Can I Get a Witness??? 176 bus, 8:30 this morning, bottom of Dog Kennel Hill

[djfitz]

I was involved in a tiff with the 176 this morning. At the bottom of DKH, across from Dominos at about 08:30.

The nice lady driving the bus admitted responsibility (hooray), but the nasty man in Arriva said they never admit liability (Ya-boo!) so will have to claim through my own insurance co..

None of the potential witnesses stopped to give details and since the driver admitted responsibility I didn't persecute any by-standers - not a great idea, in hindsight. Right now a witness would be a very good thing. (As would a pint but that's not the point... Focus!!)

I appreciate that some forum users were tucked up in bed, nursing lovely hangovers (post the EDF pints last pm) but I thought it might be worth a shot.

Help appreciated.

Feel free to PM if you are / know a witness. Likewise feel free to publicly berate me and my naivet? in the open forum if you are not.

[KalamityKel]

Erm... slightly confused... who? what? where? why? Did I bus hit you?

[snorky]

Im sure someone could come along and fill your role if you really want & produce a verbatim statement of witness.

Not that Im advocating anything illegal, but a pissed driver once smacked me up the arse at 35 mph when I was stationary at lights and escaped leaving a bogus phone number. After some detective work, I found them and as if by magic, they submitted a statement saying that I had reversed around a blind conrner at speed and rammed into them, writing off both cars. They backed this up with 3 witnesses.Odd since it was 3AM in New Cross and pretty dead.naughty.

Thye didnt get away with it in the end obviously, Snorky made sure of that.

[djfitz]

KalamityKel Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Erm... slightly confused... who? what? where? why?

> Did I bus hit you?

Yes. Bus hit me (my car to be precise). It ran a red light where the bus lane joins the main lane just before the road runs under the bridge at East Dulwich Station.

[Tony.London Suburbs]

I was there! Whats it worth?...My time and wise counsel does not come cheap,sadly.:(

Which Bus was it again?

"I was involved in a tiff with the 176 this morning"

....I've had agro with those "12's" the modern bendy kind.Like they own the road with their arrogant,never-ending selves.Much prefer the old "12's" Route-Masters.They were always pleasant and courteous on the roads.Bygone era,I'm afraid.(6)

[Tony.London Suburbs]

Don't wish to be mercenary but Whats it worth?"....I could be an on-the-spot Witness if you require one.

Lets talk Business.:-$

[Cassius]

Hi

I'm afraid we heard the crunch but were already too far away to see what happened - by the tyre shop. We did wonder what had happened, and hoped that no-one was hurt. However as we saw nothing and as I hate the idea of hanging around accidents unless you are actually a useful witness, we went home.

Was it you in the BMW and is the front wing a total write-off? I hope you get something sorted out as quickly and as painlesly as possible.

[djfitz]

Yup. That's me. Thank you anyway.

[bri]

Did you call the police? have you reported the incident? Do you have the drivers ID number. I wouldn't take their word for it. Go to the old bill see what they can do, i wouldn't take tfl's word for it. good luck with it

[neilson99]

The way that TFL bus drivers go about their business I'm amazed that there aren't more accidents. The drivers on the 63 and 363 up Forest Hill Road really do need to have a look at there Highway Code's and learn how to use their brakes without sending every passenger who isn't sat down through the front window.

Anyway, to the point, I'm pretty sure that there is CCTV around there. Certainly outside the train station and quite possibly down the bus lane on DKH. A quick google search or a look on Southwark council/South London Trains website might cast some light.

[KalamityKel]

Ahem can I just stress bus drivers dont work for TFL they work for their own bus companies. TFL are known for being useless when it comes to reporting issues. Go to the bus company itself. You'd be surprised how often they DONT stick up for their drivers. (tu)

[djfitz]

Thanks for the feedback.

I know it's stupid but I didn't call the cops because the driver admitted it was her fault on the scene and didn't contest it.

KK wrote "Go to the bus company itself. You'd be surprised how often they DONT stick up for their drivers."

- Arriva are the bus company and the guy we spoke to there was a total pr**k - full of attitude - who said that they NEVER admit liability even if they're plainly in the wrong. "Why would we?" was his less than helpful response.

When I complained I'd lose my No-claims-bonus or have to pay the excess because they are contesting fault he replied "Well, that's your problem then, isn't it?". A real charmer.

We did think of the CCTV and the insurance co. said they'd look into requesting that.

We shall see. For the mo I just want the car fixed. People are walking past out house and pointing at the car. I don't want to be accused of bringing down the tone of the neighbourhood. (Although we probably did that the day we moved in!);-)

[philiphenslowe]

neilson99 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The way that TFL bus drivers go about their

> business I'm amazed that there aren't more

> accidents. The drivers on the 63 and 363 up Forest

> Hill Road really do need to have a look at there

> Highway Code's and learn how to use their brakes

> without sending every passenger who isn't sat down

> through the front window.

>

> Anyway, to the point, I'm pretty sure that there

> is CCTV around there. Certainly outside the train

> station and quite possibly down the bus lane on

> DKH. A quick google search or a look on Southwark

> council/South London Trains website might cast

> some light.

TfL only run the number 15 & 9 heritage routes. All the other bus companies are private.

[Keef]

When I complained I'd lose my No-claims-bonus or have to pay the excess because they are contesting fault he replied "Well, that's your problem then, isn't it?". A real charmer.

What a total arse, be sure to complain!

[Asset]

Pretty sure it's a legal requirement to inform the police of any sort of prang, whether or not fault is admitted. It is necessary for the insurance companies etc.

[JohnL]

Asset Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Pretty sure it's a legal requirement to inform the

> police of any sort of prang, whether or not fault

> is admitted. It is necessary for the insurance

> companies etc.

Must be new requirement because in the 80's I remember telling the Police I'd deal with an an accident myself.

I thought you needed to inform the Police if someones hurt or some third party equipment (lamp post) gets damaged.

I did think however, that insurance companies tell you 'Never admit liability - or we won't pay'

[theratprincess]

If I were you, I wouldn't wait for your insurance company to get the CCTV. CCTV is routinely destroyed after 28 days. Go and do your own reccy, identify where the cameras are, who owns them (they often say on them) and write to the relevant authority, giving the date/time/location of the camera etc, asking them to secure and preserve the footage. They probably won't give the footage to you, but at least it is preserved if your insurer eventually decides that they want it. It is most likely that any cameras are owned by LB Southwark. Most councils have dedicated departments dealing with CCTV.

These are are rules about reporting accidents taken from the Crown Prosecution Service Website http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section9/chapter_a.html#04:

Failing to stop/report an accident

Definition [Wilkinson's 21st edition 7.04 and A 25.240]

Section 170(2) of the Road Traffic act 1988 provides that the driver of the motor vehicle must stop and, if required to do so by any person having reasonable grounds for so requiring, give his name and address, the name and address of the owner of the vehicle and the identification marks of the vehicle. The duty to stop means to stop sufficiently long enough to exchange the particulars above: (Lee -v- Knapp 1966 3 All ER 961).

Section 170(3) places an obligation on the driver, if he does not give his name and address under subsection (2) above, to report the accident to a police constable or police station as soon as reasonably practicable and in any case within 24 hours. The duty to report means "as soon as reasonably practicable": (Bulman -v-Bennett 1974 RTR). It does not mean the driver has 24 hours within which to report the collision.

[Asset]

"Must be new requirement because in the 80's I remember telling the Police I'd deal with an an accident myself."

road traffic act 20 years ago (1988)

[dianecollins]

I think you have to report the incident to the police anyway and I'd do it NOW as you could be accused and charged with accident and not reporting within 24 hours which is what happened to me about 16 years ago.Good luck

[JohnL]

Asset Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "Must be new requirement because in the 80's I

> remember telling the Police I'd deal with an an

> accident myself."

>

> road traffic act 20 years ago (1988)

So that means if you swap name, address and insurance details with the other party then you are OK - which is what I did as an 18 yr old in what was actually quite a smash up --- but my last :)

[Asset]

No, it's fairly clear in the link that if there is damage or injury it is the drivers responsibility to report the accident, i.e. to the police. Why are you using something that happened to you over 20 years ago as an example of what is okay now? And well done you for not having had an accident since then!

[sweetgirl]

i am going by information i have from a driver of a local garage, when reports are made against drivers, sometimes - not all the time, it can be destroyed before it gets to the complaints team! so in the end it never gets reported, even though you may think its been reported!

i know this because i know a few from local garages & in particular, one person i know is buddies with the top people, whose complaints DO get destroyed, & so he/she doesn't get into any trouble or disciplined!

"i shouldn't be telling you this!";-) i think we all have a right to know about these things. if anyone wants to make a complaint, send it via registered post!!!! preferably directly to the garage the bus is from & ask for a reply to your complaint!

[JohnL]

Asset Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> No, it's fairly clear in the link that if there is

> damage or injury it is the drivers responsibility

> to report the accident, i.e. to the police. Why

> are you using something that happened to you over

> 20 years ago as an example of what is okay now?

> And well done you for not having had an accident

> since then!

But there was no injury to person or animal and no damage to anything except to the two cars - and in that case Police need not be involved - and thats the same today. 100% sure of that.

RAC/AA and insurers advice is similar and I wouldn't want the Police involved unless absolutely necessary to be honest.

Also ALL advice says NEVER adnit liability - if you do your insurers might not pay out.

[Siduhe]

From the DFT website:

Legal requirements

The law requires that if you have been the driver of a motor vehicle on a road involved in an accident resulting in injury or damage to another person's property or involving some types of animals, you, the driver, must stop and if required by any person having reasonable grounds, provide your name and address, insurance company and name and address of the owner of the vehicle you are driving and its registration mark.

If you do not provide these details, for whatever reason, you must, as soon as possible, and in any event within twenty-four hours of the accident, report the incident to a police officer or at a police station. For full details of the legal requirements consult section 170 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

There may be reasons why, in addition to the circumstances above, you may wish to report the accident. In such circumstances, the amount of detail recorded by police, if at all, will vary according to the circumstances or the seriousness of the accident.

So, providing details have been exchanged, there may not be an obligation to report. Good link through to the actual requirements of the road traffic act too.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/collisionreporting/reporting.asp

[Asset]

I think the driver of the BMW whose front wing was mangled would dispute there was no damage.

I don't want to harp on about this but I do think you are wrong John. Damage to anything other than damage to that vehicle which caused the accident, i.e. any one of the cars involved (or mechanically propelled vehicle as the act so succintly puts it).

If there is no damage to either car and the drivers agree to waive it then yes, it is okay not to report it, but in this case there is damage.

You may not want the police involved but as someone above said, it is an offence not to report an accident that involves damage.