3 ms·

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

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.
      - sokoloff 3y ago
        I am roughly equally delayed whether I'm the leading or trailing car in a rear-end collision. It is the fact that contact occurred (and the subsequent checking on other occupants and exchange of information) which has delayed me, not whether I was an active cause or passive victim of the occurrence. The person who was waiting on me was inconvenienced by my lateness and I'm explaining the proximate cause of my lateness. Whether I was at fault or not is, in the vast, vast majority of cases, not relevant or of interest to them.
        ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
        Yes, but you could apply that reasoning to a coffee mug incident too. It would still be unusual to say "I was involved in a coffee mug containment breach" rather than "I dropped my coffee mug" or "The cat pushed my coffee mug off the table". It's a sign of motornormativity that we use different language for road traffic collisions as they have become so commonplace that they rarely even make the news. Everyone knows what a "car crash" is, but a "coffee mug crash" is not in common usage.
- paulcole 3y ago
  Yes, except one thing (the car crash) tends to have higher consequences than the coffee mug that the person dropped. And saying, "I was in a car accident" is very passive and ascribing the blame to someone else or the world at large. "I hit another car while driving." is the more accurate way of describing the situation. People like to take credit for their accomplishments and hide their blunders.

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.
    - sokoloff 3y ago
      I am roughly equally delayed whether I'm the leading or trailing car in a rear-end collision. It is the fact that contact occurred (and the subsequent checking on other occupants and exchange of information) which has delayed me, not whether I was an active cause or passive victim of the occurrence. The person who was waiting on me was inconvenienced by my lateness and I'm explaining the proximate cause of my lateness. Whether I was at fault or not is, in the vast, vast majority of cases, not relevant or of interest to them.
      - ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
        Yes, but you could apply that reasoning to a coffee mug incident too. It would still be unusual to say "I was involved in a coffee mug containment breach" rather than "I dropped my coffee mug" or "The cat pushed my coffee mug off the table". It's a sign of motornormativity that we use different language for road traffic collisions as they have become so commonplace that they rarely even make the news. Everyone knows what a "car crash" is, but a "coffee mug crash" is not in common usage.
paulcole 3y ago
Yes, except one thing (the car crash) tends to have higher consequences than the coffee mug that the person dropped. And saying, "I was in a car accident" is very passive and ascribing the blame to someone else or the world at large. "I hit another car while driving." is the more accurate way of describing the situation. People like to take credit for their accomplishments and hide their blunders.