I have just been sent a questionnaire to complete, with regards to the accident a couple of Sundays ago (Mondeo ploughed into my back end at a set of traffic lights).

One of the questions is "Do you consider it necessary for the person(s) you say is to blame to be prosecuted"?

I am torn with how to answer this.

Okay, the guy was paying zero attention to the road for several seconds, and failed to stop for a red light at a major junction, or for traffic already at that light (i.e. me), so he is patently to blame. He says he was distracted by magazines blowing around on the road - which yes they were there but not really an excuse.

So from that, yes absolutely he should be prosecuted, and I am struggling to come to terms with it, as it was such a pointless accident - there was no excuse.

However, a part of me feels sorry for him - how many of us have had times where we have had to brake hard and just stopped in time, or misjudged a corner and been thankful for no oncoming traffic etc. This was an accident, he didn't do it on purpose, it was a momentary (well a bit longer than momentary) loss of concentration from a younger (early 20's) driver (although I guess I am still in my 20's - just ! so there's not much in it).

What would you do? I keep swinging back and forth between "Yes - he was at fault, he was stupid etc.), and "No - we've all had close shaves"

 

Yes, running into the back of someone is inexcusable as you should always know what's in front of you. If he had run someone over or seriously hurt one of you would you be having the same dilemma?

 

what do you get out of prosecuting him.

if the situation was the other way round what would you want him to do?

 

I think you need to tick the yes box.

He was clearly not concentrating on driving the vehicle, I really dont understand what the dilema is.

Yes it was an accident, but it would have been easily avoided if he was looking at the road!!

 

was it $$$$$$ mags, he might have a valid excuse then lol they are very distracting.

Seriously though, he doesn't have much of an excuse, it was an accident (i'm sure he didn't mean for it to happen) but you should have your eyes on the road at all times and stationary traffic and red lights are hard to miss.

If you prosecute him you'll probably have to turn up in court etc. though if convicted he will probably get a 6 month ban and a fine or something along those lines for dangerous driving [sure one of the legal bods could predict what sort of sentence he could get if convicted.] Depends if you think he is dangerous enough to need to be taken off the road for a while or if you think he would have learnt his lesson and suffered enough with the insurance increases etc. and shock of what he

 

He ran into the back of you.

Fair enough, everyone was able to walk away but that could easily have not been the case.

I'm sure it won't make too much difference whether or not you tick the box anyway.

If the police think he should be prosecuted I don't think you ticking the 'let him off' box is going to make a blind bit of difference.

 

I ran into the back of stopped car at the traffic lights and I could have killed someone. It wasn't because I wasn't concentrating but because I misjudged the condition and the stopping distance. If I had been prosecuted for that I wouldn't be too happy.

This guy however deserves everything. His excuse is stupid and the way they acted towards you at the scene worse. Furthermore what was it that made him crash in dry daylight conditions? It couldn't have been anything but either speeding or not paying any attention to the road. Also you have told us that his girlfriend was screaming at him at the time so it leads me to believe that she must have told him to slow down at some point and now she was biting his head off.

 

I bumped into the back (well rear corrner) of someone on a roundabout when he pulled into my lane and stopped (because his lane was blocked). So it's sometimes unavoidable. However the insurers took the view that because there was no witnesses and because I bumped the back of his car it was joint liabilty.

 

Personally I would lean towards not-procesuting.

I read the original thread and there's no doubt he made a huge mistake, but as you point out we all make mistakes. I have had one or two very near misses where I haven't been concentrating quite as hard as I should or I've been distracted by something and only the superb brakes on the S have allowed me to avoid an accident. If we're honest I don't think any of us can say we concentrate 100% of our attention on the road ahead 100% of the time. (That said I've never been so asleep that I've ploughed into the back of a stationary car at traffic lights!)

Did the guy seem remorseful or apologetic? Do you think he has learnt from the accident? His insurance is likely to be more expensive from now on so that might be punishment enough.

Anyway, is it entirely your decision? Don't the CPS just use your answer to this question as one of many factors when deciding whether to prosecute.

Obviously it's your call, but I would give the guy a break.

Si

 

I can see your dilemma mate and feel for you. We must be the same star sign as I would not know which way to land... but would prob tick the No box in the end.... I think he will prob have learned alot from this experience....