Have just read a couple of County Council accident investigation reports as per below. Unless I’m getting it very wrong it seems the first one required a decision to be made as to whether the parked or moving vehicle (but not it seems the driver) was responsible on a road with “good forward visibility”, and the second finds the pedestrian who was hit was at fault as the car had no chance given it was a 40mph limit and it was over a crest (with a footway on one side of the road but not between the houses & PRoW on the other side)

These are the people who are designing our roads……….

2012350138312: An incident occurring on Stocks Lane involving two vehicles, one of which was stationary on the carriageway. It is unclear whether or not the parked vehicle was position centrally or on the side of the road, however, being that Stock Lane is particularly straight and has good forward visibility, it is considered that the parked car is not at fault. This incident was again considered as slight.

• 2015350134315: The only serious incident that occurred during the last 5 years in the study area was caused by a pedestrian walking parallel with the carriageway with his back to oncoming traffic. The accident occurred just south of the junction with Honey Hill in the 40mph zone just after the crest. Due to the presence of the crest reduces the forward visibility of traffic, and it is likely the vehicle did not see the pedestrian until it was too late.
It is considered that the pedestrian is at fault, being that a footway is provided along the carriageway.

Is this another attempt to get someone to say something so we can then all shout ‘victim blaming!’?

From the text of incident 2 then clearly if the car goes over a crest at 40mph, ie within the limit, but is then unable to avoid an obstruction the other side of the crest my thinking is 1/ they shouldn’t be going that fast, it’s a limit not a target; 2/ the limit is possibly too high (but without knowing the road and past history difficult to judge)

So they are at fault for being unable to stop in the distance they know to be clear.

However, if the pedestrian was walking in the road as opposed to on the footway, then they haven’t particularly helped the scenario; and also was facing the other way (HWC suggests facing oncoming traffic) then they haven’t minimised their risk either.

Is that the klaxon going off??

These are the people who are designing our roads……….

Yes they are so they look at all possibilities before deciding if a road needs changes made or maybe a footpath installed.

not a frothing at the keyboard ‘us and them’ call to arms at all, but in the second instance where it seems driving to the target is considered appropriate when you can’t see over a crest and to have gained access to the footway on the other side of the road the pedestrian would have had to cross the road on one side of the crest (presumably putting themselves at the mercy of anyone coming the other way who couldn’t see where they were going) and then back again on the other side of the crest once they’d presumably got to the PRoW or old folks home I assume they were heading to.

In the first one, the blame for driving into a parked car on a straight road with good visibility doesn’t seem as clear cut as I would have thought (and hoped) it should be

no need for the torches & pitchforks to be gathered, but not what I would have hoped for from those ‘in charge’

link to where it is so I / we can streetview it?

It’s an imperfect world…. maybe the limit should be lower, maybe other traffic slowing measures necessary, who knows. But from your description – better to cross the road to the footway, walk along the footway, and then recross the other side of the crest – even if it does mean walking 3 sides of a rectangle then at least you are on the road and in danger for the shortest time.

I’m not getting why you think someone has no choice but to cross where you’re at risk?

They are both written in council speak, so record the occurrence, rather than describe a decision making process as we might understand it.

If you read them both from the perspective of ‘do we need to spend money on this bit of road as a priority over the other bits’ I’d translate the first one as ‘hit a stationary object, whose fault do you think it was?’

The second seems to be a clumsy phrasing that leads to ‘should have used the pavement’ but I suppose useful that they are recording the crest and speed limit etc should a review be required. Would you spend the money flattening the crest where there had been one accident, or somewhere else where there had been lots?

In the first one, the blame for driving into a parked car on a straight road with good visibility doesn’t seem as clear cut as I would have thought (and hoped) it should be

really? I would translate the first one as ‘we have considered all options, and it was the driver’s fault’. I’d say this is about as clear cut as they could be?

being that Stock Lane is particularly straight and has good forward visibility, it is considered that the parked car is not at fault

Taken to extreme, can a parked car ever be at fault? While there are rules about parking and lighting, one could argue that a driver should always be able to stop in the visible distance.

They are both written in council speak, so record the occurrence, rather than describe a decision making process as we might understand it.

This, it’s just recording that the road is not the cause of the accident, it’s blaming the pedestrian in the context that the council provided a footpath which would have kept them safe so there’s not much more they can do about it. They can’t (well they can, but the decision needs to be is it worth it, the principle is known as ALARP ‘As Low As Reasonably Practicable’) alter the road to stop people driving badly or pedestrians not using the pavement.

If there wasn’t a pavement, then they’d probably record that and build one, or put up a caution sign.

Isn’t it also concerning, in the light of other reporting, that these refer to whether “the car” or “the vehicle” was to blame, rather than the driver? It may seem pedantic, but the effect of removing the driver from the reporting is insidious.

Isn’t it also concerning, in the light of other reporting, that these refer to whether “the car” or “the vehicle” was to blame, rather than the driver? It may seem pedantic, but the effect of removing the driver from the reporting is insidious.

No, as pointed out these aren’t police investigations so they don’t use the same terms. These are for reviewing road safety around restructuring roads to make them safe not an official accident investigation.

i obviously don’t know the context of the report, or the site, but it would seem that the report author is trying to determine what are the main contributory factors that caused the collisions. I.e. is there a problem with the road and the way it is used, or was the collision a one off caused by error of the road user of some sort. If there is a problem with the road that is contributing to a pattern of collisons then something can be done. if it is random reasons and isolated in nature then usually not much can be done.

Generally as a road owner (the council / trunk road agency) you would be looking for patterns of collisions to understand that a trend is emerging. A single collision does not constitute a trend.

in the first example they seem to be saying that wherever the car was stationary (side, middle wherever!), the other driver had adequate visibility and should have been able to see it and stop in time. They didn’t stop, hence they appear to be at fault (driver inattention??).

In the second example the pedestrian walking in the road with their back to traffic and hidden by a crest does seem to be deemed at fault (would you think its a safe thing to do, especially if there is a footway available?!).

The report is probably, as someone above said, just listing collisions and using data from the original police reports to state what the main contributory factors are. A report like this will often be being used to determine where is best to spend money on reducing collisions. If these are isolated incidents it is pretty unlikely that they would be considered a cluster site and acted upon.

ALARP ‘As Low As Reasonably Practicable’

I think you’ll find it’s actually ‘As Little As Regulator Permits’;-)

it is likely the vehicle did not see the pedestrian until it was too late.

Id be ******** flabbergasted if “the vehicle” ever saw anything at all since it has no ******* eyes!

If a driver didn’t see something that they’d hit until “too late”, I’d wager they weren’t bloody looking in the first place or going too fast to stop within the “forward visibility” that they had.

I like this bit….

and it is likely the vehicle did not see the pedestrian until it was too late

Pisses me right off when language like that is used.

Edit: seems i’m not the only one!!

sorry; didn’t mean to get anyone’s p1ss boiling, but like several others I just found the language odd and the inference that anyone driving had no responsibilities beyond not breaking the speed limit.

Having popped down to the site of the ‘crest’ incident on my way to get the kids from school, I certainly wouldn’t advocate walking in the road there……but alternative is as I said, crossing the same ‘accident waiting to happen’ road twice, either side of the crest.

Also, should horses or cyclists have to stop, cross the road and use the footway in case someone comes hooning along in a car, or perhaps should people slow down a bit if they can’t see what they’re about to run into / over?

Also, should horses or cyclists have to stop, cross the road and use the footway in case someone comes hooning along in a car, or perhaps should people slow down a bit if they can’t see what they’re about to run into / over?

I’m going to answer that in the opposite order to as posed (sort of)

should people slow down a bit if they can’t see what they’re about to run into / over?

absolutely. 100%. But they won’t, and because of that:

Also, should horses or cyclists have to stop, cross the road and use the footway in case someone comes hooning along in a car,

should is the tricky word; no they shouldn’t have to but given the former, I’d strongly recommend that they do. You won’t feel any happier lying in your wooden box for thinking ‘but it wasn’t my fault’

Pisses me right off when language like that is used.

I bet if you read through some more you’ll find an example of a bicycle having a crash.

Id be ******** flabbergasted if “the vehicle” ever saw anything at all since it has no ******* eyes!

What if you found one that talked about a horse having a collision?

The point is, it’s the council’s determination over whether their road was at fault, it’s not a coroner’s inquest. If your logic was followed then the road user could only ever be at fault and we could eliminate all road signs, streetlamps, etc.

In the same way I’d write up the BP Texas City disaster as “the distillation column filled with liquid”. It did, but it didn’t wake up that morning, stretch it’s legs and think “today I’ll fill myself with liquid” (in that case it was operator error, and other things).

I think you’ll find it’s actually ‘As Little As Regulator Permits’;-)

Not heard that one! Although the whole point of it is to design something that the regulator would permit, then calculate the incremental cost of making it better Vs the reduce risk of killing someone multiplied by the cost of that. Repeated until you hit the point of it not being cost effective. In the OP’s case, that could be putting a fence up on the pavement to stop people stepping off it arround the blind crest.