I'm not sure either has a basis as such in law. The move to calling them collisions was a push from road safety organisations because an 'accident' is perceived as being something for which no one was to blame.
The primary definition of the word actually simply means unexpectedly and unintentionally, not blameless so in reality it's an accurate term. The DfT still mostly uses 'accident', particularly on the database, forms etc.
The problem is probably the secondary definition of
2 An event that happens by chance or that is without apparent or deliberate cause.
and the general usage of the word can lend it's interpretation to mean something that wasn't avoidable or for which no one was to blame and this is why groups would favour a word that is less excusing in tone like 'collision'.
What appears to be the case here is unclear and confusion actions from the cyclist meeting a driver suffering from MGIF syndrome trying to get past rather than doing the correct response in such situations which is to keep distance form the confusing road user. Most definitely avoidable and neither party seems blameless, though ultimate 'fault' has to lie with the van driver. Given the law this really should be death by careless but like that would ever succeed in court.
The contents of this post, unless otherwise stated, are opinions of the author and may actually be complete codswallop
How absolutely disgusting. Going by the Charlie Alliston case this is quite clearly manslaughter, no allowance for error on the part of the vulnerable road user right?? ). The coroner is a moron not fit for purpose and in fact perpetuates the victim blaming of people on bikes agenda and re-enforces the fact drivers can do whatever the hell they like and no one gives a stuff. Utterly despicable !
There's nothing to suggest the van driver was repeatedly telling the cyclist to get out of the way, using horn etc, nor was the van unfit or illegal mechanically and nor did the driver proceed to mouth off online and completely fail to show any remorse and he did actually attempt to stop.
What did it for alliston was the combination of illegal bike plus a severe attitude problem (and the latter probably contributed far more). An equivalent driver would have likely ended up with an equivalent (ly pathetic imo) conviction. Similarly if alliston had used the ever reliable smidsy approach he wouldn't be where he is now.
That's not to say I think any of that is acceptable but the reality is alliston's couple of years was pretty in line with what drivers get. Kill someone and be an idiot about it and you'll get a handful of years. Kill someone, be remorseful and use a smidsy style excuse and the worst you'll get is a slap on the wrist because 'it was a moment's inattention that could happen to anyone' or some rubbish.
The contents of this post, unless otherwise stated, are opinions of the author and may actually be complete codswallop
I'd forgotten if it touched on the question in the thread title but it does not.
Bearing in mind that that's now almost four years old, all I can see in the interim is that there's been no improvement from the POV of the bereaved. If we take this case as typical - and it may not be - the inquest as reported has amounted to the investigating officer summarising his own technical findings (tachograph etc) and the versions given to him by witnesses. And that's pretty much it. It's hard to see that the inquest achieved anything in terms of "added value."
It may well be that there was nothing else to discover here, but if there had been, this system might not have exposed it.
I'm still no nearer knowing why a collision isn't a collision. I appreciate that there has been a lot of campaigning about the word "accident." I can also speculate that having recognised they were losing any real power to review the investigation of fatal crashes, recording "road traffic collision" as a cause of death conveniently mollifies campaigners while tacitly acknowledging their lack of authority. That wouldn't matter if the police had not stopped thoroughly investigating all but the most serious crashes, arguably leading to a drop in the standards of what's considered OK when driving. If something is illegal but generally acceptable, it gets harder to condemn it just because it caused somebody's death. The fact that vulnerable road users are precisely that - more likely to be injured or killed in almost any collision - makes this of particular importance to us.
As it is, we are heading towards a point where fatal crashes will increasingly be nodded through.
Stevek76 wrote:To be fair, not really a comparable case.
There's nothing to suggest the van driver was repeatedly telling the cyclist to get out of the way, using horn etc, nor was the van unfit or illegal mechanically and nor did the driver proceed to mouth off online and completely fail to show any remorse and he did actually attempt to stop.
What did it for alliston was the combination of illegal bike plus a severe attitude problem (and the latter probably contributed far more). An equivalent driver would have likely ended up with an equivalent (ly pathetic imo) conviction. Similarly if alliston had used the ever reliable smidsy approach he wouldn't be where he is now.
That's not to say I think any of that is acceptable but the reality is alliston's couple of years was pretty in line with what drivers get. Kill someone and be an idiot about it and you'll get a handful of years. Kill someone, be remorseful and use a smidsy style excuse and the worst you'll get is a slap on the wrist because 'it was a moment's inattention that could happen to anyone' or some rubbish.
whatever Alliston shouted (A warning EXACTLY as the HC tells you to do) briggs would not have heard exactly what he said, the words are meaningless, the judge and the prosecution said that briggs was in a panicked mindset already, she wouldn't have being able to distinguish what he said just hear a noise. his attitude was one of doing nothing wrong, in that he was correct, compared to everyone else he was meted out with special punishment, a charge that was not fitting, not indeed the wanton and furious 9niether of which he met). He had false testimoney used against him and he was failed by the MET who concoted some BS braking test, he was failed by his defence who did not stop the false testimony of the MET with respect to recreating the scenario/proving the braking distance. He slowed, he gave a warning (as recommended by the HC) and made every effort to avoid collision in the same manner the vast majority would do. And yet when a van kills a person on a bike, who does so because he ignores a clear signal as to intentions (unlike Briggs who gave no signal at all of her stepping back) and tries to overtake a vulnerable road user into oncoming traffic and gives no leeway whatsoever for an error (not that the young man did). alliston was doing approx 10mph, the van 36mph. The total bias and differing application of the rules/law is there in spades and the coroner is another example of a motorcentric moron who keeps on pushing the agenda of get out the @@@@ing way or you'll be killed if it's motor killing a person on a bike/ped but if it's a person on a bike in an incident and the finger pointing goes on it's pretty much assured the person riding a bike will be aportioned blame unfairly.
(1)This section applies in a case where, owing to the presence of a [F1mechanically propelled vehicle] on a road [F2or other public place], an accident occurs by which—
(a)personal injury is caused to a person other than the driver of that [F1mechanically propelled vehicle], or
(b)damage is caused—
(i)to a vehicle other than that [F1mechanically propelled vehicle] or a trailer drawn by that [F1mechanically propelled vehicle], or
(ii)to an animal other than an animal in or on that [F1mechanically propelled vehicle] or a trailer drawn by that [F1mechanically propelled vehicle], or
(iii)to any other property constructed on, fixed to, growing in or otherwise forming part of the land on which the road [F3or place] in question is situated or land adjacent to such land.
(2)The driver of the [F1mechanically propelled vehicle] must stop and, if required to do so by any person having reasonable grounds for so requiring, give his name and address and also the name and address of the owner and the identification marks of the vehicle.
(3)If for any reason the driver of the [F1mechanically propelled vehicle] does not give his name and address under subsection (2) above, he must report the accident.
(4)A person who fails to comply with subsection (2) or (3) above is guilty of an offence.
(5)If, in a case where this section applies by virtue of subsection (1)(a) above, the driver of [F4a motor vehicle] does not at the time of the accident produce such a certificate of insurance or security, or other evidence, as is mentioned in section 165(2)(a) of this Act—
(a)to a constable, or
(b)to some person who, having reasonable grounds for so doing, has required him to produce it,
the driver must report the accident and produce such a certificate or other evidence. This subsection does not apply to the driver of an invalid carriage. (6)To comply with a duty under this section to report an accident or to produce such a certificate of insurance or security, or other evidence, as is mentioned in section 165(2)(a) of this Act, the driver—
(a)must do so at a police station or to a constable, and
(b)must do so as soon as is reasonably practicable and, in any case, within twenty-four hours of the occurrence of the accident.
(7)A person who fails to comply with a duty under subsection (5) above is guilty of an offence, but he shall not be convicted by reason only of a failure to produce a certificate or other evidence if, within [F5seven] days after the occurrence of the accident, the certificate or other evidence is produced at a police station that was specified by him at the time when the accident was reported.
(8)In this section “animal” means horse, cattle, ass, mule, sheep, pig, goat or dog.
Sorry if this is in the links above , can't open them on Works Computer .
!