Forum menu
This is a question on the witness form I've been sent by the police so as I can aid them in the prompt investigation of the RTC, 10 weeks ago, where I was knocked from my bike. I suffered right shoulder proximal humeral fractures which could be life changing if I'm unable to carry on with my profession.
The guy didn't see me.
It was an accident.
I feel if I say 'no' and the driver isn't prosecuted/ fined in one way or another he just carries on driving as he always has ( although he might anyway ).
Thoughts...?
Yes. Now ask me a hard one.
only you can decide whether YOU THINK it was negligent enough to warrant a prosecution or just one of those things where shit happens - not seen a thread if there was one
Heal well
It was either an accident or careless driving.
If you feel it was a genuine accident what good will prosecuting the driver do?
If it was careless driving then surely it's down to the Police/CPS if they want to prosecute?
The guy didn't see me.
It was an accident
Do you think he should have seen you - i.e. was there a reason or was he simply not being observant?
The guy didn't see me.
It was an accident.
If he didn't see you because he wasn't looking where he was going, that sounds like careless driving to me.
The guy didn't see me.
Fair enough, but it sounds like he might not have been driving very attentively.
It was an accident.
That's a matter of interpretation, depending on the above.
I'd answer "yes" and let the court decide whether he has committed an offence.
Even if he has committed an offence, trying to get it to stick will be tricky as he was in a car. It has to be worth a try.
In all seriousness though, having worked in road safety, we had it drummed into us that there's no such thing as an accident.
IANAL but isn't it the case that a civil action may be more successful if there's already a criminal conviction?
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.
sounds like he was focussed on the approaching vehicle - as you say.
A quick look left and looks clear.
That is no 'accident'.
Yes.
Consider yourself lucky they even asked.
The guy who right hooked me saw me and totally misjudged my speed downhill. Police didn't even attend, ambulance did though.
that sounds like careless driving.
Even if you request a prosecution it will need to go before the CPS to decide if they go forward with it so it's not a done deal. If you say no then it won't be considered.
I'd say yes and see how it plays out. Regardless the driver caused the incident so you should be compensated through their insurance for the damage to you and potentially your livelihood
As above, there is no such thing as an 'accident'.
His careless driving could have life-changing consequences for you. Feel free to forgive the bloke if you're that way inclined, but he still deserves to be prosecuted and convicted.
If the police have written to you asking you to decide, then presumably they already consider that they have a strong enough case to go to court.
I suffered right shoulder proximal humeral fractures which could be life changing if I'm unable to carry on with my profession.
It sounds like you probably should - or even will have to - make a civil claim for your injury and possibly loss of future earning potential. If so, I imagine it might make things easier/simpler if a successful criminal prosecution has removed any scope for his insurers to deny liability or claim contributory negligence in order to reduce any payout.
The description sounds like Careless Driving.
there is no such thing as an 'accident'.
Then why do we have a word for it ?
They used to be "Road Traffic Accident" now "Road Traffic Collision". Accident implies no fault or couldn't be avoided but there is always a root cause.
If it is Surrey Police then don't think about it too deeply as they surely won't.
Car turned right across me last April and I flew over it and fractured my neck, rib and finger. 4 days in hospital.
Filled out the witness form, described my injuries. Said I thought the minimum 'punishment' would be a driver course.
Few months later, and letter says "No Action". Wife pretty annoyed but driver had fully admitted blame to insurance company.
9 months after the accident, Surrey Police phone up to double check my injuries for their stats and they had me down as minor injuries!
Don't think they read my witness form at all...
The guy who right hooked me saw me and totally misjudged my speed downhill.
Perhaps you were going too fast
Then why do we have a word for it ?
This is some BS that is propogated by people involved in safety.
Someone is ALWAYS has to be at fault ...
Tree falls and hits your house due to a freak hundred year storm then the tree should have been cut ... someone is to blame
Its a religion....
walk out on a sunny day, get hit by lightning then it's your fault because someone MUST always be at fault by their ethos because there is no such thing as an accident. Get hit on the head by a hailstone the size of a golf ball... obviously you should have been wearing a helmet (just in case)
Obviously was it slightly looking like it might rain.. it makes it easier to blame someone ... etc. etc.
I've got to stay away from these threads. Bring out some complete ****ing idiots don't they.
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.
Taking that at face value, ie inferring it to be a simple "pulling out into the path of traffic" collision, there are plenty of very similar cases that have been successfully prosecuted as careless driving. Failing to observe an oncoming vehicle that are there to be seen is normally considered to be below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver, hence it qualifies. (Though in many cases it comes in at the low end of sentencing: the phrase "momentary lapse of attention" is guaranteed to make an appearance if the prosecution goes anywhere.)
I'd have thought, from that description, that it's reasonable to support a prosecution. I'm also inclined to wonder whether declining the opportunity would affect a civil claim. I suspect not, but it would be prudent to consider such things.
(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.)
But driving is pretty difficult and pesky cyclists get in the way so it could happen to anyone.. Its probably the cyclists fault too for not riding in the gutter and not paying road tax. Saw a cyclist jump a red light last week too.. And so on...
I'm also inclined to wonder whether declining the opportunity would affect a civil claim.
Declining to prosecute would not affect a civil claim, but because the standard of proof in a criminal prosecution is higher than in a civil case ('beyond reasonable doubt' vs 'on the balance of probabilities'), a successful criminal prosecution means that there is then no scope for the third party (or their insurers) to dispute liability and say it was not their fault (because a criminal court has already decided that it is their fault, at least inasmuch as they have committed a driving offence which caused the accident).
Accident implies no fault or couldn't be avoided but there is always a root cause.
Regarding this and several other "no such thing as an accident" postings.
Have you actually thought about this, or has it just become received wisdom? The word "accident" means an unplanned occurence, usually with an undesirable outcome.
It does NOT mean that the occurence couldn't have been prevented.
It does NOT mean that nobody is to blame / is criminally culpable / is responsible for it.
And no number of bullshit Health and Safety Trainers spouting this crap changes the fact.
People are over keen to absolve themselves of responsibility so the word accident is often used to achieve this.
A collision happened because one or more people didn't do what they should have done, or did something they shouldn't have done. Avoiding the use of the word accident in this context, in relation to RTCs helps people get their heads around the fact that someone (most likely unintentionally, but not always) ****ed up!
From what we've heard, it sounds like it was the car driver. This mistake has consequences, life changing ones in this instance. There's a risk/reward aspect to this that people are blind to. The reward is a freedom of movement, the risk is that if you **** up, it might cost you financially, or your liberty, or someone's life.
People are over keen to absolve themselves of responsibility so the word accident is often used to achieve this.
I genuinely don't understand how anyone could think that, although clearly people do, given that the word "accident" doesn't convey any sort of absolution of any blame, culpability, or responsibility. I.e. using the word [b]doesn't[/b] achieve what you said it does?
What am I missing here? Do people really not understand that something can be an accident and still be someone's fault? And have been avoidable? Genuine question.. I can't see it at all.
the woman when I was knocked off I was asked similar questions, and I had the option to send her on a driver improvement course. which I did as I thought it would be more of a ball ache for her so to speak, when compared to rocking up to court and being let off scott free
Edlong, I'm afraid that, yes, it is the case. "people" covers a very wide scope. While what you've said is true, a lot if people either don't understand that, or choose not to understand it as it suits their purpose better.
What am I missing here? Do people really not understand that something can be an accident and still be someone's fault? And have been avoidable? Genuine question.. I can't see it at all.
You aren't missing anything, you are totally right.
Every time I hear someone say "there's no such thing as an accident" it makes me wonder if English is a language they have just started learning that day 😆
[b]accident[/b]
?aks?d(?)nt/
noun
1.
[b]an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury.[/b]
By acciden I mean 'unexpected occurance' but it is the drivers fault I'm in the position I am.
there is no such thing as an 'accident'.Then why do we have a word for it ?
By mistake.
It would shorten the waiting times at A&E if half the patients get turned away because theres no such thing as 'A' though.
If it was careless driving then surely it's down to the Police/CPS if they want to prosecute?
They can [i]want[/i] to but they sort of need witnesses and victims to participate in the process. Which is probably why they're asking the question.
Sounds like I would be ticking "yes" and letting the CPS decide from there.
Whether you believe in safety or not, every "accident" has a root cause. The "accident" may have been unintentional or could well have been unavoidable (the sequence of events were already in motion) but that still doesn't take away the fact that it was caused by something.
It does not mean that someone has to be blamed for the "accident" but it still has a root cause.
Accident investigations seek the root cause and will sometimes make recommendations that could stop the same set of circumstances happening again.
It does NOT mean that the occurence couldn't have been prevented.
It does NOT mean that nobody is to blame / is criminally culpable / is responsible for it
but then we get:
accident
?aks?d(?)nt/
noun
1. an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury.
See, the word "unexpectedly" is the problem here - drive like a cock, not looking properly because you're in a rush to get out before (the witness) and the collision you have is NOT unexpected. If you were "careful and considerate" you'd realise that pulling out into spaces you haven't properly surveyed is likely to result, eventually, in a collision. The driver received a practical lesson in statistics/probability; unfortunately it was the OP who suffered as a result
It may come as an enormous surprise to some people on here, but occasionally the meaning and actual usage of words varies from the precise dictionary definition. Sometimes they even change over time, or change meaning depending on the context! I know, crazy times we're living in...
In the case of 'accident', it is widely used as a means of avoiding blame by suggesting that it was some kind of unavoidable randomly-applied event. In the vast majority of cases involving traffic, this isn't the case. But sometimes even the injured and blameless party plays along with this idea that 'accidents happen'.
God knows* we want people to actually look at their behaviour and perhaps even change it so our roads are safer places, not just use a glib expression as an excuse. Hence the 'no such thing as accidents' in the context of road policing.
*He may not even exist, or be omniscient. It's a turn of phrase, not to be taken completely literally. HTH.
I work in the industry with road accident data. The word "accident" is still how reported injury accidents on the highway are described by the Department for Transport in their STATS19 database. Police prefer to use the word "collision" because it's part of their job to establish if anyone is to blame, and "accident" would suggest nobody.
"Collision" implies an impact between vehicles and doesn't adequately cover scenarios when people have been injured without a vehicle actually crashing eg. due to heavy braking or running off the road. And when someone falls inside a moving (or indeed, stationary) bus.
Regarding the OP's question, if he genuinely thinks it was an accident then that's the end of it. No point raking it over and bruising the country's economy further, particularly if there isn't sufficient evidence for a successful prosecution.
(Declaration: I'm not in the "no such thing as an accident" camp, but I am in the "in most cases 'accident' is not the word that should be used" camp.)
Like most words, "accident" has multiple meanings and connotations, and you can spend all day arguing about it unless you accept that. The issue is not that "accident" unequivocally means or implies absence of culpability; it is that [i]one of the meanings[/i] of "accident" does. "Collision" and "incident", on the other hand, don't have meanings of explicit non-culpability and thus can't reasonably be construed as such. 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.
So, while any single person may not infer an absence of culpability from the use of "accident", some people will; whether consciously or not and whether to a large extent or not. Language is our primary tool of influence and it often works subconsciously. Which is why the police and other authorities use "incident" or "collision" these days.
The DfT are slightly different: they use "accident", but then they also use "hit-and-run", which arguably implies a deliberate act of fleeing (if not colliding), whilst others use the more neutral "failure to stop". I suspect the DfT are simply behind the curve on this, probably largely due the inertia caused by the fact that their data structures have "accident" plastered all over them, so a change in terminology requires changes to a pile of infrastructure and software both internally and externally.
No point raking it over and bruising the country's economy further
According to the Police Federation, RTCs cost around £34bn of public money every year. (For context, motoring taxes raise around £38bn per year, of which around £4.7bn—the amount raised by VED—is allocated to the Highways Agency which looks after the strategic network, ie motorways and major A roads. So basically VED pays for roads you can't cycle on, and all the fuel duty and other stuff pays for mopping up crashes. Essentially none of it at all is spent on cycling; I digress, but it's a useful wider point to note.)
So, with a £34bn bill and a lot of people getting hot under the collar about having to pay to drive a car, it arguably makes good sense to invest in stuff which may reduce the number of collisions and thus reduce the cost (to us all) of motoring. And that includes taking some sort of action against people who don't conduct themselves with the level of attention required to avoid causing collisions.
In the case of 'accident', it is widely used as a means of avoiding blame by suggesting that it was some kind of unavoidable randomly-applied event. In the vast majority of cases involving traffic, this isn't the case. But sometimes even the injured and blameless party plays along with this idea that 'accidents happen'.
The problem is the idea of a root cause .... (as in singular)
Accidents rarely (if ever) have a single root cause... but a series of failures .. IMHO more like breakdowns in relationships ...
Of course it might be 100% one part of a relationship at fault but given the divorce rate (ONS says 42%) I just can't see that in [u]most [/u]breakups it's a single partner 100% and 0% the other... (that's just considering actual divorce - obviously many/most people have more than one relationship but my point is its close to 50%
Traffic accidents/collisions etc. rarely (IMHO) have a single root cause... but because of their nature the tendency and to some extent legal requirement is to make it appear so...
Years ago I had my only ever accident in a motor vehicle... legally it was found to be NOT my "fault" I misread the lights and a filter (couldn't really see it with the sun) ... pulled forwards 4-5' (neither crawling not racing) but as I was 4-5 feet behind the line anyway... saw it was a filter and stopped... the bloke behind ran in the back of me...
There were things I could have done different ... like not pull forwards unless I could see the traffic lights clearly or have inched forwards rather than pull off quicker... the lights were also poorly designed... etc.
Of course the car behind also shouldn't have set off, just because I did...but my point is I contributed... he probably (most likely) couldn't see the lights either ... no-one was hurt... his insurance paid.
Anyway the point really is the world isn't perfect ... but in general it's possibly better not not seek blame...
But sometimes even the injured and blameless party plays along with this idea that 'accidents happen'.
Quite possibly but I think the inverse also happens and this is increasing due to a culture where we are encouraged to tell tales and have blame assigned.
Accidents do happen.... but in a wider context sh1t sometimes happens that is a consequence of a complex series of events. I've been in a few scrapes on bikes and have a 7yr old that cycles... I can look back and say in terms of things happening on roads there was always an element where I could have avoided the accident ... did I REALLY need to slip through the small gap to the lights just because I'm entitled... did I give mixed signals etc.
If I'm honest I have to say that I can only think of one cycle accident on the road where I could say it was 100% the drivers fault... where there is nothing I could have done differently .... (I don't mean leave the bike at home differently... ) ....
The reason I'm a bit passionate about this is because I'm teaching a kid how to ride... but due to the way schooling is now he's more concerned about absolutes and rules rather than actual risk mitigation. His questions are "would it be my fault if..." not "how can I avoid being hit by a car"
I've had the same thing happen to me a month ago,
driver drove straight into my rear wheel, sending the bike up the road and me in a heap on the floor - despite the car 3 seconds ahead of him driving round me and giving me ample room.
I feel the driver should be prosecuted for careless driving, as his "i didnt see you" excuse, also means he didn't see the car in front manoeuvring - thus careless driving.
Hope you GWS.
Does anyone know if this is normal practice of the police? I've not had something like this yet, however mine is just a month ago.
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 [url= https://www.cps.gov.uk/victims_witnesses/reporting_a_crime/decision_to_charge.html ]CPS guidelines on decision to prosecute[/url].
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 [b]not[/b] 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: accidents1.
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 [I]"No such thing as accidents"[/I] end of the scale, its an [I]"incident"[/I] unless and until all parties are established as being utterly blameless. In this context the word [I]"accident"[/I] 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 [I]"Bloody Health and safety"[/I] 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...
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 [s]being utterly blameless[/s] 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?