I agree we should be defaulting to neutral terms like "crash" or "collision". I hesitate to fully agree with "every single crash is someone's fault" though beca

I agree we should be defaulting to neutral terms like "crash" or "collision". I hesitate to fully agree with "every single crash is someone's fault" though because I think society has to accept some risk (less than we currently accept with driving) and because it's important to say more than one person can be at fault. There are problems throughout the system: * Drivers need to slow down and be more cautious. I'd like to see criminal charges more often when drivers act out of the expected norms. * The expected norms for drivers need to change. (I hope this happens as self-driving cars take to the roads more.) When most people are taking risks regularly, I don't think it's as productive to come down heavily in the infrequent case where the risk is realized. * We should also consider road design, as the article says. There have been other articles about this on HN [1, 2]. I'd like to see a shift from design that overwhelmingly favors cars to design that puts public transit and cyclists on at least a level playing field, if not considering them first. * Vehicle design may need to change. My (possibly incorrect) understanding is that crash standards have greatly improved the outcome for people inside a particular crashing vehicle, but maybe not for the "other guy", particularly when that's a pedestrian or cyclist. [1] a particular intersection: https://singletrackworld.com/2018/01/collision-course-why-this-type-of-road-junction-will-keep-killing-cyclists/ https://singletrackworld.com/2018/01/collision-course-why-th... [2] https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/10/30/the-stroad https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/10/30/the-stroad