4 ms·

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 snapch

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.
  - wnevets 10y ago
    >When it's an accident, everyone shrugs and says sorry and goes on with life. based on what? Accidents do occur due to negligence, which can be criminal.
sologoub 10y ago
Many jurisdictions have criminal penalties depending on severity of recklessness. For example, in California in collisions that resulted in death of someone other than the driver responsible can result in charges all the way to vehicular homoside/murder for repeat DUI offenders. Lesser charges are available to fit less degrees of wrecklessness. Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_homicide https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_homicide While driving in LA, I see a lot of people doing stupid things in cars, but I don't personally think turning to public shaming is the answer (mostly because I don't think it'll work - person is already reckless and doesn't think what he/she is doing is wrong). Human element is deeply flawed, so augmenting this element with safety tech is a better answer. With the current sensor tech, there really is no reason a car should be able to rearend another car! Volvo, Audi and Infinit already sell models that have been tested at low to moderate speeds to be able either prevent a crash or reduce it to a small tap: http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/ratings-info/front-crash-prevention-tests http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/ratings-info/front-crash-pr... Such tech ought to be required by law to be standard. No excuse that it's still isn't.
- akgerber 10y ago
  Shaming is ineffective. But suspension of the driving privilege should be a more widely-used tool, as should automated traffic enforcement— especially with regards to speeds in urban areas.
  - sologoub 10y ago
    From personal experience, the automated enforcement is tricky - speed cameras are common in Moscow suburbs. The owner of the vehicle is cited under current regs, which is annoying but since there is no point system like in US, it's not as big of a problem. Imagine if your license could be suspended if someone from your household drove your car? You need ways to positively ID the driver, but that creates other privacy problems...
    - jakobegger 10y ago
      in Austria most speed cameras take a picture of the car from the front, so you can see who drove the car. (Fun fact: the cameras taking pictures from the front were added because the German police refused to enforce speeding tickets on Austrian highways if the driver could not be identified)
mseebach 10y ago
But is the problem with the word or with culture? If it's the latter, you can't fix it by changing the word, you'll just get on the euphemism mill and in a few years, crash will have become neutral, and you need a new word. Maybe it would be more effective to change the reporting culture around unpacking the cause a bit. If there's culpable behaviour involved in the accident, make sure to mention that?

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.
- wnevets 10y ago
  >When it's an accident, everyone shrugs and says sorry and goes on with life. based on what? Accidents do occur due to negligence, which can be criminal.

sologoub 10y ago

Many jurisdictions have criminal penalties depending on severity of recklessness. For example, in California in collisions that resulted in death of someone other than the driver responsible can result in charges all the way to vehicular homoside/murder for repeat DUI offenders. Lesser charges are available to fit less degrees of wrecklessness. Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_homicide https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_homicide While driving in LA, I see a lot of people doing stupid things in cars, but I don't personally think turning to public shaming is the answer (mostly because I don't think it'll work - person is already reckless and doesn't think what he/she is doing is wrong). Human element is deeply flawed, so augmenting this element with safety tech is a better answer. With the current sensor tech, there really is no reason a car should be able to rearend another car! Volvo, Audi and Infinit already sell models that have been tested at low to moderate speeds to be able either prevent a crash or reduce it to a small tap: http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/ratings-info/front-crash-prevention-tests http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/ratings-info/front-crash-pr... Such tech ought to be required by law to be standard. No excuse that it's still isn't.

akgerber 10y ago
Shaming is ineffective. But suspension of the driving privilege should be a more widely-used tool, as should automated traffic enforcement— especially with regards to speeds in urban areas.
- sologoub 10y ago
  From personal experience, the automated enforcement is tricky - speed cameras are common in Moscow suburbs. The owner of the vehicle is cited under current regs, which is annoying but since there is no point system like in US, it's not as big of a problem. Imagine if your license could be suspended if someone from your household drove your car? You need ways to positively ID the driver, but that creates other privacy problems...
  - jakobegger 10y ago
    in Austria most speed cameras take a picture of the car from the front, so you can see who drove the car. (Fun fact: the cameras taking pictures from the front were added because the German police refused to enforce speeding tickets on Austrian highways if the driver could not be identified)

mseebach 10y ago

But is the problem with the word or with culture? If it's the latter, you can't fix it by changing the word, you'll just get on the euphemism mill and in a few years, crash will have become neutral, and you need a new word. Maybe it would be more effective to change the reporting culture around unpacking the cause a bit. If there's culpable behaviour involved in the accident, make sure to mention that?