Jump to content
Account Notice
  • To post a recruitment query in the "Recruitment Areas" or in the "Force Specific Areas" you will require a Recruitment Pass or a Membership Package. Click HERE to read more.
  • Your Account Is Currently Limited
Sign in to follow this  
Blueboy1546620110

RTC & RTA

Recommended Posts

Blueboy1546620110

Whats the difference??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Life on Mars1546620180

You never seen Hot Fuzz :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DumpyStig

RTA (Road Traffic Accident) isnt used anymore and its now called an RTC (Road Traffic Collision) :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

replicator00

Correct me if im wrong but i believe its been change because the previous " RTA Road traffic Accident" implies there is nobody to blame/Cause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Arryace
Correct me if im wrong but i believe its been change because the previous " RTA Road traffic Accident" implies there is nobody to blame/Cause.

that is correct as there is no such thing as an accident

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member Achievements

snafu
Correct me if im wrong but i believe its been change because the previous " RTA Road traffic Accident" implies there is nobody to blame/Cause.

That's my understanding. We HATO are not allowed to refer to a collision as an accident.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


PennyG
RTA (Road Traffic Accident) isnt used anymore and its now called an RTC (Road Traffic Collision) :thumbsup:

There is such a thing and perhaps it's the police who led the way and the accompany agencies have been forced to follow. It may not exist internally but try asking your insurance company for a collision form, it will come back with the 'A' word on it. Go to court and they always get conviced of failing to stop after an 'A' etc etc etc.

Had a quick look in yellow ages and there are no collision damage repair centres.

Surprised that the police do not like 'A' because the role is not to apportion blame but to leave that to the courts.

Yes the 'A' does exist but the police and associates are not keen to use it. It is one way to see if a witness statement has been 'translated' from witness language to that which the officer thinks is more suitable. And if that is seen then it is always worth checking everything else that a witness may have said but did not mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member Achievements

Tim in the South
RTA (Road Traffic Accident) isnt used anymore and its now called an RTC (Road Traffic Collision) :thumbsup:

We call them RTI - road traffic incident.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Blueboy1546620110

Cheers guys - that has made my revision much much simpler :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

explodJP

Another case of semantics being taken to a erroneous conclusion.

Some thing is an accident if it is not intentional, it does not mean that no one is to blame , In which case most road traffic incidents or collisions are indeed accidents. Very few people do some act with the intention of colliding a motor vehicle with some thing else . JMHO

Accident

Literally, a befalling; an event that takes place without one's foresight or expectation; an undesigned, sudden, and unexpected event; chance; contingency; often, an undesigned and unforeseen occurrence of an afflictive or unfortunate character;

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Arryace
Some thing is an accident if it is not intentional

whilst the result of an intentional action may not have been intentional the act will have been intentional.

a tailgater may not hit the back of your car intentionally but said driver made a conscious decision to drive too close to the vehicle in front so this is not an accident.

the driver that pulls out of a side road and collides with a motorcyclist obviously did not intend to hurt anyone during his journey but again he made the decision not to look properly before pulling out thus not an accident.

screaming kids in the back of a car distract the parent driving resulting in a collision again the collision is not intentional but the decision to deal with little brats whilst driving was in fact a deliberate one

again not an accident

of course this does not mean that the word accident has gone from the dictionary i guess police forces have simply decided it unwise to label a collision as an 'accident' without being in possession of all the facts and prior to any following investigation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member Achievements

Tim in the South
whilst the result of an intentional action may not have been intentional the act will have been intentional.

a tailgater may not hit the back of your car intentionally but said driver made a conscious decision to drive too close to the vehicle in front so this is not an accident.

the driver that pulls out of a side road and collides with a motorcyclist obviously did not intend to hurt anyone during his journey but again he made the decision not to look properly before pulling out thus not an accident.

screaming kids in the back of a car distract the parent driving resulting in a collision again the collision is not intentional but the decision to deal with little brats whilst driving was in fact a deliberate one

again not an accident

of course this does not mean that the word accident has gone from the dictionary i guess police forces have simply decided it unwise to label a collision as an 'accident' without being in possession of all the facts and prior to any following investigation

that's why we call them RTI, not RTA or RTC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


linus2

I've had this conversation with our case builders and file managers on many occassions. I will always refer to the coming together of vehicles / street furniture in statements, as accidents as that is what the law calls them, not collisions or incidents but Road Traffic Accidents. The fact that my force / all forces want to call them something else is up to them but i will refer to them as how they are named and described in the Road Traffic Act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

explodJP

arryace your logic is flawed, even if you do not agree , also it puts you in the position that you need to make a decision if said action was intentional , or autonomic , and also if any particular incident falls into a particular category . Which will in many cases not be able to be substantiated by you.

Brakes fail in a car , resulting in a collision was it an accident for the driver but not an accident for the garage mechanic , or the manufacturer of the part .

The problem comes not with saying what something is but with saying what it is not . eg an accident can be a collision and also an incident . Some collisions may not be an accident but can also be an incident . But you can not always say that an incident or collision is not an accident .

I think this changing of terms is a result of someone not having enough to do and contemplating their navel, ending up being pedantic and in changing something that was perfectly well understood within the vagaries of the English language JMHO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


PennyG
I think this changing of terms is a result of someone not having enough to do and contemplating their navel, ending up being pedantic and in changing something that was perfectly well understood within the vagaries of the English language JMHO

Oh how true. If a collision is a coming together of a vehicle and something else when the intention may not have been deliberate in the typical sense, I wonder why the saddo in the darkened room hasn't decreed that where there is pre-emptive neglect that it should be called a 'deliberate'?

Arryace's examples have some degree of consistency but poor driving does not in statute or common sense equal intention. Probably the main reason so few prosecutions and even fewer being successful being made under the old Section1 was the neccesity to prove intent.

This use of collision instead of the 'A' word seems to have originated from police speak and been spread to those linked with the police who want to share ideas. Doesn't it sound less severe when a police vehicle has a serious collision rather than a serious accident? Damage limitation and all that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member Achievements

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
There are 16 hidden replies in this thread that you do not currently have access to as a Guest User of our forum. To unlock the forum register for an account for FREE today by clicking HERE

About us

Police Community was originally founded in 2014 by two serving Police Officers.

In 2016 it was incorporated as a limited company called RAW Digital Media Limited and then purchased 3 other forums; Police Specials, UK Police Online and Police UK to form the largest policing discussion forum network in the UK.

Get in touch

  • 20-22 Wenlock Road, London N1 7GU
  • contact@rawdigitalmedia.co.uk
  • 0844 357 0111
  • Forums In Our Group - Police.Community - UKPoliceOnline.CO.UK - PoliceSpecials.COM - PoliceUK.COM

Twitter

Facebook

    Meet The Team

  • Chief Bakes
    Chief Bakes Management
  • Chief Rat
    Chief Rat Management
  • Chief Cheetah
    Chief Cheetah Management
  • Rocket
    Rocket Global Moderators
  • David
    David Global Moderators
  • Fedster
    Fedster Global Moderators
  • Devil
    Devil Global Moderators
  • MindTheGap
    MindTheGap Global Moderators
  • blakey
    blakey Global Moderators
  • Techie1
    Techie1 Global Moderators
  • Sir Penguin
    Sir Penguin Global Moderators
  • PCW
    PCW Global Moderators
  • Hoofing
    Hoofing Global Moderators
  • XA84
    XA84 Global Moderators
  • Remmy
    Remmy Global Moderators
  • job_done
    job_done Global Moderators
  • Sapor62
    Sapor62 Global Moderators
×