I see that Tim Worstall has picked up on the Highway code story:
The word “accident” is to be banned from the new edition of the Highway Code in an attempt to persuade drivers and police that someone is almost always to blame for a death or injury on the roads.
The Driving Standards Agency has deleted the word throughout the code and replaced it with “collision”, “crash” or “incident”.
Actually, this is a very old idea. The emergency services stopped using the term “road traffic accident” some years ago. The term used is “road traffic incident”. They do have a point. The word accident is defined thus:
an undesirable or unfortunate happening that occurs unintentionally and usually results in harm, injury, damage, or loss
Whereas an incident is:
an individual occurrence or event.
The difference may be subtle, but from the point of view of a shout, an RTI is more accurate than an RTA – after all, until they arrive on the scene, the emergency services do not know whether it is an accident or not, whether anyone is to blame or not.
Tim says:
But some things really are accidents! Sometimes there really is no one to blame.
Yup. Shit happens. Mostly, road traffic incidents will be down to human error, but sometimes no one is to blame and it is, indeed, an accident. So I understand Tim’s ire. However, in this case, I have no qualms about leaving the word out of the Highway Code, not because I believe Brake when they say that it will create a shift in thinking, but because it is more accurate linguistically. For example, a collision may be the consequence of an accident, on the other hand, it may not.
But some motoring groups have objected to the move, saying that it will foster a blame culture and encourage the prosecution of drivers for casualties that they had no intention of causing.
If a driver is negligent, intention is irrelevant, that’s how tort law works. If that negligence is in breach of road traffic regulations, then prosecution is entirely appropriate as is blame. The use of language is irrelevant here. If the police investigate and decide that there is sufficient evidence to prosecute, then so be it.
I recall nearly being sandwiched between two cars on the M4 a few months back. The driver I was overtaking took it into her head to move into my lane without looking. Had I been less aware, I could well have been the casualty of a collision. Had that happened, that driver should, quite rightly have been prosecuted at the very least for driving without due care and attention; possibly more depending on the outcome. Whatever it was, it would have been no accident. How did I get out of it? I broke the speed limit. 
I’m totally with you on this.
The travesty in the new Highway Code is this.
I noticed that picked up in the Times article. I didn’t mention it as it was an aside to what I was discussing. Whether it could be used as an excuse for contributory negligence is probably moot. There are plenty of cycle lanes in Bristol that I would most certainly not use as I value my life. On the other hand, I would (and do) use the separated cycle way in preference to the dual carriageway – and I wonder why some cyclists take their lives in their hands and ride on the ring road when it is avoidable.
As a motorcyclist, I am wary of the exhortation in the Highway Code to wear bright clothing and daytime headlights (despite there being no evidence whatsoever that this increases my safety) as it could be argued that in the event of a collision, I am partially negligent for not doing so. As it is, I use discretion regarding lights – indeed, I follow the general Highway Code guidance on the matter (poor visibility) and I do not wear bright clothing.
On the other hand, it’s an unfortunate accident when Jean Paul de Menezes gets 7 bullets in the head. I am finding it hard to keep the right side of hatred when dealing with the unutterable swine who run this country.
Well, that stretches the word beyond breaking point. Incompetence, flawed intelligence, error of judgement, maybe, but accident? Not by a long chalk.
I wonder why some cyclists take their lives in their hands and ride on the ring road when it is avoidable.
Often I guess it would be through a lack of local knowledge. In a strange area you can’t really do much but follow the signs and the signs are always set up for cars. Hence people end up on virtual motorways despite there being a superb parallel alternative. Near here it’s the A27, across Devon the A30, both have the “old roads” running near by but unless he’d studied the ordnance survey map carefully a stranger just wouldn’t know.
The other thing that bothers me is that the powers that be, who’ve most likely not slung their leg over a top tube in since they were 12, look out for the give away “crossbar”, enthuse about all the “wonderful” facilites they’ve provided for cyclists, ie a bollard or cattle market fence strewn pink path, but don’t realise the wide range of types, abilities and hence requirements for people on bicycles. Kids wheelying to school, old ladies, doddery commuters, faster commuters, 25mph racers, do not all fit into a one size fits all facility.
Sorry, steam let off.
Tim says:
But some things really are accidents! Sometimes there really is no one to blame.
I don’t buy that. Someone is always to blame.
Freak weather conditions, for example? Last summer a sudden and violent hailstorm caused chaos on the M4 near Newbury. It was so sudden and the depth of ice so unexpected, that cars were sliding all over the place. In those first few seconds, drivers who may have been driving according to the current prevailing conditions found themselves unprepared. Rare, yes, but there are sometimes situations for which no one person can be held responsible. Insurance companies refer to “acts of God” for that reason.
Granted but the word you use yourself is “rare” and that’s hardly sufficient to rename them. Mind you, I agree they should be renamed.
I’m not entirely sure I follow you here. Surely it is because true accidents are so rare that using more accurate language is appropriate?
After re-reading my last comment, I’d have to say the first sentence was total bollocks. The last sentence was OK. A quick check of my site would reveal I was ill yesterday – still under the influence today, I think.
Ah, yes, I recall reading that yesterday. Nothing too serious, I hope.