3 ms·

Maybe I’m being naive, but I think it’s good that more entities are “demanding answers” and making changes rather than calling crashes “accidents.”

• Jkvngt 6y ago
  Calling a collision or allision an "accident" is what you do because otherwise you could be admitting fault. And top-down language policing like this isn't an actual change unless people catch on. Often it takes an enormous, top-down shaming and ostracism campaign to affect a long lasting change in usage like this. Will it stick?
  • chrisseaton 6y ago
    > Calling a collision or allision an "accident" is what you do because otherwise you could be admitting fault. I think you’ve got it backwards. The point is don’t call it an accident, because that implies no fault, and instead call it an incident or collision or similar that implies nothing.
    • Jkvngt 6y ago
      Nope, I’ve got it forwards. I carry a little card with me that says “always do the opposite of what industry groups and bodies tell you to do” and this attitude works out great for me, most of the time. I’ll just keep doing what I’m doing, it will be interesting to see if the insurers and their mouthpieces and friends can bully the public into complying.
      • chrisseaton 6y ago
        But I mean it doesn't even achieve what you say you want to achieve... think about it: You call it an accident up front, and then you try to get damages from for example the car manufacturer because you find out the car was faulty... no wait a minute you can't do that because you already declared you think it was an 'accident'.