We've probably discussed this before, but I read an article today by a researcher of automobile accidents saying that we really shouldn't use the word "accident" with car crashes. Tom Vanderbilt, a traffic expert, says that once you use the word "accident" you take out the notion that accidents can be prevented or reduced.

He gives the example of a street race that occurred in Maryland last week. The people were driving 110 mph, and one car went out of control, killing some spectators. He said the newspaper article was peppered with the word "accident." He pointed out that you hear about a "plane crash," not an "accident." But we all drive cars, so we feel more comfortable calling them "accidents."

Interestingly, he said the British Medical Journal, in 2001, announced that they'd not use the word "accident" in papers about traffic statistics. In England is the word "accident" used for car crashes like it is here?

quote:

In England is the word "accident" used for car crashes like it is here?

Lay persons use it that way but the police (amongst others) align themselves with the BMJ. The justification is that accidents cannot be prevented whereas most car crashes could have been prevented had the persons involved taken proper care.

I can't remember what acronym the police now use instead of RTA (Road Traffic Accident) but I had heard that it had changed.

I remember hearing someone from the car industry say that only around 5% (I think) of car crashes are in fact "accidents".

The Wikipedia article on this subject says

quote:

As the factors involved in collisions have been better understood, the term "accident" is sometimes avoided by some organisations, as the word can suggest an unpredictable, unpreventable event. However, although these events are rare in terms of the number of vehicles and drivers on the road, addressing the contributing factors can reduce the likelihood of collisions. That is why these organisations prefer the term "crash" or some other term.

We had someone from the Insurance Corporation of B.C. speak at one of our editorial seminars a few years ago, and she said they now refer to them as "motor vehicle incidents".
I have noticed some of the press releases we get from the police use that term, while others still refer to them as "accidents". In most cases, where there is more than one vehicle involved, the word "collision" seems to cover things.
The only time in the past few years I can recall using the word "accident" in a story deliberately was when a driver was killed after his car was hit by a moose. The moose had been struck by a large truck going in the other direction, flipped into the air, and came through the car's windshield, killing the driver.
That, to me, fit the definition of "accident".

Yes, Verbivore, I'd call that an "accident," too. What bad luck! I once hit a deer, and Shu loves to tell everyone that the deer wasn't insured.

That is interesting. I suspect the U.S. is slower than other nations in ceasing to use "accident" for automobile crashes.

On our major expressway, I once saw a man practicing the saxophone in stop and go traffic. Can you imagine?! Between cell phones, texting, eating fast foods, lighting cigarettes, putting on make-up, etc., I think distractions are a large part of motor vehicle "incidents."

Collision: When another car hits you.
Accident: When you hit another car.

Speaking of which, a court yesterday agreed to let an accident victim sue the other driver for "emotional distress" because he saw the other driver's dead body after the incident.

Oh, how awful! As Shu always says, though. Anyone can sue. It's winning that counts. I trust our juries.

Since an accident is merely an unexpected unpleasant event, I fail to see why one would assume an accident is unpreventable.

quote:

Since an accident is merely an unexpected unpleasant event, I fail to see why one would assume an accident is unpreventable.

That wouldn't be my primary definition; not all accidents are unpleasant or even unexpected; they are simply unavoidable.

It is an accident of birth than I am British; there is nothing I could have done to prevent it and I certainly don't find it unpleasant.

The OED does have, as its secondary definition, "an unfortunate event", but its primary definition is that of an "event without apparent cause" and its tertiary definition, "occurrence of things by chance".

quote:

its primary definition is that of an "event without apparent cause

If someone runs a stop light or a stop sign and hits you, there's an obvious cause and it's no accident.

Wow, Myth. We haven't seen you in ages! Welcome back, and we hope you'll pull up a chair and stay awhile.

quote:

Since an accident is merely an unexpected unpleasant event, I fail to see why one would assume an accident is unpreventable.

Actually, I'd think if something were an unexpected event, it would be unpreventable. However, I think the point is that many of these are expected events (being caused from distractions or negligence) and therefore are preventable.

Unless someone runs a stop light or stop sign with the intent of hitting you then it does fall under the definition of an accident--especially from the point of view of the innocent party.

If party A runs a stop sign and hits party B, it appears party A is negligent, or at least at fault for the accident; however

• party A might be a peace officer, fire truck, or other vehicle with right of way
  
• party B might be unlicensed or intoxicated and thus should not have been on the road in the first place
  
• Extenuating circumstances could exist
  

As for Richard's native citizenship, Richard's ancestors certainly could have prevented him from being born British; and the pleasantness of the entire event is perhaps a function of one's perspective

The upshot is that rarely will you come across an event that has no underlying cause and no way of either preventing or avoiding the event. Thus I claim that nearly all "accidents" are preventable and that the second OED definition is by far the one most often used in speech and writing these days.

quote:

As for Richard's native citizenship, Richard's ancestors certainly could have prevented him from being born British; and the pleasantness of the entire event is perhaps a functions of one's perspective Smile

Of course. It wasn't an accident from their point of view - but it was from mine.

Everything will have a cause, but if the cause could not been foreseen or avoided by the persons involved then it is an accident to them.

Which is why most traffic collisions and the like are not accidents, as has been suggested here.

I've found that often the "innocent victims" of "accidents" (in other words, those who think the others' insurance company should pay) have some fault themselves. Surely there are the 0-100% accidents, but I think there are damn few of them. I also as soon as they learn the driver's alcohol percent was over .08 (and it doesn't take much to get there), they automatically put the blame on that driver no matter what happened.

And, no, this is not sour grapes talking. Neither I, nor my family members, drive when we've had more than 1 glass or wine or 1 beer, so we haven't been picked up for driving while intoxicated. I just think there are some real extremists out there who think it's the fault of the driver who was drinking, even if the negligent sober driver rear ends him at a stoplight!

quote:

I just think there are some real extremists out there who think it's the fault of the driver who was drinking, even if the negligent sober driver rear ends him at a stoplight!

This is true. There frequently seems to be a presumption that the person who has broken the Law must inevitably also be the person who has caused the incident.

But there could be many instances, such as the rear-end collision scenario you cite, where the law-breaker is the aggrieved party.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:

Of course. It wasn't an accident from their point of view - but it was from mine.

Everything will have a cause, but if the cause could not been foreseen or avoided by the persons involved then it is an accident to them.

Which is why most traffic collisions and the like are not accidents, as has been suggested here.

First, Richard, you seem to dismiss the second OED definition as if the first definition is more important. Then you present an accident scenario which is neither the primary nor the secondary, but the tertiary definition. The fact that you are born British is a random happening, not an event without cause. There is a very obvious cause for you being British. So I think you are rather all over the map on this one. I'll restate that hardly anything these days qualifies for the primary OED definition.

Neither fault nor cause, but intent is the key to the secondary OED definition. If I am trying to hit a hole-in-one (or the slow playing idiot in front of me) and I do so, it is not an accident no matter how vanishingly small the probability is for me to make that shot. On the flip side, unless it is my intent to cause a car crash, that crash is an accident no matter how many rules of the road I ignore. My intoxication and/or breaking of traffic laws only increases the probability that I will be involved in an accident--it does not guarantee that I will be in one. Of course the fact that the crash was an accident does not absolve me from fault and severe consequences if it is determined that my actions contributed to the accident's cause (especially if I was willfully negligent). You can't assume that the crash was intended to happen and thus it does qualify as an accident until that intent is established.