I'm confused what conversation you think we're having. Someone said that car crashes are "not accidents." That's fucking crazy, so I'm pushing back on it. They are clearly mostly accidents. Not liking cars, people who make cars, people who sell cars, and people who drive cars doesn't make them not accidents.
> For many years safety officials and public health authorities have discouraged use of the word “accident” when it refers to injuries or the events that produce them. An accident is often understood to be unpredictable—a chance occurrence or an “act of God”—and therefore unavoidable. However, most injuries and their precipitating events are predictable and preventable.1–3 That is why the BMJ has decided to ban the word accident.
> We assert that motor vehicle crash should replace motor vehicle accident in the clinical and research lexicon of traumatologists. Crash encompasses a wider range of potential causes for vehicular crashes than does the term accident. A majority of fatal crashes are caused by intoxicated, speeding, distracted, or careless drivers and, therefore, are not accidents. Most importantly, characterizing crashes as accidents, when a driver was intoxicated or negligent, may impede the recovery of crash victims by preventing them from assigning blame and working through the emotions related to their trauma.
> The debate over using the word accident has encouraged some groups to adopt the word crash, while other groups retain using accident. This article addresses the inconsistent and interchangeable use of the terms accident and crash. ... Although there is evidence that the use of the word accident should be maintained when the event could not have reasonably been prevented, the theoretical framework highlights this will likely perpetuate the conceptual confusion. The recommendation is to: 1) identify the mechanism of injury, 2) identify event as intentional vs. non-intentional, and 3) identify event as preventable vs. non-preventable.
There is certainly disagreement, but to call it "fucking crazy" and attributing the viewpoint as limited to car haters suggests you haven't read any of the background, so are not participating in the conversation.
Okay man, things you don't like can't be involved in accidents, any harm they cause is intentional, it all makes sense because someone conducted research that has nothing to do with the actual meaning of words.
> A majority of fatal crashes are caused by intoxicated, speeding, distracted, or careless drivers and, therefore, are not accidents. Most importantly, characterizing crashes as accidents, when a driver was intoxicated or negligent, may impede the recovery of crash victims by preventing them from assigning blame and working through the emotions related to their trauma.
These people not understanding what the word accident means is not my problem. If it was not on purpose I don't care if it was "riding on the hood" levels of negligence, the thing that makes it an accident is the intent so all crashes where the driver did not mean to do it would also qualify by the rules of the English language. Crucially, negligence can be, and in fact practically always is, a proximal cause to any accident. Consider, when was the last accident (not car accident, just spilling tea or something) you had that couldn't have been avoided with sufficient protections in place?
Pretty ironic to spout politically motivated redefinitions of the word accident while complaining about astroturfing the terminology surrounding car crashes/accidents.
Before you respond, if you intend to at all, I really need to know, do you understand and agree with what I'm saying? That by the definition of the word accident which I shared up-thread that almost all car crashes are accidents according to that meaning? Because if we can't agree on what words mean when we both have access to the definition, we have no hope of achieving communication.
