Advanced Driving Hub

No, HTH.

There are far too many of them, 90+% caused by driver error, and the only reason for apportioning blame is to decide whose insurance pays (it never results in further driver education, sadly). Car design improvements are being wrought separately anyway. If people were charged with some offence - DWDC, DD, etc. that actually only increases the cost to the taxpayer in the costs of the subsequent prosecution, so who would be paying for this new service? Answer - US! (those who don't cause the crashes).

The AAIB etc. are mainly motivated by the need to protect innocent travellers (of whom of course there are some in car crashes, although the majority of those injured / killed etc. are probably drivers as so high a proportion of our journeys are lone drivers), from the actions of negligent manufacturers / travel operators which doesn't really apply here.

martine wrote:So do people here think there should be a nationwide Road Accident Investigation Branch (like the Aviation: AAIB and Marine: MAIB) that would formally investigate all serious collisions, apportion blame and hand the details to the CPS as well as suggesting improvements in car design, road engineering, driver training etc?

No, but I do think anyone involved in a collision should be required to take further training. Of course the practical upshot of that would probably be a reduction in the number of accidents reported

jont- wrote:

martine wrote:So do people here think there should be a nationwide Road Accident Investigation Branch (like the Aviation: AAIB and Marine: MAIB) that would formally investigate all serious collisions, apportion blame and hand the details to the CPS as well as suggesting improvements in car design, road engineering, driver training etc?

No, but I do think anyone involved in a collision should be required to take further training. Of course the practical upshot of that would probably be a reduction in the number of accidents reported

but how would you set that up?
- touch the dustbins on your drive when reversing on in the dark?
- slightly tap another car in a supermarket car park?
- minor hit on the roads?
- major hit on the roads?
arguably all are accidents which could have an insurance element...
also, everyone involved? so if you drive into the back of me when I am stationary at the lights - why do I need further training? The logic would be to base it on fault as apportioned by the insurance companies, but we all know that it will often go 50:50 due to lack of witnesses, not due to accurate allocation of blame...

the underlying concept does of course make sense!

Alasdair

martine wrote:So do people here think there should be a nationwide Road Accident Investigation Branch (like the Aviation: AAIB and Marine: MAIB) that would formally investigate all serious collisions, apportion blame and hand the details to the CPS as well as suggesting improvements in car design, road engineering, driver training etc?

I thought we had such an organisation.

As I understand it, a key difference between the folk who investigate road accidents and those who investigate air accidents is that the AAIB are not in the business of attributing blame, but only of discovering facts. I don't believe, as a matter of interest, that any charges have been brought against the pilot who crashed outside the Shoreham air show. If a lorry driver had been involved in an accident with such serious consequences it is almost certain that he would have been charged, unless it was unambiguously obvious that there was no culpability involved.

jont- wrote:

martine wrote:So do people here think there should be a nationwide Road Accident Investigation Branch (like the Aviation: AAIB and Marine: MAIB) that would formally investigate all serious collisions, apportion blame and hand the details to the CPS as well as suggesting improvements in car design, road engineering, driver training etc?

No, but I do think anyone involved in a collision should be required to take further training. Of course the practical upshot of that would probably be a reduction in the number of accidents reported

Got any proof that 'training' would improve driving standards? Training *what*, exactly?

Horse wrote:Got any proof that 'training' would improve driving standards?

Out of interest, does anyone here know how accident statistics compare for young drivers with vs without a licence?

martine wrote:So do people here think there should be a nationwide Road Accident Investigation Branch (like the Aviation: AAIB and Marine: MAIB) that would formally investigate all serious collisions, apportion blame and hand the details to the CPS as well as suggesting improvements in car design, road engineering, driver training etc?

They'd have to close the road for a bloody week!

jont- wrote: No, but I do think anyone involved in a collision should be required to take further training. Of course the practical upshot of that would probably be a reduction in the number of accidents reported

???? So if someone gets "rear-ended" for whatever reason, they need further training (I know that's extreme)? IMO that's nonsense. No amount of training gives competency. Education is another example - no amount of qualifications (degrees etc) gives competence, only a level of education.

Mr Cholmondeley-Warner wrote:No, HTH.

There are far too many of them, 90+% caused by driver error, and the only reason for apportioning blame is to decide whose insurance pays (it never results in further driver education, sadly). Car design improvements are being wrought separately anyway. If people were charged with some offence - DWDC, DD, etc. that actually only increases the cost to the taxpayer in the costs of the subsequent prosecution, so who would be paying for this new service? Answer - US! (those who don't cause the crashes).

Exactly.

I am fortunate enough to investigate collision not for the court of law but for pure preventative reasons - both in the interest of the general public and for car fleets.

Instead of looking for offences and "due care", I am looking for what each driver could have done (irregardless of the requirements of the law) to avoid (or at the very least significantly mitigate) the collision.

So if someone gets "rear-ended" for whatever reason, they need further training?

It can help. I have seen rear-end collisions avoided and coaching focused at preventing them at car fleets tends to results in decreases of the order of 50% and more.

Silk wrote:

martine wrote:So do people here think there should be a nationwide Road Accident Investigation Branch (like the Aviation: AAIB and Marine: MAIB) that would formally investigate all serious collisions, apportion blame and hand the details to the CPS as well as suggesting improvements in car design, road engineering, driver training etc?

They'd have to close the road for a bloody week!

It'd probably be a shorter time than it is now. A suitably funded AI unit with laser scanners, recovery trucks and a camera could clear up a scene far more quickly than today's efforts waiting for hookaway, total stations and waiting for Police photographers.