Road Traffic Accident / Road Traffic Collision

spen666

Following on from other threads referring to PC words and phrases.

There is a trend to trying to use the term RTC rather than RTA. As it is somehow suggested that "accident" implies no fault. (a wrong understanding of the meaning of accident in these circumstances, IMHO)

I've just been looking up the legislation re Failing to Stop and Failing to provide details. Interestingly, they specifically refer to the word accident, not collision. The trend described above could provide someone with a clever lawyer (Nick Freeman perhaps?) with the chance to argue they failed to stop/ provide details because it was a collision, not an accident.

Bet that's one those calling for RTC to be used instead of RTA have not thought about.

bigmat

Is there any definition of "accident" or "RTA" in said act? If not I guess its a common sense interpretation, would hope a judge would have more common sense than those posters who prefer to use "collision".

Agent57

Unless it's deliberate, it's an accident, I reckon. There could be accidental and deliberate collisions. I imagine the vast majority of toad traffic collisions are accidental rather than deliberate; therefore I will continue to call them accidents.

lost_in_thought

Agent57 wrote:

Unless it's deliberate, it's an accident, I reckon. There could be accidental and deliberate collisions. I imagine the vast majority of toad traffic collisions are accidental rather than deliberate; therefore I will continue to call them accidents.

Me too. Those toads, they know what they're up to.

:P

However, you make a valid point, that any Road Traffic Accident is presumably a collision of some nature, be it accidental or deliberate.

jonginge

Erm, "accident" tends to imply a lack of culpability. Most collisions can be avoided with due care and attention.

Edit: i still call them RTAs, though

notsoblue

Theres nothing "politically correct" about this terminology...

PBo

I don't think that this what would happen.

Surely if this was an attempt to somehow change legal definitions etc., then it must be common practice to assess the impact this has on other laws, and amend language/definitions accordingly?

And if its just about common usage, then that doesn't change the fact that you've had an RTA - if that is the legal description - whatever you choose to call it

"I didn't stop officer, because I only had a fender bender, not an RTA"

As it is somehow suggested that "accident" implies no fault. (a wrong understanding of the meaning of accident in these circumstances, IMHO)

In a way, aren't you thinking along similar lines here - distinguishing between general use of language where accident can imply no fault, (although not always) and legally specific use - where an accident - in law - can have a party at fault?

Genuine question:

Bet that's one those calling for RTC to be used instead of RTA have not thought about.

I almost feel from the tone of this that it should say"idiots" or "nerr, nerr, nah, nerr, nerr" at the end - but I could be wrong. Was just curious as to whether you have a strong anti RTC stance?

cheers

PBo (edited for typos)

lost_in_thought

JonGinge wrote:

Erm, "accident" tends to imply a lack of culpability. Most collisions can be avoided with due care and attention.

Edit: i still call them RTAs, though

I don't know about that, to me it simply implies that it wasn't a deliberate act.

Something can be an accident but still someone's fault - e.g. I dropped a glass and broke it. It was an accident, but it was still my fault. A menial example, I know.

spen666

RTA is not defined in the Road Traffic Act. There are supplementary provisions limiting the accidents where you have to stop & provide details. Ie not in a single vehicle accident where no damage caused to 3rd party property.

As others have said, accident donates not deliberate.

It is a mis understanding of the law to say it donates a lack of culpability. To be guilty of careless or dangerous driving does not require deliberately causing the injury/ harm. Careless / dangerous driving is often not done deliberately. The driving element is deliberate, not the carelessness or dangerousness

Agent57

lost_in_thought wrote:

Agent57 wrote:

Unless it's deliberate, it's an accident, I reckon. There could be accidental and deliberate collisions. I imagine the vast majority of toad traffic collisions are accidental rather than deliberate; therefore I will continue to call them accidents.

Me too. Those toads, they know what they're up to.

:P

Heheh, have you ever read The Wind in the Willows; Mr. Toad is a menace! Possibly less accidental in his case.

jonginge

lost_in_thought wrote:

JonGinge wrote:

Erm, "accident" tends to imply a lack of culpability. Most collisions can be avoided with due care and attention.

Edit: i still call them RTAs, though

I don't know about that, to me it simply implies that it wasn't a deliberate act.

Something can be an accident but still someone's fault - e.g. I dropped a glass and broke it. It was an accident, but it was still my fault. A menial example, I know.

I take your point, I do. I agree mostly with it. I'm as clusmy as the next person.* There are situations, while not deliberate (in terms of trying to hit someone), where the standard of driving or riding falls short.

* I just typoed there but decided not to correct it

spen666

PBo wrote:

I....just curious as to whether you have a strong anti RTC stance?

...

yes, they invariably hurt me and damage my bikes/ car

PBo

lost_in_thought wrote:

JonGinge wrote:

Erm, "accident" tends to imply a lack of culpability. Most collisions can be avoided with due care and attention.

Edit: i still call them RTAs, though

I don't know about that, to me it simply implies that it wasn't a deliberate act.

Something can be an accident but still someone's fault - e.g. I dropped a glass and broke it. It was an accident, but it was still my fault. A menial example, I know.

Yes, I was thinking about this too. If you drop a chainsaw on your own foot, because you get cramp in your hand, yes it's an accident, and sort of your fault, but not necessarily predictable - and a painful lesson!

Now, if I make a mistake on the road - not look hard enough, distracted by my partner etc. - it could be a cyclist who gets the painful lesson! No intention, but my fault, and still termed an accident, even though in most cases I could have done something better (i.e paid attention!) to prevent it.

So maybe some subtle thing in the language.

HOWEVER, on further reflection, I'm throwing my own argument out of the window, because thinking about it, if someone says they've had a car accident, I usually want to know whose fault it was! So RTA must have a contextual element to it, that suggests fault.

I wouldn't lose sleep if it got changed to RTC though....

PBo

spen666 wrote:

PBo wrote:

I....just curious as to whether you have a strong anti RTC stance?

...

yes, they invariably hurt me and damage my bikes/ car

Any chance you could throw a bone and use an emoticon - I genuinely can't pick up whether this a genuine joke, or slightly smart alec reply....

I did, of course mean "just curious as to whether you have a strong anti 'use of the phrase RTC' stance?"

bigmat

You can have a RTA without a RTC - say a car takes a corner too fast and flips over, or a cyclist has to slam on brakes to avoid another vehicle and goes over bars without hitting anyone else etc. RTC is just not accurate. Accident denotes an incident without a deliberate cause, but for which a person / persons may ultimately be shown to be responsible.

spen666

MatHammond wrote:

You can have a RTA without a RTC - say a car takes a corner too fast and flips over, or a cyclist has to slam on brakes to avoid another vehicle and goes over bars without hitting anyone else etc. RTC is just not accurate. Accident denotes an incident without a deliberate cause, but for which a person / persons may ultimately be shown to be responsible.

Car or cyclist collides with road in those circumstances surely

sebastiandangerfield

I thought I'd seen legal topics on here before where Spen has some legal knowledge? I havn't looked and my memory's awful so I'm probably wrong.

I doubt the point in the original post would ever happen, I'm not a clever lawyer like Nick Freeman. In fact, I'm a dumb one like the fella from the Simpsons!

Quite simply, although the RTA declines to define 'accident' as it's more appropriate to leave it to individual courts to rule, the law does define a reportable accident as;

a) personal injury is caused to someone other than the driver of that vehicle, or
b)damage is caused
i)to a vehicle other than that vehicle used by the driver
ii)to an animal other than one carried on that vehicle, or,
iii)to any other property

so whether it's called an RTA, RTC or coloured, if the above happened, it's reportable and details need to be exchanged.






:twisted: :twisted: :twisted: Sorry Spen mate, couldn't resist! :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

davmaggs

I think the forum has fallen into the same trap as the people who brought in the change of term by spending mental calories on a word change that doesn't matter. Its not related to any law and is a change in industry terminology.

The uniformed services and the H&S industry seem to need a state of perpetual change in presentation. Anyone who's done first aid will know that terms change, lots of new books and leaflets get bought and yet the content is the same.

Commitees can't just let something be, it has to be altered.

lost_in_thought

davmaggs wrote:

Commitees can't just let something be, it has to be altered.

But if they didn't make endless changes the committee's purpose would disappear and there'd be no need for a committee any more... so of course they're self-perpetuating!

Won't somebody think of the children?

spen666

sebastiandangerfield wrote:

I thought I'd seen legal topics on here before where Spen has some legal knowledge? I havn't looked and my memory's awful so I'm probably wrong.

I doubt the point in the original post would ever happen, I'm not a clever lawyer like Nick Freeman. In fact, I'm a dumb one like the fella from the Simpsons!

Quite simply, although the RTA declines to define 'accident' as it's more appropriate to leave it to individual courts to rule, the law does define a reportable accident as;

a) personal injury is caused to someone other than the driver of that vehicle, or
b)damage is caused
i)to a vehicle other than that vehicle used by the driver
ii)to an animal other than one carried on that vehicle, or,
iii)to any other property

so whether it's called an RTA, RTC or coloured, if the above happened, it's reportable and details need to be exchanged.






:twisted: :twisted: :twisted: Sorry Spen mate, couldn't resist! :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

Sebastion, I is a lawyer type. Its been said my practice is criminal, but hey ho.....


The police in saying this is not an RTA, but is an RTC, present a serious problem in prosecuting someone for fail to stop/ fail to report.

If they say it is not an RTA but an RTC, then they would be arguing against themselves if they later try to prosecute someone for failing to stop/ report an accident.

I do not think for one moment those who try to revise the meanings of words or change phrases to be trendy have thought this one through.

Working in an office with several very senior criminal lawyers most of whom are senior prosecutors, all think that a defence of the nature I have indicated would have a realistic prospect of succeeding.

If it is not an RTA then the fail to stop/ fail to report offences are not brought into play.


The main point here is that making a minor change in one place may have an unintended consequence elsewhere.


PS Nick Freeman, if you runn this defence successfully, I want a cut of the profits!

Porgy

spen666 wrote:

Following on from other threads referring to PC words and phrases.

There is a trend to trying to use the term RTC rather than RTA. As it is somehow suggested that "accident" implies no fault. (a wrong understanding of the meaning of accident in these circumstances, IMHO)

Your O is never H - not even remotely H

spen666

Porgy wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Following on from other threads referring to PC words and phrases.

There is a trend to trying to use the term RTC rather than RTA. As it is somehow suggested that "accident" implies no fault. (a wrong understanding of the meaning of accident in these circumstances, IMHO)

Your O is never H - not even remotely H

Nice of you to recognise its importance :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

PBo

spen666 wrote:

sebastiandangerfield wrote:

I thought I'd seen legal topics on here before where Spen has some legal knowledge? I havn't looked and my memory's awful so I'm probably wrong.

I doubt the point in the original post would ever happen, I'm not a clever lawyer like Nick Freeman. In fact, I'm a dumb one like the fella from the Simpsons!

Quite simply, although the RTA declines to define 'accident' as it's more appropriate to leave it to individual courts to rule, the law does define a reportable accident as;

a) personal injury is caused to someone other than the driver of that vehicle, or
b)damage is caused
i)to a vehicle other than that vehicle used by the driver
ii)to an animal other than one carried on that vehicle, or,
iii)to any other property

so whether it's called an RTA, RTC or coloured, if the above happened, it's reportable and details need to be exchanged.






:twisted: :twisted: :twisted: Sorry Spen mate, couldn't resist! :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

Sebastion, I is a lawyer type. Its been said my practice is criminal, but hey ho.....


The police in saying this is not an RTA, but is an RTC, present a serious problem in prosecuting someone for fail to stop/ fail to report.

If they say it is not an RTA but an RTC, then they would be arguing against themselves if they later try to prosecute someone for failing to stop/ report an accident.

I do not think for one moment those who try to revise the meanings of words or change phrases to be trendy have thought this one through.

Working in an office with several very senior criminal lawyers most of whom are senior prosecutors, all think that a defence of the nature I have indicated would have a realistic prospect of succeeding.

If it is not an RTA then the fail to stop/ fail to report offences are not brought into play.


The main point here is that making a minor change in one place may have an unintended consequence elsewhere.


PS Nick Freeman, if you runn this defence successfully, I want a cut of the profits!

surely, if RTC/RTA don't actualy exist as legal definitions, it makes no difference what phrase is used- the conditions to be appllied when deciding whether you must report or not are the key factor.

i can call my pet zebra an elep[hant as much as i like, but when the legislation comes in to demand a license for equine creatures with black and white stripes, then I'll have to pay up for Nelly!

And I must say, i find it hard to believe that people want to change the term for "trendy" reasons. What trend? On what basis do you make this assertion?

Next you'll be telling me that "black" was a word invented by Steve Jobs, and that it'll cause all sorts of legal problems if we don't revert to good old fashioned "coloured".......eh? oh!

spen666

The issue is the police saying these incidents are not RTAs.

Its not what I call it, but what the police call it that matters here as they would be the ones laying the oral information to get a summons issued

If they say they are not RTAs but RTCs, then they are effectively preventing themselves charging someone with failing to stop after an RTA ( The law is clear the fail to stop is only made out after an RTA). If police are saying it is not an RTA, then they can't charge someone with failing to stop after an RTA

lost_in_thought

spen666 wrote:

The issue is the police saying these incidents are not RTAs.

Its not what I call it, but what the police call it that matters here as they would be the ones laying the oral information to get a summons issued

If they say they are not RTAs but RTCs, then they are effectively preventing themselves charging someone with failing to stop after an RTA ( The law is clear the fail to stop is only made out after an RTA). If police are saying it is not an RTA, then they can't charge someone with failing to stop after an RTA

Oooohhh my feeble non-lawyer-ish mind (;)) had failed to grasp this.

That's bad then. :shock:

rml380z

Not 100%, but I'm fairly sure that the poilice called my 'argument' with the underside of a bus not an accident or a collision but an incident. That covers all possibilities, doesn't it?

shouldbeinbed

PBo wrote:

And I must say, i find it hard to believe that people want to change the term for "trendy" reasons. What trend? On what basis do you make this assertion?

ah young skywalker you are truly naive in the ways of cop management.

possibly someone somewhere will have idly wondered in a dull meeting if you could call every coming together an accident and wouldn't collision be a better way of putting it and bingo

have you ever wondered why you never hear of SOCO's anymore since CSI arrived on telly and looked a lot cooler than the paper suited evidence gatherers you see on the local news stories. These guys examine the scene and gather evidence but don't investigate the crime. (sorry pet peeve of mine but indicative of how trend driven it can be).

prj45

I figure it was an accident if the driver/rider was taking all due care and attention, but still came a cropper.

Calling it an accident straight away is making a big assumption that it wasn't inevitable due to carelessness.

spen666

prj45 wrote:

I figure it was an accident if the driver/rider was taking all due care and attention, but still came a cropper.

Calling it an accident straight away is making a big assumption that it wasn't inevitable due to carelessness.

I don't understand youir last sentence.

Whether it was due to carelessness or not, it was still an accident unless it was deliberate.

accident is no denotation of blame or otherwise

spen666

rml380z wrote:

Not 100%, but I'm fairly sure that the poilice called my 'argument' with the underside of a bus not an accident or a collision but an incident. That covers all possibilities, doesn't it?

Same point applies if it is an incident not an accident

prj45

spen666 wrote:

Whether it was due to carelessness or not, it was still an accident unless it was deliberate.

accident is no denotation of blame or otherwise

Hmm. Accident to me says it was unavoidable.

Was the challenger space shuttle disaster unavoidable?

Calling something an accident is almost like saying:

"Well, it happened, it was unavoidable, there was nothing that could have been done to prevent it".

I think there are very few genuine accidents.

Wikipedia wrote:

An accident is a specific, unidentifiable, unexpected, unusual and unintended external action which occurs in a particular time and place, with no apparent and deliberate cause but with marked effects

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident

So if I'm driving along in my car at 50mph in a 30 whilst looking down at my mobile phone and send an old granny up over my roof is that an accident? I mean, I didn't mean to do it after all.