Driving without due care and Attention a possible ban?

Status
Not open for further replies.

lee1980

Well-known Member
This is for my 70 year old father. Last July had an accident. Basically a 30/40mph road, where 2 lanes filter in 1. He was on outside and accelerated keenly away to go past car on left, it seems as he went to go past lady in other car decided to accelerate also. Meaning they were then neck and neck as 2 lanes ran out.
He had initially thought he had hit a bollard or similar on right side and I think was looking to left to much at the lady not letting him in.
Unfortunately he left the scene with shopping as he is a carer for my Mum who had a massive stroke and is paralysed down one side, and my dad has always been quite anxious about leaving her alone, but knows now should not of left the scene.
It transpires a car coming opposite way had flipped over after hitting his car, fortunately no one was injured at least not anything serious that we know of. My Dad had not hit a bollard but he didn't know as I think he was looking to left to much which of course is driving with out due care and attention.
I see it as 50/50 both in the wrong for not letting each other in.

After the incident and because my Dad was unaware of full extent to flipped car, it seem the Police took that as being uncaring and not concerned etc, when they saw him after, and i guess advised it go to court due to this and extent of damage etc to other car/people. Rather than straight fine and points.
It went to Court last month and it seemed best to be plead guilty at the time but not so sure now, and got a letter other day about it being adjourned or to go again to court its not clear really if it went ahead of the judge last week or if something else had made it worse like a witness come forwards, of course phoning court no one can discuss it.

Now have over 6 weeks of worry until next date where it says he needs to attend in person, obviously now worried more so it maybe a driving ban.
Anyone had any experience or advise on this, we have never been in trouble with the law before apart from speeding points so all a little bit confused as to how it goes.
My Dad has no previous other than speeding points that are no longer in licence. Never done anything else in his 70yrs etc.
He is full time carer to my Mum so hoping this goes some way to not giving a ban, as see others with over 12 points still on road after pleading this and that they need car etc.
 

ParsnipSoup

Active Member
Don't see how you reckon on it being 50/50 unless you think the car coming the other way encroached over the central line.
The alternative was to brake and cede priority to the driver on the left.
Unfortunately failing to stop is going to count against him as that seems to be one of the few things that make a difference to a rta.
Failing to stop is 5-10 points and careless driving is 3-9.
He might get the minimum given his circumstances which would be less than the 12.
 

lee1980

Well-known Member
Thanks for your reply, I was meaning 50/50 with the lady driver on left on same side of road, though I think as my Dad was in outer lane imagine the law says he should of pulled back first but im not sure.
I think by that point when neck and neck and my Dad would of been on wrong side of road and it seems like car coming opposite way had no where to go like so hit outside corner of Dads car not head on as no air bags went off in his, but then it launched it to flip.
Yeah I know the leaving the scene was a bad idea, since Mums stroke he has seemed to of gotten more anxious and worried over everything but more so if he can't care for her.

He could deal with points and fine, its just whether they go to a ban for 6 months etc.
Now he knows more of what happened to the flipped car of course feels guilty and glad no on was injured badly etc.
 

nvingo

Distinguished Member
The car that is ahead at a merge-in-turn has priority - basically the driver behind has a clear view of the other car whereas the driver that's ahead doesn't. So that means by not conceding, the driver behind (whichever one that was) was in the wrong and majorly contributory to the resulting collision.
That's both any collision between the two cars going into the one lane, or the two cars being abreast at the single lane causing a collision with an oncoming car.

At the most prolific merge-in-turn in my town, the single-lane section is to allow parking for cars at shops; what if the collision had been with them, or someone on foot accessing one; speeding through a merge-in-turn is fraught with possible negative outcomes.
 

lee1980

Well-known Member
The car that is ahead at a merge-in-turn has priority - basically the driver behind has a clear view of the other car whereas the driver that's ahead doesn't. So that means by not conceding, the driver behind (whichever one that was) was in the wrong and majorly contributory to the resulting collision.
That's both any collision between the two cars going into the one lane, or the two cars being abreast at the single lane causing a collision with an oncoming car.

At the most prolific merge-in-turn in my town, the single-lane section is to allow parking for cars at shops; what if the collision had been with them, or someone on foot accessing one; speeding through a merge-in-turn is fraught with possible negative outcomes.
I see thanks its not a turn but a straight road 2 lanes go into one but imagine same rules apply.
Unless there is a witness that says one or other was in front or dash cam we will never know, but sounds like to me it was just one of those time where both didn't give way.

This is quite a large open road and not like usually busy with pedestrians as quite far out and it seems that no cars mounted the pavement, we are very thankful the outcome was not worse for anyone involved.
 

nvingo

Distinguished Member
its not a turn but a straight road 2 lanes go into one
That's where you have to "merge-in-turn" (sometimes called a zip) - take it in turns to move from the two-lane section to the one-lane section - nothing to do with turning a corner!

This is the one near me:
1617115376283.png

In this instance the road marking arrows don't indicate zipping, but the signage before does.
We also have a hatched area for run-off if merging traffic doesn't comply - that would have helped in the instance you described.
It actually seems not to be included/mentioned in the Highway Code so I can't find official information or diagrams.
 

Fergal82

Distinguished Member
Have the police followed up with the woman on the inside lane? I suppose unless she stopped at the scene no one would have her details?

How did they catch up with your dad? Ie if he didn’t stop at the scene
 

lee1980

Well-known Member
That's where you have to "merge-in-turn" (sometimes called a zip) - take it in turns to move from the two-lane section to the one-lane section - nothing to do with turning a corner!

This is the one near me:
View attachment 1485662
In this instance the road marking arrows don't indicate zipping, but the signage before does.
We also have a hatched area for run-off if merging traffic doesn't comply - that would have helped in the instance you described.
It actually seems not to be included/mentioned in the Highway Code so I can't find official information or diagrams.
I see sorry mis understood, I see as in take in turns like. Yeah its like that but a near straight road 2 lanes come from traffic lights then 2 lanes narrow to one and I don't think there is any room like your image for run off etc as road narrows to single lane each side.
I imagine its a bit of a grey area to like as to who is in the right. There are other similar 2-1 by us and understand when its busy you are meant to use both lanes and allow each other to filter in. What a lot do though is zoom past last minute and cut in or try push in when traffic is steady like.
In my Dads case it was it seems just him and other lady.
 

lee1980

Well-known Member
Have the police followed up with the woman on the inside lane? I suppose unless she stopped at the scene no one would have her details?

How did they catch up with your dad? Ie if he didn’t stop at the scene
We do not know, as there has been no follow up until it got to 6 months after we had thought nothing was coming of it, but it seems 6 months is the time they look at and that was when he had opportunity to plead guilty by post last week.
That's the concern that she perhaps went to court and testified or other witness did.
She stopped and was questioned as far as we know.

My Dad walked back home as not far from home, this is probably another reason why he wanted and was able to leave scene as it was close to home but still should not of left, his car left there so know its him and his car was a write off to!
 

scarty16

Well-known Member
Sorry to say, hit another car and flipped it and not notice !!!

A feel a long ban is coming his way..

I would also suggest he stops driving as well..
 

noiseboy72

Distinguished Member
Can I be frankly honest?

If your father did not see a car that collided with the front of his car with enough force to subsequently flip, then is he safe to be on the road?

There are multiple issues here, he was accelerating hard and looking at the car he was trying to overtake and not looking forward. What would have happened if there had been a cyclist or other vulnerable road user? What if the flipped car occupants had suffered serious injury?

I would have expected your father to have noticed the impact and to have looked in his mirror to and realised it was not just a bollard - and even if it was just some road furniture, stopping to check your vehicle for damage is a must as well. Once he did stop, why did he still not realise what had happened?

Maybe the car on the inside was in the wrong to a certain extent, but your father's actions were not acceptable based upon the evidence you have presented so far. A driver should always be looking forward for the majority of the time and not at the car they are overtaking. As soon as it was clear that one or other person was going to need to give way, the common sense approach is to slow down and merge behind, not press on with a pass that might present a hazard to other road users, however annoying this might be. The notion of "My Lane" or "My Right of Way" is all well and good until a collision occurs, much better to take action to avoid an accident in the first place than argue about who's fault it was later...

Impatience to get back to a loved one is understandable but is not a defence. The court might have expected him to have arranged for someone else to provide care while he was away, or to have arranged for online shopping or for someone else to go on his behalf. This is one of the main causes of accidents, after poor observation and not correctly estimating the speed or path of other road users - and I think in all honesty, your father would fall into all these categories.

I don't know what the sentencing guidelines are, but if this was a young driver racing away from the lights and causing the same accident, do you think the court would have much sympathy? I guess your father can try and plead some mitigation, but a ban and an extended driving test - or an agreement from your father to surrender his licence might be on the cards.
 

scarty16

Well-known Member
Can I be frankly honest?

If your father did not see a car that collided with the front of his car with enough force to subsequently flip, then is he safe to be on the road?

There are multiple issues here, he was accelerating hard and looking at the car he was trying to overtake and not looking forward. What would have happened if there had been a cyclist or other vulnerable road user? What if the flipped car occupants had suffered serious injury?

I would have expected your father to have noticed the impact and to have looked in his mirror to and realised it was not just a bollard - and even if it was just some road furniture, stopping to check your vehicle for damage is a must as well. Once he did stop, why did he still not realise what had happened?

Maybe the car on the inside was in the wrong to a certain extent, but your father's actions were not acceptable based upon the evidence you have presented so far. A driver should always be looking forward for the majority of the time and not at the car they are overtaking. As soon as it was clear that one or other person was going to need to give way, the common sense approach is to slow down and merge behind, not press on with a pass that might present a hazard to other road users, however annoying this might be. The notion of "My Lane" or "My Right of Way" is all well and good until a collision occurs, much better to take action to avoid an accident in the first place than argue about who's fault it was later...

Impatience to get back to a loved one is understandable but is not a defence. The court might have expected him to have arranged for someone else to provide care while he was away, or to have arranged for online shopping or for someone else to go on his behalf. This is one of the main causes of accidents, after poor observation and not correctly estimating the speed or path of other road users - and I think in all honesty, your father would fall into all these categories.

I don't know what the sentencing guidelines are, but if this was a young driver racing away from the lights and causing the same accident, do you think the court would have much sympathy? I guess your father can try and plead some mitigation, but a ban and an extended driving test - or an agreement from your father to surrender his licence might be on the cards.
What I was going to say but didn't have the time
 

lee1980

Well-known Member
I agree to with the last 2 posts on how did he not know, as me and my brother are still like at times going, how did he not see it to, as initially we had no idea anyone else was involved as he did not know either until the Police told him after.
I can only imagine he was wrongly looking to left at driver on left for to long and by this point was past the 2 lanes and on other side of road then boom. Which as we know is wrong and should of just braked and went back.
He is 70 and a good 70 and in good health etc, this of course still doesn't mean something didn't happen at the time to make him do this or he totally mis judged it, eye sight etc is good and all that.
It sounds like it was sheer panic to get back and that and must of not even looked at the aftermath really, I know this no excuse still.
He has since my Mums stroke made some rash decisions and its affected him overall a lot more and the need to do practically everything for her for the last 10 years.
Never had an accident anything like this before in all his years, so don't think should surrender licence quite yet but of course they may suggest that.
I just wondered of what others had in terms on sentencing for this sort of offence but does look like it will be probably be a ban unless they take carer role in to it etc.
Also for others opinions as of course being his son want to give the benefit of the doubt and don't want him to have a ban etc, but can truly see the seriousness of this and how bad it could of been also.
 

ParsnipSoup

Active Member
I see sorry mis understood, I see as in take in turns like. Yeah its like that but a near straight road 2 lanes come from traffic lights then 2 lanes narrow to one and I don't think there is any room like your image for run off etc as road narrows to single lane each side.
I imagine its a bit of a grey area to like as to who is in the right. There are other similar 2-1 by us and understand when its busy you are meant to use both lanes and allow each other to filter in. What a lot do though is zoom past last minute and cut in or try push in when traffic is steady like.
In my Dads case it was it seems just him and other lady.
With 2 lanes into one and no dual carriageway, then I don't see how the concept of a bollard comes into it. Comes across as almost self incriminating ie failed to observe oncoming hazard, failure to plan ahead, failure to take the appropriate action.
Regardless of whether the car on the left was at fault, he is going to be stung for the failure to stop.
I know you did write his eyesight is ok but when did he last have a check up?
 

noiseboy72

Distinguished Member
Do make sure that your father makes it clear he is a sole carer and that the car is a lifeline for them.

Avoid any mention of hurrying to get home, but something along the lines of "A lack of judgement following the collision spurred by his wish to get back to his wife meant that he did not think to return to the accident site and was unaware of damage to any other vehicle until the police visited him"

Maybe suggest that the car on the inside was being driven in an aggressive manner and that temporarily upset your father and led to his actions?

Being humble works well in these cases. Maybe a ban can be avoided - or at least reduced in lieu of a larger fine, but I wouldn't count on it. Do you have a solicitor? It might not be a bad idea.
 

lee1980

Well-known Member
With 2 lanes into one and no dual carriageway, then I don't see how the concept of a bollard comes into it. Comes across as almost self incriminating ie failed to observe oncoming hazard, failure to plan ahead, failure to take the appropriate action.
Regardless of whether the car on the left was at fault, he is going to be stung for the failure to stop.
I know you did write his eyesight is ok but when did he last have a check up?
No I know, It feels like he said that as truly didn't know what he had hit and couldn't remember where the island on road is there is one way further up the road when its single lane each side.
Yeah know its not good he walked away from the scene.
Will ask but pretty sure he is up to date etc on this.
 

lee1980

Well-known Member
Do make sure that your father makes it clear he is a sole carer and that the car is a lifeline for them.

Avoid any mention of hurrying to get home, but something along the lines of "A lack of judgement following the collision spurred by his wish to get back to his wife meant that he did not think to return to the accident site and was unaware of damage to any other vehicle until the police visited him"

Maybe suggest that the car on the inside was being driven in an aggressive manner and that temporarily upset your father and led to his actions?

Being humble works well in these cases. Maybe a ban can be avoided - or at least reduced in lieu of a larger fine, but I wouldn't count on it. Do you have a solicitor? It might not be a bad idea.
When it first went to court a week or so ago before hand he pleaded guilty by post and written out about his role as carer etc and what happened, but letter has had since we are not sure if it was adjourned because of delay or new evidence, but imagine its new evidence or as you guys have said they think its severe enough and will give him a ban.
I think he pretty much said that he really didn't know another car had been involved.

With solicitor thing again not sure as has pleaded guilty, and he has legal cover with insurance but can't get through to anyone recently and even last year his insurers did not suggest to call up legal cover but I think now in hindsight should of done sooner if we knew sooner what else had been involved with other car.
 

noiseboy72

Distinguished Member
They will have adjourned for sentencing reports. They may read all witness statements, police reports and recommendations, as well as any evidence your father has submitted. That's all standard practice.

New evidence won't be admissible in terms of deciding his guilt, as he's pleaded guilty, so no evidence would have been heard in the first place. They will simply be looking at the reports as a guide to what degree of severity the offence has.
 

lee1980

Well-known Member
They will have adjourned for sentencing reports. They may read all witness statements, police reports and recommendations, as well as any evidence your father has submitted. That's all standard practice.

New evidence won't be admissible in terms of deciding his guilt, as he's pleaded guilty, so no evidence would have been heard in the first place. They will simply be looking at the reports as a guide to what degree of severity the offence has.
Thanks for the info, I see, its just a shame its over 6 weeks away now until know and know this will be on his mind as it would with anyone for anything like this, its just its on top him having to do everything daily as Mum has no memory of sorts either now.
Of course understand with Covid to the courts are behind no doubt to in every sense.

Do you know if now as hes pleaded guilty and what they decided next for sentencing that is that, or have they said he must attend to hear his side in person maybe?
 

nvingo

Distinguished Member
as me and my brother are still like at times going, how did he not see it to,
...
He has since my Mums stroke made some rash decisions and its affected him overall a lot more and the need to do practically everything for her for the last 10 years
Is he too proud/stubborn to allow his sons assist and take a load off him? Maybe he needs to.
 

lee1980

Well-known Member
...

Is he too proud/stubborn to allow his sons assist and take a load off him? Maybe he needs to.
We have of course offered to help in every way and its not just physical stuff to do, its the fact she has not much conversation also due to a hearing loss, it means I call often just for that like day to day conversation he doesn't get.
But yeah it maybe time he needs to take some time out and maybe speak to someone other than family also.
 

Delvey

Distinguished Member
Don't be surprised if he has to have a medical as well whatever the outcome.
 

gibbsy

Moderator
I'm 70 in a couple of months so I can have some perspective on how your father is feeling. From your description it seems that you had two drivers hell bent on not yielding to the other. The lady was in the left lane which has priority. Your father should not have accelerated into a diminishing space and indicated and pulled in behind her.

Was the other driver at fault, that can be argued and it's something I see almost everyday where there is such a merging on the approach to our village. What worries me is that he was not looking ahead and that caused the collision which has not resulted in a driving without due care. He's lucky if the person in the other car had been seriously injured he could have been facing a dangerous driving charge.

He'll have to be humble in court that's for sure and admit to the offence. It's likely that he'll face a ban unless he can prove that transport is essential for your mother's well being. If he is banned then, because of his age, he will have to retake a test if the police ask for his license to be revoked. That I believe is totally different from a ban.
 

mjn

Distinguished Member
If he has been asked to attend court personally, a strong possibility of a driving ban.
 

lee1980

Well-known Member
I'm 70 in a couple of months so I can have some perspective on how your father is feeling. From your description it seems that you had two drivers hell bent on not yielding to the other. The lady was in the left lane which has priority. Your father should not have accelerated into a diminishing space and indicated and pulled in behind her.

Was the other driver at fault, that can be argued and it's something I see almost everyday where there is such a merging on the approach to our village. What worries me is that he was not looking ahead and that caused the collision which has not resulted in a driving without due care. He's lucky if the person in the other car had been seriously injured he could have been facing a dangerous driving charge.

He'll have to be humble in court that's for sure and admit to the offence. It's likely that he'll face a ban unless he can prove that transport is essential for your mother's well being. If he is banned then, because of his age, he will have to retake a test if the police ask for his license to be revoked. That I believe is totally different from a ban.
From what he said initially he was past her from the traffic lights and was to cut in but then she accelerated unexpectedly it seems, but yeah as you say, my thoughts to left lane gets priority just not sure if it was to a late to hang back by then.
We do not know or been told anything really of what has happened with the other parties involved.
Yeah not entirely sure why or how quick it happened for him to not see the on coming car etc.
He does every day since known what really happened, feel guilty and thankful that ultimately no one was seriously injured.
He has at first court date pleased guilty by post. It is essential as she is on highest disability allowance and all they really do is visit shops and coffee shops etc, well did before lockdown as anything else is just really hard because of all the disability she has, and only goes on holiday with us now so we can help. With out car would have to rely on more help from us and others, which we could for shopping etc, but they would then be stuck in house generally with out a car.
I see, we will have to see how it goes now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

The latest video from AVForums

Podcast: LG C1 OLED + JBL Synthesis SDR-35 First Thoughts, plus TV Show & Disc Reviews & more
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Latest News

Austrian Audio launches Hi-X65 headphones
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Roku expands streaming content with Roku Originals
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
What's new on Netflix UK for June 2021
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
AVForums Podcast: 12th May 2021
  • By Phil Hinton
  • Published
Bluesound unveils new generation of Node and Powernode audio players
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom