Unpleasant altercation - who was the most unreasonable?

[zerofeeling]

Took my dogs out today and was trying to park in a small space between two cars on a country lane. As I was inching back to fit into the space I heard a loud crunch 😖

The two men from the car behind had just set off on their walk, as I got out of my car one of them was heading back towards me shouting why did I try to park in such a small space. I said sorry and inspected the front of his car - couldn't see any damage at all, and apart from a tiny paint scuff nothing on my car. I said to him 'i can't see any damage, it doesn't look like I hit you'
Man just glanced over at his car then asked me for my details, I asked is that necessary and said again there's no damage. He said that's not the point you have to give your details if you've been in a collision. He was much taller than me and sort of fronting up to me repeating that he wanted my details and me refusing, saying I don't think it was a collision, I think I might have hit something underneath my car. (For info my Mum and a friend have both been scammed on their insurance by people who claimed all kinds of things after very minor prangs)

Then he took an ID wallet out of his pocket and flipped it open to show a photo and badge and said he's Police. I couldn't tell if it was genuine or not. He held his phone up and said he's filming me refusing to comply with the law.
By this time the other man had come back and also filming me and I started to worry - I'm in a secluded area, with two men who are much bigger than me. I told them I felt intimidated and are they trying to scam me?

I got in my car and tried to shut the door but 1st man held onto it to prevent me. I asked if he's trying to detain me and he said no but I will if you don't give me your details, I've identified myself to you as a police officer. I said you've got no right to detain me. Eventually he let go of the door and I had to turn the car round as the lane is a dead end. Once I turned round he said again that I'm breaking the law by refusing to give my details after a collision and he started to recite the Caution they give when you're arrested! I drove away very shaken up, no idea what consequences to expect.

@zerofeeling under section 170 of the road traffic Act 1988 you have the obligation to stop and provide details.

I guess it depends what you told the call handler when you rang 101.

Yes posters who have chosen not to believe me are giving me a hard time. That's on you, not me. I've been honest in my account of what happened and I've complied with the law, his behaviour was all wrong and he's very probably broken the code of conduct for Police but you're still choosing to defend him and attack me. Better ask yourself why you're doing that.

@Hummusandcrisps Can you quote me the section of that Act that says you have a duty to report if you think there might have been an accident?

Exactly , it beggars belief on these threads when people attack and think their own accounts of what happened are correct , just some support and advice is required not hung drawn and quartered , it’s not ok to intimidate people end of stop trying to undermine this human behaviour , such a strange world we live in , if that had been mine daughter I’d be furious , no one is saying oh just forget about the fact you may have hit his car they are saying the situation was not handled correctly , yes it’s annoying if it happened to your car but handle it in a less threatening way !? Puts people off coming on here for some reassurance and advice

"That's on you, not me. I've been honest in my account of what happened and I've complied with the law"

I don't need to ask myself, I've been quite upfront about it

You complied with the law only because as you were advised, forced to even, only because there were police officers present who would have reported it. If there was no one there you would have likely just driven off, and justified it to yourself as there being "no damage"

You excuse your lack of integrity on fear and "intimidation" and compare your situation to Sarah Everard.

Any decent law abiding citizen would acknowledged their mistake and simply have provided their insurance details when asked because that is what insurance is for.

@zerofeeling probably has alot to do with your story being full of holes and your total lack of accountability for your actions. You still haven't told us how you behaved apart from refusing to give your details and drive off - there is a lot of context missing. What did you say to them, were you angry, did you shout, what was the tone, what was the actual conversation? Because it looks like everything was perfectly reasonable until the point that you refused to give your details and repeatedly refused to do so when asked and then drove off.

Never mind duty. Given you left, I'd have reported it in your place, just to cover myself.

You've made a complaint, just let it play out now.

So there is no such requirement in the legislation? That's what I thought.

Have you found the section in the Road Traffic Act that you were citing?

I have no idea. I have no expertise in that area. I certainly haven't said anything about legislation. I just know I'd have reported it straight away to cover myself. I think, for your peace of mind, you should now put this aside and let the insurance take care of things (if there's anything to take care of) and leave the complaint with those who handle them. There's nothing different you can do at this point anyway, so move forward.

@zerofeeling
Section 170 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 outlines the legal requirements for drivers involved in accidents. It mandates that drivers must stop at the scene of an accident, provide specific information, and report the incident to the police under certain circumstances. Failure to comply with these requirements can result in significant penalties.

Key aspects of Section 170:
Duty to Stop:
If an accident occurs on a road or other public place and results in injury to a person other than the driver or damage to another vehicle or animal, the driver of the vehicle must stop.

Duty to Provide Information:
If required by someone with reasonable grounds, the driver must provide their name, address, the vehicle's owner's name and address, and the vehicle's identification marks.

Duty to Report:
If the driver doesn't provide the required information at the scene of the accident, they must report the accident to the police as soon as reasonably practicable, and within 24 hours.

Offenses:
Failing to stop, failing to report, or failing to provide information are all separate offenses under Section 170.

Penalties:
Penalties for failing to comply can include penalty points (5-10), fines, driving disqualification, and even imprisonment in serious cases.

What you've cited there applies to accidents, not where people think there might have been an accident which is what you were claiming. Where is the section that applies to that?

"So there is no such requirement in the legislation? That's what I thought."

Yet strangely this was not mentioned in your OP. In your "honest account" you didn't tell the policy offer you weren't providing details because legislation did not require you to. You told him it was because there was "no damage" then apparently changed your mind and reported it and now you have changed your story yet again....

Still searching for any justification for your deplorable conduct.

The officer had reasonable grounds to suspect there could be damage to his vehicle ( which multiple posters have pointed out may not be immediately obvious) and you were obliged to swap insurance details at the scene.

As with an awful lot of law (legislation based and common law) it revolves around the concept of reasonable grounds. Would a reasonable person think an accident and damage could have taken place.

because the fact is I still don’t think it has been established if you did hit the car and if there was damage (because damage is often not obvious on first look) so it comes down to the question of reasonableness

and yes I think there was enough for a reasonable grounds here

it strikes me that a lot of this is because you are a fixed concrete thinker - no obvious damage no accident occurred. Which isn’t necessarily true

@zerofeeling

Section 170 "if owing to the presence of a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road, an accident occurs by which damage is caused to another vehicle....."

The law doesn't require:
-the driver to know the damage occurred
-the driver to agree that they caused damage
-the damage to be significant
-or for the driver to intentionally hit anything

What matters is that a collision or incident occurred that may have caused damage and you OP as the driver ought to be reasonably aware of that possibility.

In your case OP:
-you heard a loud crunch (auditory evidence something happened)
-you immediately got out and apologised implying subjective belief that you may have caused damage
-a visible scuff was present
-despite all of this you refused to give your details despite repeated requests to do so.

From a courts perspective that is enough to trigger the duty under section 170.

If a reasonable person would think an accident may have occurred involving damage, the duty to stop and provide details applies - regardless of whether the driver personally thinks there is enough evidence.

So you're advice is to lie to the police?

You're desperately stretching to make the Act apply in my case when it clearly doesn't. So clearly that a trained 101 call handler told me that there was no need for me to report it to them. So clearly that my insurance company said they didn't require me to notify them and they would only be involved if a claim came in from the other driver which it so far hasn't.
Yes, in normal circumstances I would have swapped details with the other driver, sighed with relief that there didn't seem to be any damage and we could both have gone on with our day. Instead, he lost his head and chose to go on a power trip, intimidate a woman in a vunerable situation and misuse his position, all of which is likely to get him into significant trouble in his job. I hope he thinks it was worth it.

I would trust the 101 call handler over this internet random. Clearly you did the right thing OP.

OP 100% Darvo strategy to deny accountability

Ludicrous post.

@zerofeeling I'm just telling you what your legal obligation is to do when you have an accident. I have no idea what version of events you told your call handler when you rang 101.
Of course you don't need to ring your insurance company, you wouldn't be the one putting in a claim. It would be the other party if there was damage to their car. That's why you need to provide your details so they have the option of doing so.
The tone of the interaction between you and the police officer only changed when you refused to give your details. Then you tried to make out that you probably hit something underneath the car. Once again you haven't disclosed the full conversation between you, what you said, what your tone was, whether you shouted. But is clear that once you decided not to comply, the conversation turned.
If someone drove into my car then denied doing it and refused to give me their details I'd be really cross. Like most reasonable people. But it seems you are not a reasonable person. You have shown zero accountability for your actions.

S170 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 is your guide

@zerofeeling come on OP, what normal circumstances would you have given your details? There was no hint of any unpleasantness in your account of the interaction until the point in which you refused to give your details. And despite the other party repeatedly asking you to do so you still refused then suggested you hit something underneath instead. At this point he shows you his ID and reminds you of the law. Then you felt "intimidated". Most likely you hadn't expected him to be a police officer and call you out on trying to pull a fast one.

Had there not been anyone there, would you have left a note on the car?

"Yes, in normal circumstances I would have swapped details with the other driver, sighed with relief that there didn't seem to be any damage"

Actions speak louder than words, OP

In this case of course

we only have your say so there was no damage,
(no one has inspected engine under covers bumper clips subframe etc )

so the innocent party who was not at fault didn't agree with your assessment

unsurprisingly was not sighing in relief at your incompetence at parking

Your response to him saying he still wanted your details was to refuse to do.

Then imply on this thread that he was a harasser

possibly a deviant attracted to the nature of police work
, you feared he was another potential Wayne couzens
then lodge an official complaint!

She already knew her responsibility, rang the number and got advice from the police call handler. That advice was different from some of your posts. Maybe time for you to bow out.