So I witnessed a minor crash yesterday..

drunkmonkey

One car (Car A) swerved right in the path of another car, The 2 cars were going in a straight line, One car (A) swerved over the white line and then double backed to turn into a lane, straight into the path of the car travelling behind him. (Car . No indicator was used.

The car travelling behind (B) hit the car turning in directly in the passenger door (A)

From seeing it, it looked like the person travelling behind was in the right as it was the car travelling in front that swerved in front of him after fully crossing the white line..

Now here's the thing, The driver of car A jumped straight out cursing at the driver of car b, he demanded to know the drivers age, the owner of car B admitted he was only 17 and had a provicional licence.

He was afraid to call the garda because of his age even though he was in the right. Should he have called the garda or would he have ended up in more trouble. I felt sorry for the poor kid, it was his first own car he had bought the day before. I really didn't like the way he was bullied back into his car and told to go home by the driver in Car A

What would the Garda of said if he arrived. There was a lot more damage done to car B than A. Is it just tough look as he was driving without L Plates and a fully Licenced driver beside him?

cushtac

drunkmonkey wrote: »

One car (Car A) swerved right in the path of another car, The 2 cars were going in a straight line, One car (A) swerved over the white line and then double backed to turn into a lane, straight into the path of the car travelling behind him. (Car . No indicator was used.

The car travelling behind (B) hit the car turning in directly in the passenger door (A)

From seeing it, it looked like the person travelling behind was in the right as it was the car travelling in front that swerved in front of him after fully crossing the white line..

Now here's the thing, The driver of car A jumped straight out cursing at the driver of car b, he demanded to know the drivers age, the owner of car B admitted he was only 17 and had a provicional licence.

He was afraid to call the garda because of his age even though he was in the right. Should he have called the garda or would he have ended up in more trouble. I felt sorry for the poor kid, it was his first own car he had bought the day before. I really didn't like the way he was bullied back into his car and told to go home by the driver in Car A

What would the Garda of said if he arrived. There was a lot more damage done to car B than A. Is it just tough look as he was driving without L Plates and a fully Licenced driver beside him?

The Gardaí would have taken the details of both drivers & vehicles, noted the positions of the vehicle, had a look for third party witnesses then cleared the scene.

If you were that unhappy with how Driver B was treated, why didn't you make yourself known to him as a witness?

drunkmonkey

cushtac wrote: »

The Gardaí would have taken the details of both drivers & vehicles, noted the positions of the vehicle, had a look for third party witnesses then cleared the scene.

If you were that unhappy with how Driver B was treated, why didn't you make yourself known to him as a witness?

Driver B only had a provisional licence, therefore he should have not being driving on his own, he also had no L plates. I thought a Garda might take a very dim view of this even though it was not his fault?

Hooch

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Driver B only had a provisional licence, therefore he should have not being driving on his own, he also had no L plates. I thought a Garda might take a very dim view of this even though it was not his fault?

Gardaí do only whats stated above by custac. We do not investigate material damage RTCs. Generally we dont prosecute for provisional licence, as long as the learner driver was not at fault. The matter is sorted by the insurance company.

cushtac

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Driver B only had a provisional licence, therefore he should have not being driving on his own, he also had no L plates. I thought a Garda might take a very dim view of this even though it was not his fault?

None of which would have had an impact on the insurance settlement. Even if it did, you making yourself known to him wouldn't have made it any worse.

Milkey Bar Kid

How does the Driver of Car B not understand that he does not know how to drive properly as he has a provisional Licence . It sounds like its not his fault but he should not be on the road unless he follows the rules
My question is where was the L plate and where was the person with the full Licence?

drunkmonkey

cushtac wrote: »

None of which would have had an impact on the insurance settlement. Even if it did, you making yourself known to him wouldn't have made it any worse.

Would he not have been in trouble with the garda for not having a fully licenced driver beside him and not displaying L Plates, could driver A not have made the argument that driver B shouldn't have been on the road in the first place.

There were 2 witnesses, but after establishing he was a provisional licence holder we also said it might be better just to leave it...

Hooch

Milkey Bar Kid wrote: »

How does the Driver of Car B not understand that he does not know how to drive properly as he has a provisional Licence . It sounds like its not his fault but he should not be on the road unless he follows the rules
My question is where was the L plate and where was the person with the full Licence?

Did you ever drive, ever on a provisional licence??

To be honest i've have no problem with privisional licence drivers on their own during the day going to work or college. Night time and pleasue driving is another story!!!

drunkmonkey

nice guy always wrote: »

To be honest i've have no problem with privisional licence drivers on their own

either do I, but by letter of the law they are breaking it if they drive on there own.
I don't see how you could be right in an accident when you're after breaking the law.

If I rephrase, what would a garda do? to what would a very angry garda in a bad mood with a hatred of young male drivers do in the same circumstances, could you litreally throw the book at him?

Hooch

drunkmonkey wrote: »

either do I, but by letter of the law they are breaking it if they drive on there own.
I don't see how you could be right in an accident when you're after breaking the law.

If I rephrase, what would a garda do? to what would a very angry garda in a bad mood with a hatred of young male drivers do in the same circumstances, could you litreally throw the book at him?

We could, but then its a max fine of €1000. Whereas the young driver could make a complaint of dangerous driving against the second driver, with you as a witness. From what your saying the older driver was at fault, full stop. If you are an independant witness you would be a great help to the young lad. Why should he lose his NCB!

We police without fear, favor, malice or ill will. Although the young driver did commit and offence, that offence did not in anyway contribute to the RTC

cushtac

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Would he not have been in trouble with the garda for not having a fully licenced driver beside him and not displaying L Plates, could driver A not have made the argument that driver B shouldn't have been on the road in the first place.

Gardaí have discretion, they are not obliged to prosecute everyone they encounter and Driver A would not have been able to claim anything of the sort if you & the other witness had said otherwise.

But either way, you giving your details to him as a witness has nothing to do with the Gardaí. If you hadn't have discouraged him, he could have informed his insurance company of what really happened & probably saved himself whatever amount he's going to pay out to that spa.

drunkmonkey wrote: »

There were 2 witnesses, but after establishing he was a provisional licence holder we also said it might be better just to leave it...

You've cost that youngfella so.

oldyouth

nice guy always wrote: »

To be honest i've have no problem with privisional licence drivers on their own during the day going to work or college. Night time and pleasue driving is another story!!!

Sorry but I do. I appreciate that most serious accidents happen at night, but if you are not qualified, you must comply. There is a duty of care to fellow road users and pedestrians. You have no right to put them at risk

Milkey Bar Kid

When I learned to drive I had my parents car which had L plates . I could drive its when one of my perants were in the car as I was learning to Drive hence the provisional Licence .I then had a driving instructor who perfected my driving to pass the test and when that was finished I bought my first car Hence the full licence

Milkey Bar Kid

I dont believe the learner driver was in the wrong but when these things happen you have to ask the question . Driving experience teaches you to expect the unexpected on the road

Hooch

Milkey Bar Kid wrote: »

I dont believe the learner driver was in the wrong but when these things happen you have to ask the question . Driving experience teaches you to expect the unexpected on the road

In fairness from what the OP says I wouldnt have expected that, with all my superduper courses and superduper farmyard sense:D!!

Any lads were going off topic. Create a new thread if ye want a good olde debate:D

Milkey Bar Kid

But I also think i would have become a witness for the Learner driver . People need help when they are getting accused for something that ias not there fault

daithip

Back on the thread, from what the OP said and from my experience of investigating RTCs I could see this going 50/50. Car A definitely made a poor maneouvre but there is also the onus on the driver travelling behind to stay far enough back in the event of having to take evasive action, the old 2 second rule. Well that's just my opinion.

drunkmonkey

i'd agree, driver B should have been a bit more catuious. A more mature driver would have known to pull back and see what the driver in front was up to rather than ploughing on ahead.
It's still not his fault but he wan't experinced enough to know better. (he might have had a cheap lesson in the rules of the road)

Your hounour I find driver B guilty of been a young fella, no licenced driver beside him, No L Plates. case dismissed.

TheNog

drunkmonkey wrote: »

i'd agree, driver B should have been a bit more catuious. A more mature driver would have known to pull back and see what the driver in front was up to rather than ploughing on ahead.
It's still not his fault but he wan't experinced enough to know better. (he might have had a cheap lesson in the rules of the road)

Your hounour I find driver B guilty of been a young fella, no licenced driver beside him, No L Plates. case dismissed.

For the cause of the RTC its a 50:50 situation. There is no reason to aportion (sp???) more or less blame to either driver.

cushtac

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Your hounour I find driver B guilty of been a young fella, no licenced driver beside him, No L Plates. case dismissed.

What makes you think it would go to court in the first place? I would say there's more chance of the insurance companies sorting it out between themselves long before it got to that point.

drunkmonkey

I didn't, it was just the out come I drew from the thread, settle it yourself lads 50/50

cushtac

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I didn't, it was just the out come I drew from the thread, settle it yourself lads 50/50

And 50/50 is better than Driver B shouldering 100% of the cost, which is more than likely what will happen now.