Accidents Vs Crashes

Nuttzz

I have noticed lately that the media have started to call car accidents "crashes" i.e. a man was killed in a car crash today. I believe that this was at the behest of the NSC however when reporting the incident in Clonskeagh where a garda car hit a woman at a bus stop it is described as a "accident", make it sound like Joe Public goes out deliberately to crash :rolleyes:

edmund_f

well noted! the propaganda machine rolls on!

Ernie Ball

Dunno. There is some merit to the distinction. When a joyrider hits something, it's not an accident but the predictable outcome of his behaviour...

KTRIC

I'm really surprised that they actually admitted that it was them responsable. My personal expierience of the Gardai is that they will usually bend the truth a bit to suit themselves.

edmund_f

just shows the subjective nature of reporting, was recently listining to the radio, cannot remember which station, on the 'coming up at 5' or whatever the news person came on '17 YR OLD MALE KILLED IN FATAL ACCIDENT' went to break, came back on '17 YEAR OLD MALE KILLED IN FATAL ACCIDENT, happeded such and such a time..' etc. at the very end of the section 'the man was a front seat passanger'. My condolances to the freinds and family of this person, but if someone i knew died in this way, and then to hear it being reported as if it was their fault...

comanche

There word accident normally implies that no one was at fault, that the event was out of people's control. However in most car crashes there are people to blame - hence car crashes. The insurance industry no longer calls em accidents, if I recall correctly they call em incidents.

BrianD

It's about time that they did stop call them accidents as the vast majority of incidents on Irish roads are as a result of deliberate actions of the driver - consumption of alcohol, inapproriate speed, poor road positioning and over taking etc. The longer will call them accidents (that we believe we have no control over) the longer will fail to question why and the longer the carnage continues.

ambro25

Any sudden event which is unintended.

source

So, "accident or crash" semantic play is not really relevant, as one rarely intends to wreck one's motor, drunk or otherwise...

Dades

ambro25 wrote:

So, "accident or crash" semantic play is not really relevant, as one rarely intends to wreck one's motor, drunk or otherwise...

A bit like an "accidental" pregnancy.

Nobody intended it to happen - but there's definitely somebody at fault...

ambro25

The Atheist wrote:

A bit like an "accidental" pregnancy.

Nobody intended it to happen - but there's definitely somebody at fault...

LOL - Ah well, the comparison falls flat where the expense is concerned, though... (provided the damage is only material, of course)

MrPudding

ambro25 wrote:

Any sudden event which is unintended.

source

So, "accident or crash" semantic play is not really relevant, as one rarely intends to wreck one's motor, drunk or otherwise...

I think it is about perception. Most people will not know the exact definition or make the distinction. They will not nesseccarily make the connection between a car crash and someone doing something wrong.

Personally I like the term incident, to me it suggests that something has happened but we are not sure what exactly yet. I would then like follow up reports after the coroner or police investigation is over.

I would imagine there would be a legal problem with news reporters blaming a driver before there has been an investigation.

MrP

ambro25

MrPudding wrote:

I would imagine there would be a legal problem with news reporters blaming a driver before there has been an investigation.
MrP

Slander, I believe.

edmund_f

so all the young male drivers have to get together, form a society and take RTE to court?

ambro25

Why need a society?
Do it yourself

edmund_f

wish i could be considered 'young' at least my insurance company has decided i am not anymore, i think you can add another item to the 'signs you are getting old' your insurance goes below EU1000

Victor

Yeah, there has been a change in policy to sue the word collision instead of accident. Road rage, homocide and suicide aren't accidents. Drink driving, speeding and dangerous driving are more "inevitables" than accidents.

I would however prefer the word incident to collision - someone agressively overtaking a motorcyclist and knocking them over with their slipsteam isn't a collision.

http://www.nra.ie/PublicationsResources/DownloadableDocumentation/RoadSafety/d1736.PDF

Acknowledgements
This is the latest in a series of annual reviews of road collision data dating back to 1968. All previous reviews (undertaken by either the Road Safety and Research Section of the National Roads Authority, the Environmental Research Unit or An Foras Forbartha) were called ‘Road Accident Facts’. A decision was reached to henceforth change the name of the publication to ‘Road Collision Facts’.

ambro25

'Collision' - short, sweet, to the point (read: descriptive and factual / unbiased). Love it.

Victor wrote:

I would however prefer the word incident to collision - someone agressively overtaking a motorcyclist and knocking them over with their slipsteam isn't a collision.

But can we not then use "accident" ? (as slipstream not under control of car driver and knocking-over clearly unintended)

Or should we reserve 'collision' for situations involving contact (e.g. instead of 'accident' or 'crash') and accident for other situations?

But how would the following be categorized?

"In the course of evading impact by a drunk driver, the driver of the car ploughed into the hedge and wrote off his [insert car brand - preferably starting with B.M...]"

An 'incident' springs to mind... hehe - this is turning into a semantics play after all!

mike65

There are no accidents.

Mike.

Capt'n Midnight

ambro25 wrote:

But can we not then use "accident" ? (as slipstream not under control of car driver and knocking-over clearly unintended)

Ah I get it unintended => accident - unfortunatley this leave the other option of "intended" which is of course attempted murder.

If it's preventable it's not an accident, think of crash barriers on motor ways, driving too fast in wet weather, cocconing your self away from the sounds outside with soundproofing and radio louder than any cyclist or pedistarian could ever be. Think of all the risks people take becuse they feel safer in thier SUV or have air bags or seat belt. - there are very few accidents on our roads.

PSNI use collision AFAIK

Guy:Incognito

K-TRIC wrote:

I'm really surprised that they actually admitted that it was them responsable. My personal expierience of the Gardai is that they will usually bend the truth a bit to suit themselves.

Thats hardly confined to guards, everyone will try to put as much in their on favour as possible, its human nature,

leeroybrown

ambro25 wrote:

Slander, I believe.

Libel actually. Legally it would be libel which is far more serious and far easier (read - far less difficult) to prove.

DubTony

This from The Irish Times of 26th Nov. 2003

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/motoring/2003/1126/3475888261MOT26PAGE2LOWER.html

Poor training at the root of the safety problem
Michael McAleer, Motoring Editor

He's between 25 and 34 years of age. He crashed into the ditch on a straight dry road in daylight in Co Longford in July at 5 p.m. No other car was involved.

Statistics throw up some strange profiles when cobbled together; some justified, others not. Yet one of the most significant features of the latest accident statistics from the National Roads Authority is that the single most important contributory factor to road incidents in Ireland is the driver.

Incidentally, the use of the word accident in the title of the report could be judged a misnomer given that it would seem in the vast majority of these collisions some element of blame is attributable.....

The full article can be seen here :
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/motoring/2003/1126/3475888261MOT26PAGE2LOWER.html

Dades

DubTony wrote:

Incidentally, the use of the word accident in the title of the report could be judged a misnomer given that it would seem in the vast majority of these collisions some element of blame is attributable.....

I still don't understand this. As long as it wasn't intentional it's still a feckin' accident. This is just people trying to redefine popular perception or words for whatever purpose. There can still be blame in an accident.

A crash is what happens following the collision of two objects at speed. The entire event is an accident.

Balfa

The Atheist wrote:

A crash is what happens following the collision of two objects at speed.

Actually, only one object has to be at speed

Dades

Balfa wrote:

Actually, only one object has to be at speed

Yeah well the earth spins at up to 1600kph so everything including the trees are moving at a fair whack!

Balfa

The Atheist wrote:

Yeah well the earth spins at up to 1600kph so everything including the trees are moving at a fair whack!

Not in comparison to me, for I am the center of the universe!

Victor

It's all relative!

Driving your car at 50kmh and clipping the mirror of a car driving parallel and in the same direction at 51kmh won't result in much of a shunt.

Change one of those criteria and things will change dramaticly.

edmund_f

suppose this thread started with semantics, you could throw in the fact if depends what you get hit by, e.g. truck at 30kph or bike at 60kph. lets see how muddy we can make this water.

(actually i wonder could you get away with using the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle as a defence, well it is impossible to know exactly where i was AND what speed i was doing your Honour)