I drove the Cat and Fiddle in July. It's a beautiful road especially when you take time to stop in a parking place to take in the beautiful views.

Very possibly correct - although there is almost always fault somewhere. Any or all of someone on a phone, driving too close, speeding, changing lanes, drink driving, driving while exhausted, failing to keep proper lookout, passing on the inside except in urban laned traffic - I know that one will be contraversial :-) - and many others which are mostly illegal, deemed dangerous or frowned upon.

The only real non-fault "accidents" I see are where someone dies (or are incapacitated) before the collision takes place when there is no previous medical history to indicate the eventuality.

Or where there is an unforeseen mechanical failure which is not a result of poor maintenance.

In every other case there is probably "fault" but it is difficult for either insurers or the police to apportion it because:

• things happened so fast
• there were no independent witnesses
• people lie to them

I would be interested in seeing stats for accidents/collisions that resulted from non-illegal distraction (save for due care and attention) - such as opening a sandwich, tuning the radio or fiddling with the SatNav - but for obvious reasons we will never get them.

Edited by LucyBC on 02/01/2011 at 14:00

These are accidents maybe to do with if a road has to many accidents is bad for statistics and i suppose its easier to blame the drivers than the layout of the road.Some of these country roads the speed limit is 60mph whilst driving at 40mph is problaby safer.Fine for the locals who know the twist and turn in the road but for anybody driving the first time it can be a scary experience being overtaken by some inpatient local driver.

Relatives often feel aggrieved by the change but the fact remains that there is usually someone at fault in most accidents unless there is catastrophic mechanical or human failure.

I cannot comment on the particular case to which you refer but the victim is not automatically absolved from fault however we may feel emotionally, just because they did not come out of it.

The question arises as to why they lost control of the car and struck the kerb.

If it was as a result of a catastrophic mechanical failure or a catastrophic human failure or a collision with an animal such as a deer which would not be expected to be there, then it was indeed an accident.

If there was driver error then the unfortunate person died as a result of a collision with the kerb or embankment and the car rolling and catching fire then the police description (as a collision) is legally accurate.

Surely it is not the job of the police to prejudicially infer fault by the absurd change from 'accident' to 'collision' ?

I don't think it is absurd.. or the Police being prejudicial. It is their own internal systems that have had the change , in other words their prerogative to change.. and in doing so they've ensured that accidents are looked at with an open mind, rather than a shrug of the shoulders and 'Oh well it was just an accident'.

Most accidents/collisions happen for a reason...a human reason.

If there is any kind of accident investigation and it is found that there was a genuine accident that no one could foresee, then that will come out of the investigation, so what is there to fear?