sudo bike

???

So how do we get from this to:

Which is it?

My point stands: If someone walks in and says "I just had an accident", unless that person happened to be 3, you'd assume they were speaking of a car accident, most likely (even though it could have been any number of things). "Accident", even though it is being used as a noun, is practically still filling the role of an adjective because the "car" before the word is implied; it's just become the most common use of the word, that in most contexts it's merely assumed to be a vehicular accident. Common speech morphs like this all the time.

Regardless, it doesn't matter in regards to my point. My point was that there isn't really anything wrong with the word "accident"; it does not, by it's nature, imply a lack of guilt or negligence (and I've shown this already), it merely means that what happened was unintentional, which is true in nearly all cases (excluding cases like the LA doctor who intentionally ran cyclists down).

If you want to use another word that you feel is more apt, there's nothing wrong with that, and I'm not saying you shouldn't, I'm merely saying others shouldn't harp on people for using the word "accident" when it's clearly a correct term (aside from the fact it's making a mountain out of a molehill in the first place).

njkayaker

Everybody is quite clear that "accident" as a synonym for collision is accepted usage. This is why your dictionary "argument" fails: it is arguing against a position that no one has!

The issue (which keeps going over your head) is that "accident" is less precise and has other meanings which influence how people understand what is being described. "Collision" is more precise and does not have the other confounding meanings. This really is not hard to understand (for most people).

This is wrong in two ways: the dictionary definition proves that it does have those implications and you haven't shown it to be otherwise at all! You merely declare it to be the case in contradiction to your own dictionary definition argument!

And then you go on to cherry-pick parts that support your argument and ignore those parts that do not. You somehow think that all readers are doing the same sort of cherry-picking you are doing!

You seem to think that the different definitions for "accident" represent definitions for homonyms (ie, independent words that happen to be spelled the same way). In fact, as anybody with a basic understanding of language understands, the definitions are related and those meanings blend together (in different proportions for different readers). Competent users of English will choose a particular synonym (words that are nominally the same) based on these ancillary meanings.

"Collision" describes what happened much more clearly than "accident" does without the "act of god" implication of this use of "accident" and the other uses of "accident".

You have presented no argument for preferring "accident" over "collision". And "collision" is clearly the better word!

Other than HoustonB (and you, for the contrary position), no one else is "harping".

And it isn't really that "accident" is "correct" but that it is accepted usage (which no one is arguing against!)

??? No one, other than you, is "trying to keep language the same".

Society frequently chooses to change how words are used (terms associated with race/ethnicity provide many examples). And journalists have style-guides that specify usage and might be able to influence general usage.

There is also fairly extensive academic work that describes how other meanings/associations of a particular word influences people's conception of the thing that the word is applied to (eg. "girl"). I realize that such discussions might be too hard for some people to follow. The fact that you are stuck on using dictionary definitions indicates that you don't following this.

Six jours

I'm pretty sure everyone "understands". It's just that some of us think it's trivial at best.

Moreover, that some of you appear to believe you can decrease car accidents by calling them something else really just illustrates the power of the echo chamber: a handful of people, insulated from reality, can talk each other into believing just about anything.

genec

How about if official agencies such as the US DOT and the NHTSA are part of "the handful of people" to which you refer?

Six jours

I'd be happy to review any materials from the DOT or NHTSA indicating that calling a car accident something else will reduce car accidents.

unterhausen

I'm guessing that changing the language probably will not reduce crashes. Virginia (used to?) have a policy that they would cite anyone that had a single car accident. I don't think that really had much of an effect on the way people drove either.

The thing is that most people don't really see the dangerous things that they do as being particularly dangerous. And a small subset of the driving population is really dangerous. So the most effective thing is to get these people to internalize the idea that they should stop doing dangerous things. I see a lot of outlandish driving here because it's a college town. I assume some of these drivers are eventually going to hurt someone. However, watching them go really fast on an empty street, I doubt I could come up with a convincing argument that those behaviors are likely to lead to a collision.

genec

Try post 31 for some reading... although not official. Try post 51 for DOT and NHTSA links.

genec

https://www.fia.com/oldautomotive/iss.../article1.html

Six jours

Yes.

sudo bike

Ad hominem aside, as I said previously, I understand your position, I just think it's much ado about nothing. "Accident", whether it's less precise or not, is not an incorrect term for the vast, vast majority of accidents. That is not up for debate, it's a fact; most collisions are not purposeful and are therefore accidental. Therefore, referring to it as an "accident" is not incorrect. QED.


How does it prove it has those implications when the very first definition listed is merely "unintentional"?


I never cherry-picked, I posted the entry in it's entirety. I merely bolded the relevant parts (both for and against what I was saying, if you go back and look). It backed up my argument: While "accident" can mean unexpected, it does not by nature, but by context; the first definition listed is unintentional (and even lists "car accident" as an example!).

What is your point in relation to mine?

No, I haven't presented an argument for preferring it because I never said that!

I simply said "accident" is not an incorrect term to use, and getting bent out of shape over it's use is silly.


That's who I was responding to initially.

It isn't an incorrect term. There's nothing wrong with calling a collision as an "accident", providing no one intentionally ran someone down, which I'm guessing is an exceedingly small minority of "collisions".

This is not a case of society choosing to change a word, it's the case of a few select people trying to get society to change a perfectly fine word.

Look, if I may be frank, there's no reason for you to be an *******. If you didn't get it already: I'll say it again, I understand your point. Okay? I get it. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them stupid (although I'm sure you think so). So cool your jets with the ad hominem, dude. It isn't necessary.

I get that you're saying words can imply things; anyone knows that and I never said otherwise. I said that, in this instance, I don't think this is the case. And as far as I know, any assertions otherwise are just that: assertions.

/greatest thread in A&S history.

Bill-O style, you have the last word. Have fun?

Best of luck to all you langua--- erm... cycling advocates.

Unreasonable

On the topic of language advocacy, that wasn't really ad hominem. Insulting perhaps, which is crude when arguing, but the idea of ad hominem is to deny your argument because of something else about you. If he said "You ride a bike in California, therefore your argument about this is bad" it would be an epitome of the fallacy.

His "You keep missing the point, you're an idiot. This is the point..." was simply a pitfall of getting angry at his opponent.

... anyway, I'm going to get out of here before I get crushed under the wheels of what this thread's become.

sherilinn

I really wish states (especially my state of Wisconsin) would be stricter with drunk drivers. Everytime someone goes behind the wheel impaired they should be charged with attempted murder.

I-Like-To-Bike

How 'bout charging anyone "who goes behind the wheel impaired" with ****, armed robbery and domestic terrorism too? Should make perfect sense to anyone who wishes to change the meaning and intent of the language of the law to fit their personal agenda. Your "wish" fits right in with the other agenda driven word benders on this thread.

BTW, won't we all have fun defining the word "impaired" for your draconian crackdown? Driving with less than 8 hours of sleep within a few hours of getting behind the wheel, having a head cold or potentially sneezing from too much pollen in the air sounds pretty darn "impaired" to me.