edit: at least after the collision....)