should old people be allowed to drive?

[Vapin' Joe]

You missed the bit where I said 'lack of intent'. Clearly someone had intent to do do harm in the example you've given. The fact they hit the wrong person is neither here nor there (in terms of intent), so you're right not an accident but it doesn't make my definition wrong, just you're interpretation of it.

Correct, PB's analogy is completely out of context.

 

[Archie_tect]

As was proved to me a while ago on CC, the 2 second rule isn't enough and should be expanded relative to your velocity up to and beyond 3 seconds or as User9609 said, 10 seconds, [it doesn't matter].... a 3 second gap leaves more than enough room for an overtaking car to come past and get safely back in- admittedly you then have to ease up to allow the gap to expand to 3 seconds again but if you are happy to follow the car in front without wishing to overtake it then that's not a hardship. If there isn't enough room then you are travelling too close yourself. The space in front of your car does not 'belong' to you so there's no need to protect it or get annoyed when someone comes past you.

I remember a dear old lady on the A61 near Leeds trying to kill my dad and us as he pulled out safely to overtake her while she was driving along, a long behind a lorry... she accelerated hard as he drew level and refused to let him back in.... he had to brake hard and pull in behind her again. All I can remember about her was her angry face mouthing words at us through the closed side window as we drew level. Sad.

 

[ufkacbln]

Correct, PB's analogy is completely out of context.

Perhaps extreme, but let's not ignore the principle.

They did not intend to harm the girl, therefore it was surely an "accident" that she was injured?

 

[PaulB]

You missed the bit where I said 'lack of intent'. Clearly someone had intent to do do harm in the example you've given. The fact they hit the wrong person is neither here nor there (in terms of intent), so you're right not an accident but it doesn't make my definition wrong, just you're interpretation of it.

A quick look on the old Wicki gives us this interpretation: An accident or mishap is an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance, often with lack of intention or necessity. It usually implies a generally negative outcome which may have been avoided or prevented had circumstances leading up to the accident been recognized, and acted upon, prior to its occurrence.

'A generally negative outcome which may have been avoided or prevented had circumstances leading up to the accident been recognised and acted upon prior to its occurrence.'

So the foreknowledge of what the implications of wrongdoing could lead to and not acted upon eliminate the possibility of the defence of the weasel word 'accident'.

 

[ufkacbln]

A quick look on the old Wicki gives us this interpretation: An accident or mishap is an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance, often with lack of intention or necessity. It usually implies a generally negative outcome which may have been avoided or prevented had circumstances leading up to the accident been recognized, and acted upon, prior to its occurrence.

'A generally negative outcome which may have been avoided or prevented had circumstances leading up to the accident been recognised and acted upon prior to its occurrence.'

So the foreknowledge of what the implications of wrongdoing could lead to and not acted upon eliminate the possibility of the defence of the weasel word 'accident'.

Yet is regularly accepted in the case of vehicular "accidents" when speeding, failure to take proper observation, failure to maintain a vehicle and all the other recognised circumstances occur

Each of these circumstances should preclude the use of the word

 

[Rickshaw Phil]

 

[simon.r]

[QUOTE 1816642, member: 9609"]And were all of the vehicles that were so patiently queuing behind the caravan leaving enough space between yourselves to allow for someone capable of the overtake manoeuvre?[/quote]

This is often a problem on a motorbike. My m/bike is easily capable of accelerating quickly enough* safely to 'leapfrog' lines of cars following a slow moving vehicle if there is a gap inbetween the cars to pull into. It is frustrating when lines of cars sit behind a lorry, with no intention of overtaking, but bunch up so closely that it's not safe to overtake on a much quicker accelerating vehicle.

*I can't quote numbers, but acceleration from, say, 40mph to 60mph, is incredibly quick on a fast m/bike. It's totally different to the accleration in a 'normal' car.

 

[Arch]

[QUOTE 1817624, member: 9609"]The 2 second rule for keeping a safe distance is a bit like the 60mph speed limit, it is neither a goal nor a target. In the same way you are entitled to drive at 50 in a 60 you can also leave a 10 second gap thus allowing other road users who are legally entitled to pass, do so in safety.[/quote]

Yes, I know that. I was leaving the gap I felt was safe enough for me at the time, in the circumstances.

You're determined to make it my fault aren't you?

 

[Crackle]

A quick look on the old Wicki gives us this interpretation: An accident or mishap is an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance, often with lack of intention or necessity. It usually implies a generally negative outcome which may have been avoided or prevented had circumstances leading up to the accident been recognized, and acted upon, prior to its occurrence.

'A generally negative outcome which may have been avoided or prevented had circumstances leading up to the accident been recognised and acted upon prior to its occurrence.'

So the foreknowledge of what the implications of wrongdoing could lead to and not acted upon eliminate the possibility of the defence of the weasel word 'accident'.

I'll agree with that and say you've put your finger on the nub of the matter.

So if someone causes an incident, a word I really dislike, you'd have to, in law, prove intent based on foreknowledge of the consequences. Quite difficult if you're talking about everyday instances and quite easy with the benefit of hindsight. A different matter if you're making a moral judgement.

It doesn't really matter if you call it an accident, an event or an incident or even Fred, you'd approach it in exactly the same way. Like I said earlier using the word, doesn't imply innocence, it just describes a set of circumstances leading to an outcome.

If you pulled out in front of me and knocked me over, I'd call it an accident but it doesn't mean I wouldn't ask the Police to breathalyze you, test your eyesight and claim against your insurance. I'd still call it an accident though.

 

[Arch]

I think the problem with the whole 'accident' debate is that while we on the forum may all be people capable of reasoning and discussing the subleties of language, (and we have a vested interest in increasing people's driving skills), the majority of people have a fixed idea of the word accident, and it's probably one which implies lack of fault. Until more people see traffic deaths as avoidable, as opposed to 'one of those things', issues need to be higlighted, and subtle changes in language might help with that.

 

[ufkacbln]

The question is do you have to accept?

The Law clearly states a vehicle should be roadworthy, and that the driver should check before each journey. It also makes the driver responsible for the vehicle's condition.

Whether a driver knowingly drives with bald tyres, or through negligence has failed to check them in the last 6 months, then surely there is reasonable to state that this was an act on their part that had consequences. What we need to do is to recognise that in the Courts.

 

[Crackle]

The question is do you have to accept?

The Law clearly states a vehicle should be roadworthy, and that the driver should check before each journey. It also makes the driver responsible for the vehicle's condition.

Whether a driver knowingly drives with bald tyres, or through negligence has failed to check them in the last 6 months, then surely there is reasonable to state that this was an act on their part that had consequences. What we need to do is to recognise that in the Courts.

Interesting. The two examples are quite different though aren't they. Knowing and negligent may cause the same outcome but I would say need to be treated differently.

I acknowledge this is a grey area but what you don't want to do is criminalise people for normal, if lapse, behaviour whereas the courts exist to deal with those who knowingly flout the law. How you deal with people who haven't thought about the consequences of their action or don't understand their responsibilities needs to be entirely different. That doesn't mean that they don't need to be punished either, they just need to be punished appropriately and as a society we should be setting a message that certain behaviour is morally wrong.

 

[ufkacbln]

Therein lies another issue?

I am professionally accountable for my actions both in Commission and Ommission

Failing to check patient details, failing to carry out quality control and ensure the equipment is working are negligent, setting the camera up wrongly causes the same outcome.

The same should apply to a motorist as they should have this basic understanding of road safety, why tyres have to have tread etc or they should not be driving!

 

[Black Sheep]

Wrong. It's a totally INappropriate word to use. A classic example here regards a young girl in the newspaper this morning giving her feelings on a case that concerns her. She was in a shop in London with her mother and a gang fired a gun through the window intending to kill a rival gang member. Now I'm sure these lads didn't mean to shoot the five year old but they did. She's paralysed now, almost certainly for life, because of a criminal act of attempted murder. But let's see you tell us now, with as straight a face as you can muster, that as she wasn't the intended target, the unloading of a gun into a crowded shop paralysing a five year old child was an accident.

she being hit by the bullet was an accident as she was not the intended target,
the marksman did deliberately set out to cause injury but not to her
the marksman should be tried for murder, the charge possibly slipping to manslaughter.

the entire incident is tragedy

 

[Black Sheep]

Therein lies another issue?

I am professionally accountable for my actions both in Commission and Ommission

Failing to check patient details, failing to carry out quality control and ensure the equipment is working are negligent, setting the camera up wrongly causes the same outcome.

The same should apply to a motorist as they should have this basic understanding of road safety, why tyres have to have tread etc or they should not be driving!

you can be prossecuted for the latter as the car is not in a roadworthy manner, normally a fixed penalty is issued however.

I check my tyres - probably should get round to checking the oil soon.