Ultimately I'm to blame, I didn't see her when I glanced over my left shoulder to reverse as she was in the blind spot, no excuses, but as i stated in the original post the distance i travelled in reverse was around 3 ft.

What does the distance covered have to do with anything?

Speed of vehicle, relevant to severity of impact, low distance covered, therefore low speed

What does the distance covered have to do with anything

A lot I would suggest, proof hardly moving so relevant to any subsequent injuries sustained.

Accidents happen and we can all be a victim of circumstance, the Tesco lorry being in the wrong place.

So far I've not heard anything, I did go to the police station to hand over my documents, but that was a wasted journey, given they had started the process of "evidence and CCTV gathering", and we don't have a space on that form to tick off that you've shown us the documents. Another trip will be required I think.

But as you say concrete, it could have been so much worse, even at the very low impact speed, so I consider myself very lucky.

As a number of people have said, I'll leave it with the insurance company to deal with.

My insurance renewal came up, it's a 2 car policy with SWMBO's and it had "Accident August 2019" on my details, but nothing else. I have a protected NCB, and the cost was around £15 more than last year. Felt like a lot of hassle to try and change whilst "mid claim" so I have stuck with my current insurer.

I'll update with more, once I hear from either the police, I suppose this might be driving without due care, or the insurance company, so I'l have to wait.

Thanks for the update paul. I don't think it is likely you will face prosecution for this unfortunate incident. The insurance will decide how to deal with this, usually a pay off in full and final settlement. Plod has other fish to fry I am sure. I am with LV and have renewed for the past two years after checking prices so you are pretty much in the hands of a large and resourceful company. At least your premiums will not increase too much. Glad the lesson in watchfulness did not cost anyone any serious injury. Good luck.

Concrete

Hello Paul, I am wondering what the police have in the form of evidence. If there was no police presence at the incident presumably the injured party has made a complaint and they are relying on her testimony and any other witnesses that may have observed the incident. I suppose you were careless in your actions at the time, as you have admitted. A solicitor is a good idea. It will cost you but he/she may determine what the police have and either counter it or advise you to accept it. The CPS must think they have a case and are giving it a go. Check with your insurance company to ask if a claim has been made. Don't tell them yet about your interview, it may come to nothing, but if it does you will have to inform them as it is a material fact. Good luck. Cheers Concrete

Thanks All,

Answers to questions:

1. Evidence - police stated that they would be gathering CCTV info, this was a week or so after the initial incident at the beginning of August, so my assumption is that they had now reviewed this and thus they want to speak to me.

2. I will call the insurance company and see what if anything they know about a claim, but for the time being, not disclosing that I have an interview.

3. The PC stated that I could have the duty solicitor, but it sounds like it would be worth engaging a motor law specialist, however I assume that would be after the initial interview

4. Vitally important that I speak to my duty solicitor first then, prior to the recorded interview

5. I'm going to bring all the dash-cam footage / photos I have to share with my duty solicitor, and at some point (assuming the CPS wants to prosecute), with my other yet to be engaged specialist solicitor

Much obliged to all for advice,

P

3. You can use duty, but if you can sort your own from day 1.

Agreed - I wouldn't go into that interview under caution, because that's what it'll be, without a proper solicitor, if you can get one experienced in motoring cases, so much the better.

They'll get you to talk and incriminate yourself if you are not careful.

Thinking about this there are a couple of points that spring to mind.

Firstly, through your solicitor ask to see the CCTV footage before you are interviewed under caution. If they refuse ask them if they will show it after your caution. No to the first and yes to the second means they think they have something. In which case no matter what you say will change their minds if they think they can get the CPS to prosecute you. I would insist upon seeing the CCTV footage prior to answering any questions. Then I would be tempted to not answer any but say you will submit a comprehensive written statement after consulting your solicitor. Least said soonest mended is a good motto.

Secondly, if the injured party has made a claim, I would bring that up. It may just cast doubt on her motives for complaining, assuming they are relying on her evidence. CCTV should show the extent of any injury caused and may give you some wiggle room.

Good luck

Concrete

ps I would not bring up that lorry too much, if that vehicle reduced your visibility on this manoeuvre then they will ask why you did it in the first place and did not find a safer way to do it, for example by turning around further along and coming back the other way, you have admitted the other vehicle made it difficult but you did it anyway. Also distance makes no difference as someone else has suggested.

Answers to latest posts:

1. The police and I agreed a mutual time for the interview, so no chance of an arrest I'd suggest, I will call the officer in question when he's back from his holiday next weekend and re-confirm our appointment, as a matter of courtesy.

2. I appreciate it's impossible to ascertain internal injuries at the scene, but having been bumped into once in a supermarket car park at the same estimated speed, it seems unlikely that any real injury beyond bruising would have occurred. All of which is a moot point as I'm not medically qualified. The lady in question did state a few days later she was still aching, so a major injury seems to have been unlikely.

3. The potential differences in an injury to a elderly person / child could have been much worse, but that was not the case, so, does the law prosecute against what could have been or what was?

4. I have always admitted that this was my fault, I looked over my left shoulder, but, I must not have seen her as she passed into my blind spot, so point taken, a look over the right shoulder would have potentially prevented this.

5. The circumstances leading up to this accident, whilst not an excuse must be contributory, yes, my decision to go into a gap - following another vehicle. However, living on a narrow single file lane anyway, I'm used to meeting cars in gaps and reversing out of the way, so difficult to say this was the wrong move to enter the gap. Should the car turning left into my path have reversed back given I was in the gap anyway? Someone had to give way, and as I said I am used to doing this on the lane where I live, so that's what I did.

6. As for the interview, I will listen to the duty solicitor's advice first, and decide the best course of action then. It's not in my nature to not admit fault, but maintaining a reasonable defence is.

7. I'll still call the insurance company and see what they say.

Thanks for all thoughts / advice so far.

Cheers P

"...wish you well for the interview."

Hear, hear. And I want to add that Paul has, throughout the whole discussion, remained calm and reasonable. It's a great pity he finds himself in this situation; there but for the grace of God... etc.

But please be very careful what you say.

An anecdote: I accompanied one of my stepsons to magistrates' court when he was summonsed for fraudulent use of a train card on multiple occasions. (It was an inadvertent series of offences; he should probably have refused to answer the ticket inspector when he was asked, "Have you done this before?" It turned out that, for some reason, the ticket inspector's evidence seemed less than solid, from what I gathered, particularly as there was only one specific date that could be proved.)

The prosecution solicitor interviewed us prior to the case. In effect, he was offering a deal - to prosecute the lad for only some of the offences. The lad was all up for admitting to that immediately and getting it over and done with. I intervened (which displeased the solicitor mightily, but I told him it was important there was clarity) to ask the lad to repeat what he was agreeing to. Turned out he was so panicked he hadn't listened properly.

I asked the lawyer what would happen if the lad didn't accept that. With a very poor grace, he said, "Then we'll charge him with just the one offence." He pleaded guilty and had a fine probably smaller than the alternative scenario.

I'm sure you can see the moral.

Edited by FP on 16/10/2019 at 13:49