Post by Peter McNicholThe debate over collision vs. accident started many decades ago amongst
traffic collision reconstructionists. The premise being is that every
collision is preventable, thus is not 'an accident' because somebody made a
simple mistake.
There is no debate, Peter, as you claim. No one anywhere (that I can
find online and in my asking of many professionals) has said that
accidents are not collisions, and collisions are not accidents. Your
very statement above "collision vs. accident" shows you feel they are
mutually exclusive. IT is nothing short of bizarre.
Accidents ARE MISTAKES. Hence the term. Sometime they are serious
accidents, and sometimes they are not serious accidents. It's that
simple.
Your behavior is similar to historical revisionists trying to change
facts about the holocaust, and attempt to demonize Jews in the process.
Except you are trying to do it people who cause accidents. You are
trying to demonize them by stating they did it purposely when they did
not.
Post by Peter McNicholLabelling collisions as accidents has a minimizing effect on the causal
factors; this philosophy is very deep, but I've bought into it whole hardily
- so much so that I tend to rant on it too much at work between colleagues.
Only you seem to minimize the word "accident." Everyone knows what it
means, and what it stands for. Sometime they are serious accidents,
and sometimes they are not serious accidents. It's that simple. When
I bring up your "definition" to
everyone I know INCLUDING professionals, they think you're ridiculous.
They suspect your motive "noble" but quite simply think you're crackers
by stating accidents do not exist and trying to delete the word from
the English language.
Post by Peter McNicholMy basic philosophy is that the deaths, injuries and monetary losses caused
in motor vehicle accidents exceeds every war, terrorism act and crime
combined - yet we accept these losses because they are 'accidents'; The
motor vehicle manufacturers and oil companies have us so brainwashed in this
paradigm I find it sickening to watch how people have bought into it.
There you go. You finally admitted it that accidents do happen even
with cars by stating "deaths, injuries and monetary losses caused in
motor vehicle accidents "
Post by Peter McNichol-- words of a police officer --
Those that wish to continue to minimize death and destruction can call
them what they wish, but if you want to do something about the problem
then you call it a collision or a CRASH.
Trying to omit the word "accident" from the English language is
minimizing the problem and is not addressing any issue. It is simply
being pig headed and distracting from real issues causing accidents.
You and that apparent cop are demonizing good people (even stupid
people can be good) who simply caused an accident.
You can call it a cabbage if you like-the fact is if the end result was
not
intended it is an accident.
IF the end result was PURPOSLY sought, then it is NOT an accident.
If you speed on purpose and get in a collision, that is an accident.
If you speed on purpose and purposely cause damage to another vehicle,
that is NOT an accident.
The former is an accident and you can still be held liable. I have
been accidents and one was my fault. IT was an accident. I didn't
MEAN to cause it but the fact I was responsible for it. I had no
intent
of damaging the vehicle. The one where I was crashed into by another
car was an accident caused by the other driver.
The latter is a criminal offense and you can even serve jail time. I
have never done this and have yet to hear of someone who has done this
(purposely crashed into an other car). By definition this is NOT an
accident since the intent was there to damage property.
I also know of a man who accidentally killed a boy who ran out on the
street. He feels absolutely awful about this and is on
anti-depressants to try and cope. IT wasn't even his fault but
understandably he still feels bad (he was cleared of any wrong doing).
It was a classic case of a child running out on the street without
looking.
Using your logic, that little boy PRUPOSELY CAUSED the accident. IT
was suicide. Absurd.
Post by Peter McNicholRadio and TV are listening. I hear and see collision reported every day.
Again you feel the word accident and crash are mutually exclusive-they
are not. People (including professionals) know that when accidents
happen, someone is often at fault (sometimes not, though)
It's that simple.
Anyone refusing to acknowledge that accidents happen, is simply being
pig headed and trying demonize good people who caused the accident.
That
does nothing constructive and only erodes yours (and the apparent cop
you're quoting) credibility.
You're more concerned about your ego, than really trying to save money,
injuries or lives.
I encourage you to forward this to your cop friend. I know I will to
mine.
Reply Rate this post: Text for clearing space
From: DiscoDuck - view profile
Date: Sun, Feb 19 2006 3:23 pm
Email: "DiscoDuck" <***@shaw.ca>
Groups: bc.cycling
Not yet ratedRating:
show options
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Remove | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author
Post by Peter McNicholThe debate over collision vs. accident started many decades ago amongst
traffic collision reconstructionists. The premise being is that every
collision is preventable, thus is not 'an accident' because somebody made a
simple mistake.
Yes, many collisions are preventable. But the collisions that happened
by accident are, well...accidents.
Post by Peter McNicholLabelling collisions as accidents has a minimizing effect on the causal
factors; this philosophy is very deep, but I've bought into it whole hardily
- so much so that I tend to rant on it too much at work between colleagues.
They think you're nuts whether they tell you that or not.
Post by Peter McNicholMy basic philosophy is that the deaths, injuries and monetary losses caused
in motor vehicle accidents exceeds every war, terrorism act and crime
combined - yet we accept these losses because they are 'accidents'; The
motor vehicle manufacturers and oil companies have us so brainwashed in this
paradigm I find it sickening to watch how people have bought into it.
Bought into what? The sometimes people do things that cause an
undesired outcome?
Brainwashed? You are the one trying to omit the word from the English
language.
You really need to check why you are pursuing this so much (trying to
omit the word from the English language). It is really quite strange.
Post by Peter McNichol-- words of a police officer --
Those that wish to continue to minimize death and destruction can call
them what they wish, but if you want to do something about the problem
then you call it a collision or a CRASH.
The word crash suggests not one was at fault. IT suggests nothing
could have been done.
The word accident by definition, tells that someone is at fault, but
was unintentional.
Post by Peter McNicholRadio and TV are listening. I hear and see collision reported every day.
And I hear accidents all the time