Originally Posted by
darksiderising
Just to give you some context,
this thread is the reason that I am starting this thread.
I've had an issue for a long time with the terminology that is applied to vehicular collisions on the roadway. Most collisions are not the result of an "accident." They result from somebody doing something stupid [b](whether is be on purpose matters not),[b] and it is their fault. And when somebody intentionally assaults another person with their vehicle, it is most definitely not an "accident."
Sigh. Another legal illiterate attempting to teach law.
Of course it matters whether it's intentional or not-- if it's intentional, it's not negligence, and therefore not "accidental." If it's not intentional, it's probably the result of negligence (aka "somebody doing something stupid"), and therefore, "accidental"-- i.e., not done intentionally.
And assault is always intentional, and therefore never "accidental." But most collisions are not intentional, and therefore, most collisions are not assaults-- i.e., they're "accidental."
Originally Posted by
gosmsgo
No one who works in traffic calls them accidents anymore.
No traffic engineer etc. They all say, "crashes."
Probably because they don't teach law in engineering school.