South Oxhey road blocked following car crash

South Oxhey road blocked following car crash

South Oxhey road blocked following car crash

First published in News Watford Observer: Photograph of the Author by , Senior Reporter

A South Oxhey road was blocked this morning after two cars crashed.

Police were called to Prestwick Road at 10.01am following reports that a grey Vauxhall Zafira and a black Ford Kuga had crashed.

The car accident happened near the roundabout with Hayling Road.

The blocked road was cleared by 11.10am.

Comments (7)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:22am Tue 10 Jun 14

PedroStephano says...

It may not have been an "accident" - it is quite possible and perhaps even likely that one or both drivers was distracted or unobservant or simply failed to observe and anticipate their likely path, then intelligently and competently take avoiding action. In which case the event was not "accidental", but predictable, foreseeable and avoidable.
This is why there is a movement to stop calling these events "accidents" and call them "collisions", "incidents" or "crashes" http://www.roadpeace
.org/campaigns/crash
/
It may not have been an "accident" - it is quite possible and perhaps even likely that one or both drivers was distracted or unobservant or simply failed to observe and anticipate their likely path, then intelligently and competently take avoiding action. In which case the event was not "accidental", but predictable, foreseeable and avoidable. This is why there is a movement to stop calling these events "accidents" and call them "collisions", "incidents" or "crashes" http://www.roadpeace .org/campaigns/crash / PedroStephano
  • Score: 0

11:04am Tue 10 Jun 14

LocalBoy1 says...

PedroStephano wrote:
It may not have been an "accident" - it is quite possible and perhaps even likely that one or both drivers was distracted or unobservant or simply failed to observe and anticipate their likely path, then intelligently and competently take avoiding action. In which case the event was not "accidental", but predictable, foreseeable and avoidable.
This is why there is a movement to stop calling these events "accidents" and call them "collisions", "incidents" or "crashes" http://www.roadpeace

.org/campaigns/crash

/
Wow, you just blow my mind. I cannot believe the ridiculous depths that some people will go to, to change the very fundamentals of our well established society and way of life in the UK.
[quote][p][bold]PedroStephano[/bold] wrote: It may not have been an "accident" - it is quite possible and perhaps even likely that one or both drivers was distracted or unobservant or simply failed to observe and anticipate their likely path, then intelligently and competently take avoiding action. In which case the event was not "accidental", but predictable, foreseeable and avoidable. This is why there is a movement to stop calling these events "accidents" and call them "collisions", "incidents" or "crashes" http://www.roadpeace .org/campaigns/crash /[/p][/quote]Wow, you just blow my mind. I cannot believe the ridiculous depths that some people will go to, to change the very fundamentals of our well established society and way of life in the UK. LocalBoy1
  • Score: -1

11:55am Tue 10 Jun 14

PedroStephano says...

LocalBoy1 wrote:
PedroStephano wrote:
It may not have been an "accident" - it is quite possible and perhaps even likely that one or both drivers was distracted or unobservant or simply failed to observe and anticipate their likely path, then intelligently and competently take avoiding action. In which case the event was not "accidental", but predictable, foreseeable and avoidable.
This is why there is a movement to stop calling these events "accidents" and call them "collisions", "incidents" or "crashes" http://www.roadpeace


.org/campaigns/crash


/
Wow, you just blow my mind. I cannot believe the ridiculous depths that some people will go to, to change the very fundamentals of our well established society and way of life in the UK.
This "well established society and way of life" kills 1,754 and injures 193,969 people a year (2012 figures). Yeah, it would be a crying shame to upset that particular applecart.
[quote][p][bold]LocalBoy1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PedroStephano[/bold] wrote: It may not have been an "accident" - it is quite possible and perhaps even likely that one or both drivers was distracted or unobservant or simply failed to observe and anticipate their likely path, then intelligently and competently take avoiding action. In which case the event was not "accidental", but predictable, foreseeable and avoidable. This is why there is a movement to stop calling these events "accidents" and call them "collisions", "incidents" or "crashes" http://www.roadpeace .org/campaigns/crash /[/p][/quote]Wow, you just blow my mind. I cannot believe the ridiculous depths that some people will go to, to change the very fundamentals of our well established society and way of life in the UK.[/p][/quote]This "well established society and way of life" kills 1,754 and injures 193,969 people a year (2012 figures). Yeah, it would be a crying shame to upset that particular applecart. PedroStephano
  • Score: 5

12:41pm Tue 10 Jun 14

LocalBoy1 says...

PedroStephano wrote:
LocalBoy1 wrote:
PedroStephano wrote:
It may not have been an "accident" - it is quite possible and perhaps even likely that one or both drivers was distracted or unobservant or simply failed to observe and anticipate their likely path, then intelligently and competently take avoiding action. In which case the event was not "accidental", but predictable, foreseeable and avoidable.
This is why there is a movement to stop calling these events "accidents" and call them "collisions", "incidents" or "crashes" http://www.roadpeace



.org/campaigns/crash



/
Wow, you just blow my mind. I cannot believe the ridiculous depths that some people will go to, to change the very fundamentals of our well established society and way of life in the UK.
This "well established society and way of life" kills 1,754 and injures 193,969 people a year (2012 figures). Yeah, it would be a crying shame to upset that particular applecart.
Yeah?? well that gives me some indication of the mentality of who I am commenting on..... So the stats you have given mean what exactly? You were talking about changing the accident category to "collisions", "incidents" or "crashes" . You seem to have gone OFF topic, where are you going with this?
[quote][p][bold]PedroStephano[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LocalBoy1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PedroStephano[/bold] wrote: It may not have been an "accident" - it is quite possible and perhaps even likely that one or both drivers was distracted or unobservant or simply failed to observe and anticipate their likely path, then intelligently and competently take avoiding action. In which case the event was not "accidental", but predictable, foreseeable and avoidable. This is why there is a movement to stop calling these events "accidents" and call them "collisions", "incidents" or "crashes" http://www.roadpeace .org/campaigns/crash /[/p][/quote]Wow, you just blow my mind. I cannot believe the ridiculous depths that some people will go to, to change the very fundamentals of our well established society and way of life in the UK.[/p][/quote]This "well established society and way of life" kills 1,754 and injures 193,969 people a year (2012 figures). Yeah, it would be a crying shame to upset that particular applecart.[/p][/quote]Yeah?? well that gives me some indication of the mentality of who I am commenting on..... So the stats you have given mean what exactly? You were talking about changing the accident category to "collisions", "incidents" or "crashes" . You seem to have gone OFF topic, where are you going with this? LocalBoy1
  • Score: -2

1:07pm Tue 10 Jun 14

PedroStephano says...

Why the dig at my mentality? I thought I was putting together a well structured argument using complex language and ideas to portray a message that using the word "accident" in media articles could imply in the mind of some drivers that a collision is in some way unavoidable. Changing the language used in such articles may actually have the effect of reducing the road toll by making people analyse the causes (such as inattention and incompetence) instead of simply wringing their hands and uttering "it was an accident". I'm sorry if you have to google some of my phrases for understanding.
Why the dig at my mentality? I thought I was putting together a well structured argument using complex language and ideas to portray a message that using the word "accident" in media articles could imply in the mind of some drivers that a collision is in some way unavoidable. Changing the language used in such articles may actually have the effect of reducing the road toll by making people analyse the causes (such as inattention and incompetence) instead of simply wringing their hands and uttering "it was an accident". I'm sorry if you have to google some of my phrases for understanding. PedroStephano
  • Score: 2

1:17pm Tue 10 Jun 14

LocalBoy1 says...

PedroStephano wrote:
Why the dig at my mentality? I thought I was putting together a well structured argument using complex language and ideas to portray a message that using the word "accident" in media articles could imply in the mind of some drivers that a collision is in some way unavoidable. Changing the language used in such articles may actually have the effect of reducing the road toll by making people analyse the causes (such as inattention and incompetence) instead of simply wringing their hands and uttering "it was an accident". I'm sorry if you have to google some of my phrases for understanding.
Whooooo, you are just too much for me! So I will say farewell and good luck with your cause, or online WO fight?
[quote][p][bold]PedroStephano[/bold] wrote: Why the dig at my mentality? I thought I was putting together a well structured argument using complex language and ideas to portray a message that using the word "accident" in media articles could imply in the mind of some drivers that a collision is in some way unavoidable. Changing the language used in such articles may actually have the effect of reducing the road toll by making people analyse the causes (such as inattention and incompetence) instead of simply wringing their hands and uttering "it was an accident". I'm sorry if you have to google some of my phrases for understanding.[/p][/quote]Whooooo, you are just too much for me! So I will say farewell and good luck with your cause, or online WO fight? LocalBoy1
  • Score: -1

1:33pm Tue 10 Jun 14

Taxidermist says...

Well if something like this happens and is not deliberate, it is an accident, so unless to cars deliberately collide with each other it is an accident. Call it as you see it I say.
Well if something like this happens and is not deliberate, it is an accident, so unless to cars deliberately collide with each other it is an accident. Call it as you see it I say. Taxidermist
  • Score: 2

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree