Discussion
Not even both are you are right 
The reason I asked is "crash" imparts (albeit not directly) an error of judgement - which is what most road traffic collisions/accidents/crashes have. Its one reason why ourselves in LA's can't use "crash" or "collision". At the end of the day 99% of "accidents" are not an accident - some error of judgement, however minor, has been made.
People obviously don't like be told that they've made a driving error - so they will absolutely swear blind it was nothing to do with them, someone elses fault etc etc..
I've got no compunction about it - i've recently just held a presentation about child pedestrian accidents in the city. 90% of the them were caused by pedestrian error - I was told flatly by other members of my own authority that was rubbish, it was drivers fault etc for not seeing them. I stood my ground - In 90% of our child pedestrian accidents over the last 3 years, the child had direclty ignored the highway rules and paid the price. Now, whether thats partly the parents for not teaching them how to cross the road etc or just a childs lack of concept of risk, or even laziness is up for debate - but to try and blame drivers for when someone just steps in front of the car is ridiculous.
*disclaimer* please note i'm not trying to cover the vast range of accidents - any car driver driving at 40+ mph through a housing estate hitting a child may get a 50/50 blame, as that IS an excessive speed for a city housing area - just trying to give a few pointers out.
The reason I asked is "crash" imparts (albeit not directly) an error of judgement - which is what most road traffic collisions/accidents/crashes have. Its one reason why ourselves in LA's can't use "crash" or "collision". At the end of the day 99% of "accidents" are not an accident - some error of judgement, however minor, has been made.
People obviously don't like be told that they've made a driving error - so they will absolutely swear blind it was nothing to do with them, someone elses fault etc etc..
I've got no compunction about it - i've recently just held a presentation about child pedestrian accidents in the city. 90% of the them were caused by pedestrian error - I was told flatly by other members of my own authority that was rubbish, it was drivers fault etc for not seeing them. I stood my ground - In 90% of our child pedestrian accidents over the last 3 years, the child had direclty ignored the highway rules and paid the price. Now, whether thats partly the parents for not teaching them how to cross the road etc or just a childs lack of concept of risk, or even laziness is up for debate - but to try and blame drivers for when someone just steps in front of the car is ridiculous.
*disclaimer* please note i'm not trying to cover the vast range of accidents - any car driver driving at 40+ mph through a housing estate hitting a child may get a 50/50 blame, as that IS an excessive speed for a city housing area - just trying to give a few pointers out.
cks to me. We still investigate accidents 
collisions in the same way.Kurgis once again I salute you 
You are doing a thankless job.
Have you noticed that it is always the drivers fault not the kids (According to the parents) - Like you say that is not always the case but recently I have noticed both kids and adults taking to crossing the road in front of me. They see me, then get tunnel vision and cross the road at snails pace (often about 25yards from a crossing)!
You are doing a thankless job. Have you noticed that it is always the drivers fault not the kids (According to the parents) - Like you say that is not always the case but recently I have noticed both kids and adults taking to crossing the road in front of me. They see me, then get tunnel vision and cross the road at snails pace (often about 25yards from a crossing)!
They can play with semantics all they want - bottom line is accidents happen. My episode was just that - accident! Sure - mother of all collisions and from my highly subjective point of view - man should not have been on road and the pretzel in the panda car who saw him swerving around on the A road before he joined the 
motorway was to blame - if you like - because he should have pulled him over when he saw him! (Or rather - if I was the petty minded type - looking for someone to take the rap - that is what I could think. But I don't!) There was extremely competent trafpol parked in hard shoulder flashing lights to warn of the sudden jam on the motorway (major exit junction and m/way mergers at this point - notorious jam spot) - and that guy was marvellous!
But - accident - man was taken ill and crashed and collided with my car and all conditions that day were unusual. He had unusually clear run and picked up speed in the death throes on that particular day!
And as Mike says - investigation would have run on same lines - regardless of semantics used!
But then - we live in a blame culture in UK. That is apparent - and not just talking about motoring skills either.
motorway was to blame - if you like - because he should have pulled him over when he saw him! (Or rather - if I was the petty minded type - looking for someone to take the rap - that is what I could think. But I don't!) There was extremely competent trafpol parked in hard shoulder flashing lights to warn of the sudden jam on the motorway (major exit junction and m/way mergers at this point - notorious jam spot) - and that guy was marvellous! But - accident - man was taken ill and crashed and collided with my car and all conditions that day were unusual. He had unusually clear run and picked up speed in the death throes on that particular day!
And as Mike says - investigation would have run on same lines - regardless of semantics used!
But then - we live in a blame culture in UK. That is apparent - and not just talking about motoring skills either.
WildCat said:
They can play with semantics all they want - bottom line is accidents happen. My episode was just that - accident! Sure - mother of all collisions and from my highly subjective point of view - man should not have been on road and the pretzel in the panda car who saw him swerving around on the A road before he joined the
But - accident - man was taken ill and crashed and collided with my car and all conditions that day were unusual. He had unusually clear run and picked up speed in the death throes on that particular day!
And as Mike says - investigation would have run on same lines - regardless of semantics used!
But then - we live in a blame culture in UK. That is apparent - and not just talking about motoring skills either.
So all in all, Wildcat, It was not an accident as it was entirely preventable
Just another collision!
kurgis said:
I've got no compunction about it - i've recently just held a presentation about child pedestrian accidents in the city. 90% of the them were caused by pedestrian error - I was told flatly by other members of my own authority that was rubbish, it was drivers fault etc for not seeing them. I stood my ground - In 90% of our child pedestrian accidents over the last 3 years, the child had direclty ignored the highway rules and paid the price. Now, whether thats partly the parents for not teaching them how to cross the road etc or just a childs lack of concept of risk, or even laziness is up for debate - but to try and blame drivers for when someone just steps in front of the car is ridiculous.
Kurgis Liebchen - well done for standing your ground
My cousin (teacher in that large comp) finds that children aged 11-12 have simply not been taught the HC at all. She inputs roads safety, Green Cross education, cycling proficiency and hazard awareness into the PSE programme and even reinforces within the curriculum. She has had all of us in the school to give talks on our particular specialisms as well - careerwise!
But it is funny - whenever you mention to parents, and the pro-scam prats - that education for all, proper advertising campaigns (like the ones you used to have here - without any out - of - tune hedgehogs
) is the path to real road safety - they get all huffy and puffy. Children can do no wrong, and to correct and discipline them properly is "preventing their development" (Cous' actually got that chucked at her by an English teacher when she dared to correct the spelling - English - not German. In fact - those kids read and write more accurately in foreign language than they do in their own!) Stiil - would say that not teaching Green Cross would certainly compromise their development - big time!
gone said:
So all in all, Wildcat, It was not an accident as it was entirely preventable
Just another collision!
Liebchen - preventable if the pretzel in the panda had put his doughnut down and nabbed him before the sliproad! Since he did neither - an ACCIDENT occurred!
My cousin (now a senior trafpol TRAINER!
) was pulling every minor swerve for a long time afterwards - so he says! WildCat said:
......and from my highly subjective point of view - man should not have been on road and the pretzel in the panda car who saw him swerving around on the A road before he joined the
1. How do you know the pretzel saw him?
2. How do you know that he was swerving around when the pretzel did see him? (if he did at all)
3. You state the man should not have been on the road! Maybe because of a known serious illness he was suffering
which happened to terminate in your unfortunate location! I think we can safely say then that this was no accident but just another avaoidable collision as in your words, the man should not have been on the road
I should have a word with your eminent cousin. He may get into trouble if he pulls swerves whilst on duty
I however only ever pulled crumpet
>> Edited by gone on Tuesday 15th June 10:58
gone said:
......and from my highly subjective point of view - man should not have been on road and the pretzel in the panda car who saw him swerving around on the A road before he joined the
1. How do you know the pretzel saw him?
2. How do you know that he was swerving around when the pretzel did see him? (if he did at all)
Because the investigation said so!
gone said:
3. You state the man should not have been on the road! Maybe because of a known serious illness he was suffering
I think we can safely say then that this was no accident but just another avaoidable collision as in your words, the man should not have been on the road
Investigation revealed that he was tub of lard with heart condition which was "not judged serious engought to revoke his licence!"
gone said:
I should have a word with your eminent cousin. He may get into trouble if he pulls swerves whilst on duty
I however only ever pulled crumpet
>> Edited by gone on Tuesday 15th June 10:58
He has pulled plenty of crumpet in his wilder days on duty - his fave pastime back then --- "lurking in a side street" and "basking like a shark at a motorway junction"
He was manic - he caused major traffic jam when directing traffic - his first ever duty. Then he went for anything that went faster than he did!
As for his actual driving skills - he wrecked an engine I had lovingly serviced to pristine track performance condition - man may post as "In Gear" and has no concept as to how to use 'em!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff