Sir Keir Starmer interviewed by police after crash with cyclist while driving in north west London

There already is one knocking about, althoguhfrom memory it's more from the side of being hit than doing the hitting.

Possibly the same difference legally, if not physically 

brooksby wrote:

....They're probably only a day away from claiming that Starmer was driving a load of stolen hamsters at the time or some such sh!t...).

I have photos...

Maybe he just likes to drive?

spragger wrote:

Sir Keir turns hard left

As cyclist goes straight.

Chances of Mr Starmer turning left are minimal - no wonder it took the rider by surprise

Maybe he was in the middle of the road. Corbyn would have been on the left. 

They say he was making a U-turn...

I don't believe BTP would have been dispatched to that - it would have been traffic or locals as BTP jurisdiction is the rail network I think. 

It is possible that BTP happened to be there and attended, whilst the locals were dispatching.

I think that you are spot on there Cap'n.

Some poor old BTP Officer has popped out for a sandwich and unfortunately (for them) come across the accident. Probably hadn't a clue what to do!

Kendalred wrote:

I'm confused. The spokesman (spokesperson, surely?) said “Keir was involved in a minor road traffic accident on Sunday. He spoke to a British Transport Police officer who attended the scene and swapped details with the officer and the other individual involved. Keir stayed at the scene until the ambulance arrived. Later that afternoon, he reported the incident to a police station in accordance with the law.

But the Met say he left before the rozzers arrived?

Are the two statements contradictory, or does the spokesperson mean he spoke to the attending officer after the event (at the station)? Either way...Et tu, Keir?!

I presume because he spoke to BTP officer on the scene and not a met officer, the met were not aware of this at the time of the statement.

it was clarified in a later article that the BTP person was an off duty PCSO so not a proper rozzer, but easy to see how that can get confused.

* deleted - basically said what Captain Badger said 2 hours earlier

well dont forget this guy is a lawyer & used to be head of the crown prosecution service, and yet has to be reminded by the Met he needs to report a road collision with a cyclist formally to the police. whilst no doubt claiming he was terribly confused having spoken to a BTP officer and thought he'd done it. The cynical half of me is expecting it to turn out the cyclist was the BTP officer, but thats just me being cynical.

To be fair:

Article wrote:

The driver of the car had stopped at the scene and exchanged details with the cyclist

Which would meet the requirements in the UK for exchanging details, only if you fail this do you have to report to the police... (n.b. in my opinion reporting accidents involving injury or damage to the police should be mandatory)

Requesting the driver attends a police station as they want to check whether the driving met criminal standards is separate. Normally this would be done by writing them a letter, but the quicker it is done the better as statements are more reliable the sooner they are taken... (It also wouldn't surprise me if the BTP officer can do some but not all of the processes due to differences in training etc...)

On a more general point, I have seen several comments now that from the articles on this, clearly the only person the right wing press hates more than cyclists is Kier Starmer. (And are clearly struggling to write an article on cycling that doesn't imply the cyclist was exclusively at fault as it can't possibly be the fault of the poor hard done by british motorist... /sarcasm)

I believe when a person is injured though, as was clearly the case here,you must additionally produce your insurance certificate to the police or anyone who reasonably asks for it, and on the basis people rarely carry that document around with them,you must then report in person to the police to report the collision within 24hrs,and show the insurance certificate within 7 days, you cant do it over the phone. So exchanging details alone doesnt wholly cover this.

But if you think Sir Keir is getting a hard time on this,just imagine the press bonanza if the Rt Hon member for Uxbridge & South Ruislip had been involved instead

I think you are right, unless he fulfilled the requirements of the law at the scene, including (given the injury) producing his insurance to any people reasonably requiring it at the scene (unlikely) then he would have to contact the police within 24 hours.

The driver only needs to report the accident to the police if someone is injured. They still have to 'exchange details', but reporting to the police is an additional requirement.

Not quite correct. The requirement is for a collision which causes damage or injury to any other person, vehicle, animal or property.

The "any other person" in this case is the cyclist, yes surprisingly another badly worded piece of road legislation,but its meaning is that if anyone other than yourself is injured in a collision they might not be in a position to exchange details with you because they are injured,and certainly not whilst being actively treated and whisked away in an ambulance.

And FWIW the one time I've witnessed a cyclist hit by a car, the sound of crunching bones,scream of pain & seeing a body flung several metres isnt something you forget in a hurry,it wasnt even that fast an impact,but the cyclist was in no fit condition to exchange details after that,they were in shock,concussed and had some quite serious injuries as we discovered, fortunately the ambulance driver wrote them down on a post it so it could be followed up as the police didnt attend in time.

But that maybe why I'm less affable in cases where a cyclist has been hit by a car, however much people want to downplay it, it's always a collision that hurts

What I said was quite correct!

I just didn't expand my answer