Perhaps I've misread you; you seem to be asserting what I said you were - that there are no accidents.
Also, why the passive voice? Who makes this recommendation?
[Edit]
> The vast majority of RTCs are indeed due to the inattention of a driver
Arguably, all RTCs are the result of inadequate attention from someone or other. But attentive, well-trained drivers have collisions too. Perhaps their attention lapsed? They're human - human attention wanders, they're not focused 24/7 on the task, because they're not machines.
Cars are all very well on roads that carry light traffic. But not many roads are like that nowadays: most driving environments are way too complicated for even an expert to negotiate completely safely.
There are too many cars.
I'd say most of them. It's possible to be driving along with a clear road ahead and have a person or object suddenly appear in front of you. I recall a case where a child was riding a bike on the pavement (sidewalk in the U.S.?) and for some reason lost control and fell into the road. The driver had been adhering to the speed limits and was paying attention but unfortunately was unable to stop in time and the child ended up dying.
There's lots of edge cases with driving which is why there's a bunch of recommendations regarding speed and leaving space so that when something unexpected happens, there's more chance for a careful driver to be able to stop or avoid the incident.
And yes, I totally agree about too many cars.
Pedantically (i.e. according to the Highway Code) the part reserved for pedestrians is the 'footway'; the part for carriages ('things with wheels', roughly) is the carriageway.
I suppose that between them they comprise the pavement.
I've taken to referring to them as carriageway and footway; it's unambiguous, and it even makes sense if you're shouting across the Great Pond.
Yes, it sounds stilted to me too.
Reporting recommendations:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2021/05/17/its-cras...
https://road.cc/content/news/media-guidelines-launched-repor...
Except that media use a different, equally bad construction. The so-called "cop-speak". <https://fair.org/home/copspeak-7-ways-journalists-use-police...>
Those aren't the same. A suspect is someone who has been charged, or who is being questioned under caution, because he might be charged. The example given was of a man arrested for possessing a knife - therefore a suspect - who was shot by police. Since a policeman shooting a civilian isn't usually charged or cautioned on the spot, it's not surprising that there is no suspect in the shooting case.
The vast majority of RTCs are indeed due to the inattention of a driver or not looking sufficiently (e.g. not taking care to move your head so that the A-pillar does not obstruct your view of pedestrians/cyclists etc).
I would consider accidental RTCs to be mainly due to either mechanical failures (which could be argued is due to lack of maintenance) or previously unknown medical issues.
It's interesting the difference in use of language between RTCs and shooting incidents. News reports will often make no mention of the driver and will make statements such as "car hits a building", but to use the same style with shootings would be risible e.g. "multiple bullets hit man resisting arrest". Of course, the car industry has been exerting control over media reporting of RTCs for about a century now, so it's very ingrained.