fuji86

BTW, I hate the word "accident" too. The definition implies unintentional actions. Well if you don't stop or you were too drunk to drive, what's unintentional about that ? I agree nobody goes out of their way to run anyone over, but increasing the chances by texting while driving or going to a bar and having a few too many beer, or whatever the excuse is (that really isn't an excuse), that's intentionally increasing the likelihood that this type of collision/crash happens and that was intentional, the motorists know it, it's not like they're uneducated to it. They consciously and intentionally chose to do it, what's accidentally "unintentional" about that ? That's more like betting another's health & life that it won't happen ? Driving a car is like pulling a gun and even though a car isn't perceived for use like a gun in our daily lives, they are inherently dangerous, kill more than guns and any rational & intelligent human being can see that, even understand it. The first time my father took me driving for a license, he looked at me and told me before we left the drive way that if I wasn't serious about respecting the car I was driving and what it could do to another human being or property, that we should just stay home and that he wasn't going to be any part of putting the rest of the world at risk because I wasn't ready for the responsibility. These are types of discussions & things father's should say to their children, it sticks in your mind for the rest of your life.

Flying Merkel

Had an insurance tell me that "accident" was the most over-used word in his industry.

In my motorcycling days, I learned to not stop at yellow lights. Too many close calls due to drivers squeezing the light.

Sometimes I think we should go back to vehicle designs like the old VW bus. Hit something, and you were killed or crippled. Made you pay attention, that did.

fuji86

I agree cars today have so many features that motorists rely on as if they were guarantees. Things like air bags, anti-lock brakes. I recall the SUV vehicle recalls & lawsuits over Firestone tires. It wasn't the tires it was the drivers. Tailgating, then trying to avoid a collision in a vehicle that had improper tire inflation and on and on. I had the same tires that were faulted for accidents, just maintained them with proper air pressure and maintained safe following distances, never had a problem. On that vehicle, never used anything but Firestone. Bought the vehicle used with 57K on it. At 70K, replaced the Firestone tires with the same exact tire Ford sold the vehicle with. Another 70K later, put another set of those same exact tires. Sold it with 180K on it, never had a problem beyond a nail in them and those plugged fine, held air and lasted the life of the tires.

sudo bike

Boy, did that one not go over well!

Maybe mine is on the fritz, but I think some posters' sarcasm meters are a little blinky today...

I would. While "accidental" by itself will usually imply a lack of intent, "car accident" together nearly always just means "collision" to most people..

For 90% of America, what do you think they'd call it if someone ran a red light and hit someone else? Probably: a car accident, or car crash. Whether proper or not, it's the common vernacular. I just asked 3 people here at work what they would think I was talking about if I said I was in an accident on the way to work. All 3 said a car crash, with intent not even in their mind (I asked for clarification on that point because they didn't even feel it was worth mentioning; they looked like it was an odd notion to even consider).

KD5NRH

Dually with ranch bumpers vs. car, dually always wins. Cars should stay off the road.

genec

Try "COLLISION"

Collision is the word you are looking for... it describes what happened and does not allude to it being "accidental."

https://azbikelaw.org/blog/was-that-a...nt-or-a-crash/

Bacciagalupe

Getting back to the OP's post.... There is only so much that can be done to mitigate traffic *cough* collisions like this.

DUI fatalities have been cut in half since 1982, and are roughly 37% of all traffic fatalities (down from 60%), even as there are more drivers on the road. There may be some more room to squeeze this down, but it will never be completely eliminated.

And, of course, traffic fatalities are at a 60-year low.

I.e. I see no reason to sit at home cowering because a motorcyclist got rear-ended in a low-trafficked part of Manhattan in the dead of night.

njkayaker

"Collision".

Not hard at all.

njkayaker

The problem with the word "accident" is that it also conveys the meaning of "unavoidable", which, for automobile collisions, is almost never the case. That is, the collisions are generally the result of mistakes made by operators.

The idea should be to have operators work at taking more care to avoid collisions than having the sense that collisions "just happen".

njkayaker

"Accidental" (used correctly) is never used to denote "intentional".

I-Like-To-Bike

Collision is not the word I am looking for; the word accident works quite well for me since I don't expect reporters/posters to be making rhetorical points or stridently promoting an agenda when describing a "collision" event.

genec

"Accident" doesn't work as it implies that some "uncontrollable situation" caused the event... and generally that is not the case.

I know "accident" has become the commonly accepted term, but technically it is not correct. In fact "accident" actually carries that "rhetorical point" or "agenda" that this was an unforeseen, uncontrollable event that should be blatantly forgiven.

"Crash" also works.

njkayaker

???

"Collision" is the usual alternative for "accident".

It easily satisfies the requirements that you indicated for your "word".

This guy (a more convincing source than you) prefers "collision" over "accident".

https://www.howwedrive.com/

The point isn't that "reporters/posters to be making rhetorical points or stridently promoting an agenda". It's that using the word "accident" cannot really avoid also carrying the idea of "unexpected/unavoidable" to readers.

"Collision", on the other hand, lacks the baggage of "accident": it's a more neutral word.

It's customary to use the word "accident" but there really isn't any need to.

And it's silly to think that "collision" would make the user/writer sound like a "strident fool".

HoustonB

So you disagree with me in your first sentance.

Then immediately agree with me (in a broad sense) in your second sentance.

and actually only disagree with me in a limited sense because you believe (and this has to be faith based) that the average American is easily up to the task of modifying their perception of the term "accident" when it is preceded by the word car - and in this case the unintentional and unavoidable aspects of "accidental" disappear.

If the "common vernacular" is good enough for you, especially when it involves common perceptions of responsibility, culpability and so on, in the deaths and injuries of cyclists - then that is obviously your prerogative.

Alas, I was able to also ask several friends some equally leading questions (seeking clarification) and got exactly the opposite result from yourself - perhaps it was because of the nature of my questions, or perhaps it is because I do not associate with people that use the more common vernacular - or as I prefer to call them, vulgar mouth-breathing morons.

I-Like-To-Bike

Your agenda is clear, your perception of others who don't fit the proper profile, like you and your chosen associates, is also clear; no need to reinforce it.

The use of the word "accident" in the context of bicycling/auto "crashes" is obviously irrelevant to the real issue you have raised.

I-Like-To-Bike

Really? See https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...1#post13047750

Unreasonable

You're telling me.

njkayaker

Really.

HustonB did not use "collision" once in that post!

mechBgon

I wonder if the motorcyclist saw the DUI driver coming, and therefore waited at his green light, resulting in his rear-ending by the person who only registered "green light, I can keep going." Guess we'll never know.

I-Like-To-Bike

Literally true if you wish to be pedantic, he offered no alternative word to replace accident. Perhaps you would prefer that a call for the use of stilted language to replace a word that carries hidden meaning only to a strident person is foolish.

njkayaker

No, it was just funny that you used a post that didn't actually use the word to support your weird opinion that using "collision" made the writer "stridently foolish"! That is, it's funny that you didn't realize that the post you referenced doesn't actually support your opinion!

???

"Collision" is frequently used. Saying that it is "stilted language" is bizarre. Saying using that word makes the writer "stridently foolish" is bizarre.

The additional meaning carried by "accident" isn't "hidden" either.

muu

If there's one thing I took from driver's ed way back when, it's that there are no 'accidents,' but only 'collisions,' because with the way incidents occur they are no accident. I can see why people choose the former over the latter, though; way easier to make it sound as if it wasn't their fault, after all it's only an accident!

mechBgon

I could see using the term "accident" in a case where the vehicle can't be controlled by the driver, like a tie rod breaking at random, brake-system failure, etc.

genec

Or a blow-out caused by random metal parts on the roadway.

CommuterRun

The only reason to choose the word "accident" to refer to a collision is for those who feel the need for self-absolution. The "it's-not-my-fault" crowd.