16 Comments

“Crash” is the official US traffic safety term, avoiding “accident.” To a lesser extent, see also “safety belt” versus “seat belt” and “impaired driving” versus “drunk driving.” The explicit goal is to shift behavior under the “predictable and preventable” idea. I am open to the theory that some people promote the vocabulary shift in hopes of affecting legal liability, but I always hear it in the sense of changing the way people think about driving.

To the BMJ: predict tonight’s lotto numbers, and tonight’s accidents. Report the correct prediction rates.

You will report greater success at the lotto number prediction.

George Orwell was prescient in his depiction of how government is able to control society. If you change the language you can change the thinking of the populace. This is just another example of our modern day newspeak. Thus, there are no accidents just collisions. I guess if you have a blowout it is not an accident. You and/or the tire manufacturer are at fault. I wonder whom we are supposed to blame if a deer runs in front of your car? Actually as a long time reader of Overlawyered I know the answer. It is the people who were feeding the deer.

When you were born, it may or may not have been an accident, but it was a birth. If you prefer to celebrate your “accident day” every year that is your right.

This is news? I don’t know how many times this was drilled into my head in law school.

I don’t have a problem with this one. If someone runs a stop sign because they weren’t paying enough attention, they are likely to cause a crash.

“Accident” suggests to me a conclusion about the cuase. Just like “murdered” suggests more than just “killed”. One states bare facts, the other suggests an evaluaion of the facts.

I like the lawyer comments.

Ordinary words are no longer permissible anterior to a legal proceeding. The word “accident” requires paying fees to three lawyers, now, being a legal conclusion.

Will we apply this also to crashes attributable to poor road design? Driving requires a predictable route ahead. When that expectation is denied, crashes can result.

Fine – since there will longer be “accidents”, coverage will no longer exist under liability insurance policies for injury and damages caused by an “accident”, right?

All the word “accident” suggests is that nobody acted intentionally to achieve the result and that the result was unexpected. This is almost always the case.

Nothing about the term “accident” suggests, at least to me, that it was unavoidable or that nobody is to blame. Accidents always have causes, and many of those causes obviously create a risk that something like the accident could occur.

This strikes me as really silly. Worse than requiring a rape victim to describe her ordeal without being able to give her opinion of it.

“Will we apply this also to crashes attributable to poor road design?”

Yes, actually. Your state and federal Departments of Transportation should be looking for that sort of thing. Of course, The State explicitly has immunity for any poor designs it turns up, but there are a great many crashes that could be prevented by changing the roadway design, signage, or light timing.

“I like the lawyer comments.

“Ordinary words are no longer permissible anterior to a legal proceeding.”

By the way, “before” is an ordinary word.

I was taught in Drivers Ed many years ago that there is no such thing as an automobile accident – wrecks are caused by someone doing something they shouldn’t or not doing something they should. As far as unintended consequences, “I didn’t *mean* to do it” is not an excuse to call it an “accident”.

Tom Bierley wrote:
As far as unintended consequences, “I didn’t *mean* to do it” is not an excuse to call it an “accident”.

I agree. We should call it an accident if and only if it meets the definition of an accident. Here are some dictionary definitions:

1) An unexpected and undesirable event, especially one resulting in damage or harm: car accidents on icy roads.

2) a mishap; especially one causing injury or death

3) An unanticipated or unpredictable harmful event.

4) An unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance

5) An unfortunate event resulting especially from carelessness or ignorance

If the outcome was intended, it’s definitely not an accident. If the specific set of events was predictable, it’s definite not an accident.

Not only is “I didn’t mean to do it” an excuse to call something an accident, it’s one of the defining aspects of aspects. They are not intended outcomes.

In the context of traffic accidents, the term “accident” simply says that the outcome was not intended and that a significant element of chance was involved.

}} All the word “accident” suggests is that nobody acted intentionally to achieve the result and that the result was unexpected. This is almost always the case.

And these days people seem to have forgotten about being responsible for their actions.

Choosing not to evaluate the possible risks you create for yourself and others doesn’t mean that the results where unexpected.

In many ways this issue seems like a person trying to claim ignorance of the law means you should be except from it. Except we aren’t talking about the law we are talking about drivers that choose not to evaluate the statical likely hood of the danger that they inflict on others by choosing to be distracted, not following the rules of the road, or drive under the influence.

The British have a flair for legalese – even when compared to Americans. In one local government plan dealing with traffic congestion, the term “bottleneck” was rejected (too simple!) in favor of “localised capacity deficiencies.” (Thanks to the Plain English Campaign for that).