this post was submitted on 19 Dec 2023
1069 points (93.6% liked)

Technology

59106 readers
4410 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Salad_Fries@lemmy.world 92 points 10 months ago (6 children)

I know its super pedantic, but the word “accident” really grinds my gears in this context.

The proper terminology is “crash”.. accident infers that there is no fault or misconduct.

[–] Tatters@lemmy.world 26 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

The official UK Police term is Road Traffic Collision, or RTC, which does not imply fault or otherwise.

[–] BritishDuffer@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago (1 children)

What made you want to become a policeman-officer?

[–] BlackVenom@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

The mom or the sister?

[–] Raiderkev@lemmy.world 19 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] mdd@lemm.ee 8 points 10 months ago

This scene immediately popped into my head.

[–] Oderus@lemmy.world 15 points 10 months ago (2 children)

You can intentionally crash into someone which would not be an accident but if you crash into someone not on purpose, then it's an accident.

[–] asret@lemmy.zip 11 points 10 months ago

Exactly, so the use of "crash" would generally be far better for these sorts of articles.

"Accident" starts addressing intentions or expectations.

We could just add easily refer to them as "vehicular violence" but then we'd end up distorting things in another direction.

[–] Pipoca@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago

It doesn't have to be on purpose. Accident implies that something was just a freak occurrence beyond anyone's control. You can't fix accidents. You can fix crashes.

If you're driving negligently - drunk driving, not paying attention, etc then it's not an accident.

If it's due to bad road design, then it's not an accident.

[–] NENathaniel@lemmy.ca 11 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Wouldn't an accident still involve "fault"

[–] Chee_Koala@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

While many accidents do involve fault, there are scenarios where an accident can occur without anyone being legally at fault (mechanical failure, natural disasters). It does excludes malicious intent though. in the specific context of commercial motor vehicle regulations in the US, the term "accident" is defined in the Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (e-CFR) under 49 CFR § 390.5

[–] NENathaniel@lemmy.ca 1 points 10 months ago

Good point, so does Accidents exclude "accidental crashes with fault"

[–] Pipoca@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Colloquially, accidents are random events without intention or fault.

That's why there's a push to use neutral terms like "crash" that don't imply that the "accident" was just a random accidental mistake.

And fault is often a bit of a misnomer. Many crashes are the result of bad design, but the courts would never say "this pedestrian fatality here is 40% the fault of whichever insane engineer put the library parking lot across a 4-lane road from the library but refused to put a crosswalk there or implement any sort of traffic calming because that would inconvenience drivers".

[–] hglman@lemmy.ml 2 points 10 months ago

Car caused trauma