KD5NRH

Accidents can still have varying levels of culpability. For Texas, anything other than "intentional" would meet the definition of "accidental."


Now, I would say a fair number of accidents involve "knowing" behavior by at least one driver. Most are probably "reckless" in that everyone should be aware of "substantial and unjustifiable risk" when they do things like pass unsafely or disregard a traffic signal. Aside from mechanical failure or grossly unpredictable road conditions (mud puddle turns out to be an oil slick, or turns out to have a huge pothole in the middle of it, for example) the vast majority of the remainder involve some degree of criminal negligence. (Though in some cases, I'd say the negligence wasn't on the part of any driver; it's not beyond even 1960s technology to make a traffic light controller absolutely incapable of giving incompatible greens, for example.)

CliffordK

Don't forget the "Ninja Cyclists".
Dark Clothing
No Lights
No Reflectors.
Riding in the middle of the road at night?

Scofflaw cyclists? Weaving in and out of traffic? Riding against the flow of traffic?

All of the above?

You can't arbitrarily assign all fault to the car drivers.

andr0id

Of course.

genec

And nobody did. But what we need to get through our collective heads is that most collisions are preventable and are NOT "just an accident."

We have allowed that "just an accident" mentality to prevail for so long that now the term "accident" means something other than a real "accident," the latter which is in reality, quite rare.

Yes, cyclists have some culpability in all of this... flat out it is up to ALL road users to prevent collisions, and to not simply accept poor habits as "just an accident."

CliffordK

An "Accident" just implies that something happened that wasn't intended. It doesn't mean processes can't be changed to make it better.

A kid spills a drink at the dinner table, and it is an accident (or heaven forbid, the adult does it). Nobody intended to spill the drink.

One can still analyze the situation to prevent it from happening in the future. Move the glass back from the edge, don't reach over a bunch of stuff, ask for assistance, etc.

Not all accidents are bad either. Penicillin was discovered due to an accidental contamination of a culture (and an astute observer).

CB HI

Really, comparing a drinking glass tipped over, to a motor vehicle that can easily kill!

CliffordK

So, am I to believe that everyone posting on this board has a flawless driving record. Of those that drive, of course.
Likewise, they all have a flawless cycling record. Hopped on a bike at 3 years old, and never crashed it.

andr0id

Who made that claim?

I have been in one wreck that was my fault. I was ticketed. I have been in a few wrecks that were not my fault.

I haven't been cited since the last century I haven't crashed my bike in about as long.

the point is that *most* "accidents" are preventable and due to somebody's negligence. They are due to poor maintenance, poor choices or lack of situational awareness.

the fact that it was not my intention to kill 3 people when I drove home with a BAC of 0.32 doesn't make it an accident. It is negligent homicide. Intentions don't matter, cause and outcome matter.

canklecat

If personal vehicle collisions and related injures and deaths were investigated proportionately to the model used by the FAA, NTSB, etc., each so-called accident investigation would examine all factors: equipment, operator competence, road/terrain conditions, choices/decisions/actions, etc. Culpability and financial/legal responsibility would be proportionate to those findings.

The likely outcome would be:

1. It would be far more difficult and expensive to own and operate personal and commercial vehicles.
2. It would be more expensive to maintain the infrastructure, with pro-active/preventive cleaning and maintenance rather than reactive to "accidents" caused in part by neglected infrastructure.
3. There would be a paradigm shift toward personal responsibility and restraint to avoid inattentive and aggressive operation that leads to collisions, rather than the current paradigm that tends to place more responsibility on the most vulnerable victims -- pedestrians and cyclists -- to "avoid" becoming victims. (Which could be part of an overall paradigm shift away from the "blame the victim" mentality that distills down to "She/he was in the wrong place at the wrong time wearing the wrong clothes/riding the wrong sort of personal transportation, etc.".)

On the one hand, this paradigm shift makes good economic sense, and good sense from an ethical perspective. The cost of "accidents" involving personal transportation in terms of human injury and death and dollars probably far surpasses the costs of losses involving more heavily regulated and enforced commercial and mass passenger transportation.

On the other hand, such increased direct personal costs to owning and operating personal transportation may not be economically feasible in the U.S. This is a large, spread out country with many people living in rural and remote populated areas where public transportation isn't economically feasible and incomes are too low to support significantly higher costs of personal vehicle ownership and operation. And that's only the pragmatic factors.

It doesn't even begin to address the philosophy and attitudes inherent to individual liberties, etc. Or the politics of personal responsibility equal to personal liberties.

One of the unfortunate consequences of "no fault insurance" and "mandatory insurance" is that: on the one hand, the notion of personal responsibility is diluted; on the other hand, "mandatory insurance" defies logic. Insurance cannot be mandatory and still be insurance. Once it's mandatory, it becomes another tax or permit fee that further dilutes the concept of personal responsibility in favor of collective responsibility. The amounts covered by minimum liability insurance don't come anywhere close to covering the actual damages to the victim, so any costs above that minimum coverage is shifted to the "collective" -- the taxpayers, further eroding the concept of personal responsibility. Theoretically, this would lead to irresponsible operation of motor vehicles, although it would be a huge chore to find supporting data for this theory.

It's a huge task to shift the existing paradigm that evolved along with the motor vehicle culture.

genec

Also comparing a situation covered by laws verses a situation covered by family rules... violate the laws in some way and what follows is not an accident...

Digital_Cowboy

The thing that I don't like about the word "accident" is that it's not only used to describe car crashes it's also used to describe other events. Such as "Doctor 'accidentally' removes the wrong body part," or "Homeowner 'accidentally' shoots and kills family member." There have been if I am not mistaken words removed from the Webster Dictionary over the years, and it is high this word was likewise removed. And for the reasons outlined, too many people use it to absolve the guilty party of any and all responsibility for their actions.

work4bike

I'm not saying that this technology is the end-all-be-all in preventing crashes, but it will significantly reduce crashes. Blind spot may require a turn signal to activate (as of now), but application of this technology is in its infancy. The lane departure warning systems and automatic breaking will have a significant reduction in crashes.

Seat belts are not useless, do you think bike helmets are useless? Policy Impact: Seat Belts | Motor Vehicle Safety | CDC Injury Center See in link that many fatalities are from people not wearing their seatbelt.

genec

I don't think either helmets or seatbelts are useless... unless they are NOT worn... which is what I stated. Just like Blind Spot Monitoring is not useless, unless you don't use turn signals.

See, all three of those technologies... seat belts, helmets and blind spot warning devices, all depend on proper use to be effective. Just having seat belts in the car isn't enough... they have to be worn correctly. Just having the blind spot monitor option on your car isn't enough, the turn signal has to be used. So these technologies depend on motorists developing the right driving habits... or, they are useless.

lostarchitect 

You are the king of the strawman argument.

Digital_Cowboy

Ah, but the thing with seat belts is that if people weren't driving so fast would there really be a need for them?

noisebeam

This is the first I've heard that if one causes an accident, calling it such absolves responsibility.
An accident means it is an unintentional happening. Most traffic accidents are such and there is usually responsibility to one or more of the parties involved. The attention should be on accident prevention and harm reduction.

work4bike

Damn, I hate when I mis-read a post...

genec

I hear ya... I've done it too...

wphamilton

People keep saying "an accident is unintentional" as if that's the whole story. Not any particular person, but a lot of people are forgetting the other half of it.

My quote back in post 11 is from English tort law, back in 1903, and cited by legal dictionaries and our own US Supreme Court. It is definitive. Unintentional and unexpected.

It's not a precisely defined legal term. Police write up "accident reports" for crashes and collisions regardless of what caused it. Insurance won't cover intentional damage, but there's more: unexpected vs predictable. Insurance companies can deny a claim if the event was a predictable result (ie not an accident). Getting shot during a knife fight is a predictable result, and therefore not an accident. It doesn't have to happen with certainty - you won't always get shot during a knife fight - but it's not unexpected. It's a predictable occurrence.

We could drag up more examples, but the common thread is whether or not you could reasonably expect that the outcome might occur. That's intentionally vague, to illustrate why in my opinion, it's not a precisely defined legal term. It has to be a matter of reasonable judgment, not one size fits all.

I think that's at the crux of the argument. We say loosely that if we didn't intend the outcome, it was an accident. It's just a general term. But when we start to consider the consequences and responsibilities, it means something else. The NY Times article, in my view, is simply attempting to nudge the use of the term in reporting and media into the more appropriate context.

jon c. 

I think the pragmatic factors are why it does not make economic sense and why we have evolved the present system. Absent death or injury, which we do (at least theoretically) deal with in a more intensive manner, it seems we've determined it makes more sense for all involved to just deal with the property damage with minimal additional cost and disruption. This probably does lead to subconscious cultural attitudes that result in more accidents but we ameliorate that through safety improvements and otherwise live with the trade off.

FullGas

two entities colliding is a 'crash.'

whether or not the incident was an 'accident' is situational.

canklecat

Yup. +1. Etc.
Unfortunately.

In the human cost equation, cyclists and pedestrians are the expendables. There's a perception that Americans who don't use personal motor vehicles are not sufficiently productive gears in the economic machinery, and possibly even financial liabilities. Those who own (or make payments on) personal motor vehicles, and the consequent expenses -- insurance, etc. -- must by definition factor higher in the traditional formulae for calculating productive capacity. So protecting cyclists and pedestrians isn't worth the cost of inconveniencing drivers.

italktocats

"if i use an assault rifle in a pub on a friday night, was that an accident?"

italktocats

well that escalated quickly??

genec

And yet the irony is that cyclists tend to also be motorists, therefore are already "productive in the economic machinery," and in fact are adding even more to it by choosing to purchase bicycles. So according to that "traditional formulae," cyclists should be highly praised for their contributions...

BTW cyclists can also be professionals, such as doctors and lawyers... so those assumptions make by clueless motorists regarding the "value" of lives of cyclists is clearly wrong. (well, except for the lawyer part... )