Advocacy & Safety - Whatever You Do, Don't Call it an Accident

Go to the original BikePortland article to get the full set of links embedded in Elly's excellent editorial.

Our ‘accidental’ car culture
Posted by Elly Blue on June 15th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
http://bikeportland.org/2007/06/15/our-accidental-car-culture/

What does the word accident mean?

A mistake, but not just any mistake — not an action, but an outcome both unintended and unavoidable, something no reasonable person could have predicted or prepared for. The word is commonly used to describe bad things happening to good people from natural causes — the proverbial banana peel, a sudden strike of lightning, a verbal misunderstanding, a small child’s lack of control — and car crashes.

One of these things is not like the others.

It’s no secret that an automobile is a dangerous plaything, and an even more dangerous weapon.

News headlines hit us with a daily barrage of death and destruction wrought by car crashes. The New York City-based Streetsblog has a “Weekly Carnage” feature that keeps a running tally of the devastating impact of cars (so far in NYC, car crashes have claimed 289 lives). Everyone knows someone who has been in a serious crash.

It is inaccurate to the point of delusion to speak of these constant life-changing and life-ending events as unavoidable, unpredictable acts of God, or worse yet, “accidents”.

But the word is automatic. As this astonishing snippet from a story in the New York Times shows, automobile violence is seen as such a natural part of life, that even the most malevolent, purposeful acts can be classed as accidents.

It is extremely clear that the recent death of Timothy O’Donnell was no accident — it was caused by the negligence (if not recklessness) of the speeding driver who failed to yield to his group. Yet the Beaverton Valley Times, in an otherwise sympathetic piece, repeatedly described the crash as an accident.

Even in cases when individual blame is less clear, it is neither accurate nor productive to class car crashes as accidents. All the conditions leading to a crash — the social acceptability of driving while drunk or on the phone, the normalcy of speeding and road rage, the design of cars that limits drivers’ ability to see pedestrians, cyclists, and smaller cars, the fact that you simply don’t need to be a very good driver to get or keep a license — all are causative.

We have a culture of car use which has been predominant for hardly more than 50 years — yet we see automobile transportation as such a natural part of our social landscape that we don’t see — or worse, that we see and don’t give weight to — the dangers inherent to our reliance on it.

We need to take a long, hard look at our culture of driving. Why is it so easy to get — and keep — a driver license? Why is learning to drive the most important rite of passage for our teens? Why is it a cultural imperative to go as fast and as far as we can, as often as we can? Why have we built our communities around driving, stranding those who cannot, should not, or just don’t want to drive a car? Why are our laws and cities built around promoting and supporting this culture of driving, to the detriment of all other options?

Passing the Vulnerable Roadway Users bill will be a start towards shifting our thinking. But it’s only a start. We can reinvent our relationships with each other in the streets and other public spaces, but only through vision, intention, and commitment.

What are you going to do?

Great read.

Couldn't agree more.

99% of car-related incidents are no accident at all.

Someone clever needs to come up with new language. "Collision" is a term often used in motor vehicle law, rather than "accident." Maybe that would be a starting point.

Old news. Even old news on the A&S forum.

However, it is dead right: car crashes are not accidents.

Calling them "collisions" has been done by the best driving school in Canada for over 12 years now. The A word is never to be uttered. ;p

As well, the cbc in Toronto rarely if ever uses the A word anymore. And they don't use it for the reason that car crashes are avoidable, and not accidents.

Unfortunately, she's wrong on almost every point. "Accident" is used to describe incidents that weren't intentional. "Acts of God" are natural occurrences over which we have no control. "Negligence" isn't the same thing as "recklessness." Even a reckless act that leads to injury is an accident because the injury wasn't intended.

Excellent!

... Brad

An action that is unintended is, umm, unintentional.

I for one don't give a rat's ass about what the dictionary says about what "accident" means. The implication of the word accident by common usage is that an accident is unavoidable. This nicely absolves blame from a person involved in an "accident" when something unfortunate happens. I for one have a hard time absolving blame from a person involved in a car crash since in virtually all circumstances, crashes are avoidable. Even those for which there is "no escape", there is escape if a person chooses to change the way they drive.

A. In the middle of a storm, your neighbor's tree falls and crashes into your home. Act of God.

B. In the middle of a storm, your neighbor's tree falls and crashes into your home; your neighbor knew the tree was weakened by insects and posed a danger, but took no action. Negligence.

C. Your neighbor is cutting his tree down, but doesn't take appropriate precautions, and it lands on your home. Negligence.

D. Your neighbor is cutting his tree down, and you say "be careful, if you don't cut from the other side, it will fall on my house"! Your neighbor says, "that's your problem, not mine," and keeps cutting. Predicatbly, the tree crashes into your home. Gross negligence (recklessness).

E. Your neighbor says "I'll teach that bike-riding so-and-so a lesson," and cuts his tree down with the intent that it crashes into your home. And it does crash into your home. Intentional act.





Unfortunately, Elly Blue bandies these terms about without regard for what they actually mean.

An action that is unintended is, umm, unintentional.

I for one don't give a rat's ass about what the dictionary says about what "accident" means. The implication of the word accident by common usage is that an accident is unavoidable.That's where you're wrong. Accident doesn't mean "unavoidable," it means "unintentional."


This nicely absolves blame from a person involved in an "accident" when something unfortunate happens.No, the person is still held accountable, for the unintended results of their actions.


I for one have a hard time absolving blame from a person involved in a car crash since in virtually all circumstances, crashes are avoidable. Even those for which there is "no escape", there is escape if a person chooses to change the way they drive.They are not absolved of blame. Punishment for an unintentional act-- an accident-- is not as stiff as it is for an intentional act. And that's the way it should be.

"Accidents" wouldn't happen if people knew how to drive. So yes they are avoidable.

When I read this kind of idiocy from you and Serge, I can't help but chuckle.

"in virtually all circumstances, crashes are avoidable."

That is simply stupid.

That's ok Pete, I find you equally amusing.

I know what I refer to, you don't (know what I am refering to.)

I have explained what I am talking about before here, and have spent years teaching it to others professionally, and cannot be bothered to explain it again. I cannot be bothered typing out 25 hours of classes to win points in a meaningless internet debate. Some people have tried using the driving system I (and many many others) taught and have found it to work very very well. Some people don't want to change the way they think, and find some of the more unconventional methods we taught to be "awkward" or threw strawman arguments in opposition. Those people chose to not reduce their risk of crashes and chose not to take ownership for what can be done to reduce crashes.

Nice retreat.

There's a difference between reducing your risks and eliminating all risk ("Even those for which there is "no escape", there is escape if a person chooses to change the way they drive").

It's silly.

Some things are silly yes, but the bit you quoted me in parenthesis here is what I am driving at (pun meant).

If someone is, for example, rear ended in traffic, they will often say that they could do nothing about it. In most cases, they are right, because they set themselves up to get slammed. The crash is avoidable if a person chooses to a) leave room to get out of the way (it can be done - but it involves a major rethink in spacial awareness in traffic and a major rethink in how to approach a traffic light), and b) pays attention to what is behind them instead of staring off into space. Being aware of what is around you coupled with keeping more space than most are willing to keep will take a person a loooong way to avoiding virtually all crashes.

That is not silly. It is smart.

That's a nice tidy example of how to leave yourself some room.

How about a slight, real world, twist?

What happens when they leave some room for escape, but a big ole dually stops directly behind them, obscuring their view out the back and then someone slams into the dually and the dually slams into the stopped car that gave themselves room to escape?

Claiming that you can eliminate risk by changing the way that you drive is silly.

uhuh,

Well, one thing that can be done is this: when you stop, in the situation you gave me there, the trick is to leave about 3 to 4 car lengths between you and the car in front. No one is obstructed since no one is moving and in the situation above, no one is behind the car until the dually arrives. Now, here comes the hypathetical dually. As it gets closer, slowly move forward. The driver moving slowly will notice that the dually is big, and shift lane position to use a side mirror to tell if someone is coming up fast behind the dually. About 2 to 3 car lengths need to be left. The dually driver will tend to match the speed of the car creeping forward (I have done this many many thousands of times, and drivers match the speed of the creeping car - most drivers have no desire to ram the car infront). The prime focus when stopped in traffic is the mirror with checks to escape routes. By shifting position in the lane (easy to do) and monitoring the mirrors, someone coming up fast behind the dually will be noticable and then the driver can bail. Sucks to be the dually driver, but they could have left some room too. Supposing that no one hits the dually, the driver with 2 to 3 lengths between them and the stopped car moves up a bit for each subsequent car but never leaves less than one full length. The cars behind the driver with space tend to move forward as well.

Driving, even when stopped in traffic, should not be a passive activity.

And now we back up and I quote me.


"(in) virtually all circumstances, crashes are avoidable."



hmmmmm, English lesson time: virtually all circumstances DOES NOT equal every single one. It means most. A large amount of most. It does not mean, as you claim, eliminate. The driving system I taught does eliminate virtually all (as in most, a large amount of most) crashes IF it is used properly. It does not work miracles. The rear end crash avoidance technique I gave one example of above works and works well. We could stack the deck and come up with a way that would fail it (congratulations, you will a prize for doing so) but that does not excuse someone from doing what they can and, to use the silly word you love, "eliminate" a particular risk. (notice I said particular, not all... just to clarify ...)

That's a cute fantasy, but what happens when the driver is inching forward and moving left to gain a better view to the rear and the car that is approaching in the far right lane changes lanes into the dually, which is obscuring the view of our oh so well prepared victim that just got rear ended by the dually?

Claiming that you can eliminate risk by changing the way that you drive is silly.


well, if this is happening in the left lane, shift right in lane (to better see behind in your own lane and the next one), and if it is happening in the right lane, shift left (for the same reason). If there are turn lanes, do your best to position yourself so that someone cannot do the lane change you describe. Not always possible, granted, but at least part of it is answered ...

Perhaps,

What I was referring to by the "no escape" crash is those kinds of crashes - rear enders, and those where the car comes seemingly out of nowhere - that many people who do not devote a lot of time thinking about this kind of thing refer to as "no escape" crashes when, in fact, people CAN escape from them with a considerable rethink of how they drive.

When I read this kind of idiocy from you and Serge, I can't help but chuckle.

"in virtually all circumstances, crashes are avoidable."

That is simply stupid.
actually I think serge and sgtsmile are coming at this from completely different perspectives, and the current tone of this thread is all wrong. please help me here.

:)

My position, for years, has been accidents are a circumstance over which no one has any control. Among vehicles they are extremely rare.

Crashes, on the other hand, are caused by one or more operators acting negligently, wrecklessly, incompetently, and/or selfishly and impatiently.

The vast majority of crashes are avoidable.

All drivers involved in a crash should be subject to immediate and mandatory drug and alcohol testing. Any crash that result in a death should carry an automatic vehicular manslaughter charge for the driver(s) determined to be at fault.

They're accidents. I agree w/ Blue Order. Stupidity, inattention or a host of other factors cause them. IMO, the writer is off base. The legal system's and insurance industry's definitions seem to make sense.

In the end it doesn't matter what they are called. The result is the same.

Random related question directed toward those who are arguing that the term accident is appropriate when it was unintentional. If a driver is not licensed or is driving on a suspended license or for whatever reason the driver should not legally be driving, whould the incident still be termed an accident? I don't really have an opinion, just wondering because while the final event (the collision) was unintentional, the actions that led to it (driving illegally) were completely intentional. Thus I could see the argument going either way.

Random related question directed toward those who are arguing that the term accident is appropriate when it was unintentional. If a driver is not licensed or is driving on a suspended license or for whatever reason the driver should not legally be driving, whould the incident still be termed an accident? I don't really have an opinion, just wondering because while the final event (the collision) was unintentional, the actions that led to it (driving illegally) were completely intentional. Thus I could see the argument going either way.

A licenced driver still intends to drive. Little difference when it comes to intent and common usage of language. It is still an accident. On a legal footing things are a bit different, See Blue Orders early post.

In the end it doesn't matter what they are called. The result is the same.

That's patently untrue.
Referring to something avoidable as an accident, conveniently absolves the guilty party.

That's patently untrue.
Referring to something avoidable as an accident, conveniently absolves the guilty party.

Due respect, that's rediculous. An accident does not absolve guilt in the legal system.

It's very easy for something that's avoidable to become an accident.

With regard to the end result being the same, I was refering to a person being injured.

I can see a bike barrelling down the street at me and misinterpret his signal somewhere between a L hand up for right or L point L for left. I turn right he turns left, we crash. The collision could have been avoided. The lack of intent, makes it an accident. The fact that it was an accident does not absolve my possible guilt in interpretting his hand/arm signal incorrectly.

I've taken some classes at Summit Point Raceway, and one of the first things an instructor will tell you is -

"If a meteor falls from the sky and crushes your car, it's an accident. Everything else is driver error."

It's very easy for something that's avoidable to become an accident.


I don't care that legalese is used to bastardize the language, but if something is avoidable, it isn't an accident. It's poor choices, it's inattentiveness, it's impatience, it's speed... et al. But it's NOT AN ACCIDENT.

Now, that is not to say that there aren't ANY accidents. Just not nearly the number that we've come to "accept".

I've taken some classes at Summit Point Raceway, and one of the first things an instructor will tell you is -

"If a meteor falls from the sky and crushes your car, it's an accident. Everything else is driver error."
My wife has been on that track.
An error is not exclusive of an accident and is often a part of it. They are not mutually exclusive, and if your driving instructor understood the legal system, he might alter his quip. :D

I don't care that legalese is used to bastardize the language, but if something is avoidable, it isn't an accident. It's poor choices, it's inattentiveness, it's impatience, it's speed... et al. But it's NOT AN ACCIDENT.

Now, that is not to say that there aren't ANY accidents. Just not nearly the number that we've come to "accept".
An accident lacks intent. Period. It is not exclusive of avoidable error.
Legalese as you put it defines the language and society.

An accident lacks intent

Again, that's a lawyer talking.
An accident lacks responsibility.

Again, that's a lawyer talking.
An accident lacks responsibility.
What you fail to comprehend is that lawyers are more cognizant of a word and it's meaning.
An accident has far less to do with responsibility than intent.
If I make a bad decision, I am less responsible than if I make a bad decision with intent.
That's reality.

If I make a bad decision, I am less responsible than if I make a bad decision with intent.
That's reality.

I'm not arguing that.
And it also doesn't matter what the lawyers think the word means.
It isn't lawyers that make the average-joe world, it's the average-joe world that makes lawyers.
And in the average-joe world, the term accident means unavoidable and unforeseen, and is therefor without a responsible party.

What many fail to realize is that the common usage of the word accident, not its legal or dictionary definitions, is that if it was an accident, it was a mistake or somehow unavoidable, and less responsibility is there regardless of the legal responsibilities.

How many people at fault legally in a crash say "it was an accident!!" in an attempt to ditch blame?

IMO, both parties in a traffic crash can do things to avoid crashes, and should do so. Regardless of who is legally at fault, both parties in a crash (or even a near miss - which happen more than crashes) owe it to themselves and to those they share the road with to think about what happened, and then take steps to ensure it does not happen again. Doing that is taking responsibility.

I know this view is controversial, but that does not bother me. It makes sense, and is far more sensible than a "I am not legally at fault so I have to do nothing but sue you" attitude which some expouse.

I'm not arguing that.
And it also doesn't matter what the lawyers think the word means.
It isn't lawyers that make the average-joe world, it's the average-joe world that makes lawyers.
And in the average-joe world, the term accident means unavoidable and unforeseen, and is therefor without a responsible party.


Exactly

a large part of the problem in America today, is that no one wants to take personal responsibility for anything. you see it all the time in all different ways

I don't care that legalese is used to bastardize the language, but if something is avoidable, it isn't an accident. It's poor choices, it's inattentiveness, it's impatience, it's speed... et al. But it's NOT AN ACCIDENT.

Now, that is not to say that there aren't ANY accidents. Just not nearly the number that we've come to "accept".You clearly don't understand the difference between somebody harming you in some way, even though they didn't intend to harm you, and somebody harming you because they intended to harm you.

One is an accident, the other isn't.

You should really try to understand the difference.

That's patently untrue.
Referring to something avoidable as an accident, conveniently absolves the guilty party.No it doesn't. :rolleyes:


An accident lacks responsibility.No it doesn't. :rolleyes:



And in the average-joe world, the term accident means unavoidable and unforeseen, and is therefor without a responsible party.No it doesn't. :rolleyes:

This is stupid. Your argument about avoidable vs. unavoidable is stupid and irrelevant.

The fact of the matter is driving is dangerous but hardly anybody considers it so. They drive with a cavalier attitude, crash and kill people, and we all as a society accept it as normal. There's something wrong with this.

If as many people per year died in plane crashes there'd be an uproar.

a large part of the problem in America today, is that no one wants to take personal responsibility for anything. you see it all the time in all different ways
+1

Years ago I got in an argument with a friend I have since lost touch with. Went something like this:

The setting is where we used to work. Early one morning we're standing outside between the building and the parking lot.

Me: "What happened to your truck?"

Him: "Oh, I had an accident...rear-end a car."

Me: "Driving too fast for conditions + following too close = crash. An accident is something nobody has any control over, this was
avoidable."

Him: <getting excited now> "It was an accident, man. I didn't mean to hit her."

Me: "Okay, but do me a favor. If we ever go anywhere in separate cars, don't follow me."

Him: <shouting> "FU, man. FU."

Me: <laughing> "I'm gonna' get another cup of coffee. Want one?"

Him: <deep sigh> "Sure."

+1

Years ago I got in an argument with a friend I have since lost touch with. Went something like this:

The setting is where we used to work. Early one morning we're standing outside between the building and the parking lot.

Me: "What happened to your truck?"

Him: "Oh, I had an accident...rear-end a car."

Me: "Driving too fast for conditions + following too close = crash. An accident is something nobody has any control over, this was
avoidable."

Him: <getting excited now> "It was an accident, man. I didn't mean to hit her."

Me: "Okay, but do me a favor. If we ever go anywhere in separate cars, don't follow me."

Him: <shouting> "FU, man. FU."

Me: <laughing> "I'm gonna' get another cup of coffee. Want one?"

Him: <deep sigh> "Sure."I'm at a cafe, getting a cup of coffee. It's hot. I turn suddenly from the counter and bump into you, spilling the hot coffee on you. I apologize profusely

I was careless in turning, and because I was careless, I spilled my coffee on you. Maybe you were even a bit careless too. Maybe you were crowding me a little bit closer than was prudent under the conditions. Regardless, you were injured due to my, and perhaps your own, carelessness.

It was an accident.


I'm at the office coffee pot. I know you're behind me, and I'm angry because you got the girl (or the promotion, or the raise), and I didn't. I intentionally maneuver myself so I can appear to accidentally bump into you, and I spill my hot coffee on you. I apologize profusely, but inside, I'm laughing at you. Sucker.

It was not an accident.

I'm at a cafe, getting a cup of coffee. It's hot. I turn suddenly from the counter and bump into you, spilling the hot coffee on you. I apologize profusely

I was careless in turning, and because I was careless, I spilled my coffee on you. Maybe you were even a bit careless too. Maybe you were crowding me a little bit closer than was prudent under the conditions. Regardless, you were injured due to my, and perhaps your own, carelessness.

It was an accident.

Good analogy, but I still disagree. One or both of us were negligent. You for not looking before you turned, and me for standing too close when it should have been obvious that you were going to have to turn to leave the counter.



I'm at the office coffee pot. I know you're behind me, and I'm angry because you got the girl (or the promotion, or the raise), and I didn't. I intentionally maneuver myself so I can appear to accidentally bump into you, and I spill my hot coffee on you. I apologize profusely, but inside, I'm laughing at you. Sucker.

It was not an accident.

I agree. This would not be an accident, even though it appeared to be, nor would it be negligent. It would be deliberate and premeditated. Though I may not know that. I would probably brush off the incident as no big deal. When I went back to my work area I would probably be thinking, "Dirty, rotten razza-frazzin', so-and-so." But then I would realize, "Hey, it's cool. I got the girl/promotion/raise.":)

Good analogy, but I still disagree. One or both of us were negligent. You for not looking before you turned, and me for standing too close when it should have been obvious that you were going to have to turn to leave the counter.Of course one or both of us were negligent. And one or both of us is liable (responsible) for the incident. It was still an accident, because neither of us meant for it to happen.



I agree. This would not be an accident, even though it appeared to be, nor would it be negligent. It would be deliberate and premeditated. Though I may not know that. I would probably brush off the incident as no big deal. When I went back to my work area I would probably be thinking, "Dirty, rotten razza-frazzin', so-and-so." But then I would realize, "Hey, it's cool. I got the girl/promotion/raise.":)Right on every point. :)

I'm at a cafe, getting a cup of coffee. It's hot. I turn suddenly from the counter and bump into you, spilling the hot coffee on you. I apologize profusely

I was careless in turning, and because I was careless, I spilled my coffee on you. Maybe you were even a bit careless too. Maybe you were crowding me a little bit closer than was prudent under the conditions. Regardless, you were injured due to my, and perhaps your own, carelessness.

It was an accident.


I'm at the office coffee pot. I know you're behind me, and I'm angry because you got the girl (or the promotion, or the raise), and I didn't. I intentionally maneuver myself so I can appear to accidentally bump into you, and I spill my hot coffee on you. I apologize profusely, but inside, I'm laughing at you. Sucker.

It was not an accident.


Cute, but in both cases the person with the coffee is responsible. Intent does not make the person any less responsible. In one case, it was malicious, in the other, not. However, in both cases, the person with the coffee should have more care with what they are doing.

Going back to traffic, when a person drives, they have a contract with governments and society to be responsible (it is called a license). Because people are not perfect, we have insurance to help when we screw up. However, a person operating a vehicle on public roads is obligated to be as careful as possible and to accept what responsibility is theirs when a mishap happens. EVEN if they are not legally at fault. (This does not mean they stand up in court and say "I could have done X" and shift blame or deny themselves what is legally theirs. It does mean they damn well better self analyse what they did and what they could do to prevent it, regardless of legal fault. Betcha most of the time, something could be done.)

edit: fixed a grammar mistake.

Cute, but in both cases the person with the coffee is responsible.But that is where everybody is getting confused. Just because i didn't mean to harm you doesn't mean I'm not held responsible for your injuries. You and everybody else who thinks "accident" means "nobody was responsible for it" are not understanding that people are held responsible for accidental injuries.


Intent does not make the person any less responsible.You have it backwards. Intent doesn't make the person less responsible, it makes them liable for even more damages. For example, nobody would ever be held liable for punitive damages for carelessly causing an injury. They could be held liable for punitive damages if the injury resulted from recklessness or intentional conduct. We punish intentional conduct more severely than we punish careless conduct.



Going back to traffic, when a person drives, they have a contract with governments and society to be responsible (it is called a license). Because people are not perfect, we have insurance to help when we screw up. However, a person operating a vehicle on public roads is obligated to be as careful as possible and to accept what responsibility is theirs when a mishap happens. EVEN if they are not legally at fault. (This does not mean they stand up in court and say "I could have done X" and shift blame or deny themselves what is legally theirs. It does mean they damn well better self analyse what they did and as what they could do to prevent it, regardless of legal fault. Betcha most of the time, something could be done.)No argument here, I'm only taking exception to a definition of "accident"-- the definition that "accident" means nobody was responsible for it-- that is nonsensical.

I think the whole issue we are blathering on about is whether we think something avoidable can properly be called an accident, and whether or not a person can be responsible for an accident. The issue seems to be one of intent.

If we accept that intent is the determiner of what makes an accident, and buy the point that if there is no intent, it is an accident, then my question to all is this: who cares? Can we do anything to avoid something accidental by this definition? If we can, that is what we should be talking about. Personally, I do not buy this, but the question is largely irrelevant if fun to debate. What matters more to me is people being alive at the end of a trip.

If someone has a crash or does something naughty by intent, it is no accident. This we all agree upon. But the question still remains. Can we do something to avoid it? If we can, this is what we should be talking about I think.

I would argue that most (the overwhelming most) bad things in traffic that happen between two cars or any combination of vehicles in traffic are avoidable if a few things are kept in mind: space (lots of ways to keep that - see my earlier posts for some examples), awareness of surroundings, good communication, and a recognition that everyone is trying to get somewhere and that there is no reward for getting there first.

Cheers

But that is where everybody is getting confused. Just because i didn't mean to harm you doesn't mean I'm not held responsible for your injuries. You and everybody else who thinks "accident" means "nobody was responsible for it" are not understanding that people are held responsible for accidental injuries.

No argument here, I'm only taking exception to a definition of "accident"-- the definition that "accident" means nobody was responsible for it-- that is nonsensical.


My reference to no responsibity for accidents is not a legal one, but a moral one, which many people caught with their hand in the cookie jar try to cop when caught. Would we have so many frivolous law suits I wonder if people just took responsibility when they goof rather than deny it to their last legal gasp?

I know very well that people are held responsible for accidents (in the no intent form of the definition). Many people though try and wiggle out of it by saying accidents just happen and are not something to be held responsible for. See commuterrun's post above.

It is for this reason that many oppose the use of accident when talking about car crashes. It is to reenforce the whole notion that you are always responsible when you drive, and to perhaps reduce the idea that you can crash and get away with it (even though legally you cannot).

I like the author's use of the term "options" when referring to transportation that doesn't use a car, instead of "alternative". It moves the focus away from the automobile as being the "normal" mode.

What many fail to realize is that the common usage of the word accident, not its legal or dictionary definitions, is that if it was an accident, it was a mistake or somehow unavoidable, and less responsibility is there regardless of the legal responsibilities.



The common usage is intent. Almost all accidents involving falls are avoidable. Spills are avoidable. Pretty much anything that is called an accident is avoidable. Also the general moral viewpoint is that there is usually less moral responsibility for an accident. BUT one must remember that is compared to an intentional act. If someone is even grossly careless and hits me with their elbow bloodying my nose I would not put that in the same class as someone who causes the same damage through intent.

The problem is people who want to put all accidents into one group and call them all the same. They are not. Some are in fact almost unaviodable and unforseeable. At the other end are those where the level of careless is so great and the results so forseeable that on the legalk (and I think moral) level the fact taht it is an accident makes little or no difference. One could put firing a gun in the air into that class, and frankly the way some people drive is pretty much the same. It is just a question of whjat the missle involved will hit.

Most traffic safety investigators in the countries I've lived in (not the US) are moving away from 'traffic accidents' and preferring the term 'traffic incidents'. Accidents implies no blame (although that is not the case) but incidents always have causes.

Accidents implies no blame .

What? What???!
Are you kidding me? You better watch it, or Blue Order is going to admonish you proper.

:lol:

Yeah, what he said! ;)