A sad day yesterday ... another cyclist killed on our roads

[Once a Wheeler]

Have a look at this thread:
https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/presumed-liability.273781/
and sign up to the parliamentary petition if you think it might help. I have, and at very least it raises awareness.

 

[snorri]

Its society and their attitude to the careless and thoughtless approach to motorised transport that needs to change.

I agree, but it's not going to change without persuasion.

 

[matticus]

Indeed, and guidance went out to Police forces a long, long time ago now (I can't be sure of exact date but around early 2000s if I recall correctly?) that officers were to cease using Road Traffic Accident for precisely that reason, i.e. that in almost all collisions, there was someone at fault. The adopted phrase was then "Road Traffic Incident" or RTI, which quite soon after became "Road Traffic Collision" or RTC. As far as I know "collision" and "in collision with" are the correct terms. I'm surprised to see "crash" used throughout the appeal verbiage but I've not been in that line of work for a while now so it could have come back into use.

I much prefer "crash". All the other phrases are just daft jargon that reduces the impact of what has happened.

But I cannot help my pedantry: accidents are still accidents, even if preventable. Unless they were deliberate. Some crashes are deliberate, but very very few.

 

[hoopdriver]

It’s not a matter of pedantry but of nuance - the term “accident” implies a degree of randomness, of happenstance beyond the reasonable control of well intentioned people. A van colliding with a cyclist, on the other hand, can nearly always be sheeted home to carelessness on the part of somebody, nearly always the motorist

 

[Profpointy]

I much prefer "crash". All the other phrases are just daft jargon that reduces the impact of what has happened.

But I cannot help my pedantry: accidents are still accidents, even if preventable. Unless they were deliberate. Some crashes are deliberate, but very very few.

Totally agree with you take on accident - I was cylcing along then had a collision with the road is just silly

I'm not so sure about your last point. I bet nearly everyone here has been deliberately driven at at some point, OK maybe aiming to scare rather than hit, but deliberate all the same. Given certain newspapers' and tv personalities' propensity to regularly call for cyclists to be murdered, I don't think it's a big leap to think a fair few are indeed murdered.

 

[Profpointy]

It’s not a matter of pedantry but of nuance - the term “accident” implies a degree of randomness, of happenstance beyond the reasonable control of well intentioned people. A van colliding with a cyclist, on the other hand, can nearly always be sheeted home to carelessness on the part of somebody, nearly always the motorist

It's not pedantry at all but an attempt, albeit well meaning, to change the meaning of a perfectly good word. In work we had the "accident book" - it was fullg some accidents had a cause, or blame, whether management failings or misconduct / stupidity. "accident waiting to happen" is a common and well understood term nearly always implying clear blame. It is simply incorrect to claim than accident implies no culpability, and if that is the meaning intended people usually say "freak accident" or somesuch to make that clear.

I had a (very minor) accident on my bike. Totally my own fault, but it would be ludicrous to say I crashed into / was in collision with a river.

 

[Smokin Joe]

As if it makes a jot of difference what you call it.

 

[matticus]

As if it makes a jot of difference what you call it.

Two points:
- Public perception of deaths on our roads is probably a major factor in reducing/increasing them. And
- If your wife or son was killed by an uninsured driver who was speeding and texting, you might care a lot.
"Mrs Smokin died after a collision with a black Mercedes. ... etc ... etc ... "

 

[Eric Olthwaite]

I know how this movie ends...

 

[Smokin Joe]

Two points:
- Public perception of deaths on our roads is probably a major factor in reducing/increasing them. And
- If your wife or son was killed by an uninsured driver who was speeding and texting, you might care a lot.
"Mrs Smokin died after a collision with a black Mercedes. ... etc ... etc ... "

Calling them crashes instead of accidents will make not a single person think, "Oops, I'd better improve my driving now I know how serious these things are".

If anything it glamourizes them. Crashes are what F1 and rally drivers have at high speed, accidents are those embarrassing knocks granny has in Tesco's car park. In truth I doubt if a single injury or fatality has been prevented by the change of language in the twenty years since it was introduced.

 

[matticus]

As if it makes a jot of difference what you call it.

If anything it glamourizes them.

Make your mind up!

Your post about F1 and grannies illustrates very clearly that language and messaging affects people.

 

[iandg]

Road/weather conditions were horrendous. Helen set out in sunshine and got caught in a snow squall. She posted a video on fb just a few minutes before the accident happened showing how the weather had deteriorated and how conditions had changed. The A710 is a dangerous road at the best of times and not one I choose to cycle on regularly. The section at Southwick is particularly dangerous. the road narrows, the surface is bad, the road bends and there is also a junction. We don't know the full story yet.

Helen was a very active and popular member of Dumfries CC. As a fellow club member I knew her and had ridden with her on a couple of occasions. She was very enthusiastic and was particularly keen on raising money for charity by doing long and challenging bike rides. She was training for an unsupported 100 miles/day LEJOG at the time of the accident. A tragic death and a sad loss.

(edited 11.00am 14/04/21)

 

[matticus]

In truth I doubt if a single injury or fatality has been prevented by the change of language in the twenty years since it was introduced.

If I may come back to this ... I'm pretty sure that Jo(ann)e Public reads more press headlines about crashes than they read verbatim police press releases, so the former will have made far more of an impression over the last 20 years. This may mean that you are correct - of course it's almost impossible to measure, so we are both safe in our sweeping statements

I find press headlines much much more problematic than the language used by police.

 

[Profpointy]

One of the language things I do find problematic is "cyclist was in collision with" which to me does insinuate that it was the cyclist's fault, which is particularly egregious when they've been run over from behind.

As I've stated above, and will doubtless do again, I have no issue with "accident" for a non intentional incident, regardless of any blame, even if caused by wilful stupidity or recklessness. Intent is why we distinguish between murder and manslaughter. Insisting on "collision" or "crash" leads to ridiculousness like "collided with a field", and what about the non-collision where a driver's recklessness leads a cyclist to come off where no contact takes place apart from the cyclist "crashing to the ground" which seems to quite wrongly absolve the driver

 

[Chislenko]

Its society and their attitude that needs to change.

FTFY. Drago.

Society in general in or out of a car.