* I was replying to someone who assumed some arrogant naval captain was playing chicken with a merchant vessel* Odd, because when I go back to the OP, I don't

* I was replying to someone who assumed some arrogant naval captain was playing chicken with a merchant vessel* Odd, because when I go back to the OP, I don't see any indication that suggests he thinks the captain made an active decision to be reckless. Maybe they edited after you replied? Or is it the quotes around "accident" in this sentence that lead you to interpret their comments this way? There is absolutely no reason a modern warship should have an "accident" like this. If so, I read this differently. In my view, an accident is something that occurs due to unexpected changes in a situation. For example, if a car crash occurred because a deer jumped across the road and lead a vehicle to swerve, I'd use the word "accident". But in cases of negligence, I find the word "accident" makes it far too easy to blame the situation rather than the people. In this case, in my view these two ships colliding was no "accident" in that there must have been clear, conscious human decisions that lead to the event, even if those decisions were simply "I'm going to have a nap now (and thus be negligent in my duties)". Incidentally, I think we're far too willing to refer to car crashes as "accidents", and for this same reason.