Road Traffic Accident / Road Traffic Collision

vitesse169

I remember when this term RTC came in. IIRC it was to cover all the possibilities of accidents/collisions. Most of us think its to be 'trendy' - like most of the acronyms we are not allowed to use because it may offend someone... Like POPO - 'prolific and other priority offenders - apparantly POPO is a derogatory comment in Polish..... WTF - I thought we were in the UK.....!

spen666

vitesse169 wrote:

I remember when this term RTC came in. IIRC it was to cover all the possibilities of accidents/collisions. Most of us think its to be 'trendy' - like most of the acronyms we are not allowed to use because it may offend someone... Like POPO - 'prolific and other priority offenders - apparantly POPO is a derogatory comment in Polish..... WTF - I thought we were in the UK.....!

its PPO not POPO to describe Prolific & priorty offenders

spen666

prj45 wrote:

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.

It is an accident yes.

You are culpable, but it is still an accident


Ask yourself what is the opposite of accidental - its "deliberate", it is not liable or blameworthy

staringatthesea

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

I don't think its a binary thing. Just because the police are calling something an RTC doesn't mean it's not also an RTA. Are they saying it's NOT an RTA?

lost_in_thought

StaringattheSea wrote:

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

I don't think its a binary thing. Just because the police are calling something an RTC doesn't mean it's not also an RTA. Are they saying it's NOT an RTA?

Put yourself in the position of someone who's been the victim of a hit-and-run, and the policeman you called has reported a Road Traffic Collision. Now, the driver in question has been tracked down and got a hotshot lawyer for himself, y'know, one of the really good ones like on the telly.

This hotshot lawyer points out that the law only states you have to stop in event of an RTA. The policeman's report says you were involved in an RTC, not an RTA.

Therefore, hotshot lawyer could argue that driver never had to stop.

Sketchy. From what Spen's saying I don't think there's any case law to clarify it... yet.

spen666

lost_in_thought wrote:

.....

Sketchy. From what Spen's saying I don't think there's any case law to clarify it... yet.

There isn't yet.

As i said in Op - its a scenario that is right for an on the ball lawyer to exploit owing to the pointless changing of terms for change's sake.

Porgy

To stick my oar in - i work in HSE - Health, Safety and Environment. And we don't call anything an accident - everything's an incident, and everything is considered avoidable unless after we've investigated we find that it was out of our control - but even then they have a cause such as member of the public throwing something onto the railway - just that we can't control the cause.

so from Professional H&S point of view - accidents never happen.

bigmat

Road traffic incident it is then! its the future!

John Stevenson

I think the legal and casual definitions of accident have changed - or rather the casual definition has changed, even though the legal one hasn't.

"It was an accident" is often used casually to imply "It wasn't my fault/I did nothing wrong". Using the term in reporting of road crashes - especially immediately after the event - implies that nobody screwed up and there was no intention, when often that's not known. "Crash" or "collision" are often more precise descriptions of the state of information at the time.

I don't know enough law to discuss Spen666's essential point about police reporting, though I suspect that any lawyer attempting to make such an abstruse semantic argument would get a good telling off from the judge for wasting court time.

Nevertheless, in common usage, and especially in journalism, I think 'crash' and 'collision' are far better terms than 'accident' until it's known that there was both no error and no intention.

snailracer

OK, now we've sorted the accident/collision part of it, can we now argue whether the terms "road" and "traffic" are appropriate?

tarquin_foxglove

The CPS are conduction a public consultation on their 'Guidance on Charging Offences arising from Driving Incidents', closing date is 8th November for submissions to it.

One area of the guidance is:
Terminology
When a suspect's/defendant's manner of driving has resulted in death or serious injury to a complainant, the term "fatal collision2 or "collision" should be used in all correspondence, conversation at court and in meetings when dealing with these cases. The term "accidents" is unsuitable.

Link to the full consultation here...

steve6690

Oxford dictionary definition of an "accident" :

"an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury"

Road Traffic Act :

Duty of driver to stop, report accident and give information or documents. .

(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.


My take on it is that an "accident" need not necessarily involve a collision. Hence, the Road Traffic Act qualifies what other elements need to be present to make it reportable.
For example, if I were to pass too close to a cyclist, such that they fall off and injure themselves, that is an "accident" and I need to produce my documents etc. There was no collision though.