Astraist wrote:It's not necessarily about taking it seriously.
As long as it is a branch of the legal system, it will forever be investigating collisions with the question to be answered being: "What legal offences were made en route to hitting the tree/wall/rock/car/truck/pedestrian?".
What is needed is an RTI that is set to answer the question "what would each road user involved could realistically do to avoid or mitigate the collision?"
And that's the relevant point.
It's no use saying after the collision "My lights were green, the other guy drove through on red" when most of the time you could have avoided the collision if you'd looked for "the other guy."
Nigel.