5 ms·

The language 'accident' doesn't mean nobody is at fault - it just means that the crash wasn't intentional. Since most of the time someone isn't slamming into s

The language 'accident' doesn't mean nobody is at fault - it just means that the crash wasn't intentional. Since most of the time someone isn't slamming into somebody on purpose this argument to say crash instead always struck me as wrong in addition to being frivolous. If you're going to be pedantic, at least be correct.

honkhonkpants 10y ago
Accident tends to imply that the cause was beyond expectation, that the event was exceptional. If you are at a construction site and a chain breaks and a beam falls on you, despite the best efforts of engineers to design the chain to hoist that load and the best practices of the foundry to forge the chain, that is an accident. If you mow down a toddler in Manhattan because you were drunk and driving 60MPH through a neighborhood that is not an accident.
- elithrar 10y ago
  > If you are at a construction site and a chain breaks and a beam falls on you, despite the best efforts of engineers to design the chain to hoist that load and the best practices of the foundry to forge the chain, that is an accident. I wouldn't count that as an accident. Walking under any suspended load is extremely dangerous and would be counted as a reportable incident on many work sites. Failing to prevent persons from walking under said load with appropriate barriers and warnings is a further issue. (moving to the US and walking past a construction site on a daily basis scares the hell out of me. Truly the Wild West.)
jcurbo 10y ago
In my experience, insurance people & cops have used "collision". "Crash" sounds too hyperbolic to me and "accident" implies (to insurance people anyway, I suppose) that no one was at fault, which is not always true.
danso 10y ago
At risk of being pedantic, aren't crashes just a subset of all possible vehicular accidents? So why don't we call a crash a crash, as crash is a word that is not necessarily intertwined with intentionality. And phonetically, "crash" IMO more clearly conveys the violence of the accident. (Debates like this remind me that the aphorism about the only two hard things in computer science is no joke)
- dietrichepp 10y ago
  Crashes cannot be a subset of all vehicular accidents because not all crashes are accidents.
Eric_WVGG 10y ago
The problem is that our language has evolved in a direction that “accident” implies both “no intention” and “no fault”. An idiot behind a wheel could be snapchatting their face into a piece of toast, slam into someone, kill them, and have it not be intentional. When the authorities or the media call it an accident — which is true — their voice lets the driver off the hook. “Crash” is both literally true _and_ leaves room for investigators to find fault.
- wnevets 10y ago
  accidents are accidental.
  - Eric_WVGG 10y ago
    Billy goes downtown to meet some friends. Billy gets drunk. Billy gets in his car to drive home, hits and kills somebody. Billy wasn't trying to murder him, it was an accident. When it's an accident, everyone shrugs and says sorry and goes on with life. When it's a crash, you stop figure out why it happened.
    - yongjik 10y ago
      Which English-speaking country does Billy live in? I can't think of a single country where you can kill someone through drunk driving and get away with it, but I'm not an international law expert, so maybe I'm missing something. ...Or maybe you just made a straw-man argument.
      - flukus 10y ago
        Depends on your definition of "gets away with it", but it's very common to see these cases get away with a slap on the wrists. Sentences are usually a lot harder with alcohol involved though.
        yongjik 10y ago
        In that case we have a problem with the law or the court. We should change what matters, instead of quibbling with word choices. Rapists also frequently get away with a slap on the wrist. However, (hopefully) no one will suggest that the word "rape" means nobody's at fault.
peterwwillis 10y ago
"The language 'accident' doesn't mean nobody is at fault - it just means that the crash wasn't intentional." That's a fallacious argument. If a drunk driver gets behind the wheel, they are not intending to crash, but they probably will, and they chose to get drunk and then drive their car - none of that was an 'accident'. 'Crash' describes the situation better without implying cause or intent.
- SapphireSun 10y ago
  I'm a biker and have few sympathies for cars, but we have legal words to describe these situations. From Black's law dictionary: Negligence: "The omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do. or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do." Reckless: "to be careless and indifferent to the welfare of other people." Reckless Driving: "term that is applied to a person driving a vehicle in a manner that can cause an accident" These word games that are so popular these days are driving me crazy. I get that eventually, a neutral definition becomes colored with typical use, and that rotating the term can cause political action (until it too becomes tainted), but jesus christ, isn't it possible to dispassionately convince people of a policy position? Sorry, it's late and I'm ranting. One day I'll be a better marketeer.
akgerber 10y ago
The word 'accident' is used by many even to describe hit-and-runs that may have been intentional: http://nypost.com/2016/07/02/cyclist-killed-in-hit-and-run/ http://nypost.com/2016/07/02/cyclist-killed-in-hit-and-run/
kevindong 10y ago
I would actually argue that if someone gets into an "vehicular incident" while texting/snapchatting, said incident would indeed be intentional. The person intentionally opted out of paying attention to the road and are therefore at fault. You can't just accidentally start texting on your phone; picking up your phone while driving is very much an intentional action.

honkhonkpants 10y ago

Accident tends to imply that the cause was beyond expectation, that the event was exceptional. If you are at a construction site and a chain breaks and a beam falls on you, despite the best efforts of engineers to design the chain to hoist that load and the best practices of the foundry to forge the chain, that is an accident. If you mow down a toddler in Manhattan because you were drunk and driving 60MPH through a neighborhood that is not an accident.

elithrar 10y ago
> If you are at a construction site and a chain breaks and a beam falls on you, despite the best efforts of engineers to design the chain to hoist that load and the best practices of the foundry to forge the chain, that is an accident. I wouldn't count that as an accident. Walking under any suspended load is extremely dangerous and would be counted as a reportable incident on many work sites. Failing to prevent persons from walking under said load with appropriate barriers and warnings is a further issue. (moving to the US and walking past a construction site on a daily basis scares the hell out of me. Truly the Wild West.)

jcurbo 10y ago

In my experience, insurance people & cops have used "collision". "Crash" sounds too hyperbolic to me and "accident" implies (to insurance people anyway, I suppose) that no one was at fault, which is not always true.

danso 10y ago

At risk of being pedantic, aren't crashes just a subset of all possible vehicular accidents? So why don't we call a crash a crash, as crash is a word that is not necessarily intertwined with intentionality. And phonetically, "crash" IMO more clearly conveys the violence of the accident. (Debates like this remind me that the aphorism about the only two hard things in computer science is no joke)

dietrichepp 10y ago
Crashes cannot be a subset of all vehicular accidents because not all crashes are accidents.

Eric_WVGG 10y ago

The problem is that our language has evolved in a direction that “accident” implies both “no intention” and “no fault”. An idiot behind a wheel could be snapchatting their face into a piece of toast, slam into someone, kill them, and have it not be intentional. When the authorities or the media call it an accident — which is true — their voice lets the driver off the hook. “Crash” is both literally true _and_ leaves room for investigators to find fault.

wnevets 10y ago
accidents are accidental.
- Eric_WVGG 10y ago
  Billy goes downtown to meet some friends. Billy gets drunk. Billy gets in his car to drive home, hits and kills somebody. Billy wasn't trying to murder him, it was an accident. When it's an accident, everyone shrugs and says sorry and goes on with life. When it's a crash, you stop figure out why it happened.
  - yongjik 10y ago
    Which English-speaking country does Billy live in? I can't think of a single country where you can kill someone through drunk driving and get away with it, but I'm not an international law expert, so maybe I'm missing something. ...Or maybe you just made a straw-man argument.
    - flukus 10y ago
      Depends on your definition of "gets away with it", but it's very common to see these cases get away with a slap on the wrists. Sentences are usually a lot harder with alcohol involved though.
      - yongjik 10y ago
        In that case we have a problem with the law or the court. We should change what matters, instead of quibbling with word choices. Rapists also frequently get away with a slap on the wrist. However, (hopefully) no one will suggest that the word "rape" means nobody's at fault.

peterwwillis 10y ago

"The language 'accident' doesn't mean nobody is at fault - it just means that the crash wasn't intentional." That's a fallacious argument. If a drunk driver gets behind the wheel, they are not intending to crash, but they probably will, and they chose to get drunk and then drive their car - none of that was an 'accident'. 'Crash' describes the situation better without implying cause or intent.

SapphireSun 10y ago
I'm a biker and have few sympathies for cars, but we have legal words to describe these situations. From Black's law dictionary: Negligence: "The omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do. or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do." Reckless: "to be careless and indifferent to the welfare of other people." Reckless Driving: "term that is applied to a person driving a vehicle in a manner that can cause an accident" These word games that are so popular these days are driving me crazy. I get that eventually, a neutral definition becomes colored with typical use, and that rotating the term can cause political action (until it too becomes tainted), but jesus christ, isn't it possible to dispassionately convince people of a policy position? Sorry, it's late and I'm ranting. One day I'll be a better marketeer.

akgerber 10y ago

The word 'accident' is used by many even to describe hit-and-runs that may have been intentional: http://nypost.com/2016/07/02/cyclist-killed-in-hit-and-run/ http://nypost.com/2016/07/02/cyclist-killed-in-hit-and-run/

kevindong 10y ago

I would actually argue that if someone gets into an "vehicular incident" while texting/snapchatting, said incident would indeed be intentional. The person intentionally opted out of paying attention to the road and are therefore at fault. You can't just accidentally start texting on your phone; picking up your phone while driving is very much an intentional action.