11 ms·

> “accident" also implies that no-one is responsible for it I don’t personally get that implication from the word. Whether I drop and break my coffee mug or r

> “accident" also implies that no-one is responsible for it I don’t personally get that implication from the word. Whether I drop and break my coffee mug or rear-end someone at a traffic light, it’s an accident and I’m responsible for it.

ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
The fact that you are comparing a fumble of a mug and rear-ending someone suggests to me that you have internalised that implication that RTCs "just happen". There's certain behaviour that leads to rear-ending someone - typically lack of awareness/attentiveness rather than it being a momentary loss of control. It's predictable that e.g. someone using a phone whilst driving will be far more likely to cause a RTC whereas the coffee mug dropping isn't really associated with any particular behaviour. What I mean is that mug dropping is not really something that we can do anything about, but ensuring that drivers obey traffic laws and are attentive is definitely something that can be influenced (e.g. by police or by public messaging).
- rcxdude 3y ago
  pretty much all your arguments about the rear ending apply to the mug as well (I think we all know someone who drops/damages objects more often than most, and you can usually link said instances to a lapse of attention). The only difference is the severity of the outcome and thus the importance of avoiding behaviours which increase the risk of it occuring.
- sokoloff 3y ago
  I strongly believe that dropped coffee mugs are also positively correlated with lack of awareness/attentiveness. It seems weird to contemplate that they would be uncorrelated or negatively correlated. (I would expect that phone usage also positively correlates as a major category/source of distraction.) Same is true of rear-end collisions/accidents/unscheduled bumper modifications.
  - oceanplexian 3y ago
    Probably something that’s left over from childhood. When a baby breaks something it’s almost always an accident. Eventually babies grow up and become adults, and coffee cups turn into multi-ton automobiles.
  - ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
    Quite possibly. Maybe the difference then is that holding a coffee mug isn't an activity in itself, but typically combined with other activities whereas driving shouldn't be combined with other activities. It's possible that a sustained "don't use the internet whilst drinking from a mug" campaign could reduce the droppings(!), but it seems like a different class of problem than driving whilst distracted.
paulcole 3y ago
But if most people were late because they rear-ended someone they wouldn’t say, “I was in a car accident and I was responsible for it.” They just say, “I was in a car accident.” Which is exactly the point the commenter is trying to make.
- sokoloff 3y ago
  "I was late because I had to clean up after I dropped my coffee mug and I was responsible for it" is also a sentence that's unlikely to have ever been uttered, even though everyone assumes the unsaid second half of it.
  - ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
    This kind of highlights the motornormativity bias. People are likely to say "I was late as I'd dropped my mug" and probably less likely to say "I was late as I drove into a car in front of me" rather than the more common "I was late as I was in a car accident". Note that the use of the verb (dropped/drove) carries the implication of being active in the situation whereas saying something like "my car hit the vehicle in front" or "I was in a car accident" is reducing the role of the person.
    - sokoloff 3y ago
      "I was late because I dropped my mug in the kitchen while wearing blue jeans." Nobody says the end of that because it's irrelevant to the explanation for lateness. I was late because I was delayed by something not able to be planned around. That's what I'm conveying by way of my explanation. The person that I'm late to meet (likely) isn't a traffic cop, a DMV employee, my insurance adjuster, a purveyor of replacement coffee mugs, nor an analyst for NHTSA, so they don't care in the least whose fault it was. I'm not hiding details relevant to the listener in either the coffee or the car mishap.
      - ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
        > "I was late because I dropped my mug in the kitchen while wearing blue jeans." Nobody says the end of that because it's irrelevant to the explanation for lateness. That's kind of a straw man argument though. If you instead compare "I was in a car accident" with "I was in a mug dropping accident", you can see how bizarre it can be to use the passive version with a non-car incident. However, comparing "I drove into another car" with "I dropped a mug" and you can see that the active voice works better. (Possibly "I accidentally dropped a mug" could be used, but that's adding irrelevant information as it would be unusual for someone to purposefully drop a mug). The problem is that our society has over-embraced the car and has absorbed the NACC's use of language to de-personalise road traffic collisions on the car side of things.

ndsipa_pomu 3y ago

The fact that you are comparing a fumble of a mug and rear-ending someone suggests to me that you have internalised that implication that RTCs "just happen". There's certain behaviour that leads to rear-ending someone - typically lack of awareness/attentiveness rather than it being a momentary loss of control. It's predictable that e.g. someone using a phone whilst driving will be far more likely to cause a RTC whereas the coffee mug dropping isn't really associated with any particular behaviour. What I mean is that mug dropping is not really something that we can do anything about, but ensuring that drivers obey traffic laws and are attentive is definitely something that can be influenced (e.g. by police or by public messaging).

rcxdude 3y ago
pretty much all your arguments about the rear ending apply to the mug as well (I think we all know someone who drops/damages objects more often than most, and you can usually link said instances to a lapse of attention). The only difference is the severity of the outcome and thus the importance of avoiding behaviours which increase the risk of it occuring.
sokoloff 3y ago
I strongly believe that dropped coffee mugs are also positively correlated with lack of awareness/attentiveness. It seems weird to contemplate that they would be uncorrelated or negatively correlated. (I would expect that phone usage also positively correlates as a major category/source of distraction.) Same is true of rear-end collisions/accidents/unscheduled bumper modifications.
- oceanplexian 3y ago
  Probably something that’s left over from childhood. When a baby breaks something it’s almost always an accident. Eventually babies grow up and become adults, and coffee cups turn into multi-ton automobiles.
- ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
  Quite possibly. Maybe the difference then is that holding a coffee mug isn't an activity in itself, but typically combined with other activities whereas driving shouldn't be combined with other activities. It's possible that a sustained "don't use the internet whilst drinking from a mug" campaign could reduce the droppings(!), but it seems like a different class of problem than driving whilst distracted.

paulcole 3y ago

But if most people were late because they rear-ended someone they wouldn’t say, “I was in a car accident and I was responsible for it.” They just say, “I was in a car accident.” Which is exactly the point the commenter is trying to make.

sokoloff 3y ago
"I was late because I had to clean up after I dropped my coffee mug and I was responsible for it" is also a sentence that's unlikely to have ever been uttered, even though everyone assumes the unsaid second half of it.
- ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
  This kind of highlights the motornormativity bias. People are likely to say "I was late as I'd dropped my mug" and probably less likely to say "I was late as I drove into a car in front of me" rather than the more common "I was late as I was in a car accident". Note that the use of the verb (dropped/drove) carries the implication of being active in the situation whereas saying something like "my car hit the vehicle in front" or "I was in a car accident" is reducing the role of the person.
  - sokoloff 3y ago
    "I was late because I dropped my mug in the kitchen while wearing blue jeans." Nobody says the end of that because it's irrelevant to the explanation for lateness. I was late because I was delayed by something not able to be planned around. That's what I'm conveying by way of my explanation. The person that I'm late to meet (likely) isn't a traffic cop, a DMV employee, my insurance adjuster, a purveyor of replacement coffee mugs, nor an analyst for NHTSA, so they don't care in the least whose fault it was. I'm not hiding details relevant to the listener in either the coffee or the car mishap.
    - ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
      > "I was late because I dropped my mug in the kitchen while wearing blue jeans." Nobody says the end of that because it's irrelevant to the explanation for lateness. That's kind of a straw man argument though. If you instead compare "I was in a car accident" with "I was in a mug dropping accident", you can see how bizarre it can be to use the passive version with a non-car incident. However, comparing "I drove into another car" with "I dropped a mug" and you can see that the active voice works better. (Possibly "I accidentally dropped a mug" could be used, but that's adding irrelevant information as it would be unusual for someone to purposefully drop a mug). The problem is that our society has over-embraced the car and has absorbed the NACC's use of language to de-personalise road traffic collisions on the car side of things.