But... the more dangerous thing in the article is that silence = guilt.-Renegade
Ah! Yes... I neglected to close the loop on that one. So working from the above position:
The Fuzz are saying that he is guilty based on his not asking about the poor victims in the other vehicle that he hit (cue the violins..).
I OTOH wish to assert the below:
1. There was no - guilt reaction - reason for him to ask about the condition of the other driver/idiot that caused the accident.
2. He had no way of knowing there were Children-to-think-of in the scant few seconds he was afforded to react when this daffy broad came darting into his path.
3. Even if he did find out about them after, see point 1.
4. It's fairly common knowledge these days that silence is golden when the cops are involved..*
It is frankly unfathomable to me how this got so absurdly turned around. When the reality of it is that since nobody in their right mind should be maniacally careening around corners with their entire family in the car...there was no way in hell it could possible be his fault in the first place. So the fact that the system went completely full zoot into upside-down day by making silence = guilt is almost fitting (in a kangaroo court kind of way) given the backasswards manner in which they decided to attribute guilt.
*Which may actually be the endgame objective if this little shenanigan. The system wants to make people afraid to be wisely/cautiously silent in an attempt to force them to blurt out something/anything that could be usefully incrimination.