Matt Richtel writes in the NYT that roadway fatalities are soaring at a rate not seen in 50 years, resulting from crashes, collisions and other incidents caused by drivers. But don't call them accidents as a growing number of safety advocates campaign to change a 100-year-old mentality that they say trivializes the single most common cause of traffic incidents: human error. "When you use the word 'accident,' it's like, 'God made it happen,' " says Mark Rosekind. "In our society, language can be everything." Rosekind says that the persistence of crashes — driving is the most dangerous activity for most people — can be explained in part by widespread apathy toward the issue. Changing semantics is meant to shake people, particularly policy makers, out of the implicit nobody's-fault attitude that the word "accident" conveys. The state of Nevada just enacted a law to change "accident" to "crash" in dozens of instances where the word is mentioned in state laws, like those covering police and insurance reports and at least 28 state departments of transportation have moved away from the term "accident" when referring to roadway incidents.
The word 'accident' was introduced into the lexicon of manufacturing and other industries in the early 1900s, when companies were looking to protect themselves from the costs of caring for workers who were injured on the job, says historian Peter Norton. "Relentless safety campaigns started calling these events 'accidents,' which excused the employer of responsibility," says Norton. When traffic deaths spiked in the 1920s, a consortium of auto-industry interests, including insurers, borrowed the wording to shift the focus away from the cars themselves. "Automakers were very interested in blaming reckless drivers," says Norton. But over time the word has come to exonerate the driver, too, with "accident" seeming like a lightning strike, beyond anyone's control. "Labeling most of the motor vehicle collision cases that I see as an attorney as an 'accident' has always been troubling to me," says Steven Gursten. "The word 'accident' implies there's no responsibility for it."
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 22 2016, @10:44PM
a dozen kittens are thrown into a vat of acid
(Score: 2, Informative) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Sunday May 22 2016, @10:50PM
Those poor kittens :(
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 22 2016, @10:59PM
They were bad kittens. They know what they did.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday May 24 2016, @08:44AM
There's a reason "accident" is so much superior to "crash", and it has nothing to do with someone's alleged intent to hide human error.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 22 2016, @10:51PM
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday May 23 2016, @05:47PM
It's a quote from every traffic school in the country for at least a couple decades.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Whoever on Sunday May 22 2016, @10:58PM
How is this news? Didn't anyone see Hot Fuzz?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 22 2016, @11:00PM
I interpret accidents in this case to be a subset of crashes: accidents are the ones where none of the parties had the intent to crash. Crashes are more general since you can crash on purpose. I never realized that most people considered the distinction to also include blame, not just intention.
Well, it looks like the dictionary has both usages. ( http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/accident [merriam-webster.com] ):
"an unfortunate event resulting especially from carelessness or ignorance" and "an unexpected happening causing loss or injury which is not due to any fault or misconduct on the part of the person injured but for which legal relief may be sought"
Well, that's too bad. Anyone have a general word to replace accident with that does not have the alternative meaning of no one being at fault? Crash is specific collisions, and includes intentional ones. If I walk into someone I want to be able to say "Sorry, I ran into you by accident" and not have people thinking I'm implying its not my fault (Apologizing for a random occurrence is stupid, and apparently most people would interpret it that way?). I guess I could say "Sorry, my running into you was an unexpected happening" to use the wording the definition used for that concept. That leaves open the possibility of it being my fault (or someone else's, or chance) without asserting it as such, which is what I'd like.
I'm so happy I'm a software engineer and not a layer. English is horrible trying to have clear specific meanings.
(Score: 3, Funny) by SomeGuy on Monday May 23 2016, @12:01AM
Yes: "fuckup".
For some reason they don't like putting that on insurance claims. :P
(Score: 2) by deadstick on Monday May 23 2016, @12:05AM
And to imply no fault, we could use "Shit happens".
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday May 23 2016, @06:07PM
Sorry, the topic is cars, which are built by evil overpaid union workers in Mexico, or imperialist Japanese with deadly pedals or airbags.
"Shit happens" applies to God-blessed guns Made In The USA by Heroic Patriotic Americans.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Monday May 23 2016, @02:57AM
Negligent crash. Unintended negligent crash. Careless operation of a motor vehicle. Recklessness. You can play around with those, and maybe some more.
At work, it is claimed that "all accidents are preventable". My agreement with that statement is less than 100%, but there is a lot of truth in the statement. If you drive defensively, you decrease your chances of having an accident dramatically. If everyone on the road drove defensively, accidents would be pretty damned rare.
Put the damned cell phone in the glove box, leave the snacks and beverages at home, DO NOT drink and drive, and PAY ATTENTION!! The rear view mirror is not for applying makeup or shaving, it is to let you know what is behind you. Clean your windows, sit erect (God, I hate every asshole on the road whose seat is reclining!) and keep your eyes moving. If you've never been a sentry or a lookout in the military, read up on how to keep your eyes moving - http://www.teignmouth-nci.org.uk/assets/files/Webmaster/Training-Manual-11th-Nov-manual.pdf [teignmouth-nci.org.uk]
"ROUTINE OBSERVATION
Move the Head not the Eyes.
Whether the watchkeeper is doing a straightforward visual search of the sea or
using binoculars or a telescope to obtain a specific piece of information, he or she
should always turn the head not the eyes. It is possible to keep the head still and
move only the eyes, but they will soon tire and thus the lookout will be less
effective
Use Peripheral Vision.
It is tempting to look straight ahead when searching an area, and even more so
when trying to identify the name of a vessel. Peripheral vision is more acute so
use it. By placing a target slightly off the centreline of vision it will be noted that
the target will be easier to identify.
Sweep Slowly. This is particularly important at deep sea stations where the view
is being constantly modified by waves, swell and wind. However, at all stations it
is good practice to ensure that the sweeping of the view is unhurried. A good
exercise is to imagine something small in the water and estimate how long it
might be before it would next appear on a top of a wave. The watchkeeper should
not leave that area until the sequence has been completed.
‘If you think that you might have seen something, you probably did’.
It is a well-recognised condition that the brain will register a fleeting contact
slightly later than the eyes have sent the message to the brain. Frequently the
watchkeeper will have moved on and it is tempting to think that it was
imagination. Always go back and pause long enough to check out the situation "
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Monday May 23 2016, @06:41AM
Well, technically that's true. For example, if you never use a car and never walk near a car, you never will be involved in a car accident.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 23 2016, @08:51AM
The only way to have 100% car accident/crash free world is to not have a single car in excistance. Same goes with any kind of device or activity.
(Score: 2) by kazzie on Monday May 23 2016, @07:25PM
I interpret accidents in this case to be a subset of crashes: accidents are the ones where none of the parties had the intent to crash. Crashes are more general since you can crash on purpose. I never realized that most people considered the distinction to also include blame, not just intention.
A frequently-heard opening line on TV adverts (in the UK) for injury compensation firms is:
Have you had an accident that wasn't your fault?
Where the use of the word "accident" doesn't imply lack of blame. Mind you, it is lawyers' interpretation of language here.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 22 2016, @11:25PM
So... Is it a crash or an accident when Windows shows that beautiful blue screen of death?
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Sunday May 22 2016, @11:34PM
So... Is it a crash or an accident when Windows shows that beautiful blue screen of death?
My favorite Windows error message:
There has been an undetectable error in your system.
Definitely accidental. So accidental not only did Windows not see it coming, it still could not see the crash after it happened.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 22 2016, @11:39PM
I like the ones that say "Unknown Error, would you like to run Windows troubleshooter?" which has never worked.
(Score: 3, Funny) by maxwell demon on Monday May 23 2016, @06:49AM
Well, they don't claim running Windows troubleshooter will help, do they?
Unknown error, would you like to listen to relaxing music?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday May 25 2016, @03:43PM
My favorite was many years ago, after inserting the Windows XP disc, it ran it's little installer splash screen thing which promptly crashed, and I was instead presented with a windows saying: "End Task: Welcome to Microsoft Windows XP!"
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Monday May 23 2016, @06:47AM
Normally is the system reports an error, you would assume it detected it, or else how could it report it? It may not be able to identify it, but it certainly has to be able to detect it.
The only way for this message to be accurate is if Microsoft figured out that after a certain time it's sure that there must have been an error, so if the system didn't detect any, it must have been an undetectable error, and therefore the message is displayed if the system was running sufficiently long without detecting any error.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday May 23 2016, @07:14AM
The only way for this message to be accurate is if Microsoft figured out that after a certain time it's sure that there must have been an error, so if the system didn't detect any, it must have been an undetectable error, and therefore the message is displayed if the system was running sufficiently long without detecting any error.
Still not accurate! Yes, if Microsoft has been running for a sufficient amount of time, there is a 99.999% chance of there being an error. But this reverts to the original claim of the FA: Some things are not accidents. If, with a predictable degree of probability, there will be a fatal error in a Micro$erf "operating system" (notice I use the term "hypothetically", in scare quotes"") running for a determinate amount of time, that is no accident, it is a feature! Click here [X] to upgrade your system to "Abandon Hope, all ye who enter here!" Dante, I believe. One of the comforting things about monotheism is not some hillbilly crusade to take women's reproductive rights from them, but the idea that there is some place that Windows developers go, eventually, to pay for their sins. Perhaps they are forced to code in C##, trying to make it work, like Sisyphus rolling his boulder higher and higher, until, "Undetectable error. Abort, retry, or return to hell?" And of course, all the options lead to the same place, much like the recent option to upgrade Windows to Windows 10, or to slightly later upgrade to Windows 10! Brilliant! One of the main points of Hell, is that no one is really certain that they are there. Might just be a normal day in the office, another week and a half in Texarkana! Or, as Jean-Paul Sartre so ably penned: "Hell is other people." So thank you, Maxwell's Demon, for having explicated the matter so well.
(Score: 2) by b0ru on Monday May 23 2016, @02:20PM
The accident was installing Windows in the first place.
(Score: 5, Informative) by archfeld on Sunday May 22 2016, @11:41PM
The insurance industry has referred to them as collisions vs accidents all along. Accidents are things like getting hit by a meteor, or a tree falling on your car. When you drive into something that is a collision. This is not exactly news but oh well. Going to be interesting to see how they refer to a collision involving 2 automated cars.
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 3, Funny) by PartTimeZombie on Sunday May 22 2016, @11:58PM
Going to be interesting to see how they refer to a collision involving 2 automated cars.
That will be when the AI's take over, killing all the humans, it won't matter after that.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by GungnirSniper on Monday May 23 2016, @10:11AM
So these pressure groups would have used that neutral term but seemed to prefer the accident-shaming of a "crash" instead.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Funny) by Pslytely Psycho on Monday May 23 2016, @10:57AM
A collision betwixt two autonomous vehicles from this day forward, shall herein and forthwith be known as a:
BENDER!
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by GungnirSniper on Monday May 23 2016, @12:01AM
Am I the only one who thinks of an accident as being general and a crash being injurious and vehicle-disabling?
It has been a long, long time since I've had to take a driver training class, but from taking the day-long punishment "retraining class" I can tell you it has all of the informational benefit of a middle school lecture the day before a vacation. The classes aren't focused by offense, say having speeder classes or crash classes, just a general waste of remedial head-drumming and some guilt-provoking videos. In the two I've attended, only a single driver learned something - that you give the right-of-way to vehicles on the highway, rather than a new vehicle taking priority. It doesn't help the National Safety Council considers the concept of right-of-way to be too confusing, as though the idea precedence is too hard for us uncouth slack-jawed yokels.
For both the retrainings and first-time driver trainings, it should include simulations. We have the technology, both hardware and software, why can't it be put to use? Not everyplace has complex roads, rotaries, and the god-awful layout of some cities, not to mention most trainers don't want to risk themselves and student-passengers going on highways or other situations that would be risky but very helpful for new drivers to experience.
The reason drivers often take the wrong action during accidents is lack of experience. How is a warm-weather trained driver going to respond to their first time skidding on ice? Or a rurally-trained driver going to do going into cities? Anyone from snowy regions is going to despise Dixie drivers whenever a dusting of snow happens down there, they slow down like it is Satan's flakes falling from the sky. How can we expect drivers with little or no highway training to handle the real speeds (not posted ones) in use if they haven't experienced them before?
And at least where I live, our highway Stormtroopers care only about drunk drivers and speeders, ignoring every other type of offense from slow drivers in the left lane to the complete disregard for turn signals and sudden lane changes. Elsewhere it is even worse, with enforcement-for-revenue being the reason of existence for armed agents of the government.
Instead we're waging a battle of semantics rather than addressing the real issues.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Appalbarry on Monday May 23 2016, @12:23AM
And at least where I live, our highway Stormtroopers care only about drunk drivers and speeders.
Really? I dream of such great policing!
Around here, unless it is an extraordinarily sunny day, "policing" means hiding at a street corner picking off people without seatbelts or holding a cel phone at 4 mph.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Monday May 23 2016, @05:57AM
Here they sit on the left shoulder of the freeway at night with their lights off waiting to get crushed by a sleepy truck driver. Are those ticket quotas really worth your life?
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by quintessence on Monday May 23 2016, @01:16AM
We do have simulations- video games. Seriously. The better ones are realistic enough to give you the sense of handling dynamics as a vehicle loses control, and gives you the opportunity to learn how to correct in a safe environment.
Beyond that, the article implies a god-like sense of anticipation of the driver for not only road conditions but what other drivers might do. This is stupid unless everyone travels at 10kmh and then boredom and inattentiveness sets in. If your system doesn't have enough leeway for human error then you're doing it wrong.
The elephant in the room is driver safety systems are oversold so people feel inclined to drive just at the edge of safe, expecting technology will save them, which it often does, but not always. And driver training (the real kind, on a skid pad) is scuttled in lieu of draconian penalties and stringent enforcement, except a goodish amount of studies make the case drivers will choose appropriate actions in the absence of external cuing. Nevermind some highway engineers should be shot at how poorly some interchanges are designed.
There are too many variables that go into an accident that a simplistic "human error" designation ignores real opportunities to reduce problems that don't require a cop every hundred yards or cars moving at a snails pace. Better driver training and stricter licensing requirements are a good start, as well as designing around the limitations of most drivers/vehicles.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 23 2016, @03:51AM
> We do have simulations- video games. Seriously.
Works for some people, but many people get simulator sickness (nausea, etc) once the screen size gets large enough to begin to feel "real".
Personal story -- I worked on early driving games (arcade systems) with good physics in the 1980s, then later on other racing simulations with large screens and projectors...and never had any problems. A couple of years ago I was driving a high quality video demo with wraparound screen. It was city scene and all of a sudden I nearly vomited. My stomach turned like never before and it took about 24 hours until I felt relatively back to normal.
You may scoff at simulator sickness like I did for many years--but once it happens to you, you will not scoff anymore.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Monday May 23 2016, @01:30AM
Yes, the reason why they're called accidents is that they happen accidentally. Which is the point that they're trying not to reinforce by referring to them as accidents.
They are accidents in the sense that people don't usually intend to run their car off the road or hit somebody, but they happen anyways. Calling them crashes, collisions, wrecks and things of that nature places more of an emphasis on the fact that they tend not to be random. There's usually a set of mistakes and occurrences that lead to the ultimate result and that the more of those you address up front the less likely it is that you'll wind up wrecked.
Or to use a car analogy, if you're driving too fast without a seat belt fastened you're more likely to be killed in a collision than if you're driving more moderately with all relevant safety gear in place.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Monday May 23 2016, @06:54AM
Wearing the seat belt does not prevent the collision, it just reduces the resulting damage.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 3, Informative) by stormreaver on Monday May 23 2016, @12:03PM
Yes, the reason why they're called accidents is that they happen accidentally.
Most "accident" aren't accidental. They are usually the result of someone doing something stupid that has a predictable result:
1) Driving too fast for conditions.
2) Following too closely.
3) Failing to mechanically maintain the vehicle.
4) Not paying attention to the road.
There are many more. An actual "accident" is very rare.
(Score: 2) by BK on Monday May 23 2016, @02:18AM
This seems to be riven by lawyer$ who want to a$$ign blame. With that said, here are some related words and how I define or interpret them. YMMV.
crash - one or more cars collide with object(s) resulting in spectacular damage.
wreck - when one or more cars is rendered obviously undrivable due to damage _while moving_.
fender-bender - when one or more cars collide with an object, causing visible damage but generally not rendering a a car entirely undrivable.
Note - crash > fender-bender > bump > scuff
accident - any of the above when not characterized by intent.
justifiable homicide - any of the above that leads to the painful death of a lawyer.
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday May 25 2016, @04:36PM
Around here (RI) I've seen police officers watch people drive right through red lights and not give a damn -- in one case the cop was right behind the guy in traffic, he pulls up to the intersection, comes to a complete stop, and then drives right though like it's a stop sign...and the officer sat there and did nothing (I wouldn't mind so much if there was *any visibility at all* of opposing traffic, but at that intersection they're coming out from a tunnel so you can't see much). Meanwhile, I've gone to court over *having too many bumper stickers*...
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Wednesday May 25 2016, @08:32PM
Or for having tint too dark for citizens but would be fine for police, as though they're the only ones in cars all day.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 23 2016, @12:15AM
"Labeling most of the motor vehicle collision cases that I see as an attorney as an 'accident' has always been troubling to me," says Steven Gursten.
Gursten, you're an Ambulance Chaser.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 23 2016, @07:29AM
The antonym of "accident" is "intentionally".
Accident does not imply that "God made it happen", it implies that neither of the divers did it on purpose.
When a car hits a pedestrian, resulting in a dead pedestrian, it's either an accident or murder. If he survives, it's either an accident or attempted murder.
Intent is very important in law.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ledow on Monday May 23 2016, @12:57PM
Murder has intent, indeed, so what happens when the driver is just negligent (not intending to kill, but being careless).
The pedantry matters in a court of law, and in people minds.
"I had an accident the other day" excuses a lot of deliberate, stupid or negligent actions.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 23 2016, @01:07PM
That's called Involuntary Man Slaughter
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 23 2016, @02:22PM
you can't spell "slaughter" without "laughter"
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Saturday May 28 2016, @05:08PM
Here there's an offence called "Criminal Negligence".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 23 2016, @08:00AM
How about "boo boo"
(Score: 3, Informative) by shortscreen on Monday May 23 2016, @09:48AM
Apparently what they are referring to with this bit of hype, is that 2015 had 1.22 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles. This was worse than 2014's lowest ever number of 1.08, but still better than 2008 or any year prior.
(Score: 3, Informative) by wisnoskij on Monday May 23 2016, @01:05PM
"When you use the word 'accident,' it's like, 'God made it happen"
No, not even illiterates or non-native speakers could use the language that poorly. Never in my life have I ever heard a tornado/storm damage called an accident. Accidents are defined, and only defined, as human error resulting in unplanned for results.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Tuesday May 24 2016, @02:02AM
"It's not a bug, it's a defect".
RMS likes to point out that there is no such thing as intellectual property. Patents, copyrights, trademarks and trade secrets are all quite different things.
George Orwell wrote an essay about how the poor use of the English language is a bad thing. The language used in 1984 - "doubleplusungood" - was an extreme example of this, but his essay had more to do with sloppy language leading to weakening one's resistance to Communist and Fascist propaganda.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]