4 ms·
I'm afraid I find this somewhere between creepy and ridiculous. On the ridiculous side: the idea that calling a car accident an "accident" is somehow wrong -
by dash2 5y ago
I'm afraid I find this somewhere between creepy and ridiculous.
On the ridiculous side: the idea that calling a car accident an "accident" is somehow wrong - as if, because I understand that what happened was an accident, I am somehow incapable of thinking "hey, maybe we need better road safety legislation".
On the creepy side: the general approach which is, instead of making public arguments about why cars are bad, to manipulate language so as to push people to your side, using results from behavioural science.
Of course, if you think the author is on the side of the angels, then this is great! But the techniques can be used by equally self-righteous people, with whom you may disagree.
Treating people like sheep is gross. Don't do it.
- dml2135 5y agoThe issue is that the term accident implies a lack of intension, while in most crash reporting we actually have no idea if the collision was intentional, negligent, or whatever. Using a term like crash or collision is actually much closer to the bare facts.
- fermigier 5y agoAs I have stated in another comment, according to Merriam-Webster, a (car) accident is "an unfortunate event resulting in particular from negligence or ignorance". It doesn't imply intention (in which case it would become a homicide, in the case the victim is deceased), but certainly implies responsibility from the driver.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- ihaveajob 5y agoThe problem with using "accident" as the default term is that it preempts any evidence-finding, implying that it was nobody's fault. If someone shoots their gun randomly and someone gets hurt by just being there, nobody will call it an "accident", but somehow if the weapon is a car, the driver gets the benefit of the doubt regardless of the facts.
- dash2 5y agoOf course if there is evidence that the driver deliberately tried to kill someone, nobody will call it an accident. I would imagine that the vast majority of car deaths are indeed accidental, not murders. This seems to contrast with the situation of gun deaths. No?
- dfxm12 5y agoI'm not sure. I read a lot of gun violence reporting like "person a was struck by a bullet and later died due to complications" vs "gunman shot and killed person a". It's kinda the same thing. I would make no assumptions about if car accidents are accidental (which for some reason seems to be the default) or not - and that's more or less the point of the article.
- ihaveajob 5y agoThe fact that even making a similar argument to mine, you still say "if car accidents are accidental" is very telling of how ingrained this phrase has become. (Not to pick on you, I just find it amusing.)
- dfxm12 5y agoI don't think this is coincidental: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28841388 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28841388 I was trying to amusingly challenge the reader to separate the two meanings of accident (car crash and something that happened unintentionally) just like most writing about crashes tries to get the reader to conflate them. :)
- riffic 5y agoThere are degrees of intention (Fonseca, 2020). Most people are quite deliberate about the speed they choose to drive, or the level of care they put into the act of operating a vehicle. City planners and engineers are intentional about what they choose to build or not build. This is a shaky foundation of an argument IMO. https://laist.com/news/car-crash-accident-traffic-violence-language https://laist.com/news/car-crash-accident-traffic-violence-l...