You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Sideswiped by a little old lady ten minutes out from home. Not another vehicle in sight.
All I could think of to say was "The best thing you could do right now is go away".
Bloody knee and a limp.
Everybody else OK? 👿
Awe, thats bad. 😐
Was she [i]really[/i] old, or just in disguise ?
Whilst I'm sorry for your accident, I'm glad you didn't kick off.
Hope she apologised.
Need a method to flag old people as unsafe - 3 strikes and you're out?
Need a method to flag old people as unsafe - 3 strikes and you're out?
You hear that Woppit - thats your final warning 🙂
Need a method to flag old people as unsafe - 3 strikes and you're out?
Can we not add blonde trophy wives in Rangey's or X5's taking Tarquin and Felicity to the private school in Bridge of Allan into the same category?
That was restrained of you!
Glad it isn't worse.
not just old people, statistically its 17 - 24 year old cause the most accidents. 3 hits for them as well and out?
not just old people, statistically its 17 - 24 year old cause the most accidents. 3 hits for them as well and out?
New drivers only have 6 points to play with in their first 2 years.
Obv. relies on them actually being given points...
If only there were professionals who could analyse accident statistics and ensure that the biggest contributors paid more for insurance.
Surely insurance companies base the risk assessment on the size of payouts rather than harm/risk to other road users?
Young Gary rag-it who writes his car off in a ditch isn't getting points for that is he. I'd also guess that most RTAs don't result in points either. I know of a cyclist hit, by the front of a car, that failed to give way. Police called, no action taken towards the driver.
I know of a cyclist hit, by the front of a car, that failed to give way. Police called, no action taken towards the driver
what action do you want them to take? it was an accident
what action do you want them to take? it was an accident
Depends on your grading of the accident doesnt it?
I stub my toe on a chair leg this morning = accident
Dozy **** pulls out and knocks me off bike because they didnt look = accident
Or the one mentioned that you quoted - car doesnt give way to bike = accident
I dont deserve to be seen by the police for hurting my toe but if I was injured because somebody was either too busy/lazy/stupid to pay attention driving a 2 tonne lump of metal its another matter Shirley?
Cheers!
I was passed by Chris Waddle in his Audi this morning.
He gave me plenty of room.
failing to give way is not an accident, it's either shit observation or it is intentionally being a ****, both are careless/dangerous driving, "it was an accident" doesn't really cut it. Actual accidents are few and far between, whereas being a shit driver is very prevalent.it was an accident
NFA is a depressingly common occurrence, like the old duffer in oncoming traffic who turned right in front of me, who after knocking me off my bike paused for about 2 seconds then tried to drive over me and my bike (so 2 counts of shit observation, the second significantly worse than the first) As he had valid insurance and licence that got an NFA, so (afaik) no check that his eye sight was ok, no check for any previous incidents..... 🙄
some knob jockey nearly ran me and my dog over this morning because he just had to drive like a lunatic to get to school (I'm thinking that as it was 8am and he was at least in his 30's he was most likely a teacher)
Wouldn't have bothered me but he was driving like his nuts were on fire
@ donk.
No actual accidents are very common, an accident is something occuring without intent.
I'm getting increasingly narked with (not refering to the OP here) cyclists assuming that drivers are out to get them on some kind of personal vendetta.
Theres a guy I've seen a couple of times cycling to work who dresses head to toe in bright yellow high viz, full balacava under helmet and pollution mask, with a go-pro pointing both ways, I can't help thinking if he's that paranoid he might be better off on the bus!
We should apply the Collision Regulations. No such thing as an accident there - it's a collision and it's somebody's fault.
Hit by a falling piano - collision - someone's in charge of that piano
Hit by a granny in Church Stretton cos she's cutting across the road to get in a parking space - collision. Nail said granny to the front door of the Help the Aged shop.
there is no such thing as a road accident, (ok there might be the odd totally unavoidable meteorite strike).
To assume oh it was an accident is to excuse s**t behaviour. If you hit someone you are probably incompetent and should be banned pending investigation. Drivers need to understand they have no right to drive it is a privilege extended to those who pass a test. A privilege that can and will be withdrawn.
None of this hardship crap, you get twelve points and you are banned, no ifs, no buts, you know the rules you didn't follow them, tough.
As for the OP, the police won't give a s**t, been there done that, taking retribution would get the police involved. the Police are drivers, the CPS are drivers, the judges, jurors, lawyers, all drivers, basically your ****ed if you expect any help from the system.
Id suggest that, apart from genuine accidents, a lot of them are down to a variety of issues. Drivers attitude, inappropriate speed, incompetence and lack of consideration for other road users. I wouldn't lump everyone together based on age, sex, car, lorry or van. Judge each on the facts, let's not start with all <insert type>
Is knob jockey as bad as gay lord?
Worse
BAN HIM, BAN HIM NOW!!!!
I think the "it was only an accident" mindset is really dangerous. It basically allows all kinds of negligence, and you shouldn't be negligent when you're on the road, especially if you're driving.
But the misuse of the word accident is annoying too. "Accident" does NOT mean nobody is at fault. It just means that the outcome wasn't intended. So I can get in my car blind drunk, get 100 yards down the road and then flatten a lamppost. The collision is an accident. It wasn't intended. That doesn't mean I'm not at fault or shouldn't be punished. If the same happens without any alcohol involved then it's the same. Hitting the lamppost was NOT intentional, so it was an accident.
The reason police forces moved to RTC rather than RTA was because it's the same as calling all shootings "gun accidents" or all stabbings "knife accidents". There may be some that are accidents, but there will be some that are deliberate.
Calling it an accident before it's been investigated clears the "offender" of any malice and so a potential murder charge drops to death by careless/dangerous driving.
No actual accidents are very common, an accident is something occuring without intent.
The definition for H&S purposes is an unexpected event. These are very few and far between indeed. The definition above is missing the "and unexpected"
an accident is something occuring without intent.
That's fine for you doing things that have no impact on others. You drive under licence - if you demonstrate that you're not fit to hold that licence you should lose it. Personally I think most RTCs (regardless of whether a third party is injured or affected) should result in points (careless driving). Spin off the road due to ice? Not driving to conditions.
If an airline pilot screwed up a landing and wrote off a plane (even if no passengers were injured) you can be damn sure he wouldn't be flying again without a "retest" as a minimum.
I was passed by Chris Waddle in his Audi this morning.He gave me plenty of room.
No, he was aiming for you.
I've seen him take penalties in an England shirt....
You drive under licence - if you demonstrate that you're not fit to hold that licence you should lose it.
I absolutely, 100% agree.
And part of "demonstrat[ing] that you're not fit to hold that licence" could be causing/being involved in "an accident".
"It was an accident" is no excuse for bad driving. But that doesn't mean that people can change the word "accident" to have an entirely new meaning, and then tell people off with "[i]there's no such thing as an accident[/i]".
I'm getting increasingly narked with (not refering to the OP here) cyclists assuming that drivers are out to get them on some kind of personal vendetta.
There aren't many people that meet your description. What you might be thinking of is people who are getting increasingly narked with those who assume that just because you're not out to get someone you shouldn't be blamed for mistakes.
I can get in my car blind drunk, get 100 yards down the road and then flatten a lamppost. The collision is an accident. It wasn't intended.
Yes and no. But mainly no. The decision to drive a car blind drunk is just that, a decision, not an accident. It was intended. The loss of control resulting from that decision or intent is entirely foreseeable and also not an accident, and therefore I think it's at best disingenuous to label any resulting collision an accident.
Here's a tweet from a couple of days ago:
https://twitter.com/beztweets/status/701789440360972289
And before we get into semantics, my thoughts are explained in a thread that hangs off of that. Go to this tweet, scroll to the top, and then read down, and that's most of it:
https://twitter.com/beztweets/status/702070044587642884
In short, I'm inclined to disagree with the notion that the only way a collision is not an accident is if the intent was specifically to collide. It's not so much the matter of the strict definition of the word "accident", it's a matter of most collisions being the result of one or (in most cases) more poor decisions, with [url= http://singletrackmag.com/columns/2015/06/bez-karrs-choice/ ]the only accidental bit being the straw that breaks the camel's back[/url]. Labelling a collision as an accident whitewashes all of these things, and that's a massive problem. It's an important part of why people (and I include many journalists, magistrates, jurors, expert witnesses and more) don't apply critical thinking to more than the very last pieces of the puzzle: something without which it's hard to repair people's behaviour on the road.
Apologies in advance for the flippant response - this is in no way aimed at the OP, who I sincerely hope is okay.
About a year ago, I drove up to a roundabout and pulled onto it. I quickly realised that I'd failed to take proper note of a cyclist who was also entering the roundabout on the entrance before mine, so I left both him and I less room than either of us would have preferred.
I apologised for my error. It was my error, no-one else's.
I shall just go ahead and ban myself now, I guess.
NFA is a depressingly common occurrence, like the old duffer in oncoming traffic who turned right in front of me,
I had an oncoming van turn right in front of me, so that I ended up piling into the side of him. Ended up with a broken helmet and broken thumb. He had no insurance - the police are prosecuting for no Insurance(obviously) and careless driving (I have to go to court as witness in June). Don't know if he would have been done for Careless driving if he had insurance though - maybe the two prosecutions are linked? Judging by posts above, the decision to prosecute for careless driving does seem variable ( I live in Scotland, for what it's worth)
the OP, who I sincerely hope is okay.
Bloody knee now bandaged and a bit of a limp but I'll live.
Currently running at one vehicle-induced knockover every month. Last one was a van that barged into me from the rear at a change of lights where I had nowhere else to go, outside Stockwell tube.
Anyway, on the upside, everybody at work thinks I'm well ard innit, after getting back on and completing the rest of the 20+ mile commute...
good to hear your ok
I'm happy to accept that in the majority of cases people did not intend to ram their car into other people/objects, with the proviso that you accept that the vast majority of them were preceded by dumb/outright stupid decisions that lead to the collision.No actual accidents are very common, an accident is something occuring without intent.
We can argue for a long time over the use of words, but for me "accident" implies too much of a lack of responsibility/blame. People do dumb stuff, sure, but they can't just say "whoops sorry it was an accident" to absolve themselves, especially when motor accidents cause so many KSIs. We need driving to be taken more seriously
If we had STW bumper stickers you'd at least have a chance of identifying your assailants.
D0NK - Member"accident" implies too much of a lack of responsibility/blame. People do dumb stuff, sure, but they can't just say "whoops sorry it was an accident" to absolve themselves, especially when motor accidents cause so many KSIs. We need driving to be taken more seriously
Ok fair enough, I espeically agree with you on the last point. I think a lot of minor bumps coud be avoided if eye and reaction tests were mandatory every 5 years from a fairly early age (60?).
I heard a story of a pensioner who was stopped for speeding, when asked how fast he thought he was going he replied 'no idea, i'm long sighted so can't see the dashboard!' 😯
no pudding for her when she gets back to the doddery old drivers care home then
testing eye sight would make no real difference.
UK Govt says driver error was the major contributory factor of RTAs followed by, what in my view is the main problem, driver attitude
'Behaviour or inexperience and injudicious action (which includes travelling too fast for conditions, following too close and exceeding speed limit) were the next most frequently reported categories, involved in 25 and 23 per cent of all accidents respectively. The equivalent figures for fatal accidents, for both of these contributory factors, were higher at 27 and 29 per cent respectively.'
and more significantly, a fifth of all accidents
In 2013, there were 337 fatalities in accidents involving at least one young car driver, roughly a fifth of all reported road fatalities. Young car drivers themselves accounted for 39 per cent of these fatalities and the passengers in their cars a further 18 per cent.
We should take action where its most effective based on the facts for safer roads.
Bloody knee now bandaged and a bit of a limp but I'll live.
A bit of a limp what?
Seriously, glad you are ok and enjoy picking the scabs.
They are 'accidents' in so far as a collision wasn't intentional.
However, suggesting that "accident" means "no-one's fault" is an inference, not an implication. If you stick a firework up your behind and wind up in A&E then it's still an accident; you didn't intend to give yourself a third degree arse graft, but it's your own stupid bloody fault.
And therein lies the problem. The people in Bez's excellent article are involved in accidents in so far as they didn't intend the outcome they got; if you kill someone and it's [i]not [/i]an accident they you're looking at a murder charge. Critically though, that doesn't mean that the accident wasn't caused by someone's negligent behaviour or that that negligence should go unpunished, dangerous driving is still dangerous driving.
"Accident" is a very dangerous word. It's all to easy to say "oh well, it was only an accident."
"Accident" is a very dangerous word. It's all to easy to say "oh well, it was only an accident."
Exactly. It's a word that can be used to describe everything from knocking over your coffee to crashing a jumbo jet into a packed football stadium. Because we use it very often about trivial things like breaking a window, some of that shoulder-shrug attitude can carry over when we use it for serious stuff.