BTCC's Frank Wrathall in court after cyclist collision
Discussion
Calling this an accident reinforces complacency, that's why the police no longer use the term. You don't understand how upsetting it is for relatives of people killed on the roads to hear that word. Use of ‘accident’ takes responsibility away from the person who is culpable - through incompetence, aggression or other failures to drive safely.
Why do police no longer say or use the term 'Traffic Accident'? Because 'accident' implies there is nobody to blame.
Why do police no longer say or use the term 'Traffic Accident'? Because 'accident' implies there is nobody to blame.
heebeegeetee said:
Similarly Wrathall's driving may have fell to a standard where...
...Is there any recognition of this in law?
Of course there is, thats why there is a careless driving (or dangerous driving) charge....Is there any recognition of this in law?
And yes it was an accident (it wasn't deliberate, he obviously didn't intend to hit a cyclist), and being an accident doesn't mean it was unavoidable or that nobody is responsible. Most accidents are avoidable on some level, the threshold of negligence/carelessness/whatever is often whether you would expect an average competent person to avoid it - and in this case you would.
If no other good comes out of the situation then at least its a reminder for those of us who enjoy driving that having good car control doesn't make up for poor observation or failing to pay attention.
So if I'm driving along and a cat runs into the road causing a collision you would assign blame?
Alternative words like crash or collision do not presume guilt or culpability. They avoid any value judgement and can apply equally to collisions caused by animals running out on the road, a drink driver/speeding, or a staged collision, the so called ‘crash for cash’. Traffic police and collision investigators
have been supportive of the need for appropriate terminology, as seen by the notice boards at crash sites that
refer to collisions, not accidents. The ACPO Road Death Investigation Manual, first published in 2001,
avoids the use of ‘accident’.
‘Crash’ does not excuse law breaking and risk taking.
‘Accident’ is even less appropriate for an event which results in a conviction, especially those involving
custodial sentences. Dangerous driving convictions require that the standard of driving was far below
what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, such as the use of highly inappropriate speed,
deliberate disregard of traffic lights or using a vehicle with a dangerous defect. In these circumstances,
while collisions may not be intentional, calling them accidents is clearly inappropriate.
‘Crash’ does not contribute to the discrimination against road crash victims.
Those bereaved and injured in crashes do not have the same rights to information or support, as do other
victims of crime, even when a driver is prosecuted. Someone injured by a drink driver does not have to be
kept informed of the investigation nor do they qualify for the same support that is offered automatically
to victims of burglary or street theft.
‘Crash’ does not aggravate the suffering of the bereaved.
Those who have been bereaved or severely injured by a reckless driver do not want to hear the incident
being described in the same terms as a milk spillage. Many of our bereaved members take deep offence at
road deaths being called ‘accidents’.
http://www.roadpeace.org/resources/Crash_not_Accid...
Wrathall didn't "accidentally" have a eight minute conversation on a mobile as he towed his trailer and drove round a roundabout with one hand on the wheel.
Alternative words like crash or collision do not presume guilt or culpability. They avoid any value judgement and can apply equally to collisions caused by animals running out on the road, a drink driver/speeding, or a staged collision, the so called ‘crash for cash’. Traffic police and collision investigators
have been supportive of the need for appropriate terminology, as seen by the notice boards at crash sites that
refer to collisions, not accidents. The ACPO Road Death Investigation Manual, first published in 2001,
avoids the use of ‘accident’.
‘Crash’ does not excuse law breaking and risk taking.
‘Accident’ is even less appropriate for an event which results in a conviction, especially those involving
custodial sentences. Dangerous driving convictions require that the standard of driving was far below
what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, such as the use of highly inappropriate speed,
deliberate disregard of traffic lights or using a vehicle with a dangerous defect. In these circumstances,
while collisions may not be intentional, calling them accidents is clearly inappropriate.
‘Crash’ does not contribute to the discrimination against road crash victims.
Those bereaved and injured in crashes do not have the same rights to information or support, as do other
victims of crime, even when a driver is prosecuted. Someone injured by a drink driver does not have to be
kept informed of the investigation nor do they qualify for the same support that is offered automatically
to victims of burglary or street theft.
‘Crash’ does not aggravate the suffering of the bereaved.
Those who have been bereaved or severely injured by a reckless driver do not want to hear the incident
being described in the same terms as a milk spillage. Many of our bereaved members take deep offence at
road deaths being called ‘accidents’.
http://www.roadpeace.org/resources/Crash_not_Accid...
Wrathall didn't "accidentally" have a eight minute conversation on a mobile as he towed his trailer and drove round a roundabout with one hand on the wheel.
OTBC said:
Wrathall killed a husband and father, that's pretty convincing evidence that his driving was dangerous. Because he killed someone.
Thankfully, a jury consists of 12 people - so that 10 sensible people can outvote numpties. The defence, prosecution and judge all agreed that it was careless driving that led to the accident. Death does not mean dangerous driving. Ludicrous comment.OTBC said:
So if I'm driving along and a cat runs into the road causing a collision you would assign blame?
It's covered in the HC, so yes, I'd say you might be to blame for a collision.agtlaw said:
Thankfully, a jury consists of 12 people - so that 10 sensible people can outvote numpties. The defence, prosecution and judge all agreed that it was careless driving that led to the accident. Death does not mean dangerous driving. Ludicrous comment.
Whilst you're right of course, I would still describe it as dangerous to move over on a cyclist before you've cleared him.agtlaw said:
Thankfully, a jury consists of 12 people - so that 10 sensible people can outvote numpties. The defence, prosecution and judge all agreed that it was careless driving that led to the accident. Death does not mean dangerous driving. Ludicrous comment.
That's because the charge was changed, as I said upthread. The jury never considered a Causing Death By Dangerous charge because that was not what he was charged with. Since we know that using a mobile at the wheel impairs driving ability the same as being over the drink drive limit that's a baffling decision. I would suggest that negotiating a roundabout while towing a trailer, steering with one hand and chatting on a mobile is behaviour that falls "Far below" the minimal acceptable standard, legal definition. Do you disagree?Mr Fingleton was a close friend of mine and I was in court for the trial in July 2013 and for the sentencing hearing on February 7th 2014. Mr Wrathall was indeed fortunate that the CPS decided to accept his guilty plea of death by careless driving.Other family members and friends felt he should have been made to answer the charge of death by dangerous driving in front of a jury in court.
In summing up, the judge left the court in no doubt that the standard of driving fell way below what was acceptable. The only reason for this was the fact he was on the phone.The judge said it was on the cusp of dangerous driving and the sentence reflected this.
In summing up, the judge left the court in no doubt that the standard of driving fell way below what was acceptable. The only reason for this was the fact he was on the phone.The judge said it was on the cusp of dangerous driving and the sentence reflected this.
intricateweb said:
Mr Fingleton was a close friend of mine and I was in court for the trial in July 2013 and for the sentencing hearing on February 7th 2014. Mr Wrathall was indeed fortunate that the CPS decided to accept his guilty plea of death by careless driving.Other family members and friends felt he should have been made to answer the charge of death by dangerous driving in front of a jury in court.
In summing up, the judge left the court in no doubt that the standard of driving fell way below what was acceptable. The only reason for this was the fact he was on the phone.The judge said it was on the cusp of dangerous driving and the sentence reflected this.
Sorry for you loss.In summing up, the judge left the court in no doubt that the standard of driving fell way below what was acceptable. The only reason for this was the fact he was on the phone.The judge said it was on the cusp of dangerous driving and the sentence reflected this.
heebeegeetee said:
The reason I make reference to the magical properties of the cycling helmet is that given how low the remit is of the helmet (designed only to protect from a straight drop at 12.1mph IIRC and designed to play no part in a collision with a vehicle etc).
I don't think I've ever come across any other piece of equipment that apparently excels so wildly beyond its design remit.
A bump on the noggin is extremely dangerous and every little helps - fans of motorsport will know this from recent events. I don't think I've ever come across any other piece of equipment that apparently excels so wildly beyond its design remit.
Dressed up in lycra and wearing some funky shades, my helmet is the cherry on top of my power rangers costume.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff