While reading the threads 'advice needed over court decision' and 'obscured vision from junctions' it occured to me that road traffic accident investigation principles seem to be contrary to other forms of accident investigation.
To me, at least, RTA's seem to be investigated on the basis of looking for fault to apportion blame. Is this due to the confrontationary nature of insurance and also the need to provide evidence for court in the event of an offence having been committed? If so I feel great opportunities are being missed to improve road safety which the current approach certainly seems to be failing to achieve.
In most other walks of life, aircraft accident investigation, workplace accidents, etc. the investigation is designed to provide evidence if an offence has been committed but its primary function is to discover cause. Once cause has been established recommendations are then made as to try and prevent a reoccurence of the same type of accident.
I always ask myself the question when people refer to 'blackspots', if it is known why is something not done to prevent it recurring? I know the answer is going to be financial but with true costs of even minor injury accidents, let alone fatals, running into ten of thousands of pounds apart from personal misery surely it would become cost effective.
As an example, a local dual carriageway suffered three fatal crossover accidents before money was found to put crash barriers in. If the barriers had gone in after the first, or even second accident, not only would three people still be alive but the medical, police and court costs saved would probably have paid most of the cost of the barriers.
Just seems daft to me that we don't investigate properly and put remedial measures in place in a timely fashion.
Cockle
|
|
Why investigate properly and put the findings into better road design when its far easier and more profitable to blame everything on speed and whack a GATSO up?
|
Aircraft accidents are thoroughly investigated for cause because as often as not it is a mechanical fault with the aircraft that led to the accident. Motor accidents, on the other hand are caused in 95% of cases because one or more of those involved failed to comply with the rules of the road. However blind a junction might be, if sufficient care is taken when emerging then an accident will be avoided. If the road layout was the primary cause of the collision then there would be accidents at that spot on an hourly basis.
That is not to say I am unsmypathtic to cockle's point that bad junction design will increase the risk of an accident, and where improvements are needed they should be carried out. However,if someone were to emerge into my path I would not accept the road design as an excuse for his/her actions, and if I were to collide with another vehicle I would not offer the road design as an excuse for not making sure it was safe for me to proceed.
|
My insurance broker told me recently that other countries are less interested in blame and more intrested cause of accidents, so Cockle's point seems valid.
Mark may be along to comment here.
The problem here (IMO though), is that motor accidents, like others, result in losses. However if you were killed in an aircraft or train accident, you can rest assured it's not your fault, unless you went to extreme measures to cause the accident (standing of runway or train tracks etc). Hence insurance payouts for your loved ones (or you if you were just injured) seem to be taken as granted. Depending on how it is done, victims may get a payout from one fund, which is then replenished or not at a later date when an inquiry has determined the root cause of the accident. For example, the Concorde crash a few years ago, being the result of a piece of debris from a previous aircraft on the runway, may have finally been bourne by insurers acting for the airport and/or that previous aircraft. Often we don't see the financial arguements that follow.
The basic problem is that with a RTA, each driver has the potential to have been a contributing factor to that accident. Hence with insurance companies competing to reduce their respective losses, you're going to get a bun fight, and unless it is very clear cut it's likely to be a long one.
During which time you're often without funds to cover your losses etc, especially acute if you're insured TPFT and need to get to work.
Also, although the claims are in their thousands rather than their millions, affected drivers and other parties see every twist and turn in the sad affair, and it all focuses on blame, or accountability.
H
|
For example, the Concorde crasha few years ago, being the result of a piece of debris from a previous aircraft on the runway, may have finally been bourne by insurers acting for the airport and/or that previous aircraft. Often we don't see the financial arguements that follow. H
Hugo,
The Concorde case illustrates the difficulty in apportioning blame. The tragedy was undoubtedly triggered by the debris on the runway. However it was a(known) design flaw in Concorde that allowed the debris to puncture the fuel tanks and they required extensive modification before their certificate of airworthiness was restored.
So who was to blame?
C
|
|
|
|
To me, at least, RTA's seem to be investigated on the basis of looking for fault to apportion blame.
>>
If you are referring to Police conducted investigations, then they are undeftaken with a view to establishing if what happened was a genuine accident, or were there any infringements of law - for prosecution. I'm sure you would want a driver prosecuted if they caused a 'hit and run' injury/death to a member of your family.
The investigation would be to determine what happened, and why. The 'who is to blame' is for a Criminal Prosecution and this is mostly always divroced from any 'civil' action such as that taken by Insurance companies when they handle claims.
A driver might be absolved of 'criminal' offence - say Driving w/o due care and attention - but he still might be at fault for the accident and thus his insurance is liable. This has no bearing on the Police invstigation.
Once cause has been established recommendations are then made as to try and prevent a reoccurence of the same type of accident.
Yes they are and usually passedonto the Local Authority, who chose to either act upon or take under advisement the recommendations (mitigating factors).
I always ask myself the question when people refer to 'blackspots', if it is known why is something not done to prevent it recurring? I know the answer is going to be financial but with true costs of even minor injury accidents, let alone fatals, running into ten of thousands of pounds apart from personal misery surely it would become cost effective.
That is aptly put. Can't disagree with it.
-----
Im not plain stupid, just a special kind of stoopid.
|
A driver might be absolved of 'criminal' offence - say Driving w/o due care and attention - but he still might be at fault for the accident and thus his insurance is liable. This has no bearing on the Police invstigation.
I dont get this bit. ANyone care to expand a little on this point please?
WTM
|
If 95% of accidents are caused by human error eg 'failed to see', then a sensible accident prevention scheme would involve an element of training. In the last month I've sat beside three drivers who all drove less than 2 secs from the car in front, failed to anticipate developing hazards or drove with defective vehicles.
I'd like to see a scheme where drivers have 4 hours of mandatory supervised driving every five years. Not a test, just pointing out the bad habits they've developed, encouraging ongoing development and communicating the real causes of accidents.
For how long are we prepared to have thousands of people die every year? Why do we not get serious about cutting that number by half (say)?
I learned a lot from the topic on how life is as an HGV driver. If every driver know the issues which faced the extremes - HGV and motorcycles the roads would be safer.
|
|
In Germany (where else?) all road activity is governed by laws, not a code or advice. If there is a simple 2 car collision in a town, say, the police turn up and assess the accident. If there has been accident then at least one person has broken the law. They then issue paperwork to both parties, stating what law has been broken and by whom, for their insurance companies and that is it.
|
|
|
|
I dont get this bit. ANyone care to expand a little on this point please? WTM
Absolved may be a bit strong. Police could find some evidence of blame or carelessness on either or both parties, but not enough to persuade a court beyond reasonable doubt that a speciic offence was committed by either.
Civil liability for damages is on basis of balance of probabilities. Claimant may get damages but reduced for contributory negligence. The police are not interested in this bit, though their report may be of use in the civil court (and presumably would be made available at a price or under FoI).
|
>> >> I dont get this bit. ANyone care to expand a little >> on this point please? >> >> WTM
Exactly as Bromptonaut has said. But also remember, the Police only (usually) investigate serious offences where there has been/is likely to be a loss of life, excessive damage, severe accident (pile up?) or other instance which requires their immidiate attention (after say a Police Car Chase).
.*******
The investigation would look at the entire event in an attempt to determine if what happened was a genuine accident or if there was any infringement of Law that resulted in the accident occuring and to determine what action, if any, can/should be taken.
-----
Im not plain stupid, just a special kind of stoopid.
|
There is many aspects in the investigation of road accidents by Plod (and others).
The blame aspect is not just the sole feature. Areas looked into are, (not listed in order of importance):
The drivers,
The vehicles,
The road,
The conditions.
From the first two there is the element of blame, the third and fourth is what cockle is concerned about. A good investigator will take factors into account and if any failings will draw to the attention of LA Traffic Management Dept.
Further, in fatals, HM Coroner ofter draws attention to road engineering failures at Inquests should these be disclosed.
A TMD also keeps a watching brief on Accidents as does D of T, throught the submission of Stats 19 (Fatal/Injury) form that is submitted by Plod. Stats are kept and if a site is causing problems then it will flag up and TMD will conduct an investigation to see what remedial measures can be taken. But unfortunately cost comes into play and matters can only be resolved in accordance with what the budget will allow.
So to Cockle I would say behindg the scenes, yes, quite a lot of consideration and attention is given.
DVD
|
|
|
|
I dont get this bit. ANyone care to expand a little on this point please?
As well as Bromptonaut's useful point about the different standards of proof required for criminal prosecution and civil liability, consider this situation.
We are driving in opposite directions on a single carriageway road. I have a front tyre blowout, lose control, and swerve onto your side of the road, crashing into you. Subsequent investigation reveals that it wasn't due to lack of maintenance, just a freak failure of the tyre.
I crossed the white line drove into you, so I'm liable for the damages. But no criminal offence.
(I'm sure there are better examples, but hope that helps).
|
|
|
|
|
_COLON_no_upscale()/cdn.uk.prod.group-mobility-trader.com/images/cas/30d07590976de39f4f9f9b6ae02e5986/26538e2a2b1174ccef363390300a6c9b.jpg)
