Reporting road accidents to police, consultation.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dan B

Disengaged member
Without having even read it, I'm not happy about their use of the word "accident", for all the usual reasons. Try instead "collision".
 

classic33

Legendary Member
Without having even read it, I'm not happy about their use of the word "accident", for all the usual reasons. Try instead "collision".
Local force use road traffic collision having dropped road traffic accident & road traffic incident about five years ago, when vehicles are involved.
 

Milkfloat

An Peanut
Location
Midlands
Without having even read it, I'm not happy about their use of the word "accident", for all the usual reasons. Try instead "collision".
From the document....
"This consultation document uses the term ‘accident’ throughout, as this is the terminology used in the Act. This should not be taken as the Government’s view of the relative merits of the terms ‘accident’, ‘collision’, ‘crash’ or any other term."
 

Milkfloat

An Peanut
Location
Midlands
In principal this is long overdue. However, I don't think it goes far enough. For example, they are suggesting that each individual police force could decide what system they implement and also build it independently from other forces. That alone will mean that it will be very difficult to get meaningful stats out of the system. In addition, why is not going further and allowing evidence to be produced at the same time as the report. They should allow photographic and video uploads plus statements to be made.
 

classic33

Legendary Member
In principal this is long overdue. However, I don't think it goes far enough. For example, they are suggesting that each individual police force could decide what system they implement and also build it independently from other forces. That alone will mean that it will be very difficult to get meaningful stats out of the system. In addition, why is not going further and allowing evidence to be produced at the same time as the report. They should allow photographic and video uploads plus statements to be made.
If you were assaulted, they'd want pictures of any injuries/marks.
 

Shut Up Legs

Down Under Member
From the document....
"This consultation document uses the term ‘accident’ throughout, as this is the terminology used in the Act. This should not be taken as the Government’s view of the relative merits of the terms ‘accident’, ‘collision’, ‘crash’ or any other term."
Translation:
We can't be bothered with changing the terminology, way too much hassle. But don't even think of taking us to court about the wording, because we have our collective #sses covered with some weasel words! :tongue:
 
Translation:
That's all very well but "incident" could well include a breakdown, or cows on the road, so isn't informative. Likewise "collision" is hardly the right word to cover a car spinning off into a field.

"Accident" is a perfectly good word. "who was to blame for the accident" is a common enough question as is the more loaded term "and accident waiting to happen" in decribing some particularly reckless breach of health and safety. There is no implication of no-fault in this usage
 

classic33

Legendary Member
That's all very well but "incident" could well include a breakdown, or cows on the road, so isn't informative. Likewise "collision" is hardly the right word to cover a car spinning off into a field.

"Accident" is a perfectly good word. "who was to blame for the accident" is a common enough question as is the more loaded term "and accident waiting to happen" in decribing some particularly reckless breach of health and safety. There is no implication of no-fault in this usage
Why when two motor vehicles collide, is it normally referred to as an RTC?
 

Shut Up Legs

Down Under Member
That's all very well but "incident" could well include a breakdown, or cows on the road, so isn't informative. Likewise "collision" is hardly the right word to cover a car spinning off into a field.

"Accident" is a perfectly good word. "who was to blame for the accident" is a common enough question as is the more loaded term "and accident waiting to happen" in decribing some particularly reckless breach of health and safety. There is no implication of no-fault in this usage
You forgot about "Oh, but it was just an accident", commonly used to avoid blame. Personally, I hate the word and think it's grossly misused.
 
You forgot about "Oh, but it was just an accident", commonly used to avoid blame. Personally, I hate the word and think it's grossly misused.
The point being the addition of the word "just" or "a pure" to accident changes the sense. "accident' by itself doesn't convey this, and addition of "stupid", "avoidable", "senseless" convey a different meaning
Moreover, none of the politically correct terms suggested convey the same specific meaning and are euphemisms or downright misleading
 
Why when two motor vehicles collide, is it normally referred to as an RTC?
Well obviously the meaning is quite clear if the accident was a collision, but if you spin a car, it's not a collision (necessarily) and if you slide off the road into a field, but it would be a bit peculiar to say a car collided with a field. Both scenarios are accidents, and both almost certainly due to very poor driving and / or crass stupidity
 

Shut Up Legs

Down Under Member
Well obviously the meaning is quite clear if the accident was a collision, but if you spin a car, it's not a collision (necessarily) and if you slide off the road into a field, but it would be a bit peculiar to say a car collided with a field. Both scenarios are accidents, and both almost certainly due to very poor driving and / or crass stupidity
Sorry, but I still disagree. Incompetent drivers cause these collisions, and I think using the word 'accident' for these is wrong and misleading. We'll just have to have different opinions on this, because I just don't find your argument very convincing.
 
Sorry, but I still disagree. Incompetent drivers cause these collisions, and I think using the word 'accident' for these is wrong and misleading. We'll just have to have different opinions on this, because I just don't find your argument very convincing.
Fair enough you don't like one of the widespread meanings of accident in this context - but even if I wanted to make a change in my own language I've yet to hear a convincing alternative word which isn't clumsy or misleading, or plain silly.

I also think that in the case of cyclists at leasts some incidents / collisions aren't actually accidents at all but are delliberate assaults or even murder. I've been driven at and someone else on this board was seriously hurt in such an incident. These are not accidents at all
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom