Who's at fault....Lorry driver, cyclist or the cycle lane designer?

[Boris Bajic]

I'm afraid you guys are wrong about accident being the right word. It's collision, and that's why police forces don't call them accidents any more. Perhaps you ought to show victims the same sort of respect, yes?

BM, many police forces in the English-speaking world are moving away from the word 'accident'. This does not alter the definition of the word. Those police forces who choose not to use the word 'accident' in official documents do so for their own reasons.

It's not a matter of respect or absence thereof. Nobody is showing any victims any lack of respect by questioning the insitence on hyperbolic jargonese outside its own very limited professional usage.

Those who eschew the term 'accident' when describing collisions have their own reasons, but they still lack the powers to alter the definition of a word.

There is simply no sense in which the word accident 'removes the possibility of blame' (your phrase above). I have a great deal of respect for your contributions to this forum, but if you think this you are wrong.

This is not a matter of opinion, rather of definition. My source is not a speech by a traffic officer in Toronto; it is every reputable dictionary of the English language.

Collision is a perfectly acceptable word to use when describing a collision. Accident is a perfectly acceptable word to use when describing an accident, which may be a collision or one of myriad other possible incidents.

Neither is a synonym for the other.

 

[Hip Priest]

As Gaz says, the police prefer the word collision prior to investigation, because sometimes a collision is caused deliberatetely.

There was a nasty head-on crash in Newcastle a few years back, causing a fatality. It turned out the crash was caused deliberately by a third party pushing one of the cars into the opposite lane, motivated by road rage. In this case, the word accident would've been incorrect.

 

[dawesome]

There was a nasty head-on crash in Newcastle a few years back.

And one yesterday, it seems:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...hed-head-on-purpose-lose-unborn-baby-son.html

Would you really use the word "accident" for that, if what's claimed is true?

 

[Hip Priest]

And one yesterday, it seems:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...hed-head-on-purpose-lose-unborn-baby-son.html

Would you really use the word "accident" for that, if what's claimed is true?

No, I wouldn't. If you'd read my post properly, you'd know that.

 

[Norm]

No, I wouldn't. If you'd read my post properly, you'd know that.

Then again, if reading and comprehension hadn't proved such an issue, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

I recall something being said before that RTA was avoided by emergency services due to one person arguing in court that because the police officer has used accident in his notes, that it was such and he could not be blamed for it.
Let me see if I can find something to back that up.

I'll bet you the court did not accept his argument.

Take a look at Section 170 RTA 1988 (duty of driver to stop) and see if you can find incident or collision used anywhere in place of accident.N

Accident does not mean free from fault.

GC

 

[dawesome]

There are also legal implications, as Spen of this parish noted:

The police in saying this is not an RTA, but is an RTC, present a serious problem in prosecuting someone for fail to stop/ fail to report.

If they say it is not an RTA but an RTC, then they would be arguing against themselves if they later try to prosecute someone for failing to stop/ report an accident.

I do not think for one moment those who try to revise the meanings of words or change phrases to be trendy have thought this one through.

Working in an office with several very senior criminal lawyers most of whom are senior prosecutors, all think that a defence of the nature I have indicated would have a realistic prospect of succeeding.

If it is not an RTA then the fail to stop/ fail to report offences are not brought into play.


The main point here is that making a minor change in one place may have an unintended consequence elsewhere.

 

[Hip Priest]

I agree entirely with that contribution, which seems to support my view that trying to alter the meaning of the long-established word 'accident' is futile.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

There are also legal implications, as Spen of this parish noted:

Have you quoted that as something that supports your argument that accidents should be called collisions?


GC

 

[gaz]

I'll bet you the court did not accept his argument.

Take a look at Section 170 RTA 1988 (duty of driver to stop) and see if you can find incident or collision used anywhere in place of accident.N

Accident does not mean free from fault.

GC

Don't worry, i know what it is in the law. Read my comments, and you will see that I only mention what the police use at first (before they know any details of what happened), and not what it may be described as at a later date.

 

[dawesome]

Police forces are not the majority, some police forces still use the word accident,.

Which ones?

 

[dawesome]

Certainly something here is stupid. It may be as you have it.

On the other hand, it may be your unusual attempt to change the definition of the word 'accident'.

I'm not as young as I was and not as bright as I ought to be.

I fear you may lack either access to a dictionary or the ability to use one. Keep trying. It will come. We're all right behind you.

I am explaining why a word can be misused, I'm not attacking anyone personally, if you are unable to debate the point without personal abuse then please stay out of the debate.

 

[dawesome]

I have a number of emails from some kind people offering me a share of millions of pounds, unfortunately I've been told that these emails were a scam from people that are not kind at all. I've noticed that all these emails seem to be linked in someway to Nigeria, I have therefore come to the following conclusions;
All my scam emails are linked to Nigeria, therefore;
All Nigerians are scammers, therefore;
All Africans are scammers, therefore;
All black people are scammers.

Makes sense to me.

I'm not sure what your racist views about Nigerians have to do with anything. You think all black people are criminals?

 

[Norm]

I'm not sure what your racist views about Nigerians have to do with anything.

Somehow, that wilful misunderstanding doesn't surprise me. TVP, for one, mentions the word a few times.

 

[al78]

Sure. But the press, and witnesses, may use the word "accident" when it's nothing of the kind. Exactly as you've just done. Can you really defend the notion that firing a gun down a crowded street and killing someone is an "accident"? It's no different with vehicles, calling something an "accident" after a speeding, drunk or drugged driver kills someone is insulting the victim's families.

What would be the motivation for firing a gun down a crowded street, if not to kill someone?

It is entirely possible that a driver can think they can pull off a manoeuvre without incident only to find out (too late) that they can't. It is not possible for someone to think that firing a gun down a crowded street wouldn't likely result in death/injury. The two situations are not comparable.