Are people that did not see an accident good witnesses
Accidents are responsible of great losses and deaths on roads and there is always need to reduce the rate at which these incidents occur, to the greatest minimum. This is done by taking investigative initiatives, carried out by government representatives and other non-governmental organizations. The initiatives taken are mainly aimed at identifying the reasons behind the occurrence of the recurrent cases and how best to approach the issue. Most of the road accidents are caused by human error, for instance, careless driving making it necessary to question passengers on how a crash they were involved in occurred (Ross, 2006). The information provided makes it possible to identify the offenders of the law in the cases involved and lawful action is taken against them to avoid repetitions. In other cases, poor weather conditions or bad situations of roads are responsible for accidents. In such cases, evidence provided is important in planning strategies to solve similar cases and avoidance for future purposes.
The fact that provision of information about accidents is necessary raises questions of how efficient information from witnesses is. For this reason, it is necessary to choose the right person to question about an accident (Baker, 2001). This facilitates provision of only the factual information. The people involved in accidents bear the best evidence which could be most useful in investigations (Ross, 2006). However, these individuals could give exaggerated information, against the offenders, or insufficient information to cover up for the offender.
Putting this factor into consideration, it is important for a second source of information to be provided. This could best be eye witnesses, who are least likely to give answers in favor of the offender in an accident (Baker, 2001). In a situation where the accident is not as a result of human error, the witnesses will also give the assessment of the situation, placing basis on past similar incidents. However, the secondhand information as provided by part of the informants who were not present during the occurrence cannot be relied on. This is due to the fact that the information will at almost all cases contain distorted facts (Zemsky, 2005).
People who were close to the spot at which an accident occurred will most likely rely on the information provided by the eye witness and relate it with the knowledge he/she has about such cases. This would be very wrong, owing to the fact that only facts carry importance when dealing with such cases. This would consequently lead to provision of so much differing information, which would make it difficult for a person investigating a case to determine the actual truth to rely on (Ross, 2006). The people who arrive late after an accident has occurred may also provide wrong information, in the case of trying to identify the whereabouts of a driver (Baker, 2001). This is due to the fact that they are likely to assess the situation, according to the visible conditions. Considering the fact that they lack in expertise in the process of relating facts with visible information, contradictory information could lead to wrong assessment by experts (Ross, 2006). It is important to identify a person who actually saw the occurrence, and learning from facial expressions and the manner in which questions are answered are appropriate methods (Baker, 2001).
Contrary to the fact that these informants are not appropriate for providing factual information, these individuals could also be important in providing additional information in cases in which an accident was not caused by human error. These informants will give information about weather conditions, or the pre-existing poor conditions of a bridge that was behind the cause of an accident (Zemsky, 2005).
Putting all these factors into consideration, it is true that informants that were not present during the instance in which an accident occurred are not efficient for providing information about an accident. The sound of an impact is not evidence enough to make and individual assess a situation. For this reason, these individuals should only be used to provide information about an accident which was caused by natural or other physical conditions.
References
Abele, J. & Zemsky, C. (2005). Construction Accident Reconstruction. New York: Lawyers & Judges Publishing Company
Toglia, P., Read, J. & Ross, F. (2006). Handbook of Eyewitness Psychology: Memory for events. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Baker, K.S. (2001). Traffic collision investigation (pp. 24-40). Northwestern
University, USA: Centre for Public Safety.
