I chinned him

[skudupnorth]

I never realised that there was a size limit to sports. I will have to tell Prendas http://www.prendas.co.uk/display.asp?ID=68
to stop making tops and shorts up to 6XL and I will have to stop cycling

Good grief ! I never knew there was such a large range of sizes !!! I should have said that type of person you see outside pubs/clubs and sat in chav mobiles wearing sporting gear and not the ones who are actually doing a sport of some kind to help their own fitness,hope no offence was taken.

 

[Norm]

FINALLY! Someone actually agrees with me. I hate it when someone says "He had an accident" or "it was an accident". How do you know noone is to blame. The correct term to use is either 'collision' or 'incident', it makes things sound worse but at least it has everyone on a level basis before accusations are made about who was at fault. It can only be refered to as an accident is there is one singular person to blame. Such as Personal Accident with insurance for CTC. It will cover only one person.

It could be that few agree with you because you are wrong.

In common usage, the word "accident" does not mean that no-one is to blame, it means something happened unintentionally.

There is a slightly different, tighter definition for legal purposes but there's still nothing wrong with calling it an accident unless you think that the driver meant to cause harm.

 

[al78]

It could be that few agree with you because you are wrong.

In common usage, the word "accident" does not mean that no-one is to blame, it means something happened unintentionally.

There is a slightly different, tighter definition for legal purposes but there's still nothing wrong with calling it an accident unless you think that the driver meant to cause harm.

Some people don't like the term "accident" because it can be used to trivialize an incident, for example, treating it as a "shoot happens" type thing instead of something where someone was careless/reckless/negligent etc. It is similar to using the term "road tax" (which is common terminology) instead of VED to justify de-facto priority over cyclists on the road.

 

[BentMikey]

Loads of people agree with Matthew, including the police. They are not accidents, they are collisions.

 

[Norm]

They are not accidents, they are collisions.

Maybe they are both?

Some people don't like the term "accident" because it can be used to trivialize an incident, for example, treating it as a "s*** happens" type thing instead of something where someone was careless/reckless/negligent etc.

I agree, especially that such things should not be trivialised. Unintended can be a result of recklessness and negligence, but that doesn't make it any less accidental. However, there is a difference between unintended and unforeseeable, which some people struggle to grasp.

 

[subaqua]

After an accident where their car collides with a person, drivers who check their cars before their victim are scum, drivers who mouth off at someone they could have killed should be taken outside and shot.

not often i agree with you, apart from the shot bit as thats too painless, but with you on this one.

to the OP report the incident to the police , if you were hurt orproperty was damaged the driver should have exchanged name and address as a minimum.

 

[thefollen]

Sorry to hear about the buckled wheel and shock factor.

Great jabbing action. As a result of his rubbish driving and temperament he now has a scuffed/dented car, broken shades, bruised nose and bruised ego. Let's hope he learns from it :-)

 

[Boris Bajic]

... there is a difference between unintended and unforeseeable, which some people struggle to grasp.

I knew you were going to say that.

Not deliberately.... I just seemed to know it somehow.

 

[lejogger]

My only concern is with regards to the footage that you may or may not have. We're not talking helmet cam that recorded the whole incident from start to finish, rather some mobile phone footage that could have commenced at any point during the incident, but certainly is unlikely to include the initial collision and confrontation.
As we all know from modern tv editing it may well be that if it only shows you dishing out a blow and a bit of subsequent abuse from the motorist's aquaintance then it could paint you in a very bad light indeed.

First step is to review the footage and only make any further decisions on taking this forward once you're happy it gives a fair account of the circumstances.

 

[Alien8]

The injury claims industry seems to have no problem associating "accident" and "blame".

 

[Peowpeowpeowlasers]

I know hindsight is a great thing but I worked on a self-defence course once (not as a trainer). One of your best defences against legal action is to shout, several times if possible, "GET BACK!"

Witnesses never miss someone shouting that. If they report you did, you have a pretty solid case for self defence.

 

[Cubist]

Can I therefore propose that instead of using the term RTA, we refer to them as" Road Traffic Thing That Came To Pass Not Necessarily Deliberately But Definitely Not By Accident As We Think Someone Was Probably Driving Like A Knobber But We Haven't Worked Out Who Just Yet"

 

[Hip Priest]

People get too hung up on words. The word 'accident' is more than adequate for the circumstances.

 

[Matthew_T]

Can I therefore propose that instead of using the term RTA, we refer to them as" Road Traffic Thing That Came To Pass Not Necessarily Deliberately But Definitely Not By Accident As We Think Someone Was Probably Driving Like A Knobber But We Haven't Worked Out Who Just Yet"

RTTTCTPNNDBDNBAAWTSWPDLAKBWWOWJY? I think I prefer RTC.

 

[Cubist]

We'd have to make the collision report booklets A3 instead of A5.…..........