5 ms·

> * Car crash -> automobile accident --- a softening, though he's getting some mileage out of switching "car" to "automobile" (I can hear his voice very clearly

> * Car crash -> automobile accident --- a softening, though he's getting some mileage out of switching "car" to "automobile" (I can hear his voice very clearly in my head dancing over the syllables in "auto-mo-beeel") and the real language is "car accident". They're very rarely if ever "accidents"

DangitBobby 3y ago
Webster's: 1a: an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance Their meeting was an accident. 1b: lack of intention or necessity : chance They met by accident rather than by design. 2a: an unfortunate event resulting especially from carelessness or ignorance Car accidents match one or all of these definitions.
- _dain_ 3y ago
  With proper road design, traffic fatalities can be reduced to a negligible rate. Oslo famously achieved zero per year. Since roads can be designed with this degree of safety, it follows that high rates of fatalities are a result of poor road design, and hence not unforeseeable accidents. "Accident" is actually softening language -- it diminishes the agency of the driver, and the designer of the road. "Traffic collision" describes what happened, and does not presume that nobody is to blame. The "car" part of "car accident" is also softening: nobody is "hit by a car", they are hit by a motorist.
  - trgn 3y ago
    Yep, "hit by a car" is the perfect example of fetishization, the attribution of agency to inanimate objects. Note to that it will be the cyclist that will hit the old lady, never the bicycle. The bicycle, even though as old as the car, has resisted this fetishization. It's really curious, which objects cast the spell, and which don't.
    - rootusrootus 3y ago
      I've definitely heard people talk about getting hit by bikes. I think the distinction, to the extent it exists, might have a lot to do with what constitutes the majority of mass. If you get hit by an 18 pound bike with a 160 pound rider, you really got hit more by the rider than the bike. But if you get hit by a 3000 pound car with a 160 pound driver, you definitely got hit more by the car than the driver. However, depending on ideological viewpoint, it might be tempting to read more into the language.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
  - DangitBobby 3y ago
    I didn't say it wasn't softening at all, I'm pushing back against the ridiculous assertion that they aren't accidents.
- lamontcg 3y ago
  The first two are precisely what most car "accidents" are not. They're usually the result of negligence, which is captured in 2a, but the definitions which carry a lack of any agency usually overshadow the meaning in 2a. This is why it is a great "soft" word because of the inherently fuzzy meaning. Almost always in a "car accident" one or both parties, often along with the DOT, fucked up and need to do better. You shouldn't use language that allows it to be viewed as totally unforeseeable.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - DangitBobby 3y ago
    You can argue whether it's negligence, but negligence doesn't make it not an accident.
    - lamontcg 3y ago
      Accident is a deeply misleading work to assign to negligence. And I'd argue that there's circular logic at play since the dictionary definition is based on the problematic usage.
      - DangitBobby 3y ago
        Well yes, the dictionary definition of words is based on their meaning in use.
- eesmith 3y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_collision#Criticism_of_%22accident%22_terminology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_collision#Criticism_of... > In 1997, George L. Reagle, the Associate Administrator for Motor Carriers of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration wrote a letter stating that "A crash is not an accident", emphasizing that the Department's Research and Special Programs Administration, the Federal Highway Administration, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration had all declared that "accident" should be avoided in their published writings and media communications.[15] In 2016, the Associated Press updated its style guide to recommend that journalists use "crash, collision, or other terms" rather than "accident" unless culpability is proven. The AP also recommends avoiding "accident" when negligence is proven or claimed because the term "can be read as exonerating the person responsible."[16] In 2021, the American Automobile Association (AAA) passed a resolution to replace "car accident" with "car crash" in their vocabulary.[17] In 2022, the traffic management company INRIX announced that "accident" would be removed from their lexicon.[18] > The Maryland Department of Transportation's Highway Safety Office emphasizes that "crashes are no accident", saying that "Using the word accident suggests that an incident was unavoidable, but many roadway crashes can be attributed to human error."[19] The Michigan Department of Transportation states that "accident" should be dropped in favor of "crash", saying that "Traffic crashes are fixable problems, caused by inattentive drivers and driver behavior. They are NOT accidents."[16] In line with their Vision Zero commitments, the Portland Bureau of Transportation recommends using "crash" rather than "accident".[20]
  - DangitBobby 3y ago
    Yes, propaganda happens. Doesn't make them not accidents.
    - eesmith 3y ago
      Ah, you agree with the car industry propaganda push to use the term "accident" instead of, say, motor killing. https://www.vox.com/2015/7/20/8995151/crash-not-accident https://www.vox.com/2015/7/20/8995151/crash-not-accident "Crash" is a wider term. If someone deliberately drives into a building, that is not an accident. It is still a crash. Do you also say plane accident instead of plane crash?
canadianfella 3y ago
[dead]

DangitBobby 3y ago

Webster's: 1a: an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance Their meeting was an accident. 1b: lack of intention or necessity : chance They met by accident rather than by design. 2a: an unfortunate event resulting especially from carelessness or ignorance Car accidents match one or all of these definitions.

_dain_ 3y ago
With proper road design, traffic fatalities can be reduced to a negligible rate. Oslo famously achieved zero per year. Since roads can be designed with this degree of safety, it follows that high rates of fatalities are a result of poor road design, and hence not unforeseeable accidents. "Accident" is actually softening language -- it diminishes the agency of the driver, and the designer of the road. "Traffic collision" describes what happened, and does not presume that nobody is to blame. The "car" part of "car accident" is also softening: nobody is "hit by a car", they are hit by a motorist.
- trgn 3y ago
  Yep, "hit by a car" is the perfect example of fetishization, the attribution of agency to inanimate objects. Note to that it will be the cyclist that will hit the old lady, never the bicycle. The bicycle, even though as old as the car, has resisted this fetishization. It's really curious, which objects cast the spell, and which don't.
  - rootusrootus 3y ago
    I've definitely heard people talk about getting hit by bikes. I think the distinction, to the extent it exists, might have a lot to do with what constitutes the majority of mass. If you get hit by an 18 pound bike with a 160 pound rider, you really got hit more by the rider than the bike. But if you get hit by a 3000 pound car with a 160 pound driver, you definitely got hit more by the car than the driver. However, depending on ideological viewpoint, it might be tempting to read more into the language.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
- DangitBobby 3y ago
  I didn't say it wasn't softening at all, I'm pushing back against the ridiculous assertion that they aren't accidents.
lamontcg 3y ago
The first two are precisely what most car "accidents" are not. They're usually the result of negligence, which is captured in 2a, but the definitions which carry a lack of any agency usually overshadow the meaning in 2a. This is why it is a great "soft" word because of the inherently fuzzy meaning. Almost always in a "car accident" one or both parties, often along with the DOT, fucked up and need to do better. You shouldn't use language that allows it to be viewed as totally unforeseeable.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- DangitBobby 3y ago
  You can argue whether it's negligence, but negligence doesn't make it not an accident.
  - lamontcg 3y ago
    Accident is a deeply misleading work to assign to negligence. And I'd argue that there's circular logic at play since the dictionary definition is based on the problematic usage.
    - DangitBobby 3y ago
      Well yes, the dictionary definition of words is based on their meaning in use.
eesmith 3y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_collision#Criticism_of_%22accident%22_terminology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_collision#Criticism_of... > In 1997, George L. Reagle, the Associate Administrator for Motor Carriers of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration wrote a letter stating that "A crash is not an accident", emphasizing that the Department's Research and Special Programs Administration, the Federal Highway Administration, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration had all declared that "accident" should be avoided in their published writings and media communications.[15] In 2016, the Associated Press updated its style guide to recommend that journalists use "crash, collision, or other terms" rather than "accident" unless culpability is proven. The AP also recommends avoiding "accident" when negligence is proven or claimed because the term "can be read as exonerating the person responsible."[16] In 2021, the American Automobile Association (AAA) passed a resolution to replace "car accident" with "car crash" in their vocabulary.[17] In 2022, the traffic management company INRIX announced that "accident" would be removed from their lexicon.[18] > The Maryland Department of Transportation's Highway Safety Office emphasizes that "crashes are no accident", saying that "Using the word accident suggests that an incident was unavoidable, but many roadway crashes can be attributed to human error."[19] The Michigan Department of Transportation states that "accident" should be dropped in favor of "crash", saying that "Traffic crashes are fixable problems, caused by inattentive drivers and driver behavior. They are NOT accidents."[16] In line with their Vision Zero commitments, the Portland Bureau of Transportation recommends using "crash" rather than "accident".[20]
- DangitBobby 3y ago
  Yes, propaganda happens. Doesn't make them not accidents.
  - eesmith 3y ago
    Ah, you agree with the car industry propaganda push to use the term "accident" instead of, say, motor killing. https://www.vox.com/2015/7/20/8995151/crash-not-accident https://www.vox.com/2015/7/20/8995151/crash-not-accident "Crash" is a wider term. If someone deliberately drives into a building, that is not an accident. It is still a crash. Do you also say plane accident instead of plane crash?

canadianfella 3y ago

[dead]