Yes, definitely you should tick “yes” to indicating your wish that the driver be prosecuted.

Didn’t see you – more like didn’t look.

It won’t make any difference, they will only prosecute if there is a realistic chance of conviction.

Might make the driver LOOK next time.

The CPS guidelines on decision to prosecute.

Victims views are one relevant factor, but not determinative. So the police will need to canvas your views in order to provide the CPS with the information they need.

For an example you only have to read the original post, which refers to “proper investigation of the [road traffic collision]” before offering the opinion that “it was an accident”: the meaning of “accident” that applies in this context, where the event itself has been referred to as a collision, seems clear.

Hi Bez – as an admirer of your work I never expected to be taking issue with anything you say, but here goes: The OP did say “it was an accident” in his opening post, and then a few posters responded with the “no such thing as..” or similar sentiment. From what I’ve quoted above, you seem to be suggesting that you’re drawing the same inference (i.e. that the word accident means more than just what the word means, that it also somehow implies that it’s not anyone’s “fault” or that it couldn’t have been avoided)

The OP then clarified in a subsequent post, which to me clearly identifies that he or she was using the word “accident” in the sense of what the word means:

Daylight. I was wearing hi-viz.
He should of seen me, he didnt.
He came out of a R-side road to turn right to join the lane I was in. A witness coming the other way saw him come to the junction, go to pull out, hesitate then pull out. I guess in trying to beat this ‘witness’ he hasnt spent enough time looking.

but as that is perhaps not clear enough (don’t know how, but anyway) he or she has helpfully clarified in simpler terms:

By acciden I mean ‘unexpected occurance’ but it is the drivers fault I’m in the position I am.

On that basis I’d also take issue with what you said in an earlier post:

(On a related note, popping up on the internet expressing the opinion that “it was an accident” may not be wise, I’d be cautious about what you post.)

What I would respectfully suggest to you and others is to be careful about reading something into a statement that simply isn’t there – the OP is very clearly not absolving the driver of culpability for what happened, but is acknowledging that it wasn’t done intentionally.

In the context of a world where drivers also intentionally drive into cyclists or force them off the road I think it is entirely reasonable, and indeed important that there is a way to distinguish between a collision that has happened without intent from one with. Fortunately there is a handy word for the former, or there would be if otherwise intelligent, coherent, thoughtful people would just stop asserting that the word means something it doesn’t.

Can I suggest the terms “unforeseeable accident” or “unavoidable accident” be deployed if people want to talk about such? As it happens I’ll happily join in with the “no such thing as..” for the latter but perhaps that’s for another thread.

accident
/?aks?d(?)nt/

noun
noun: accident; plural noun: accidents

1.
an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury.
“he had an accident at the factory”

2.
an event that happens by chance or that is without apparent or deliberate cause.
“the pregnancy was an accident”

Personally I lean towards the more rigid “No such thing as accidents” end of the scale, its an “incident” unless and until all parties are established as being utterly blameless. In this context the word “accident” really means there was no malicious intent, but is often used to imply a lack of discernable cause or contributing factors, which is seldom really the case…

OP: the answer to your question is Yes, prosecute.

The driver wasn’t paying attention, presumably He’s passed a test to get a Licence, that means He knew better, as a result of his actions you are hurt…

To use “Bloody Health and safety” speak He has been trained, knew the hazards and the appropriate mitigating actions, decided not to take that action, and it has resulted in injury to another party…

@cookeaa

Really mystified now – given that you provided a reasonable definition, that completely contradicts the conclusion you then reached?

How about a “FTFY”:

its an “incident” unless and until all parties are established as being utterly blameless not having caused it deliberately

To me, this is like the distinction between murder and manslaughter, with a number of people doing the equivalent of saying “there’s no such thing as manslaughter, if you’re responsible for someone’s death then it’s murder” and backing that up by asserting, incorrectly that, well that’s what “murder” means. And then when it’s pointed out that that’s not actually what the word means, saying “well, words change their meaning”

Yes, words change their meaning, but the word accident hasn’t. It does not mean something that couldn’t have been foreseen or prevented, nor does it mean something for which no one can be held responsible. That some people use a word incorrectly does not mean that it has changed its meaning (in the way that “gay” or “decimate” genuinely have for example).

And everyone bloody knows this. For those who have, or have had, jobs – have you never cocked anything up “by accident”? Did the fact that you didn’t intend to cock it up mean you were off the hook, not accountable for it, didn’t have to face any consequences for what you’d done? Of course not.

How about the adverbial version – have you never said something like “I’ve accidentally done this stupid thing that had this bad outcome?” Did you really mean, and did you expect people to understand, by that that the thing you accidentally did was unforeseeable, couldn’t have been prevented, and that you can’t be held in any way responsible for it? Of course not, that would be ludicrous, wouldn’t it?

That’s all very well edlong, but IME courts tend to use the precise definition, not “what I think we all understand it to be”.

What are you trying to do, put all those poor underpaid lawyers out of their jobs ??

@hels the lawyers can still have their fun – I’m reminded of a case a few years ago (can’t remember the specifics) where someone argued that the phrase “X wants advice” didn’t mean what it appears to mean, they were meaning that the person “was wanting” in the “having advice” department and they were therefore not conveying that the person had requested advice, merely stating that the person had a deficit in advice received (whether or not they recognised or wished to address that deficit).

Don’t know the outcome.

Thanks edlong but I wrote what I intended…

Maybe I should have been clearer, I’ll accept it’s just semantics to most people, and you can choose to call it an “accident” within the dictionary definition.
But it’s the implication that go with using the word “accident”, it implies not just a lack of intent but a lack of discernable cause, see the second definition I quoted above…

Our use of language is important, it goes beyond the strict meaning of the words used and into what those words imply. What meaning others draw from the language used.

I don’t believe the driver involved in the OP’s incident intended to injure him, I’m not suggesting malicious intent, but there would appear to be fault/cause and a good chance of that fault being proven to sit with the driver…

“Accident” implies random, happenstance something which could not have been avoided “incident” implies an avoidable occurrence which needs further examination…

It’s worth noting the emergency services have tended to apply the word “incident” more often in recent years.

The OP did say “it was an accident” in his opening post, and then a few posters responded with the “no such thing as..” or similar sentiment. From what I’ve quoted above, you seem to be suggesting that you’re drawing the same inference (i.e. that the word accident means more than just what the word means, that it also somehow implies that it’s not anyone’s “fault” or that it couldn’t have been avoided)

My inferred meaning of “accident” from its usage the original post, in isolation, was indeed that the OP was implying no blame. (That’s absolutely not to say that I inferred that the collision itself was one for which no-one was to blame.) This is the problem with “accident”: it’s easy to infer that meaning, especially in certain contexts. For example here where the OP has referred to it as an RTC and then used “it was an accident” in the context of being doubtful as to whether a prosecution is justified. Hopefully you can see why I was, rightly or wrongly, inclined to interpret that as the OP suggesting there was no culpability.

What I would respectfully suggest to you and others is to be careful about reading something into a statement that simply isn’t there – the OP is very clearly not absolving the driver of culpability for what happened, but is acknowledging that it wasn’t done intentionally.

You aren’t going to stop people (not me, not anyone else on this thread, not a defence barrister, not a magistrate, and not a juror) reading things into something unless you’re very careful with language. Which is the point. I mean, yes, the OP has clarified what was meant. But that really wasn’t how it read from my perspective, and we all have a different perspective.

In the context of a world where drivers also intentionally drive into cyclists or force them off the road I think it is entirely reasonable, and indeed important that there is a way to distinguish between a collision that has happened without intent from one with. Fortunately there is a handy word for the former

Sure, but (and I min this in a technical sense, not as an insult!) I think that’s simplistic: I think it’s important not to take a binary view of intent.

Let’s flip it around: Fortunately there is a handy word for collisions where people have been driven at or forced off the road. It’s “assault”.

That’s the easy bit done. The “without intent” bit isn’t so simple.

Take the example of someone who drives along texting away, driving straight into the back of someone who’s been visible for ages.

Is there intent?

Hell yes.

It’s not intent to drive into someone, but it’s intent to wilfully distract themselves while they’re driving a lethal piece of machinery. People have been killed like this because drivers’ intent is to pay little or no attention to the road ahead. Damn right it’s intent. It’s just that the connection between the intent and the harm isn’t direct: it’s one step removed, the intent is to not pay attention and the result of that is the harm. But that connection is eminently foreseeable.

The selfish idiot who sends text messages should be well aware that in doing so they render themselves incapable of observing or reacting to what’s ahead of them, and to make the decision to read and send texts is absolutely intentional.

When a collision occurs involving a failure to see someone, it could be because someone made every reasonable effort to look (looking, looking again, moving their head, and so on) and still made a human error, and we might say that’s an accident in every sense of the word. But it could be because someone was texting, or eating, or simply not bothering to look, and these are all decisions that people make, which are intentional acts of failing to adequately control a vehicle or to adequately consider others around them.

So if we have a failed-to-see collision, and no further information, is it an accident in every sense of the word? No. It can’t be until it’s been investigated to the nth degree. Is it a collision in every sense of the word? Yes. Which is why it’s the better word.

@Bez

I hear you, but I’d contend that your line is potentially counterproductive and can have the opposite of the desired effect – by tying responsibility to intent, you could give a free pass to someone who did something really stupid, criminally stupid, but, y’know, by accident, so free of intent.

So, yes, Scumbag McCouncilhouse will be in a whole world of hurt legally when he gets busted for leaving the scene after running over a cyclist while driving an uninsured unroadworthy deathtrap, high on booze and pills and having been texting his dealer at the moment of impact. And intent, as described by you, would surely feature. I can hear the judge passing sentence in my head “You drove that day knowing that you were in no state to do so and that your vehicle was unsafe. You were reckless and selfish. Indeed, as the prosecution described, this was an accident waiting to happen”

But, the stories that get me riled, usually from reading one of your thorough analyses, are not those cases. They are the fine upstanding citizen, married, parent, member of the parish council who either gets off entirely (acquitted or not even charged appropriately) or gets a risible sentence after doing something that should meet the standard for something more severe (you know this shit a lot better than me, all that below the standard of a reasonably whatever-it-is).

And in those cases the converse applies, and the lack of intent seems to be the (literally) get-out-of-jail-free card.

How may times have you written something from a magistrate or judge’s sentencing spiel about “it is clear you didn’t set out that day to kill innocent-cyclist-that-you-killed-through-your-negligence” – so bloody what? If someone causes an accident (for which you have to start from the premise that people can actually cause accidents, not the idea that an accident is this entirely unavoidable comes-from-out-of-nowhere happenstance), through criminally negligent behaviour, whether that criminally negligent behaviour was momentary, or a catalogue of anti-social selfishness should have a bearing on the sentence, but not the verdict.

But that’s not where we are if you can present an argument that culpability for causing a crash / collision is bound up with intent – and that’s the logical conclusion: holding someone responsible requires intent, Doris the parish councillor didn’t intend to kill someone when she momentarily forgot to look left as well as right, so we don’t hold her accountable for failing to drive, at that moment, below the reasonable standard because she didn’t intend to?

I get why the “no such thing..” came about but I think it’s backfired – it came about for good reason – to emphasise that accidents have causes, they’re not just “shit happens, let it go” events and they should be investigated, people held accountable, lessons learnt

BUT

The opposite side is the get out – if someone being at fault means something “isn’t an accident” then if I can convince a magistrate or jury that the thing I did was an accident, then no come-back, because when someone is at fault / accountable / culpable, it’s not an accident…

The opposite side is the get out – if someone being at fault means something “isn’t an accident” then if I can convince a magistrate or jury that the thing I did was an accident, then no come-back, because when someone is at fault / accountable / culpable, it’s not an accident…

But that’s correct, isn’t it ?
The “no come-back” here is for personal liability and culpability in punitive terms. Your parish coucillor who appears to have made a reasonable attempt to drive safely & failed (and after investigation no other contributory factor of which the driver was aware can be found) is still responsible for the crash and their insurer will have to pay up but they won’t lose their licence or go to jail. Fair enough IMO. (course, if it turns out they’re mot a safe driver then see bottom paragraph)

The bit that really rankles with me is the “good character” parish coucillor bollocks to which you alluded – if you behave unsafely then I don’t give a shit when you last went to church or cuddled an orphan

IMO Careful & considerate driving should be defined legally, at least by negative example, and that test applied in cases. No allowance for you coming straight from hospital where your new messiah was being born and then having to get to the kitten rescue centre before closing – were you distracted intentionally and avoidably from driving; yes or no ?

They should clean up the highway code and preface it with a few statements of the obvious as absolutes in terms of safe driving – “you MUST not drive drunk / drugged / tired or use your phone, watch a screen, allow passengers to distract you, … and if any of these happen or become required, you must STOP the vehicle as soon as is safe to do so. Failure to do so is dangerous driving. You MUST not continue along a road if weather conditions (including sun) are making it impossible to see clearly – to do so is dangerous driving”

The driving test should include a standard set of questions around that for every entrant so that we KNOW they have known what dangerous driving is, right at the start of their time driving.

Also, retest after any collision and after every 6 points. Maybe 3rd retest is something much harder to pass. 4th retest – only after a 6 month ban. 5th – public execution (accidental, obvz; maybe we could allow the “firing squad” to be a load of kids just mucking about unpupservised with guns and the victim bound & gagged behind a target drawn on a sheet)

I don’t believe the driver involved in the OP’s incident intended to injure him, I’m not suggesting malicious intent, but there would appear to be fault/cause and a good chance of that fault being proven to sit with the driver…

There is in most cases at least a good chance that both parties have some fault.

Real situation yesterday… cycling back with the kid from school and we got to the top of a hill with a mini roundabout and a crossing point (not a pedestrial crossing)

A youth* is trying to track stand on the pavement (not cycle path) and I told the kid to be careful in case he rode in front of the cars…

Youth then rides right in front of the car in front of us who is pulling out into the roundabout… the driver stops and we don’t run into his boot because I expected the youth cyclist to completely disregard traffic rules (he was already riding on the pavement so I hardly expected he would bother).

Had the car hit the kid who’s fault is it….
In my opinion the youth riding in front of the car was a high probability.

I’d guess the youth was 14-15…. this was part of my calculation on them ignoring the mini roundabout… If I had been driving I would have planned that the youth would ride in front of me… and I’d put the probability way above anyone who actually drives a car…

I could see he wasn’t even watching the roundabout… and perhaps the driver in front of us also saw the same… the point is if he/she hadn’t… in this case they did and no incident or accident occurred. The cyclist shouted at the driver then continued and rode along the pavement… and likely will continue riding like this until they do get hit.

Part of driving or cycling is expecting the unexpected including other drivers not following traffic rules. If you aren’t then you are not completely “paying attention”.

I hear you, but I’d contend that your line is potentially counterproductive and can have the opposite of the desired effect – by tying responsibility to intent, you could give a free pass to someone who did something really stupid, criminally stupid, but, y’know, by accident, so free of intent.

I follow, but (with apologies if I was misleading) that’s not quite what I meant; which was that intent isn’t merely about direct intent to harm, it’s also about intent to neglect one’s responsibility. A lot of that sort of thing tends to fall under dangerous driving, the definition which includes two key conditions, one the requirement that “it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver” that the driving was dangerous: so, for instance, driving along while reading and sending text messages would normally qualify as dangerous driving. There’s arguably an informal correlation between that obviousness and a clear intent to drive at a low standard.

Careless driving has a different definition of course, with only one condition: that the standard of driving has to be below that expected of a competent and careful driver. This generally includes “momentary lapse of attention” incidents, where there’s probably a rich debate about what is and what isn’t an “accident” and what is and what isn’t inevitable human error. But either way, where careless driving applies (certainly the lower end of it) generally there’s a lack of what most people would perceive as intent of any kind.

I’m not trying to tie responsibility uniquely to intent: that would be to argue that a lot of successful careless driving prosecutions were unfair, and I’m sure that’s not what you’d expect me to argue 😉 Just trying to point out some more of the several shades of grey between outright assault and pure misfortune.

Anyway, before we spend more energy on it, I suspect we essentially agree.

They should clean up the highway code and preface it with a few statements of the obvious as absolutes in terms of safe driving – “you MUST not drive drunk / drugged / tired or use your phone, watch a screen, allow passengers to distract you, … and if any of these happen or become required, you must STOP the vehicle as soon as is safe to do so. Failure to do so is dangerous driving. You MUST not continue along a road if weather conditions (including sun) are making it impossible to see clearly – to do so is dangerous driving”

Some of those (using a phone, drunk/drugged over a defined threshold) are already strict offences. I forget whether they appear in the HC but if they do then they would surely be “MUST NOT” since they are backed by legislation.

The others cannot be “MUST NOT” without legislative changes. There are also challenges in defining (let alone enforcing) them: for example, you’re asking people to stop completely when it is “impossible to see clearly”. That’s something you need to define, and then to be able to provide evidence for should a prosecution be required.

Realistically, it’s not possible to take a binary view of every behaviour or environmental condition and legislate against it. I do think the relationship between the HC and the existing legislation could be usefully revised (and that’s something I’ve been meaning to muster the will to write about for some time), although when push comes to shove the law is the law and the HC is just some words in a pamphlet.

Some of those (using a phone, drunk/drugged over a defined threshold) are already strict offences

Yeah – I just want them “all” in the place that all new drivers are supposed to look

The others cannot be “MUST NOT” without legislative changes

OK, I’m happy for them to legislate – apparently they’ve got pretty much **** all else to do this parliament 😉 . Alternatively I’d be happy just with specific recognition of the HC as the embodiment of what a careful and competent driver would be expected to do – then you can have exceptional pleading in court if you must but at least the bar’s height has been defined

for example, you’re asking people to stop completely when it is “impossible to see clearly”

It’s only a white paper at the mo’ – we’ll get the lords to tidy it up 😀 How about you must alter your speed to avoid any other road users who may be less visible in these conditions ? (I know that’s implicit already but I want it spelling out so there’s no defence of blinded by sun or bands of fog unless there’s a massively unusual event such as zero fog anywhere followed by a single hugely dense bit in a hollow; if it’s sunny out then people should anticipate dazzling and be ready – make it part of the test: “what specific safety risks exist on very bright sunny days?” and “if there is thin fog in your area, what …?”). I know there’s already stuff in the HC about bad weather but I don’t think sun dazzle is in there at all.

I think the bleeding obvious needs to be stated to act as direction to stupid drivers and, more importantly, jurors so that, say, using a phone is not acceptable even if they all choose to do it. Maybe the HC should be renamed; “code” is just guff. I’m for “Bad driving kills people; It’s dangerous if you don’t pay attention all the time” !

OK, I’m happy for them to legislate

Are you sure? Sounds like a bit of a double edged sword to me.

Specifically if you want to prevent cycle related incidents then this will doubtless be combined with things like “failing to use an available cycle lane”

The whole of the road traffic act is in dire needs of a rewrite… but quite honestly I’d expect that if that happens there will be far more proscription around cycling that would be largely written by people who don’t actually cycle but drive.

OK, I’m happy for them to legislate

was pretty much kidding – I do want a much better definition of the offences (careless/dangerous) that can be considered by a jury though

You’re right about being careful what you wish for but “failing to use an available cycle lane” – might bring with it an onus to define, provide, maintain and even possibly protect adequate lanes. Helmets though, big “risk” of compulsion I think

oh god. just shop the *unt.

I know there’s already stuff in the HC about bad weather but I don’t think sun dazzle is in there at all.

“Rule 93 Slow down, and if necessary stop, if you are dazzled by bright sunlight.”

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-drivers-and-motorcyclists-89-to-102

@Bez – Ah, I had a look in the “weather” section & didn’t see it. Ta

Before HC gets to the technical aspects of driving (signage, positioning etc, for which ignorance is no defence) I’d like a section at the front for outlining behaviours expected of the average driver/road user. The current intro includes

Although failure to comply with the other (non “MUST”) rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.

but as I understand it it’s currently NOT even admissible as “what a decent driver should do” and that is what must change IMO

Something like:
1) Pays constant attention to the road and its edges and to other users and does not allow their attention to be distracted by devices, passengers or events inside or outside their vehicle. If a distraction appears and cannot be ignored then the driver should stop the vehicle as soon as this is safe before dealing with the distraction
2) Understands and anticipates the likely movements of other vehicles and road users (including nearby pedestrians, particularly children, older or disabled people, cyclists, motorcyclists and horse riders) and allows them time and space to remain safe at all times
3) (guff about visibility etc)
4) …

Just tick yes.
It’ll have a very minor effect on whatever happens prosecution-wise, but at least you get to do your little bit.

The pedantry on this thread is incredible.