Post by Peter McNicholPost by DiscoDuckPost by Peter McNicholPost by DiscoDuckPost by Peter McNicholPost by DiscoDuckPost by Peter McNicholWhy should I answer question of a loud mouth, rude, insulting "person"?
Interesting how people when cornered when wrong, start to accuse others
of being rude and insulting, and calling them "loud mouth".
No I call people insulting when they criticize.
THIS IS A DISCUSSION BOARD.
They idea of a discussion board is to listen.
The chief of Police of Ottawa is not wrong.
First off, I don't believe you that he/she says accidents do not
happen/don't exist.
I do not care what you believe. I care the chief of police says.
I've emailed several around Canada and the US, of the ones that
replied, they all said yes, indeed ACCIDENTS EXIST, do happen and by
definition are NOT done on purpose-hence the term accident.
Post by Peter McNicholPost by DiscoDuckPost by Peter McNicholPost by DiscoDuckPost by Peter McNicholRadio and TV people are not wrong for purposely using a word that does
not imply that haphazard results that could have been prevented.
They say accidents do not happen? I don't believe that either.
They call all collisions "collisions". They do not distinguish. Fault or no fault.
But your point all along has been about APPLYING Fault.
Post by Peter McNicholPost by DiscoDuckPost by Peter McNicholDriver error and negligence are serious issues. Calling them accidents
does not give them serious justice.
Of course they do, because they are accidents. Like it or not,
accidents happen and that is an appropriate word.
Calling them accidents put the emphasis on the immediate error, not
the intentional driving without due care that is 90-99% the cause
of the collision.
You mean that caused the accident. Tell me Peter, what 1-10% of
accidents, do you consider driving WITH DUE Care.
Post by Peter McNicholPost by DiscoDuckPost by Peter McNicholPost by DiscoDuckPost by Peter McNicholPeople increasing use the word collision to indicate that the crash
was not unexpected. Therefore not an accident.
Accident suggests the crash was unexpected-Hence the definition.
COLLISION suggests no fault
Doesn't that go against everything you have been saying? You have said
repeatedly "accident" suggests no fault.
I repeat there is nothing unexpected if one drives without due care.
Sure there is. If you speed you don't EXPECT to get in an accident.
99% of drivers speed daily-so now you are saying they are PURPOSLEY
TRYING to get in an accident.
Post by Peter McNicholPost by DiscoDuckPost by Peter McNicholAND I REPEAT the crash was not unexpected if the driver drove without due care.
You have said if you get in an accident, if you drive without due care
you PURPOSELY caused an accident.
No! I said a collision occurred while you are driving without due care and lead
to the crash. The failure to drive without due care was the major cause of the
collision! The error the driver made just before the crash is only
part of the analysis. Advocates look at all the causes of collisions.
Yes you DID say that. Look here:
(http://groups.google.com/group/bc.cycling/msg/026d1de8c087c1eb) ,
where you said:
"If you speed and loose control you purposely did so.
If you fail to look you purposely caused the collision. "
Are you now admitting you were wrong in that statement?
Post by Peter McNicholPost by DiscoDuckPost by Peter McNicholPost by DiscoDuckPost by Peter McNicholPost by DiscoDuckSo again, What is your definition of an accident? Please provide the
"enlightened professionals" you speak of so much, definition.
Enlightened people do not use the word accident!
IF someone told me a collision occurred, I would think no one was at
fault.
As you pointed out collision is a general term. It includes crashes were
people are at fault and those that are unavoidable.
Above you said the opposite.
No! I said a collision occurred while you are driving without due care and lead
to the crash. The failure to drive without due care was the major cause of the
collision! The error the driver made just before the crash is only
part of the analysis. Advocates look at all the causes of collisions.
But you said accidents are not accidents. That is what this argument
has been about for quite some time.
Yet you refuse to provide a word for when someone unintentionally
caused an accident.
Post by Peter McNicholPost by DiscoDuckPost by Peter McNicholPost by DiscoDuckPost by Peter McNicholPost by DiscoDuckYou are literally the only person on the planet who says accidents are
not accidents.
I did not say it first.
Police, Emergency personal, radio, and TV stations are increasing
changing to use the word "collision" as it does not give the connotation
that it was accidental when a driver actions or negligence caused
the collision.
But it WAS Accidental, hence the term.
It is no accident is you intended to drive without due care.
IT IS an accident if you drive without due care. You may still be
negligent, but people are held responsible for accidents all the time.
No! Driving without due care is intentional! An intentional act lead
to the collision. Therefore it is no accident.
Not necessarily. For one, someone may be negligent (as has been
pointed out to you several times now) and didn't realize they were
driving without due care (for example going 1 km over the speed limit).
So it is till an accident even using YOUR (new) definition.
Besides if someone is going 50 KM over, ON PURPOSE, and gets in a
collision that is still an accident. They are also held responsible
for the accident.
Post by Peter McNicholPost by DiscoDuckVirtually ALL accidents allocate blame.
Blame is not the only thing. Preventable acts must also be examined.
Most collisions analysis assess errors to more than one driver.
They also measure all the causes that lead to the collisions, not
just the immediate driver errors, but also the intentional behaviour
that lead to the collision.
But your whole point was to allocate blame. Regardless it is still an
accident as police chiefs, and insurance company's have explained.
Post by Peter McNicholEven if you were hit you may have done something that contributed
to the collision.
Yup, that is certainly possible. Shared blame often happens in
accidents.
Post by Peter McNicholPost by DiscoDuckIN part "ICBC relies on the definition that is provided in most
dictionaries."
"an omission to adhere to the terms and conditions of the BC Motor
Vehicle Act don't amount to intentionally being the cause of a crash.
A driver may purposefully decide to exceed the speed limit but the fact
he/she then crashes their car into another does not make the crash
'intentional'. It may however make that driver NEGLIGENT and
responsible (in civil law) for the consequences of their actions. "
Post by Peter McNicholPost by DiscoDuckPost by Peter McNicholI showed you 2000 people who do not use the word accident.
And I showed you 55,000.
"accident" shows 51,700.
"car accident" only gives 27,600 results.
it changes daily.
The point is your search was only looking for "accidents", not "car accidents"
The definition of accident does not change depending on circumstance.
Post by Peter McNicholPost by DiscoDuckPost by Peter McNichol"car collision" still gives 4,100.
"car collision -accident gives 2,210.
That is search string. All it proves is that reporters happen to
exclude the word "accident."
No! It is not that simple. You are fixated on calling crashes
accidents. The reporters in the search are not.
Not at all. I have openly stated collisions and accidents are not
mutually exclusive. To be it has NEVER been an issue to me nor to
miilions of other people including professionals (which you claim DO
have a problem with that). Both exist with each other. It is YOU that
has the problem with the word "accident"
Post by Peter McNicholPost by DiscoDuckPost by Peter McNicholPost by DiscoDuckPost by Peter McNicholWho today still calls a flight attendant a stewardess?
The word still exists but it is not correct.
You are speaking of a gender issue. I could call them cauliflower but
that does not make it correct.
Stewardess is not socially acceptable.
It sure is for many. The fact there are people like you trying to
change definition, does not make the *new* definition, so. Again I
know several people who call themselves "Stewardess." THAT is a matter
of personal preference. The definition of accident IS NOT!!
Oh, look here: Look at what this flight attendant is referred to on
their own website:
http://www.afanet.org/default.asp?id=310
Besides, that is a gender issue-not a "accident" issue.
Post by Peter McNicholPost by DiscoDuckPost by Peter McNicholCalling it a cauliflower
issue be littles it. Those that do not use the word accident as it does
not show the intent do drive without due care believe accident is also
a socially unacceptable word, especially when it applies to road vehicle
operators.
You have this strange concept that accident suggests no fault. That is
incorrect. "Collision" suggests no fault. When it tree falls and hits
a car, THAT is a collision where no fault occurred.
Although I am sure you'll state they should have known that, that tree
could have fallen.
No! I said calling them accidents puts the emphasis on the immediate
driver error, not the root cause. Intentional driving without due
care is the major cause of most collisions.
Nope, you're back tracking. Why not just admit you are wrong? You
said accidents are not accidents. Do I have to post that message here
a 7th time?
Post by Peter McNicholAs I said before, Collisions is a general term. Fault or no fault it
is still a collision.
As I have said repeatedly the terms "collision" and "accident" are not
mutually exclusive.
Post by Peter McNicholPost by DiscoDuckPost by Peter McNicholPost by DiscoDuckPost by Peter McNicholPost by DiscoDuckPost by Peter McNicholIf you know how to read a search string you know that none of these
stories even contained the word "accident". Only you have interpreted
them to be accidents.
I know how, perfectly. But according to you, since accidents do not
exist, then none of the 55,000 google entries should have appeared.
So again, What is your definition of an accident?
You forget there are at least 2,000 that do not use the word accident.
There are over 4,000 that use collision. More are changing every day.
No, they aren't. Accident suggest someone is at fault. COLLISION DOES
NOT.
You say accident means someone made an unconscious mistake.
Driving without due care is not an unconscious mistake.
Actually it can be both can be both conscious and unconscious.
Regardless though if you go over the speed limit, and cause an
accident, it is
still.......................an.....................ACCIDENT!!!!! You
are not deemed under ANY LAW (including in Ottawa as you claim) to
PURPOSELY cause the accident. Show me where it says that.
The analysis is what intentional acts lead to the collision.
Intentionally driving without due care is the major cause of
most collisions. That is not unintentional.
IT sure can be unintentional. Driving 1 km over the speed limit if you
don't notice is unintentional. Speeding on purpose (which you claim is
what ALL speeders do) may be intentional. But if you didn't "plan" to
get in an accident as you previously claimed.
Post by Peter McNicholPost by DiscoDuckPost by Peter McNicholPost by DiscoDuckPost by Peter McNicholI am not saying people do not STILL use the work accident. I am just
saying that more people realize that accident is incorrect as intent
to do harm was there when people drive without due care.
Again, Collision is the term that connote no fault. Accident is
perfectly clear that someone was negligent.
You say accident means someone made an unconscious mistake.
Driving without due care is not an unconscious mistake
Read above.
The analysis is what intentional acts lead to the collision.
Intentionally driving without due care is the major cause of
most collisions. That is not unintentional.
IT sure can be unintentional. Driving 1 km over the speed limit if you
don't notice is unintentional. Speeding on purpose (which you claim is
what ALL speeders do) may be intentional. But if you didn't "plan" to
get in an accident as you previously claimed.
Post by Peter McNicholPost by DiscoDuckPost by Peter McNicholPost by DiscoDuckPost by Peter McNicholIf you rob a bank and shoot someone, and they die, you are guilty of
murder whether you intended to kill them or not.
Right, but that was no accident. You SHOT on purpose.
IN a car accident, you didn't 'COLLIDE" on purpose. Yet you said YOU
DID!!!
I said if ones driving without due care contributed to a collision it is
no accident.
Yes it is.
You are saying an intentional act is not intentional.
No, you are saying an unintentional act is intentional.
Intentional (according to the online dictionary): Done deliberately;
intended
You said people who "It is no accident if you speed and loose control.
" purposely loose control. Your very statement is an oxymoron.
Post by Peter McNicholPost by DiscoDuckPost by Peter McNicholPost by DiscoDuckPost by Peter McNicholSo too with a collision. If you intended to speed and drive without
due care or were negligent then you could have prevented it. Someone
said "prevention is no accident".
Prevention is intentional. Accidents are not despite your attempts to
change the definition of such.
It is not me alone that is making the change. It is not one flight attendant
that made the change.
Yes, it is you alone. As for steward vs stewardess, I'll call them
whatever title they like since it is a personal choice for themselves,
unlike the true definition of accident.
Since you cannot get your head around the fact that collisions includes
what you call accidents then you can call them what you like. We traffic
analysis advocates call the collisions which include all at fault crashes.
You cannot get your head around the fact that accidents happen-period.
You said repeatedly accidents are not accidents. yet you have no word
for when something happens unintentionally.
Post by Peter McNicholPost by DiscoDuckPost by Peter McNicholPost by DiscoDuckPost by Peter McNicholIf you spill a glass of milk. That is careless. More care would have
prevented that.
So then that is not an accident according to you?
Carelessness is no accident.
I'll spank my nephew then since you say he did it purposely.
Carelessness is no accident.
Yes they are.
Post by Peter McNicholPost by DiscoDuckPost by Peter McNicholPost by DiscoDuckPost by Peter McNicholPost by DiscoDuckSo again, What is your definition of an accident?
Post by Peter McNicholWhat people call accidents are not UNEXPECTED when you drive without
due care. Therefore since they must be expected, they are not accidents.
IN correct. As I proved to you in the note from ICBC, accidents and
due care care not mutually exclusive.
You do not even admit that collision includes crashes with and without fault.
What? OF course I did - over and over and over again. Accidents
happen-period.
I've also state about 10 times now, that accidents and collision are
not mutually exclusive.
What you are doing now i backtracking and trying to change issues as
you have been cornered multiple times and PROVED WRONG.
Post by Peter McNicholPost by DiscoDuckPost by Peter McNicholYou said accidents are UNEXPECTED. I proved they are not.
Since the intentional act lead to the collision. They are not accidents.
Oh yes they are. You did not intend for the collision to happen. THAT
IS AN ACCIDENT!
Post by Peter McNicholPost by DiscoDuckPost by Peter McNicholPost by DiscoDuckPost by Peter McNicholYou asked you got an answer. My definition you got it.
YOU didn't provide a definition.
One does not need to provide a definition of a word one does not use.
How convenient. So far I have provided two of the largest insurance
company's in the US (and Canada) using the word accident (something you
said did not exist).
you keep claiming the Police chief of Ottawa says the same. yet you
have provided not proof of that.
I EMAILED THE POLICE CHIEF OF OTTAWA. Know what? He hasn't replied.
He seems to be your buddy so why not call him and ask him to reply to
my email!
Post by Peter McNicholPost by DiscoDuckPost by Peter McNicholPost by DiscoDuckPost by Peter McNicholWhat people call accidents are not UNEXPECTED when you drive without
due care. Therefore since they must be expected, they are not accidents.
Again they are not mutually exclusive (for some odd reason you feel
they are). If you drive without due care and become involved in an
accident, it is still an accident.
Where is your definition of accident?
One does not need to provide a definition of a word one does not use.
How convenient. So you are now saying it EXISTS, and accidents EXIST
but you refuse to use it (out of stubbornness not because you actually
believe yourself to be right,, no doubt).
Post by Peter McNicholPost by DiscoDuckPost by Peter McNicholPost by DiscoDuckPost by Peter McNicholYour own words say an accident must be UNEXPECTED. Well I challenge you
to say that if someone drives without due care they cannot expect a
collision is possible, therefore expected.
Just because something is "possible" does not make it "intentional"
Intentional acts lead to the collision.
If I intentionally crash into a car, yes. If I intentionally speed,
No.
Intentional speeding was a cause of the collision.
But the collision itself was an accident. You didn't PURPOSELY crash
into anything.
Post by Peter McNicholPost by DiscoDuckPost by Peter McNicholPost by DiscoDuckPost by Peter McNicholGetting hit by a tree, sudden gust of wind, or other short term weather
incident. Driving in a snow storm is not an accident. One knew the conditions.
One could have chosen not to drive.
Simply driving in the storm, is not an accident. However if you an
accident, then that is (drum roll)..............................an
accident.
Post by Peter McNicholNo! If you hit someone in a snow storm, then you knew the conditions
and could have avoided it. You intended to drive without due care.
Thus the collision was not UNEXPECTED.
Obviously you, are not willing to discuss points of view.
The fact you are trying to change the definition to something that is
not, is wrong.
I, and many others, are saying the word does not indicate the intent
of someone who drives without due care.
Actually you are the only one. So far you haven't provided ANYONE who
shares you view that accidents are not accidents. The very statement
is an oxymoron.
Post by Peter McNicholPost by DiscoDuckPost by Peter McNicholPost by DiscoDuckI am sticking to what BILLIONS of people on the earth call an accident.
To what EVERY ENGLISH DICTIOANRY on the plant calls an accident.
Lots of words are no longer in the dictionary. Lots of words are no
longer used. There use did not disappear overnight.
People do not use them because they show the wrong intent or there are
better words.
So you feel unintentional incidents NEVER HAPPEN?
We put the emphasis on the intentional acts that caused the collision.
But let there be NO DOUBT! The final outcome of the "deliberate act"
is still an accident.
Post by Peter McNicholYou only measure the intention of the immediate act, not the intentional
acts that lead to the collision.
No, I am simply saying accidents happen. You say they do not.