rydabent

IMO 99+% of the time when there is a crash or what ever it was NOT an accident. Someone did something stupid or wrong. If a car hits a cyclist when on drugs, drunk, or texting, that is no accident, and penalties should be doubled.

MMACH 5

I think it's called an accident because it was not on purpose.

mconlonx

ac·ci·dent /ˈaksədənt/ noun

1. an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury.
"he had an accident at the factory"
synonyms: mishap, misadventure, unfortunate incident, mischance, misfortune, disaster, tragedy, catastrophe, calamity; technicalcasualty
"an accident at work"

2.an event that happens by chance or that is without apparent or deliberate cause.
"the pregnancy was an accident"

DrIsotope

While the word accident does mean unexpected or unintentional, it does not say no one was at fault. Determination of fault is a people thing. That's why cops stopped using accident and started using traffic collision-- because there's almost always someone at fault.

jefnvk

Why do people love arguing semantics?

I could take it a step further. There are absolutely NO accidents, because the law requires you to be in complete control of your vehicle at all times. If you hit something, you obviously weren't.

And yes, nothing about the word means that no one is at fault.

rydabent

If a driver is on drugs, drunk, or texting, I think most everyone could EXPECT he may cause trouble. Therefore it would not be an accident.

Roughstuff

This thread is a direct consequence of the Oregon one.

Anyway...just as in the less investigative past we used to blame things on God or Gods or fate, we used to use the word accident. It is true that accident can mean NOT DELIBERATE, but the context for bike forums is a more meaningful one: can we attach responsibility ("blame") and levy fines/punishment accordingly.

Well, as our investigative abilities increase, we are able to the the latter more and more often, if we would just put our noses to the grindstone and DO it. And it would be GOOD for the economy and technology overall, for it would reward/penalize activities that are carefully/carelessly performed.

As an example: suppose you get rear ended by someone whose "brakes failed." Investigation finds the brakes are working fine, fluids, connections, shoes, calipers, etc. Obviously they did not fail and the driver was neglectful--texting, distracted, whatever.

Maybe investigation finds the brake fluid was low due to a leak. When was the last time the fluids were checked and topped off? Did jiffy lube not report the leak to the driver? Or were they never inspected at all on a regular basis, as they should be? The driver continues to be responsible in the latter case; the former one, JL bears a bit of responsibility.

Suppose the line was punctured and the brakes absolutely did fail. How was it punctured? Did the driver hit a pothole or road debris recently? This might be found in the area of the puncture. Was the road debris from material that was not cleared form the roadway in a timely fashion? Now the responsibility starts to focus on the town and its task to keep the roadways clear and safe. On the other hand if there are parts from a childs tricycle that they ran over in their OWN DRIVEWAY (hopefully the kid wasn't riding it) we are back to personal responsibility.

And on and on. The better and more advanced our investigative sciences become, the fewer "accidents" there will be, and the more the culpable party can be identified.

jefnvk

Last time I got rear ended, I had no issue calling it an accident. The lady did not have any intention of hitting me, but she did. The reason was rather irrelevant, the damage was done, semantics didn't play a whole lot into the resolution. She was marked as the one who caused it in the police report just fine, and got ticketed, and my insurance didn't go up, even though all three people involved called it an accident.

howsteepisit

Not calling it an accident: Might be the deluded thinking of pseudo-intellectuals trying to prove they think deeper and with greater clarity than the general population. That is to say, trying to prove the unprovable.

FBinNY 

Yes, and in most if not all states, the law distinguishes between accidents where one is violating the rules, including drinking, speeding, running stops, etc. and those where one is operating within the law and made a mistake or error in judgement.

Good laws are intended as shields, not swords, and offer a safe harbor from criminal to people who have accidents while driving within the law. The simple truth, which most accept, is that stuff happens, people make mistakes, honest mistakes or plain bad luck shouldn't be criminalized.

Of course, these protections don't apply to tort law, so even if you do nothing explicitly wrong, you might still be held responsible for the consequences. That's why we have both criminal and civil courts systems.

BTW- I know that there are some who believe that there are no accidents, and I'm not trying to talk anyone out of that belief. In fact I have the highest regard for their spouses.

mconlonx

I expect ALL drivers may cause trouble... I think it's an efficient survival technique for cycling (and motorcycling) on public roads...

cyccommute 

99+% of the time? Really? Or are you saying that all "accidents" are intentional? Yes, people make mistakes. Yes, people use bad judgement. But are you perfect enough to never have had that happen to you? If you crash on your bike, was it intentional? Are you going to do a Pee Wee Herman, jump up and say "I meant to do that!"?

And, honestly, most states have increased penalties if you are involved in a traffic crash while driving under the influence. Many (if not most) have outlawed texting while driving.

CliffordK

It is just a word.

A kid places a glass of milk next to his dinner plate... then reaches for more food and the glass of milk goes flying.

No intent. Just poor planning. And hopefully eventually the kid will learn to keep his glass of milk upright.

Or, perhaps one should ask why, if the car has 4 brakes, why does a single failure cause the whole system to malfunction?

Of course a right to left imbalance can be treacherous too.

Trucks have an interesting safety feature. Air opens the brakes. Drop the air pressure, and the brakes lock up. Yet, cars lack that simple safety feature.

Maelochs

Good Lord. Is there not enough conflict in the world already?
Did the person Intend to do something stupid or wrong?

Seriously, you have NEVER done ANYTHING accidentally? never bumped into something, bumped another person while walking, dropped something .... Never even TYPED AN EXTRA LETTER ON THE WORD ”AN”**********?

That, my friend was an accident. YOUR accident. I don’t know what the penalties for typos might be, but yours should be tripled.

That kind of carelessness could kill.

Which has Absolutely Nothing to do with with whether the collision was accidental or intentional.
Emphasis added.

People can drive while under the influence and still be legal. People can have accidents while absolutely sober. What you seem not to be able to grasp is the difference between “intent” and “accident.”

People driving cars can be EXPECTED to have auto accidents. Therefore they are ... not accidents?

Please, let’s just walk away from this one?

kevindsingleton 

I was involved in an accident, once, while driving my pickup truck.

Black ice. Early morning darkness. Impossible to see the hazard.

I was driving along, just like everyone else, both hands on the wheel, and very focused, given the conditions. Then, I was spinning, counter-clockwise, sliding backwards in the snow on the median, and then scraping the entire right side of my truck off onto the steel barriers protecting the overhead highway sign stanchion.

$12,000, and 31 days, later, I got the truck back, nearly as good as new. Two weeks after the accident, I received a citation, in the mail, from the state trooper who stopped to make sure I wasn't intoxicated (at 6:00 am, on a weekday!), indicating that I was "travelling too fast for conditions". He didn't bother to note that the conditions were not knowable, so there was no way to determine how fast was too fast. I was travelling slower than the posted speed limit, though, and it's wasn't slow enough. The trooper saw five other vehicles slide off the road, in the same vicinity, while he was idling on the shoulder, waiting for the tow truck to arrive.

I don't know how to blame anyone for that accident, but I really dislike that state trooper.

Roughstuff

The reason is not irrelevant at all. If she rear ended you because you swerved in front of her, it is most CERTAINLY your fault. If she rear ended you because she was texting with one hand and picking a winner with the other, it is most CERTAINLY her fault.

My point was simply we are getting better and better at teasing out the facts and figuring out who or what may have been responsible for an "Accident." In which case the burden of bearing the cost can be more precisely assigned to the party that was responsible for it. Didn't mean to get into the word that many people continue to use to describe road mayhem!

FBinNY 

You assumed two conditions, though there may have been any number of others, ie. no cutoff, and no texting, drinking, etc. Simply a misjudgement of speed and distance.

In any case, the word simply refers to the question of intent.

When people have accidents, (yes, I still prefer to call then that) while operating illegally, the criminal act isn't the collision, but the violation that led to it, ie. DUI. So even with a DUI the collision is still accidental, though the cause was the criminal negligence of the DUI that led to it.

Because intent is material in criminal law, the accidental nature of the collision itself doesn't matter, what matters is the DUI itself, and the consequences.

daihard 

"Instead of 'accident,' which implied that conscious choices like speeding aren't involved in traffic collisions, the group simply called them collisions."

How smart language helped end Seattle?s paralyzing bikelash | PeopleForBikes

I've been avoiding the use of the term "accident" as much as I can.

Roughstuff

Woo! I did a double donut in the middle of I-291 from Springfield Mass. one night coming home from a hockey game. I was driving my cursed Dodge Neon, and the thing was so light even a few inches of snow would cause the thing to fishtail.

I am bamboozled by the trooper thing. Did he SEE you hit the black ice? Or did he show up later and just "assume" you were going to fast? Did you appeal the ticket? Or did the trooper have a field day ticketing the other five people also?

And I might point out this continues my argument. Highway maintenance has a sequence of rules that they follow based up both FORECASTED and ACTUAL weather conditions. If that sequence specifies that the roads should have been completely salted and sanded (even more specific: salted and sanded on an hourly basis, etc. etc.) and they were NOT, then we are back to the case where you are not responsible for this "accident."

That is why forensic science is such an important field. Most forensic labs are privately owned and contracted to governments, police departments, and personal injury lawyers. Avoids a conflict of interest.

daihard 

I'd call it a collision or a crash if it was caused by a driver misjudgment. It could have been avoided.

FBinNY 

I don't have an issue with calling them collisions vs. accidents, as long as we understand that collisions can be accidents. After all, when I crash my bike, I don't call that an accident either, I call it a crash.

So, it's not about the word. It's about the notion that accidents don't happen and all collisions are caused by some kind of easily avoided error. That seems to be the hidden agenda behind not calling them accidents (read the OP's statement that 99% .....), and what I'm responding to.

Words are just words, it's the agenda behind the choice of words that matters.

All those who truly believe that accidents don't happen should bring home a dozen roses tonight, your spouses deserve them.

AlmostTrick

Oops! I accidently posted to this thread. My fault!

FBinNY 

You missed a trick

You should have led off with some response to another thread, then added this as a edit.

kevindsingleton 

The trooper didn't show up until about 20 minutes after I called 911. In retrospect, I probably shouldn't have called, since no one else was involved, and the railing I hit suffered no visible damage. There is no way he saw me hit the black ice, or the guard rail. Clearly, I was going "too fast for conditions", but it's pretty chickensh*t to send the citation in the mail, instead of writing it, at the time. I did go to court to contest the citation, and the trooper agreed to alter the charge to "failing to obey a traffic control device", which carries the same penalty, but no points. That way, everybody gets paid, but I don't have any lingering economic hardship. Thaaaaanks. I didn't see him write any citations for the other vehicles that spun out on the black ice, but none of the other cars hit anything. They probably all lost control because they adjusted their speed when the saw his flashing lights, and realized it was a cop. For those people, it wouldn't be hard to blame the trooper for any accidents that occurred! To add insult to injury, I saw two salt trucks pass by while I waited for the tow truck to arrive. Too late!!!

FBinNY 

Depending on where you live, because procedure varies state to state, and even jurisdictions within the state and judges.

Granted, a small fine (if it was relatively small) and no points is a decent outcome, but here in NYS, I would probably have pushed for an outright dismissal. Here the police officer who issued the summons, must testify first.

I'd ask for a "failure to prove the case" dismissal, because not being an eyewitness, the officer isn't qualified to give any evidence about your speed. Judges here (except for within NYC) are more than willing to dismiss cases or otherwise rule for defendants as long as they have an actual defense.