Police Questioning after Car Accident

babykingdom on 03/07/2023 - 23:18

So I've been involved in a car crash. Both cars were written off but no one was seriously hurt. It went exactly as per this scenario.

I was car A. Now I'm not going to dispute on who was at fault. I think we can all agree who was. I am just glad to be alive. The cops visited me in hospital and wanted to ask a few questions. They then gave the "anything you say will be used against you" line and recorded me on video but I went ahead and answered honestly to the best of my knowledge. Stuff like was I "the driver of x car on this date which collided at this location with y car", "what happened?", "were you impaired or distracted?". They also asked me who was at fault. I told them it wasn't for me to say. They recorded all my answers in a little booklet word for word and let me read what they wrote down. They asked me if I was willing to sign it but said I didn't have to so I didn't.

I'm just curious what signing or not signing it does. Or if answering their questions at all was a good idea. I'm guessing this information will be used by the insurance companies but what else will they use it for?

Thanks and take care all.

Automotive

Comments

  • AustriaBargain on 03/07/2023 - 23:30
    +28

    You prolly should have called a lawyer.

    • nobro25 on 05/07/2023 - 19:02
      +2

      Better call Saul.

  • racer1234 on 03/07/2023 - 23:32
    +15

    There can be police charges after an accident. Such as dangerous driving, speeding, running red lights etc. Probably trying to establish whether any of those apply and to who.

    • billadm on 06/07/2023 - 17:35

      Driver A was in NO duty to answer to any question!

  • BrunoBear on 03/07/2023 - 23:46
    +25

    but what else will they use it for?

    As evidence against you if it goes to court.

    • Serapis on 05/07/2023 - 22:09

      or you know, for just issuing a fine?

      • BrunoBear on 05/07/2023 - 22:10
        +4

        And if OP chooses to contest the fine, it will go to court…

    • DashCam AKA Rolts on 04/07/2023 - 00:03
      +18

      It went exactly as per this scenario.

      That is why, it was explained in the first paragraph.

      • [Deactivated] on 04/07/2023 - 00:07
        +2

        What is happening here?

        • andresampras on 04/07/2023 - 00:20
          +9

          babykingdom is a time traveller

          • [Deactivated] on 04/07/2023 - 12:09
            +1

            @andresampras: I hope their 'travels' provide them with some respite

          • Ghost47 on 04/07/2023 - 12:49
            +2

            @andresampras: They should be spending their time trying to track down Sarah Connor instead of posting on OzBargain!

            • andresampras on 04/07/2023 - 12:58
              +2

              @Ghost47: the clue is in the name:

              'baby' + 'kingdom'

              I reckon that's code for 'new post-apocalyptic society'

              • babykingdom on 04/07/2023 - 13:44
                +2

                @andresampras: You weren't supposed to say that until after the Baby Kingdom has overthrown King Charles

            • babykingdom on 04/07/2023 - 13:53
              +1

              @Ghost47: Maybe speaking to the cops was a canon event

    • Fredfloresjr on 04/07/2023 - 11:33
      +2

      Hahahahaahahahaahahahahahaaha

    • Sammy2000 on 04/07/2023 - 14:11
      +1

      Maybe they are still in hospital 2 years after the accident.

  • Deditus on 04/07/2023 - 00:42
    +3

    Most likely signing it just agrees that everything they noted down was a true record of your account of the incident.

    • bmerigan on 05/07/2023 - 22:53
      +1

      Exactly. It's a "this is my true statement".

  • bobbified on 04/07/2023 - 00:47
    +12

    They will likely just come back and give you a ticket for negligent driving.

    • AustriaBargain on 04/07/2023 - 01:53
      +11

      were you impaired

      Probably fishing to see if OP would be dumb enough to incriminate himself. I guess it doesn't cost anything to ask, except whatever a few hours of two cops time is worth

      • subywagon on 04/07/2023 - 09:04
        +1

        ^ This. They don't really care who was at fault etc, just who they can pin it on for an easy case. OP should have said nothing and got a solicitor.

        • bhubb18 on 04/07/2023 - 09:48
          +12

          You don't need to be paying huge fees to a solicitor to say no comment

      • Protractor on 04/07/2023 - 10:50

        Do you think the fishing trip filled the eski?

  • aoeueoa on 04/07/2023 - 02:55
    +15
    • next time decline to answer all questions. Though you are required to provide your licence and personal details and exchange them with other parties.
    • signing the statement would make it easier to use later in court if needed "you signed this as is so you've said this is true". If you don't sign it then the officer would have to ultimately testify in court if it was disputed by you or others.
    • they're just looking if neg-driving charges apply.
    • you can both be at fault equally, not necessarily only one party. In this case it's easier to pin it on you and that's likely the case anyway.
    • get a dash cam
    • Sawtell on 04/07/2023 - 05:55
      +2

      next time decline to answer all questions. Though you are required to provide your licence and personal details and exchange them with other parties.

      You also need to provide the police with a version of what occurred. See NSW Road Rules regulation 287(4).

      • JIMB0 on 04/07/2023 - 08:59
        +18

        Was driving, woke up in hospital. The less said the better.

        • Ridiculous Panda on 05/07/2023 - 22:38
          +2

          Why lie though? Unless they actually did something that would land them in trouble?
          If you just play dumb and pretend you somehow lost your memory, the cops would be tempted to believe the other driver’s story even if they lied.

          • LVlahov on 06/07/2023 - 01:11
            +4

            @Ridiculous Panda: Not giving the full story is not lying in a legal sense.

            And while it sounds devious and unethical, it is EXACTLY what an ethical lawyer would advise, even the most innocent and above board party. And the reason for this is they know how the justice system works, and so know that it often gets things seriously wrong.

          • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 06/07/2023 - 08:30
            +1

            @Ridiculous Panda: Plenty of innocent people have ended up in the Court system because they couldn't shut up.

            OP had their brain rattled by a tonne and a half vehicle enough to be in hospital and Officer Plodder is trying to take advantage and "question" OP to self incriminate so they can meet their "unofficial doesn't exist, honest" infringment quota. That's the fact of the matter.

      • dave999 on 05/07/2023 - 22:33
        +1

        Just out of interest, I don't think it says you have to "provide the police with a version of what occurred" immediately?

        I find it very hard to believe you are required to give details of a crash without legal representation to police. Even more so after the duress of being in a crash and injured.

        As I read it you have 24 hours to give over information to police, and more time in 'exceptional circumstances'.

        " "required time" , for a driver involved in a crash, means as soon as possible but, except in exceptional circumstances, within 24 hours after the crash." "

        • factor on 05/07/2023 - 22:41

          http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/rr2014104…
          "an explanation of the circumstances of the crash"

          • dave999 on 05/07/2023 - 22:44

            @factor: But that is in the "required time" and the required time (which I had quoted from your link) is:

            " "required time" , for a driver involved in a crash, means as soon as possible but, except in exceptional circumstances, within 24 hours after the crash." "

            The other relevant passage is:

            "(3) The driver must also give the driver's required particulars, within the required time, to a police officer if—"

  • Lunarboogie on 04/07/2023 - 03:31
    -7

    Looks like you were in the wrong in executing a turn when it was clearly unsafe to do so - the oncoming vehicle has a right of way on an orange light. I know you're not looking to dispute fault but this is OzB and you don't get ofd off this lightly.

    Your actions appeared reckless and dangerous and I, for one, hope the authorities get you off our streets.

    • EightImmortals on 04/07/2023 - 07:01
      +1

      Pretty sure he did that himself, no need for the heavy hand of the state to have a go as well. Unless OP is a repeat offender who doesn't learn their lessons.

    • WreckTangle on 04/07/2023 - 09:19
      +1

      Wait, car B is wrong in this scenario.

      • Ghost47 on 04/07/2023 - 12:57
        +3

        I’m confused now too. Everyone is piling on OP (typical of OzBargain) but in the pic in the thread they linked, if they’re Car A they needed to exit the intersection due to the amber light. If they had a green arrow they would’ve had right of way. If not then Car B has right of way, so they need to wait until either Car B has visibly slowed down or passes through the intersection before turning.

        But if Car A’s light is amber then Car B’s light (at Car A’s 5 o’clock) should’ve been amber too. That could mean Car B should’ve stopped and was in the wrong.

        • burningrage on 05/07/2023 - 19:15
          +4

          I think the issue here is Car A should have given way (as it is turning) to a straight moving traffic (Car B) and as long as Car B's traffic light is yellow, he/she still has the right of way unimpeded.

          Turning into traffic when it is safe to do so has greater weight vs stopping at yellow light because the rule about stopping at yellow light is actually (in my experience) you must stop UNLESS you cannot stop safely and that part becomes debatable as anyone could have argued (especially driving at 80kms for example) they wouldn't have enough time to stop unless emergency braking.

          OP, never speaks to cops without a lawyer indeed. They are conducting fishing expedition in order to save them time and effort for pinging you for reckless driving. Don't help them add to your misfortune.

          • Bren20 on 06/07/2023 - 10:47

            @burningrage: Car B does not have "right of way" and should stop at the yellow if it is safe to do so. You can get fined for entering an intersection on a yellow if you could have stopped.

            Car B should have stopped if it was safe to do so.

            The responsibility of the crash is dependant on the context, whether Car B had sufficient time to stop.

            • burningrage on 06/07/2023 - 15:07

              @Bren20: Maybe it is so but in real world, car B would not be asked to justify if it has sufficient time to stop.

              In fact, after going through yellow lights thousands of times in my driving career, I have never for once pinged for failing to stop at yellow lights. Obviously dont be blatant about it like pedal on the metal to beat yellow lights.

              It is far easier to prosecute the failing to give way because the end result is there for everyone to see, the accident.

        • SgtBatten on 06/07/2023 - 07:24

          Whenever you are car A and have a green light but not a green arrow, you have 1 decision to make initially.

          Is the street to the right backed up to the point where I might be unable to clear the intersection? If yes, remain behind the line. If no, proceed in front of the line and stop if unsafe to turn.

          Then you have 1 further thing to do, turn when safe to do so.

          If there are cars flowing in the opposite direction this often means you don't even start turning until the light turns red. This is perfectly fine as you are already in the intersection by that point.

          Related pet peeve is people who do not enter the intersection as described above and no-one gets through the light. 1 car should always get through.

          • burningrage on 06/07/2023 - 09:14

            @SgtBatten: "If there are cars flowing in the opposite direction this often means you don't even start turning until the light turns red. This is perfectly fine as you are already in the intersection by that point"

            When I took a driving lesson in the 90s, the instructor would say you can turn if it is safe to do so regardless if the oncoming traffic is red or yellow. The key word is "when it is safe".

            Imagine to my surprise when I drive along Clarendon street (VIC) recently and they installed lots of hook turns and said only turn when the oncoming traffic is red. Either the standard has changed or too many people have poor judgment when it comes to "when it is safe" so it's better off just telling people to turn when the light is red.

            • SgtBatten on 08/07/2023 - 09:52

              @burningrage: Hook turns are a different beast I guess but they actually signpost to turn when red?

    • Eeples on 06/07/2023 - 08:55
      +1

      There is no right of way in the driving rules.

      I do, however, agree with you as to the culpability of the OP.

      In fact I would go further and say even if the light was red the OP shouldn’t have turned as it was unsafe.(the OP also admits he knows that some people run that red so he ought have waited).

  • Sinnerator on 04/07/2023 - 09:02
    +17

    sorry dude, BUT NEVER SPEAKS TO COPS WITHOUT A LAWYER.
    You may accidently say the wrong thing which you cannot retract and ruin your life.
    The cops, initially, have no clue and are looking for a guilty party.
    Lawyers stop overzealous cops from being too overzealous during the interview process.
    Having a lawyer present would let you know immediately whether you should have signed or not.
    etc

    • subywagon on 04/07/2023 - 09:06
      +9

      100%. Especially while laying in a hospital bed. You might feel "ok" but your memory might be fuzzy, or you're not really all there and you say something wrong, even by accident and it could f-up the rest of your life.

    • Protractor on 04/07/2023 - 10:53

      How do any of us know the cops aren't using OPs statement to convict the other driver?

      • Benoffie on 04/07/2023 - 11:13
        +7

        That is equally poor. A statement impaired by drugs, concussion, medication etc is useless in court and the police ought to know better.

        • Protractor on 04/07/2023 - 12:13
          -1

          Quotas.

          This is another half a story.The OP could be a serial offender,poor driver,saint. How do we know?
          Equally if the scenario is true , and becomes a criminal case of some gravity,despite being anon to us, could OP not accidentally compromise /incriminate themselves on a public forum?
          The more we advance with social media the more blurred some legal lines blur.

    • asianbargain on 05/07/2023 - 17:44
      +3

      Wouldn't yoy have to spend money on lawyer too?

      Can't we reject cop question if we feel uncomfortable?

      • LVlahov on 06/07/2023 - 01:25

        An answer to the police of "no comment" meets the requirement to provide them an answer. Whether you are comfortable or not has no bearing. You don't need an excuse to answer no comment and it is a valid response to their questions (other than when they are establishing your ID).

        From youth services: "Do I have to answer questions by Police? The Police may want to ask you questions, whether or not you are under arrest, and whether you are at the Police Station or on the street, you only need give police your name, address and date of birth or address where you usually live but do not have to say anything more."

        From legal aid:

        "Making a statement

        A statement is a written document to the police. It is your version of events. You may be asked to make a statement as a witness or a suspect.

        If you are a suspect

        You do not have to make a statement. If you choose to make a statement, the police may charge you on the basis of what you say in it. Police will charge people when they believe there is evidence to show that the person broke the law. Sometimes the only evidence against you is what you said in your statement or in the record of your interview.

        If you want to make a statement, get legal advice.

        If you witness a crime

        The police cannot force anyone to make a statement. However, they may get a subpoena to make you go to court to give evidence if you have witnessed a crime being committed."

    • CowFrogHorse on 05/07/2023 - 17:50
      -2

      Says who ?

      The police are only trying to do the right thing for everyone and there is nothing wrong about admitting to a mistake. Nobody needs or wants to turn Australia into America, where everyone has right and nobody has responsibilities. Thats why they have no healthcare because they are too busy being selfish aresholes even though in the end they all lose because of higher health costs. Did i also mention guns ?

      • LVlahov on 06/07/2023 - 01:40
        +7

        You have no idea. The advice not to speak to police is good because they regularly get things wrong and innocent people end up prosecuted because they used imperfect or imprecise language and so implicated themselves.

        This will sound ridiculous but it is very similar to a situation I faced, and please none of this is exaggerated:

        Imagine a guy stealing from your shop, and just before he goes out the door you call for his attention, and he begins to walk quicker, so you reach out a hand, with no more force than you'd tap a friend on the should to get their attention (as that is all you want, their attention for a second, you are not even trying to restrain the person), and then to try and beat the stealing charge they allege that you assaulted them.

        ..and you make the mistake of saying what I just said above on camera in a police interview. BAM assault charge and conviction because you admitted to touching the thief on the shoulder. Doesn't matter how light, doesn't matter for how long, doesn't matter there was no injury or harm done (they would affect the grade of charge you are guilty of only).. you touched, you admitted it, you are guilty. Police get a pat on the back for a crime "solved". Oh yeah, and the thief gets away since they admitted nothing in their own interview, leaving that as "he says/she says" in terms of their theft.

        THIS is why people say don't talk to police.

        • LVlahov on 06/07/2023 - 01:46

          (edited.. don't need to hear my ongoing grumbles.. ;)

        • ssfps on 06/07/2023 - 02:52
          +3

          That's a really shitty experience. It's ridiculous how naive so many people are, thinking cops are the white knights here to save us - or that Australia is just "so chill" and only America is this overbearing nightmare by comparison.

        • CowFrogHorse on 06/07/2023 - 14:34
          -1

          I do have an idea, being honest to everyone makes you and every one a winner.

          Little kids for example know when adults are lying about your own mistake or the doing the wrong thing, and this teaches too also copy this habit. THe problem is their mistake could cause harm to themselves or perhaps a dog or cat, which. could be made better if only they told an adult immediately of their habit instead of hiding it.

      • Fuego on 06/07/2023 - 06:33
        +7

        Criminal barrister here.

        Any suggestion or advice that recommends speaking to the police, or defends the police for their practices is usually, in my experience, a cop.

        The only purpose of their investigations and questioning is to obtain evidence and admissions to charge you with a criminal offence.

        Police also have grossly inadequate legal knowledge or experience, which makes for an absolute recipe for disaster when someone speaks to them without knowing their legal rights.

        • CowFrogHorse on 06/07/2023 - 14:37
          -3

          No im in software for one of the biggest presences on the internet.

          Im always honest about my mistakes and always verify via questions to my colleagues. This helps everyone avoid big duckups in all environments especially production. We are winners because we are honest about our failing and open about other suggestions and always learning.

          Im paid far more than 99% of people on here, because of this policy and my good work, people who hide the truth are often losers who cant do their job properly and they copy this to their entire life situations.

          • Fuego on 07/07/2023 - 13:09
            +1

            @CowFrogHorse: I have no idea what you are talking about.

            • CowFrogHorse on 07/07/2023 - 19:19
              -1

              @Fuego: Being an adult is about being responsible admitting your mistakes and not lying and hiding about what you have and havent done.

              People who avoid admission of their mistakes to police are the same people who do a shitty job at their place of work, sometimes this means people die or get sick or injuried.

              Ive seen plenty of people in software who do a pathetic job, for example being too lazy to send everyone an email when something they know affects others changes.

            • CowFrogHorse on 07/07/2023 - 19:21

              @Fuego: @Fuego

              Given your background, you no doubt have a lot of record keeping… Im sure you have experienced staff who do a poor job at keeping records up to date ,taking notes of action they take and so on, making it difficult for future or other staff to figure out whats going on with each and every case.

              • Fuego on 08/07/2023 - 10:19

                @CowFrogHorse: Never talk to the police.

                • CowFrogHorse on 09/07/2023 - 18:44
                  -1

                  @Fuego: @Fuego

                  Yes those evil police, how dare they try and catch pedophiles and arrest drink drivers.

                  • Fuego on 10/07/2023 - 07:08
                    +1

                    @CowFrogHorse: To have the false confidence to argue with an expert in the field either means you are a troll or have some personal association with law enforcement.

                    Bye now.

                    • CowFrogHorse on 10/07/2023 - 16:45
                      -1

                      @Fuego: Feugo: @CowFrogHorse: To have the false confidence to argue with an expert in the field either means you are a troll or have some personal association with law enforcement.

                      cow: So your a god because you claim to be, and yet you cant actually write a complete sentence.

                      I would have thought someone who claims what you do could actually do better than just calling people names. But then again perhaps the best you can do, after all pigs dont fly because they cant, and you obviously cant reason so you call people names.

        • babykingdom on 06/07/2023 - 20:58

          I was of the opinion that police were trying to help prior to this encounter and had high trust in them. They had this really concerned act going on which did drop my guard a little. I started to catch on when they asked me to elaborate on my answers to which I declined. I don't think I said anything to incriminate me but fk me i'm not a lawyer. This has been a really valuable and hopefully not a regrettable lesson for future dealings with police.

      • burningrage on 06/07/2023 - 15:16

        I am sorry. My experience with police is that they fined me more than ever helping me with recovering what was stolen for me.

        So no I dont agree.

        • CowFrogHorse on 06/07/2023 - 15:27
          -1

          Too many people watching American shows, lots of but my rights but no responsibility.

  • Brian McGee on 04/07/2023 - 09:02

    By sigining the bottom of the notes you are saying all above was discussed. They could potentially add discussion points below where you finished conversing.

  • payless69 on 04/07/2023 - 09:07
    -1

    Waking up in hospital is ALWAYS serious no matter what you think.
    Cops working for the state that pays your hospital bills.
    You blew it, it is too late now.
    Get a pushbike!

  • Mike444 on 04/07/2023 - 09:21
    +2

    Get a dashcam and "They then gave the "anything you say will be used against you" line"

    After they said that, you shouldn't have said anything.

  • ThithLord on 04/07/2023 - 09:21
    +2

    They asked if you were impaired - did they test you for Alc/Drugs?

    • Trance N Dance on 04/07/2023 - 11:08
      +3

      Blood draw should've been done on admittance to hospital, standard procedure for vehicle accident admittance from what the nurse told me (at least in NSW).

      • babykingdom on 04/07/2023 - 11:28
        +3

        You're right they did take my blood upon admittance

  • Drakesy on 04/07/2023 - 10:35
    +1

    Looks like you may get pinged for negligent driving unfortunately.

  • Protractor on 04/07/2023 - 10:45
    +5

    What are you like at pushing weights, and making number plates OP?

  • Benoffie on 04/07/2023 - 11:06
    +2

    Where in the hospital were you? ED?

    Were you being administered any drugs by the hospital?

    Was a Dr present?

    Did the police ask the Dr of your state and did the Dr advise you were able to be questioned?

    Dont answer these here. But if police questioned me in ED, without counsel and while I was under the influence of any other medication whilst receiving medical treatment, my lawyer would have this kicked for predatory policing.

    You need to engage a solicitor. Beng cautioned means they're at least looking at driving without due care.

    Edit - I'll add in SA, the Drs will happily take bloods and the police can come and inform you that you've been charged but they cannot question you in the ED.

    • babykingdom on 04/07/2023 - 12:05

      They never told me I was cautioned or are they not required to?

      • Benoffie on 04/07/2023 - 13:26
        +1

        'They then gave the "anything you say will be used against you" line'

        This. This is your caution.

        You need to call a solicitor.

        • Protractor on 04/07/2023 - 13:56
          +1

          He bypassed the caution process.
          OZB is his solicitor. It's the national ,free, 'go to' , 400+ different possibilities, law firm for anonymous ppl, after the event.

  • Trance N Dance on 04/07/2023 - 11:11

    Do you know the outcome of the occupants of the other vehicle? Hospitalisation, injuries, etc.

    • babykingdom on 04/07/2023 - 11:14

      One occupant, the driver walked out unscathed. He declined to be treated by paramedics.

  • Manny Calavera on 04/07/2023 - 17:15
    +2

    You should have offered them a beer because they're clearly fishing.

  • BartholemewH on 05/07/2023 - 20:15
    +2

    Throw up your gofundme OP, we'll all put in for soap on a rope.

  • Fuego on 06/07/2023 - 06:26
    +3

    Criminal barrister here.

    Any suggestion or advice that recommends speaking to the police, or defends the police for their practices is usually, in my experience, a cop.

    The only purpose of their investigations and questioning is to obtain evidence and admissions to charge you with a criminal offence.

    Police also have grossly inadequate legal knowledge or experience, which makes for an absolute recipe for disaster when someone speaks to them without knowing their legal rights.

    • Motek Benzona on 06/07/2023 - 07:36

      This is the only reply needed here. WELL SAID

  • DarkOz on 06/07/2023 - 08:12

    It was a serious car accident and the police was investigating who was at fault. Questioning you was to gather evidence if you were at fault especially if you admit to be tired/impaired/distracted.

  • billadm on 06/07/2023 - 17:39

    You were in a hospital bed so never say anything because you not in your full mental capacity.
    And since police said that any thing you say can be used against you, you should never say anything.
    Beware of police dirty tactics, never trust them!

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join