Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Auto accident versus collision; I was wrong
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2025 14:51:04 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 67
Message-ID: <vrf3mo$1eo1l$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vreoqg$15s73$1@dont-email.me> <vretcn$1cq8f$19@dont-email.me>
 <vreuv8$19top$1@dont-email.me>
Reply-To: nobody@nowhere.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2025 19:51:04 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="97ddce511c82dc0b54c55eef1c2e5bb8";
	logging-data="1531957"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+F13U65EFfd3W4AKFXzqPZLBDJn1XlyS4="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:9XIRWvv2wXxGRE/fb7pYBJ6nZlQ=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vreuv8$19top$1@dont-email.me>

On 3/19/2025 1:30 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>   
>>> . . .
> 
>> When I was driving school buses, I found that my employers never used
>> the word "accident". If someone hit something while driving their bus,
>> even if it was the merest scratch, it was never an accident: it was
>> *always* a collision. (I'm sure this would have been true if a person
>> were hit, although I don't recall anyone ever hitting a person while I
>> worked there.) I feel sure this was their way of making us take
>> responsibility for what had happened. We didn't get to say anything that
>> implied that whatever happened couldn't be helped in some way. Even if
>> we weren't at fault, I think they expected that we could have done
>> something to prevent or minimize the event. Drivers were always taken
>> off the road for a day or two and made to have a retraining session with
>> another driver after a collision.
> 
> Your employer wasn't wrong: there was a collision.
> 
> I was a school bus driver too. We were told we would be blamed for a
> rear end collision (the vehicle behind colliding with the rear of the
> school bus) regardless of what the law said, because they always wanted
> us to leave adequate distance behind the vehicle ahead of the bus.
> 
>> I can't really find fault with that approach. Language DOES matter and
>> calling a collision what it was is the right thing to do. You can always
>> add an adjective like "unavoidable" if that applies.
> 
> Ok, but that's a finding after a review or investigation; never state
> that without investigating at all.
> 
>> Calling everything an accident is dishonest since most "accidents"
>> involved some actions that made the accident more likely, even if there
>> was no intent involved.
> 
> Here, you've fallen into the semantic trap yourself. First off, you just
> misused the word "accident". A pedestrian crosses in front of a driver and
> is struck by the vehicle. After gathering witness statements, the patrol
> officer or accident investigator learns that the vehicle accelerated rather
> than braking. That's evidence of intent. The collision was no accident.
> 
> Calling incidents without intent "accidents" is NOT dishonest. The word
> does not and never has implied "unavoidable" nor "without fault". People
> who think that's what "accident" implies are wrong.

Colloquially, at least, "accidental" has long implied those.


>> For example, if I'm yapping on a cell phone - or in an animated
>> conversation with my passengers - I am contributing to the likelihood of
>> an accident even if I very much don't want to have one.  Anything that
>> distracts me as a driver may contribute to a collision whether it is
>> talking or driving drunk or on too little sleep.
> 
> You're right. Nevertheless, if you are at fault for a collision, it's still
> an accident due to the lack of intent.
> 
> Because Lehto pointed out chargeable criminal conduct by the driver at fault
> for causing the accident under the old language THAT WAS NOT A COLLISION
> WITH THE AT FAULT DRIVER'S VEHICLE, I am going to resume my own use of
> the word "accident" as this scenario has been brought to my attention.

Afaics, most any communication that *emphasizes* the word 'accident' 
will be heard as exoneration.