ADUK Archive

RTC deaths presented on interactive map by the BBC.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8401344.stm


Turns out it's dangerous to cross my road if a truck hits you, three people have discovered.

Also interesting to see that in my area most of the more fun roads are "death" free, and the majority of accidents seem to occur in housing estates or on major A roads/motorways.

Chris

I wonder how many are true 'accidents' and how many are down to an error by one or other involved ?

ROG wrote:I wonder how many are true 'accidents' and how many are down to an error by one or other involved ?

Whats the difference between a true accident and driver error?

The interactive site appears to be down for some reason. I wonder if it will resurface at some point.

regards
P.

Porker wrote:The interactive site appears to be down for some reason. I wonder if it will resurface at some point.

regards
P.

Would it be a great loss if it doesn't? Unless these things present information in a reliable and balanced fashion they are of no help to us IMHO.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

daz6215 wrote:

ROG wrote:I wonder how many are true 'accidents' and how many are down to an error by one or other involved ?

Whats the difference between a true accident and driver error?

A tyre blow out would be a true accident as it is beyond the control of the driver

Anything where one or more of those involved could have prevented the INCIDENT occuring in the first place is no accident

See MIND DRIVING

ROG wrote:Anything where one or more of those involved could have prevented the INCIDENT occuring in the first place is no accident

See MIND DRIVING

How much skill should we expect to need to be employed in the avoidance of "accidents"? For example, if it is avoidable by, say, a police driving instructor but not by someone who's obtained a good score on the IAM Special Assessment, is it still an accident?

P.

So if the blowout happened because of under inflation or generally a poorly maintained tyre, wouldn't that be regarded as human error?

daz6215 wrote:So if the blowout happened because of under inflation or generally a poorly maintained tyre, wouldn't that be regarded as human error?

Yes it would - I should have made this clearer - the tyre blows out due to a fault in the tyre which is beyond the control of the driver

ROG wrote:Yes it would - I should have made this clearer - the tyre blows out due to a fault in the tyre which is beyond the control of the driver

Would that not be down to a failure on the part of the manufacturer or installer? It might be out of control of the driver but if the manufacturer/installers quality control was better the incident might still have been avoided.

Our third party insurance covers us against liability to others for our own negligence. Obviously we can avoid such liability otherwise we wouldn't be negligent however it appears we accept that avoidable accidents are, perhaps counter-intuitively, inevitable because we are human.

I am sure most of us have fully comprehensive insurance for our vehicles to protect us against the consequences of avoidable accidents. Does that show an appropriate attitude of an 'advanced driver'? How many of us would have 3rd party insurance if we didn't have to?

Just a thought.

TripleS wrote:

Porker wrote:The interactive site appears to be down for some reason. I wonder if it will resurface at some point.

regards
P.

Would it be a great loss if it doesn't? Unless these things present information in a reliable and balanced fashion they are of no help to us IMHO.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

Oh don't be such a bof Dave! (how's that for personal!)...I found the site very interesting and I have to agree with porker...most of the fatalities I looked at were on the surrounding m-ways around Bristol or in built-up areas or pedestrians/bikers. Many of the accidents were also in the early hours...which to me suggests drink-driving but I have no evidence for this.

MGF wrote:I am sure most of us have fully comprehensive insurance for our vehicles to protect us against the consequences of avoidable accidents. Does that show an appropriate attitude of an 'advanced driver'? How many of us would have 3rd party insurance if we didn't have to?

Just a thought.

Interesting thought.

My view is that comprehensive covers more than just damage I cause. If another person was to cause damage to my car, I know that getting it sorted is a lot faster and easier through my insurance than trying to claim/sue the other party.

For third party, I think it would be a very arrogant person that felt their driving is so perfect that there is zeo risk of them causing harm/loss to a third party. I'd suggest that such an attitude (while it does exist) is not something that is appropriate or typical for an advanced driver.

I think that if third party was not compulsory there would be a lot more uninsured drivers out there, but that it would still be something that the less responsible would choose to do, and that most ADs would still choose to have it. How many ADs choose not to have comprehensive insurance for any reason other than because their car is so old and beat up that it would be cheaper to scrap it and buy another after a crash?

Porker wrote:How much skill should we expect to need to be employed in the avoidance of "accidents"? For example, if it is avoidable by, say, a police driving instructor but not by someone who's obtained a good score on the IAM Special Assessment, is it still an accident?

This is a very good point. I think it comes back to perceived risk again and the IAM/RoSPA's focus is on not getting into a bad situation (tm), in reality none of us is perfect and if it does happen, it would be nice to have some tools in the toolbox to be able to deal with it and avoid an "accident".

Surprisingly, a lot of people I've encountered seem resigned to the fact that accidents happen and they can't be avoided, rather than being pro-active in looking at ways to improve their skill set to be able to cope with the unexpected. The blowout scenario being a perfect example

Chris