Road Accident Investigation. Does it kill more than it saves?

We have always queried what actual benefits are obtained from very costly road closures, staff costs etc from the murder type investigations of road accidents. Close a motorway or city for many hours costs millions as well as accidents, casualties and death elsewhere from the knock on accidents from tiredness, trying to make up time and roads unable to cope with large volumes of diverted traffic.

Are we killing and injuring more people directly and indirectly from the massive costs that would be better used in the NHS, Emergency Services, Fire and Rescue and A&E? There is undoubtedly a cost to all this so what is it?

Well below are a series of tweets with a top traffic cop and others. Our fears have not been allayed. 

Plane crashes are usually in remote areas and forensic examination at the scene doesn't expensively disrupt major infrastructure. It also finds faults which can be remedied throughout the whole industry. 

One of the priorities in rail crashes is to get the track clear first and foremost and take the wreckage away for examination. Roads must be treated the same way. Vehicles should be moved to one side as soon as possible and can be examined closely off road as can drivers and witnesses. From this an accurate enough picture can be gathered of how the accident happened.

One of the justifications for these forensic murder type investigations is that the term 'accident' has been taken out of the police dictionary from road accidents and are treated automatically as crime. It's one of the reasons why drivers are now routinely arrested before any evidence of it not being an accident is established. By using the real definition of 'accident', none of this will be necessary saving millions of pounds in investigation and often futile driver prosecution. 

We have now established that a new definition of 'accident' has been invented to exclude an accident. 

  Note: They have used Black's Law Dictionary to define the term “accident” as: "an unintended and unforeseen injurious occurrence; something that does not occur in the usual course of events or that could not be reasonably anticipated... an unforeseen and injurious occurrence not attributable to mistake, negligence, neglect or misconduct" The effect is to take out unintentional and even mistake. This means that there is always someone to blame in a road accident unless proven otherwise. A totally anti driver policy.  But when we looked up Black's they say this: 'An unforeseeable and unexpected turn of events that causes loss in value, injury, and increased liabilities. The event is not deliberately caused and is not inevitable.' See it here
Law Dictionary: What is ACCIDENT? definition of ACCIDENT (Black's Law Dictionary) 


We prefer that as well as Odhams and the Oxford dictionary. Where we can reverse the policy: That there's always an accident unless proven otherwise. This would take out very costly long road closures that kill more from the cost and many associated knock on accidents elsewhere as a direct result of the closure. 

The same principle would also apply to drivers. Far too many are being routinely arrested at an accident when too unfit and vulnerable to make comment. Any comments made whilst at such a disadvantage should be discounted by the courts. 

Restoring the word 'accident' would save many millions of pounds in police time and many failed prosecutions too.

See this tweet from C/I Phil Vickers. I have excluded the sycophantic chit chat and go straight to the point politely asking genuine questions. The answers will be interesting. 

A useful insight into fatal collision investigation http://t.co/FxritREc8t @LincsRPU @Northants_RPU @LeicsRPU pic.twitter.com/3RyjwUwhka
— C/I Phil Vickers (@CIPhilVickers) April 4, 2015

@CIPhilVickers @mrwilliam @LincsRPU @Northants_RPU @LeicsRPU Are these very costly investigations & road closures cost effective?
— Drivers Union. (@DriverUnion) April 4, 2015

@DriverUnion @mrwilliam @LincsRPU @Northants_RPU @LeicsRPU In my experience yes. What £ would you put on your own life? 👍
— C/I Phil Vickers (@CIPhilVickers) April 4, 2015

@CIPhilVickers @mrwilliam @LincsRPU @Northants_RPU @LeicsRPU I don't demand accident investigations. It doesn't undo the death!
— Drivers Union. (@DriverUnion) April 4, 2015

Ch.Insp. Vickers thought this sixth form justification was worth a favourite.

@DriverUnion @CIPhilVickers @mrwilliam @LincsRPU @Northants_RPU @LeicsRPU If you lost loved one wouldn't u want 2 know exactly what happened
— Brian Robins (@brianatrobins) April 4, 2015

@brianatrobins @CIPhilVickers @mrwilliam @LincsRPU @Northants_RPU @LeicsRPU Er, why? Does it bring them back? What if we kill more from it?
— Drivers Union. (@DriverUnion) April 4, 2015

@DriverUnion @mrwilliam @LincsRPU @Northants_RPU @LeicsRPU Good to hear that & sadly true - it does help prevent future fatalities 😕
— C/I Phil Vickers (@CIPhilVickers) April 4, 2015

@CIPhilVickers @mrwilliam @LincsRPU @Northants_RPU @LeicsRPU How? The same accidents keep happening & usually the cause is obvious.
— Drivers Union. (@DriverUnion) April 4, 2015

@CIPhilVickers @mrwilliam @LincsRPU @Northants_RPU @LeicsRPU How many similar occurrences have these prevented?
— Drivers Union. (@DriverUnion) April 4, 2015

@CIPhilVickers @mrwilliam @LincsRPU @Northants_RPU @LeicsRPU Do these ever produce anything productive other than blame?
— Drivers Union. (@DriverUnion) April 4, 2015

@CIPhilVickers @mrwilliam @LincsRPU @Northants_RPU @LeicsRPU How many manufacturers modifications have occurred after these?
— Drivers Union. (@DriverUnion) April 4, 2015

@DriverUnion @mrwilliam @LincsRPU @Northants_RPU @LeicsRPU Inevitably, yes - how many? Probably best to speak to the manufacturers 👍
— C/I Phil Vickers (@CIPhilVickers) April 4, 2015

@CIPhilVickers @mrwilliam @LincsRPU @Northants_RPU @LeicsRPU It's a very valid question. So how many do you know of?
— Drivers Union. (@DriverUnion) April 4, 2015

@DriverUnion @mrwilliam @LincsRPU @Northants_RPU @LeicsRPU I don't keep track - may be worth speaking to @EuroNCAP & @TISPOLorg 👍
— C/I Phil Vickers (@CIPhilVickers) April 4, 2015

@CIPhilVickers @mrwilliam @LincsRPU @Northants_RPU @LeicsRPU @EuroNCAP @TISPOLorg But there are none to your knowledge then?
— Drivers Union. (@DriverUnion) April 4, 2015

@DriverUnion @mrwilliam @EuroNCAP @TISPOLorg To my knowledge, every safety innovation is a result of collision investigation 👍
— C/I Phil Vickers (@CIPhilVickers) April 4, 2015

@CIPhilVickers @mrwilliam @EuroNCAP @TISPOLorg Most would have evolved anyway. But thanks for your responses. Very useful. KP
— Drivers Union. (@DriverUnion) April 4, 2015

@DriverUnion @CIPhilVickers @mrwilliam @LincsRPU @Northants_RPU @LeicsRPU So exactly how many victims families have you canvassed on this ?
— Brian Robins (@brianatrobins) April 4, 2015

@brianatrobins @CIPhilVickers @mrwilliam @LincsRPU @Northants_RPU @LeicsRPU Dont exploit the bereaved.Closing roads helps no-one at all.
— Drivers Union. (@DriverUnion) April 5, 2015

@DriverUnion @brianatrobins @CIPhilVickers @mrwilliam @LincsRPU @Northants_RPU @LeicsRPU no but it might stop you cunts doing it again
— cycleops (@cycleopps) April 4, 2015

@cycleopps @brianatrobins @CIPhilVickers @mrwilliam @LincsRPU @Northants_RPU @LeicsRPU A deterrent only works for intentional acts.
— Drivers Union. (@DriverUnion) April 5, 2015

After reasonable queries, it seems road accident investigation officers can't justify its costs http://t.co/M3XnQOvjgm @mrwilliam @vmatkins
— Drivers E. Midlands (@EastMidsDrivers) April 4, 2015

@EastMidsDrivers @DriverUnion @mrwilliam @vmatkins Always good to hear an alternative point of view - thanks again 👍 pic.twitter.com/v8PHrbFo27
— C/I Phil Vickers (@CIPhilVickers) April 4, 2015

@CIPhilVickers @EastMidsDrivers @mrwilliam @vmatkins Yes. We must look at it objectively from outside the road safety industry bubble.
— Drivers Union. (@DriverUnion) April 5, 2015