FBinNY 

I'm not saying you've prevented me from doing anything.

However you've posted roughly 30 of the last 90 posts here, saying basically the same thing, which you nicely summarized in the latest post.

So, having stated your opinion, what do you hope to gain by restating it anew?

jeichelberg87

Geez, is there a limit on the amount of posts one can make in a forum thread? Or am I prevented from providing further analysis/references/articles in support of my opinion?

FBinNY 

Of course not, you're free to post as often as you want whether or not you have anything new to add. But at some point you undermine your own position by getting carried away.

As someone said many years ago, you have to stop pumping once the water is flowing.

jeichelberg87

I appreciate your opinion of my style of writing and your views. I do not think my position is undermined at all, thank you. As a matter of fact, it remains supported by the AP Style Guide, an esteemed, authoritative reference.

howsteepisit

Isn't the AP style guide a resource describing how AP would like to report news? How would that apply to how some people choose to redefine words as a political strategy.

Note to FB - I know but I cannot resist.

daihard 

AP wants to use the word "crash/collision" in place of "accident" because, by their own words, "accident...can be read as exonerating the person responsible." That's exactly why I, and probably @jeichelberg87, support this stance. This is a matter of promoting safety. Is that a political strategy in your view?

In Seattle, this stand is supported by quite a few local bike and/or safety groups, such as Seattle Bike Blog, Cascade Bicycle Club and Seattle Greenways, as well as our city itself (Seattle Department of Transportation).

howsteepisit

In this case, yes. The definition of accident does not absolve of liability or responsibility. remember AP as all news organizations attempt to effect public opinion to fit their biases.

Edit: I disagree that when someone drives poorly they are making a willful effort to injure or kill someone. In the vast majority of cases, maiming is not intended as a consequence. That's my opinion, and I know that some here do not agree, but that does not make it likely that I see an accident as a non-accident. Nor shall I communicate in an AP approved maner.

daihard 

In my opinion, it's just a matter of accuracy. If something occurs with no fault of anyone involved, that'll be correctly called accident. I don't see anything political about that.

BTW I added a list of public and private organizations in Seattle that support the "collision, not accident" argument above.

howsteepisit

I added an additional thought, but to be clear, in my mind, along with the purveyors of language, accident does not imply lack of fault. In industrial safety, it's said over 90% of accidents are caused by human error, I do not see them harping that it's not an accident.

IMO most of this is legal wordsmithing to try and influence juries and public opinion.

That's all I will say on this - we all have our own thoughts, and I am not any more right than you, except in my mind.

jeichelberg87

Again, this is not about redefining words.

And yes, the use of words is a huge influence, as you so correctly point out.

The issue is what the word, "accident," means to people who have been in a collision/crash and how the use of the word, prior to any investigation being performed or completed, affects how much effort goes into the investigation. The word "accident," has totally lost the dictionary meaning to people. If people involved use the word , "accident," things tend to get swept under the rug.

Of course, after an investigation, things can be found that might point to intentional or unintentional designs or unforeseen circumstance. Then one would write at that time, "Turns out it was an accident."

MMACH 5

But it is. We've had the definition of the word accident posted in this thread. The word accident contains absolutely not inference of fault. It only applies to whether an incident is intentional or not.

As referenced by howsteepitis, do we apply this to industrial mishaps? The guy who lost his hand due to skipping a safety requirement. He did not intentionally lop his hand off, so it was an accident. He did not follow all safety procedures, so it was an avoidable accident, but it was still an accident. It probably gets listed in the official statistics as an industrial accident.

When it happens in the street, the same rules apply. Most accidents are avoidable. However, they are almost never intentional, so they are still accidents. That does not absolve any fault in any way. It never has. I drove my car into a telephone pole at 18 years old. I was driving too fast and lost control. It was nobody's fault but my own. But it was still an accident. Calling it something else will not keep the next driver from being careless.

jeichelberg87

Yes. The formal definition of accident does not assign blame. But when used by a majority of persons in a majority of circumstances after a crash/collision, the word is uttered in an attempt to escape responsibility. No one is uttering this word with the formal definition in their mind. Accident also references unforeseen occurrence. If a person neglected to service their car (get the brakes checked, monitor fluids, etc.) and there is an equipment failure...

Industrial mishaps are not what this forum is about, so it is unrelated to the discussion.

As you state, most accidents are avoidable. Why are most accidents avoidable? I think the answer to that question is pretty relevant to the discussion.

The discussion is simply about when the crash/collision is labeled an accident and why. Was there intent? Was it an unforeseeable occurrence? The answer to both those questions determine the issue and calling it a crash/collision prior to any investigation also does not assign fault.

daihard 

Exactly. Or if you hit a person on foot "because I didn't see him due to the hard rain," is it intentional? No. Could it have been avoided? Yes. Most people would call that an accident, but it shouldn't be. You should slow down to make sure you can observe your circumstances.

Rollfast

I know...stupid cellphones. I remember the good old daze when people got drunk and rolled godawful huge Oldsmobiles, got decapitated and crushed and such...real mayhem.


Bring back non-collapsing steering columns. At least they have cupholders so you don't spill your beer.

rydabent

I agree. The word accident infers that no one is responsible.

mconlonx

Not at all -- what leads most to think they can get away with such illegal action is the fact that most of the time, nothing untoward happens. The accident rate goes up, compared to unimpaired/-distracted drivers, but it's still very low.

mconlonx

You are wrong. Accidents can't infer anything. People infer -- incorrectly -- than accidents absolve responsibility. It's not the word's fault.

mconlonx

I'd say it is a cultural thing, and cultures change, the meanings of words within those cultures change. It looks like AP correctly addressed this, even if dictionaries haven't.

However if the word is being used to escape responsibility or absolve blame, the word is being used incorrectly. As I said above, not the word's fault...

mr_bill

"It's just an accident."

"I never intended for any of this to happen. ...I'm deeply sorry."

Words matter.

"One of the hardest things we ever have to do is go knock on a door at 2 or 3, 4 o'clock in the morning and tell somebody that their loved one has died as a result of a tragic crash, especially when it's a crash that could have been prevented by not drinking, prevented by not using a cellphone, prevented by not consuming alcohol," he says.

Yet traffic fatalities from preventable causes are on the rise all across the U.S.

When someone CHOOSES to drive while drunk, drive while high, drive while texting, the CRASH is not "just an accident."

Even if they did not CRASH the last time they chose to drive while drunk, drive while high, drive while texting. And the time before that, and the time before that...

It's not a tragic accident, it's a tragic crash. A preventable crash.

ps. Nobody "intended" to destroy the Deepwater Horizon and kill her crew. It was a preventable explosion.

-mr. bill

jeichelberg87

Thank you. It truly is not the fault of the word. The word most definitely has its meaning, but when uttered by the person(s) involved (especially those most likely culpable), it is uttered in an attempt to escape the culpability the word does not assign in the first place!

We do not use the word accident when describing a plane crash? Why? Seems to me a plane crash is more of an accident than are automobile crashes. But the story is, when a plane crashes or there is other loss of life related to planes: "The cause of the crash is under investigation."

There is greater instant loss of life in a plane crash to be sure. But the total loss of life and injury related to cars is far higher and the reporting/follow up investigation results should be just as stringent.

jeichelberg87

Thank you very much for sharing this article. I appreciate it! I like this language from the Lake County Sherriff Dept.:

italktocats

4 year olds are not driving cars, that is what made the difference, we are talking about adults neglecting the only thing they have to do at that moment; not crash into anything before you make it home