how can I find out details of fatal road traffic involving friend?

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

Warwick_Hunt wrote: »

Given the description they don’t need to.

There was a case in Solihull a couple of years ago where a taxi driver killed a young cyclist. The cyclist was carried on the bonnet and the taxi driver accelerated in panic, unsighted and hit a tree.

The conviction was for careless driving for the driving from the point of collision through to hitting the tree. There was no charge for the element of the accident for colliding with the cyclist. There was no evidence that the driver had done anything inappropriate to hit the cyclist.

...yet you probably would have said the same based on the original description of that accident.

Warwick_Hunt

IanMSpencer wrote: »

There was a case in Solihull a couple of years ago where a taxi driver killed a young cyclist. The cyclist was carried on the bonnet and the taxi driver accelerated in panic, unsighted and hit a tree.

The conviction was for careless driving for the driving from the point of collision through to hitting the tree. There was no charge for the element of the accident for colliding with the cyclist. There was no evidence that the driver had done anything inappropriate to hit the cyclist.

...yet you probably would have said the same based on the original description of that accident.

No, given there was a cyclist involved. Some forces class cyclist as a vehicle for recording purposes. I know West Midlands don’t.

However in the case of the OP’s description of a single vehicle demolishing a bus stop, I’ll let you argue why blame isn’t obvious.

eamon

In my neck of the woods there have been many instances of RTA's and other incidents followed by a media black out. Many months later the story may make it to the media if the editors are interested. Not what the OP wanted to hear.

unholyangel

Warwick_Hunt wrote: »

No, given there was a cyclist involved. Some forces class cyclist as a vehicle for recording purposes. I know West Midlands don’t.

However in the case of the OP’s description of a single vehicle demolishing a bus stop, I’ll let you argue why blame isn’t obvious.

Theres no presumption who is to blame regardless of whether the other party is classed as a pedestrian or bicycle. At least not on this side of the border.

Warwick_Hunt

unholyangel wrote: »

Theres no presumption who is to blame regardless of whether the other party is classed as a pedestrian or bicycle. At least not on this side of the border.

Do pedestrians crash many cars where you are?

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

Warwick_Hunt wrote: »

No, given there was a cyclist involved. Some forces class cyclist as a vehicle for recording purposes. I know West Midlands don’t.

However in the case of the OP’s description of a single vehicle demolishing a bus stop, I’ll let you argue why blame isn’t obvious.

The point is that just because there is a car mounting the pavement, we cannot know the circumstances that led to that event, which may or may not be deemed to be a criminal act.

Warwick_Hunt

IanMSpencer wrote: »

The point is that just because there is a car mounting the pavement, we cannot know the circumstances that led to that event, which may or may not be deemed to be a criminal act.

I agree, but in the case of a single vehicle accident the vehicle will be classed as vehicle 1. Meaning the vehicle deemed to be most at fault given the circumstances known at the time.

Given it’s demolished a bus stop and killed a pedestrian I can’t see how it’s the pedestrians fault.

unholyangel

Warwick_Hunt wrote: »

Do pedestrians crash many cars where you are?

Well if I wanted to a pedant then I'd say all car drivers are usually also pedestrians so yes.

But as for a serious answer, you're talking about blame - in other words who's fault it is that the accident occurred. They'll apportion blame based on the facts of each individual case - its not simply a case of saying "well one was a car driver, the other was a pedestrian therefore its the car drivers fault".

Warwick_Hunt

unholyangel wrote: »

Well if I wanted to a pedant then I'd say all car drivers are usually also pedestrians so yes.

But as for a serious answer, you're talking about blame - in other words who's fault it is that the accident occurred. They'll apportion blame based on the facts of each individual case - its not simply a case of saying "well one was a car driver, the other was a pedestrian therefore its the car drivers fault".

Well it’s unlikely to be the pedestrians fault.

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

Warwick_Hunt wrote: »

Well it’s unlikely to be the pedestrians fault.

You are being very binary about this. I was quite clear. We do not know the circumstances that led the car to mount the pavement. There are a number of reasons why a car may have mounted the pavement, all nothing to do with the pedestrian. A medical episode, a mechanical fault, avoiding some other incident, e.g. child running into the road, driving like a lunatic, wrong pedal, tagged by another car, trying to run someone over, and so on.

It is clear that the police will be interviewing the driver. They will not be in a position to apportion blame without an understanding of what led to the incident which could include a 3rd party not yet identified.