A cyclist was seriously injured in after an accident with a van outside a primary school this afternoon.
Both the road and pavements on Elm Grove were cordoned off from Wellington Street to Bonchurch Street this afternoon.
A Sussex Police spokesman said: “Just before 2pm on Friday (June 10) police responded to a collision between a cyclist and a van. The road was closed for around two hours while paramedics attended the scene.
“The cyclist was taken to hospital with serious but non-life threatening injuries.
“Anyone with dashcam footage or who witnessed the collision is asked to report it to police by emailing collision.appeal@sussex.police.uk or call 101 quoting serial number 685 of 10/06.”
A spokesman for South East Coast Ambulance Service said: “I can confirm that SECAmb was called shortly before 2pm today to reports of an RTC involving a vehicle and a pedestrian on Elm Grove, Brighton.
“Ambulance crews attended the scene and the pedestrian was assessed and treated before being taken to Royal Sussex County Hospital.”
Parents at the school were allowed through the cordon to pick up their children, but only from the north side.
Buses were diverted eastbound via Southover Street and Queens Park Road and westbound via Ryde Road and Hartington Road.
Due to an R.T.C on Elm Grove, our #BH1, #BH21A, #BH22 & #BH23 services are diverting
Eastbound, via Southover Street and Queens Park Road
Westbound via Ryde Road and Hartington Road pic.twitter.com/sdxc2e0tbo
— B&H Buses (@BrightonHoveBus) June 10, 2022
More as we get it.
Oh dear hope nobody is seriously hurt in this.
Do we know yet if it was actually an accident?
Do you mean maybe it should be classed as a “collision”, or it was “intentional”, or either or both of the motorist and the cyclist were at fault and could be charged with an offence?
If the driver was drunk or on drugs and deliberately drove while impaired, or is disqualified from driving, or- as happens disturbingly often- actively drove at the cyclist intending to use their vehicle as a weapon, then yes it would most certainly not be an accident.
Equally if the crash could have been prevented by better road design it is equally not an accident, any more than a person being injured at work due to insufficient safety procedures is accidental rather than a result of institutional neglect https://www.vox.com/23016529/there-are-no-accidents-jessie-singer
By this logic all roads should be 1mph speed limit. The world has never been a safe place. Risk is not optional.
There are hundreds of proven measures to reduce and even elimintate traffic deaths that are now being implemented in other countries, that do not involve ‘1mph speed limits’. Not a single pedestrian died on the streets of Oslo or Helsinki- which both have around twice the population of B&H- in 2019 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/16/how-helsinki-and-oslo-cut-pedestrian-deaths-to-zero
Risk of death on the roads is entirely optional. That so many people are killed or injured on the streets of Brighton and Hove is a political choice by councillors.
My child attends elm Grove Primary and was watching the aftermath of the collision. She said it was really frightening watching them being taken away in an ambulance and someone getting arrested. I hope the person injured is recovering OK
In fact, they’re no such thing an “accident”. Every road incident has a cause, usually more than 1. Look at https://crashnotaccident.com/
The photo of the scene shows a sign saying “Police Accident”. It’s clear and accurate. There’s nothing wrong with collision either (as suggested by Phoebe) but it’s muddle-headed to object to the word accident. Worse, it’s sad how some people seem to care more about the terminology than the actuality.
Accident is a common or garden term understood by most people. And I dare say most of them accept an accident doesn’t necessarily absolve everyone of blame. The roots of the word – a happening or a falling to or falling towards – neither attribute nor deny culpability.
Of course, the facts, logic and common sense won’t stop the language police from their spurious, ill-focused and obsessive pursuits.
Grant
The important thing is the people involved in the incident always comes first.
But I do think getting the wording correct is important too as a secondary thought.
Now what is an accident, an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury sums it up nicely when one is pottering about by one self, perhaps in the garden for instance or falling on an Icey road etc.
Can we really call a road traffic collision between two vehicles an accident. I don’t think we can to be honest, it is a collision, crash or Incident.
While I doubt those involved intended the incident to happen or even expected it too, road incidents CAN be prevented, one or the other or both caused this to happen by a poor standard of motoring.
The most common reason for a RTC is a failure to look properly by one or more involved, followed by failed to judge.
Both aren’t accidents, but failures of minimum standards expected on our roads or poor driving or poor cycling or both.
Using the word ‘accident’ means in my book it was just one of those things and unavoidable. Using the word ‘Crash’ means a failing on someone’s part and someone is at fault for some reason.
Just my own thought and view.
Weird language obsessives could do worse than check a dictionary from time to time!
Entirely preventable from either party.
Was the van being driven or did the cyclist ride into a parked car?