genec

Exactly. Yet there are those here on BF that feel we are being pedantic for wanting a technically accurate description. But even those that catalog collision statistics have determined that few collisions are in fact accidents, and that the terminology should be changed.

The archives from below are over 10 years old.
https://web.archive.org/web/200404090...ve/1997/v3.11/

This message is slowly working it's way through the various agencies and is even more slowly working it's way out to the public.
This is from the US DOT:
https://fastlane.dot.gov/2010/09/key-...ng-summit.html

So no doubt it will be some time before reporters stop using the term "accident" and no doubt quite some time before the general public starts to absorb the same message.

HoustonB

Regarding your examples :

Are the vehicles new, in which case it must be patently self evident, that the component failure is the responibility (and culpability) of the manufacturer.

If the vehicle is old and being driven after any warranty has expired then the owner / driver is responsible for ensuring the safe use and operation of the vehicle.

All I see in your reply is an attempt to rationalize something that is -- with only a very small number of exceptions -- irrational.

I-Like-To-Bike

The first web site never opened with anything to read. I couldn't find any mention in the second of a "message" or suggestion that the use of a substitute for the the word "accident" by reporters or anybody else, would be useful.

genec

First website is a archive retrieval site... and it takes a minute or so for the retrieval to take place... I just double clicked on the link in the reply above and it worked just fine... it is retrieving the over 10 year old original article.

And yes, the second does not address reporters... it is industry to industry... as I said, it will take time for this to roll out to the public.

With regard to reporters... remember right now the occasional reporter does some story on how hard or how easy it is to bike commute... as if they have just discovered this on their own. Needless to say... reporters are perhaps not always the most astute "observer" of what is really going on. This is one reason that so many here often doubt news as reported from the scene... those news gathering folks often miss so much, and rarely follow up.

You might try using "collision" in your own speech however, rather than waiting on the general public to finally "get it." You can actually be a leader.

mechBgon

I'm not saying no one can be held responsible (that's what liability insurance is for, if all else fails), but let's face it: if your car had a random tie-rod failure, or you hit a chunk of scrap metal off a truck and it cuts a brake line, it's not likely you could've done anything about it in advance. You're not going to X-ray your tie rods every day.

Then again, some folks feel THIS way:

kenoshi

Wow this sucks, talk about a double whammie...Condolences to the family, to say the least.

I've been rear-ended twice at a red light by idiot drivers while riding a motorcycle, and that's during daytime...I'd purposely stop at least 5ft behind the crosswalk, and keep a REAL close eye on my rear, especially if there wasn't any cars immediately behind me. If at all possible I'd split lane and not get in front of a car/truck/whathaveyou.

Push comes to shove, cars always win...Riding defensively is just that, realize that its stupid to compete with cars, assume all drivers are idiots, anticipate sudden/unexpected behavior, and to minimize risk whenever possible...I would not have been out on my bike at 4am in the morning.

sudo bike

No. Since the context of the discussion is vehicular collisions, I wasn't agreeing with you. Unless you think the broader sense of the word "accident" needs to be discussed, which is frankly pretty silly.

Obviously it's the common vernacular, since you're the one moaning that everyone calls it an accident when it isn't! Witness every bloody newspaper article that has been posted.

Yes, it is "good enough for me". I guess if you think you're too good to use "common speech", go for it.

Okay, so this has less to do with cycling advocacy and more to do with your nose-in-the-air arrogance. Got it.

I just think you're making a BFD over nothing. Working to change the word used for "accident" to "collision" is a poor bit of advocacy, IMO. Far more important things to worry about.

genec

And yet the USDOT and NHTSA both believe otherwise.

sudo bike

Oh, well if the DOT says so, pardon me.

(I do like how when it comes to using the word "accident", that image apparently matters; try and tell someone that wearing a helmet sends the wrong message for cycling and hurts ridership, and you'll get a plethora of responses saying essentially that it doesn't make much difference. Gotta love that ol' double-standard.)

HoustonB

When the term used to describe events that maim and kill numerous cyclists is "accident" this means; "unintentional, unanticipated, unexpected, unavoidable, unforeseen, uncontrollable", which in turn implies lack of responsibility, liability and culpability. You are part of the problem if you think this is "good enough".
If either of us has made this a "big f'ing deal" it was your initial reply that included "[asking] 3 people here at work" questions that you did not quote verbatim and also you supplied no context about these "people". Are they sociologists and linguists versed in the impact of language on culture - or was it the cleaning lady, the tea boy etc. Perhaps they were senior partners in a law firm. Absent any context your anecdote has little value.
It is others that are advocating for the use of the word "collision" not me. I would be happy with any word that does not imply lack of liability and culpability.

The fact that you and an apparent minority of others think this is poor advocacy speaks volumes.

HoustonB

Actually, I agree with you in regard to helmets.

Media just can't seem to let go of whether or not a helmet was worn.

Wearing a helmet, can send a message that the activity is 'dangerous'.

I am partially of the opinion that campaigns to encourage helmet wearing are funded by motoring organizations that want to make cycling appear more dangerous than it actually is.

I wear a helmet and believe they will likely make a differnce in low impact events, but far less likely to help in anything involving high speed or heavy vehicles.

NukeouT

Cars have killed more people than any weapon of mass destruction. Even if the rate at which they are killing people is going down, there will still be steady numbers of fatalities for years to come. Citizens who are switching away from cars to other modes of transport are really the ones who are making the difference in this statistic.

A way to stop these kind of accidents would be to ban cars for everything except military and emergency services. Force freight off trucks and onto an expanded and advanced rail system.

Bicycles, mopeds, scooters, motorcycles and ect. are the vehicles of this century!

genec

Since it would be impossible to have even an "expanded rail system" serve every business location, delivery trucks are still needed to get goods and services out to the public.

Really the problem is not cars, but the mentality that cars are king... that leads to thinking that the car rules in all situations, that planning need only be done for cars and that when a collision occurs it is "only" an accident.

mechBgon

I think the United States needs to begin a serious education campaign to teach people that a motor vehicle is like a loaded firearm... if someone gets a license to have one, and decides to take it anywhere, it's THEIR responsibility to ensure that they don't endanger people with it. As opposed to the present mentality of "I'm in my car, therefore I should be able to drive right at the speed limit without having to worry about anything inconveniencing Big Important ME."

alhedges

"Accident" does not imply lack of liability and culpability. It implies lack of deliberate action.

If I accidentally hit a baseball through someone's plate glass window, it doesn't mean that I'm not culpable and liable for doing so. I probably shouldn't have been playing baseball in the front yard. Breaking a window was an accident, but it doesn't mean I am not at fault for doing something stupid.

If I accidentally knock a glass off of a table and break it, it is still my fault. I should have been paying more attention. Again, the fact that it was an accident doesn't mean that I am not at fault.

The same is true with a traffic accident. If I run into someone else's car because I was texting/talking/flossing/painting my toenails, it was an accident caused by my lack of paying attention. All the term accident means is that I did not deliberately plow into the other vehicle. But that in no way means I wasn't doing something stupid, or am not liable and culpable.

Bacciagalupe

it is


True, but most deaths in the US are from heart disease (25%) and cancer (23%). In 2007, there were around 42,000 deaths due to motor vehicles, which was 1.7% of the total. Since then it's dropped to 32,000, and should continue if it's an improvement in automotive safety features that contribute significantly to this drop.

AFAIK there is no evidence that this significant drop is due to any increases in cycling, walking, carpooling or public transport. That might be a factor but it is highly unlikely to be a primary one.


Don't forget to distribute magic brooms to everyone, too.

Let's be realistic, the US is not going to abandon cars any time soon. I do expect we'll see big cities moving towards non-motorized transport; I do not expect the car to disappear during our lifetimes.

Bacciagalupe

This mentality has been quite consistent for awhile, yet the fatality rates are substantially dropping.

I'd expect there are still more benefits that can be squeezed out of improving auto safety devices; some out of infrastructure; and some fatalities that will never be eliminated.

AlmostTrick

I suspect that much of the recent drop in traffic fatalities is due to less miles being driven, thanks to the poor economy.

genec

It is also due in part to higher survivability rates in what used to be fatal collisions... such as head on crashes. Air bags make these "walk away" incidents now.

The actual number of crashes has not changed much and this is reflected in the number of insurance claims and collision repair centers that do a brisk business, but indeed fatalities are down... as are miles driven... supposedly the first time the mileage number has dropped YOY since WWII.

The links are out there for those that want to search for it... sorry, I don't have time at the moment.

njkayaker

Water too.

https://www.ilsf.org/index.php?q=en/drowning/facts

No. The number of people killed in automobile collisions in the US has been basically flat for many years even as number of miles driven annually has increased.

???

njkayaker

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/tvtw/08novtvt/08novtvt.pdf

Keith99

You usually can't just change just one word and make a strident fool sound like anyhting other than a strident fool.

A rant against the CORRECT use of a word saying we shoudl insist on an incorrect use is stupid. There is a legitimate issue, it is not the using the term accident. It is somethgin different. It is deciding that somethgni being an accident excuses all parties, something most people and the Law do not do.

He also paints with a broad brush and is very close to assuming any motorist is alays at fault, and projects the opposite on anyone who points out that things are not proved.

It would seem that in this case one motorist may in fact not be at fault for the death, yet will suffer anyway (fat less thatn the motorcyclist). It seems the Motorcycle wa stopped at a light and was hit from behind hard enough to throw the cycle and rider into the intersection where he was run over. The driver tha ran him over had been drinking and remained at the scene. The one that first hit him fled.

It is entirely possible the drinking played no part in the result, that a fully sober driver would not have been able to stop. Yet the poster seems to paint both with the same brush.

Accident it was and accident it will remain. And if we as a commuity support the misuse of the English language we look like fools. Instead we should hammer on the point that accident does not excuse those involved and that when gorss negligence is involved the penalties should escalate to be near or eqaul to those where there is intent.

Pedaleur

[QUOTE=alhedges;13057861]"Accident" does not imply lack of liability and culpability. It implies lack of deliberate action.

You mean you had an accident with a baseball.

Ah! The glass accident.

To me, there's a subtle difference between "accidentally doing something" and "having an accident." The latter distances the party from causation.

YMMV.

Keith99

Surprised you did not point out that this reduction does nothing for those outside the cars. A perfectly valid point.

bluefoxicy

Collision. The event that occurs when one object plows into another object.