4 ms·

Thanks this is pretty interesting! Re: “car crash”, crash is the correct “real language”. The use of “accident” implies a lack of responsibility and that car c

by JoshGG 3y ago

Thanks this is pretty interesting! Re: “car crash”, crash is the correct “real language”. The use of “accident” implies a lack of responsibility and that car crashes cannot be prevented or reduced. That isn’t true. Many studies show that crashes can be reduced via better engineering, road design, etc. Calling it an accident definitely seems like softening the language. https://dmv.vermont.gov/enforcement-and-safety/laws/crashes/crash-not-accident https://dmv.vermont.gov/enforcement-and-safety/laws/crashes/...

tptacek 3y ago
I agree! It's a softening of the language. I just think it's interesting to note that in his bit, he often artificially further softens the term.
dontlaugh 3y ago
They’re called some variant of “accident” in many languages. It’s the English speakers that use “crash” that are the unusual ones.
- verve_rat 3y ago
  English speakers? Or American English speakers? Here in NZ car accident is much more natural to say than car crash. Although even that has subtleties. "I got in to a car accident" would be the normal turn of phrase, but if remove the "car" and the "I" then crash becomes more likely: "There was a crash on State Highway 1".
  - dontlaugh 3y ago
    That’s what I mean, the subset of English speakers that are unusual are the US ones, it seems.
xkcd-sucks 3y ago
This point is repeated frequently in context of vehicle crashes, but are not all "accidents" similarly avoidable?
BurningFrog 3y ago
That's overly conspiratorial. In normal use, "accident" just means it's unintentional. People talk about preventing accidents all the time.
themadturk 3y ago
Early in my long-past journalism career I reported on a collision between two cars. One of the drivers complained because she seemed to think I implied she was at fault. My editor told me to ignore the complaint, since the word "collision" merely says that two objects tried to occupy the same space at the same time, and no fault is implied by the language.
dragonwriter 3y ago
An acquaintance who is a California Highway Patrol officer said they are trained not to use the word "accident" and instead use "collision" as the generic term for the class of incidents for that reason: "accident" is a conclusion about the mental state of the people involved, "collision" is the observed fact. It may turn out to be an accident, it may turn out to be an intentional act. It may turn out to be unclear or irrelevant which it is. But what is known initially (and often all that is ever resolved) is that it is a collision.

by JoshGG 3y ago

tptacek 3y ago

I agree! It's a softening of the language. I just think it's interesting to note that in his bit, he often artificially further softens the term.

dontlaugh 3y ago

They’re called some variant of “accident” in many languages. It’s the English speakers that use “crash” that are the unusual ones.

verve_rat 3y ago
English speakers? Or American English speakers? Here in NZ car accident is much more natural to say than car crash. Although even that has subtleties. "I got in to a car accident" would be the normal turn of phrase, but if remove the "car" and the "I" then crash becomes more likely: "There was a crash on State Highway 1".
- dontlaugh 3y ago
  That’s what I mean, the subset of English speakers that are unusual are the US ones, it seems.

xkcd-sucks 3y ago

This point is repeated frequently in context of vehicle crashes, but are not all "accidents" similarly avoidable?

BurningFrog 3y ago

That's overly conspiratorial. In normal use, "accident" just means it's unintentional. People talk about preventing accidents all the time.

themadturk 3y ago

Early in my long-past journalism career I reported on a collision between two cars. One of the drivers complained because she seemed to think I implied she was at fault. My editor told me to ignore the complaint, since the word "collision" merely says that two objects tried to occupy the same space at the same time, and no fault is implied by the language.

dragonwriter 3y ago

An acquaintance who is a California Highway Patrol officer said they are trained not to use the word "accident" and instead use "collision" as the generic term for the class of incidents for that reason: "accident" is a conclusion about the mental state of the people involved, "collision" is the observed fact. It may turn out to be an accident, it may turn out to be an intentional act. It may turn out to be unclear or irrelevant which it is. But what is known initially (and often all that is ever resolved) is that it is a collision.