collisions

[Peter McNichol]

Collision - The act or process of colliding; a crash or conflict.

1. Collision does not imply fault or lack of it.

2. Collision does not imply accidental or intentional.

3. Collision does not imply avoidability or unavoidability.

What collision does NOT say, is that it is accidental.
Therefore it does not minimize the collision.

What is does say to those that know, and everyone who
care to understand it, is that it put into question
what intention acts or lack of thought lead to the
collision.

People who use collision in the media, and to others,
are saying that the incident is preventable.

Reports who report collisions do so to indicate that
the level of intent has not been determined. An accident
cannot be confirmed until it has been ruled that way.
The level of wreckless driving has not been determined either.

Accidents imply unavoidability and lack of thought.

Collisions are avoidable with proper care, and proper
operation of a vehicle.

The only truly unavoidable collision is one of a freak
of nature, such as a tree falling.

---------

[smn]

Rudimentary, Watson ol' chap

Post by Peter McNichol
Collision - The act or process of colliding; a crash or conflict.
1. Collision does not imply fault or lack of it.
2. Collision does not imply accidental or intentional.
3. Collision does not imply avoidability or unavoidability.
What collision does NOT say, is that it is accidental.
Therefore it does not minimize the collision.
What is does say to those that know, and everyone who
care to understand it, is that it put into question
what intention acts or lack of thought lead to the
collision.
People who use collision in the media, and to others,
are saying that the incident is preventable.
Reports who report collisions do so to indicate that
the level of intent has not been determined. An accident
cannot be confirmed until it has been ruled that way.
The level of wreckless driving has not been determined either.
Accidents imply unavoidability and lack of thought.
Collisions are avoidable with proper care, and proper
operation of a vehicle.
The only truly unavoidable collision is one of a freak
of nature, such as a tree falling.
---------

[n***@yahoo.com]

You call changing the definition of accident to purposely causing
damage, rudimentary?
The young boy Duck spoke of , committed suicide?
Smn, I suggest you look up the word "accident" in every dictionary you
can find.
Here is a start.
from http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/accident
1 a : an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance b : lack of
intention or necessity : CHANCE <met by accident rather than by design>
2 a : an unfortunate event resulting especially from carelessness or
ignorance b : an unexpected and medically important bodily event
especially when injurious <a cerebrovascular accident> c : an
unexpected happening causing loss or injury which is not due to any
fault or misconduct on the part of the person injured but for which
legal relief may be sought
3 : a nonessential property or quality of an entity or circumstance
<the accident of nationality>
Nick.

Post by smn
Rudimentary, Watson ol' chap

Post by Peter McNichol
Collision - The act or process of colliding; a crash or conflict.
1. Collision does not imply fault or lack of it.
2. Collision does not imply accidental or intentional.
3. Collision does not imply avoidability or unavoidability.
What collision does NOT say, is that it is accidental.
Therefore it does not minimize the collision.
What is does say to those that know, and everyone who
care to understand it, is that it put into question
what intention acts or lack of thought lead to the
collision.
People who use collision in the media, and to others,
are saying that the incident is preventable.
Reports who report collisions do so to indicate that
the level of intent has not been determined. An accident
cannot be confirmed until it has been ruled that way.
The level of wreckless driving has not been determined either.
Accidents imply unavoidability and lack of thought.
Collisions are avoidable with proper care, and proper
operation of a vehicle.
The only truly unavoidable collision is one of a freak
of nature, such as a tree falling.
---------

[smn]

I did not say anything like that. Who pissed in your corn flakes.
Give me a break.

Post by n***@yahoo.com
You call changing the definition of accident to purposely causing
damage, rudimentary?
The young boy Duck spoke of , committed suicide?
Smn, I suggest you look up the word "accident" in every dictionary you
can find.
Here is a start.
from http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/accident
1 a : an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance b : lack of
intention or necessity : CHANCE <met by accident rather than by design>
2 a : an unfortunate event resulting especially from carelessness or
ignorance b : an unexpected and medically important bodily event
especially when injurious <a cerebrovascular accident> c : an
unexpected happening causing loss or injury which is not due to any
fault or misconduct on the part of the person injured but for which
legal relief may be sought
3 : a nonessential property or quality of an entity or circumstance
<the accident of nationality>
Nick.

Post by smn
Rudimentary, Watson ol' chap

Post by Peter McNichol
Collision - The act or process of colliding; a crash or conflict.
1. Collision does not imply fault or lack of it.
2. Collision does not imply accidental or intentional.
3. Collision does not imply avoidability or unavoidability.
What collision does NOT say, is that it is accidental.
Therefore it does not minimize the collision.
What is does say to those that know, and everyone who
care to understand it, is that it put into question
what intention acts or lack of thought lead to the
collision.
People who use collision in the media, and to others,
are saying that the incident is preventable.
Reports who report collisions do so to indicate that
the level of intent has not been determined. An accident
cannot be confirmed until it has been ruled that way.
The level of wreckless driving has not been determined either.
Accidents imply unavoidability and lack of thought.
Collisions are avoidable with proper care, and proper
operation of a vehicle.
The only truly unavoidable collision is one of a freak
of nature, such as a tree falling.
---------

[n***@yahoo.com]

My apoligies. I thought you were saying Peter was right.
Sorry.
Nick

Post by smn
I did not say anything like that. Who pissed in your corn flakes.
Give me a break.

Post by n***@yahoo.com
You call changing the definition of accident to purposely causing
damage, rudimentary?
The young boy Duck spoke of , committed suicide?
Smn, I suggest you look up the word "accident" in every dictionary you
can find.
Here is a start.
from http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/accident
1 a : an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance b : lack of
intention or necessity : CHANCE <met by accident rather than by design>
2 a : an unfortunate event resulting especially from carelessness or
ignorance b : an unexpected and medically important bodily event
especially when injurious <a cerebrovascular accident> c : an
unexpected happening causing loss or injury which is not due to any
fault or misconduct on the part of the person injured but for which
legal relief may be sought
3 : a nonessential property or quality of an entity or circumstance
<the accident of nationality>
Nick.

Post by smn
Rudimentary, Watson ol' chap

Post by Peter McNichol
Collision - The act or process of colliding; a crash or conflict.
1. Collision does not imply fault or lack of it.
2. Collision does not imply accidental or intentional.
3. Collision does not imply avoidability or unavoidability.
What collision does NOT say, is that it is accidental.
Therefore it does not minimize the collision.
What is does say to those that know, and everyone who
care to understand it, is that it put into question
what intention acts or lack of thought lead to the
collision.
People who use collision in the media, and to others,
are saying that the incident is preventable.
Reports who report collisions do so to indicate that
the level of intent has not been determined. An accident
cannot be confirmed until it has been ruled that way.
The level of wreckless driving has not been determined either.
Accidents imply unavoidability and lack of thought.
Collisions are avoidable with proper care, and proper
operation of a vehicle.
The only truly unavoidable collision is one of a freak
of nature, such as a tree falling.
---------

[DiscoDuck]

Post by Peter McNichol
Collision - The act or process of colliding; a crash or conflict.
1. Collision does not imply fault or lack of it.

Yet you want to use the term, as you previously stated it DOES connote
fault.

Post by Peter McNichol
2. Collision does not imply accidental or intentional.

You're going against what you want here, do you know that?

Post by Peter McNichol
3. Collision does not imply avoidability or unavoidability.
What collision does NOT say, is that it is accidental.
Therefore it does not minimize the collision.

You wanted to allocate blame. Accident does that.

Post by Peter McNichol
What is does say to those that know, and everyone who
care to understand it, is that it put into question
what intention acts or lack of thought lead to the
collision.

Or unintentional.

Post by Peter McNichol
People who use collision in the media, and to others,
are saying that the incident is preventable.

As with accidents. Again the terms accident and collision are not
mutually exclusive.

Post by Peter McNichol
Reports who report collisions do so to indicate that
the level of intent has not been determined. An accident
cannot be confirmed until it has been ruled that way.
The level of wreckless driving has not been determined either.

Accidents are accidents and will happen.

Post by Peter McNichol
Accidents imply unavoidability and lack of thought.

No it does not. I showed you the dictionary's definition, which you
said is wrong. Showed you quote from several insurance company's-all
of which you said are wrong.
Seems everyone is wrong, but you.

Post by Peter McNichol
Collisions are avoidable with proper care, and proper
operation of a vehicle.

Accidents are avoidable with proper care, and proper
operation of a vehicle.

Post by Peter McNichol
The only truly unavoidable collision is one of a freak
of nature, such as a tree falling.

A tree falling collides with the ground, house, car, etc. It is not
an accident since no people caused the collision. This is not an
accident when people are not involved in the cause.

Post by Peter McNichol
---------

[Peter McNichol]

Post by DiscoDuck

Post by Peter McNichol
Collision - The act or process of colliding; a crash or conflict.
1. Collision does not imply fault or lack of it.

Yet you want to use the term, as you previously stated it DOES connote
fault.

The term does not connotate it was an accident when 90% of the cause
was intentional.

Post by DiscoDuck

Post by Peter McNichol
2. Collision does not imply accidental or intentional.

You're going against what you want here, do you know that?

It does not imply it was an accident when 90% of the cause
was intentional.

Post by DiscoDuck

Post by Peter McNichol
3. Collision does not imply avoidability or unavoidability.
What collision does NOT say, is that it is accidental.
Therefore it does not minimize the collision.

You wanted to allocate blame. Accident does that.

No. "Accident" minimizes the blame. Collision does not do that.

My 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.

Post by DiscoDuck

Post by Peter McNichol
What is does say to those that know, and everyone who
care to understand it, is that it put into question
what intention acts or lack of thought lead to the
collision.

Or unintentional.

Which is the point. Even unintentional act can be corrected
if you do not call them an accident.

Post by DiscoDuck

Post by Peter McNichol
People who use collision in the media, and to others,
are saying that the incident is preventable.

As with accidents. Again the terms accident and collision are not
mutually exclusive.

All crashes are collisions, but not all crashes, even
by your standards, are rated accidents.

Crashes are only preventable when you realize the actions were
NOT an unfortunate event resulting especially from carelessness or
ignorance.

The preventability is realizing that carelessness and ignorance
is serious business and taking care to prevent them is no accident.

Post by DiscoDuck

Post by Peter McNichol
Reports who report collisions do so to indicate that
the level of intent has not been determined. An accident
cannot be confirmed until it has been ruled that way.
The level of wreckless driving has not been determined either.

Accidents are accidents and will happen.

Again you have fallen into the fally that accidents have to happen.

Collisions are preventable. Drivers who drive with are and attention
have less collisions than those that do not.

Vancouverites might not be familiar with snow storms, but why does
the majority of Canadians not know how to drive, or avoid driving,
in stormy conditions. It is because they do not take proper attention
to the elements and drive appropriately. That is no accident. Yet
every storm several collisions occur from people driving unsafely.
An intentional act.

Post by DiscoDuck

Post by Peter McNichol
Accidents imply unavoidability and lack of thought.

No it does not. The dictionary's definition, which you
said is wrong. Showed you quote from several insurance company's-all
of which you said are wrong.

The police are not wrong. Radio and TV stations are not wrong.

The 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.

An accident is unintentional. Intentionally driving without due care
is no accident.

Post by DiscoDuck

Post by Peter McNichol
Collisions are avoidable with proper care, and proper
operation of a vehicle.

Accidents are avoidable with proper care, and proper
operation of a vehicle.

An accident is unintentional. Intentionally driving without due care
is no accident.

Post by DiscoDuck

Post by Peter McNichol
The only truly unavoidable collision is one of a freak
of nature, such as a tree falling.

A tree falling collides with the ground, house, car, etc. It is not
an accident since no people caused the collision. This is not an
accident when people are not involved in the cause.

Wrong. People are not gods. Collisions do occur without people.
Blame can be labelled on acts of nature or animals. People still pay the cost.

-------

[DiscoDuck]

So much for your "Final word", Peter

Post by Peter McNichol

Post by DiscoDuck

Post by Peter McNichol
Collision - The act or process of colliding; a crash or conflict.
1. Collision does not imply fault or lack of it.

Yet you want to use the term, as you previously stated it DOES connote
fault.

The term does not connotate it was an accident when 90% of the cause
was intentional.

Accidents ARE UNINTENTIONAL by definition.. The 10% you write of is
when someone planned on and purposely smashed into another car.

IF someone speeds on purposes, but didn't plan on hitting another car,
that is an accident. You know this, Peter.

Post by Peter McNichol

Post by DiscoDuck

Post by Peter McNichol
2. Collision does not imply accidental or intentional.

You're going against what you want here, do you know that?

It does not imply it was an accident when 90% of the cause
was intentional.

IF someone speeds on purposes, but didn't plan on hitting another car,
that is an accident. You know this, Peter.

Post by Peter McNichol

Post by DiscoDuck

Post by Peter McNichol
3. Collision does not imply avoidability or unavoidability.
What collision does NOT say, is that it is accidental.
Therefore it does not minimize the collision.

You wanted to allocate blame. Accident does that.

No. "Accident" minimizes the blame. Collision does not do that.

No, collision does not even suggest people are involved. It could be a
tree falling and colliding with a car.
Accident by definition, is when people are involved.

Post by Peter McNichol
My 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.

Copying and pasting again, Peter. LOL

Notice the term above YOU used "Motor Vehicle Accidents."
Why? Because they are accidental.

Post by Peter McNichol

Post by DiscoDuck

Post by Peter McNichol
What is does say to those that know, and everyone who
care to understand it, is that it put into question
what intention acts or lack of thought lead to the
collision.

Or unintentional.

Which is the point. Even unintentional act can be corrected
if you do not call them an accident.

No, it can be corrected if you recognize it IS an accident. Calling it
collision is not acknowledging error.

Thanks to that other writer, here is ANOTHER dictionary's definition.
collision: from http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/collision
1 : an act or instance of colliding : CLASH
2 : an encounter between particles (as atoms or molecules) resulting in
exchange or transformation of energy

and accident
1 a : an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance b : lack of
intention or necessity : CHANCE <met by accident rather than by design>
2 a : an unfortunate event resulting especially from carelessness or
ignorance b : an unexpected and medically important bodily event
especially when injurious <a cerebrovascular accident> c : an
unexpected happening causing loss or injury which is not due to any
fault or misconduct on the part of the person injured but for which
legal relief may be sought

Now you will note, PEter that the definition above (particularly # 2)
uses the word "carelessness or ignorance". Things that only PEOPLE can
exhibit.
#1 above also states of lack of intention as accidents are
"accidental."

Post by Peter McNichol

Post by DiscoDuck

Post by Peter McNichol
People who use collision in the media, and to others,
are saying that the incident is preventable.

As with accidents. Again the terms accident and collision are not
mutually exclusive.

All crashes are collisions, but not all crashes, even
by your standards, are rated accidents.

I have never stated all crashes are accidents. It s your "standard"
which refuses to acknowledge people make mistakes. It is also you who
is saying everyone is wrong, but you (insurance company's,
dictionary's, etc)

Post by Peter McNichol
Crashes are only preventable when you realize the actions were
NOT an unfortunate event resulting especially from carelessness or
ignorance.

Crash and accident are not mutually exclusive. Consult an english
professor if you don't believe me.
You cannot eliminate accidents of the face of the planet. IT is
literally impossible. You can reduce accidents, sure through education
and recognizing your errors (something you cannot do, Peter)
I was in an accident that was my fault.-I learned from it and haven't
repeated that mistake since.

Post by Peter McNichol
The preventability is realizing that carelessness and ignorance
is serious business and taking care to prevent them is no accident.

Correct, as it is intentional. You INTENTIONALLY trying to prevent
motor vehicle accidents.

Post by Peter McNichol

Post by DiscoDuck

Post by Peter McNichol
Reports who report collisions do so to indicate that
the level of intent has not been determined. An accident
cannot be confirmed until it has been ruled that way.
The level of wreckless driving has not been determined either.

Accidents are accidents and will happen.

Again you have fallen into the fally that accidents have to happen.

That is no folly-it is a fact. They do happen. You say there is no
such thing as accidents. There are.

Post by Peter McNichol
Collisions are preventable. Drivers who drive with are and attention
have less collisions than those that do not.

So? What does that have to do with accidents? I agree, you reduce
your chances of having an accident if you drive with attention. But no
matter how much attention you use, you can still be in an accident.
Elderly people are VERY attentive yet cause many many accidents. But
of course you feel they purposely smash into homes and business, and
murder people. LOL.

Post by Peter McNichol
Vancouverites might not be familiar with snow storms, but why does
the majority of Canadians not know how to drive, or avoid driving,
in stormy conditions. It is because they do not take proper attention
to the elements and drive appropriately. That is no accident. Yet
every storm several collisions occur from people driving unsafely.
An intentional act.

Driving unsafely an intentional Act? IF you do not REALIZE your
driving unsafely, then that is accidental. IT is a matter of intent as
you refuse to admit.
IF you get in an accident as a result, then that too is accidental.

Post by Peter McNichol

Post by DiscoDuck

Post by Peter McNichol
Accidents imply unavoidability and lack of thought.

No it does not. The dictionary's definition, which you
said is wrong. Showed you quote from several insurance company's-all
of which you said are wrong.

The police are not wrong. Radio and TV stations are not wrong.

No they are not, which is why the say "accident."

Post by Peter McNichol
The 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. YOU ARE WRONG when you say there is not such
thing as accidents. Reconstructionalists do not say accidents do not
happen.
You are lying.

Post by Peter McNichol
An accident is unintentional. Intentionally driving without due care
is no accident.

again, you're using a word you claim does not happen. How can that be
unless you KNOW accidents happen.

Post by Peter McNichol

Post by DiscoDuck

Post by Peter McNichol
Collisions are avoidable with proper care, and proper
operation of a vehicle.

Accidents are avoidable with proper care, and proper
operation of a vehicle.

An accident is unintentional. Intentionally driving without due care
is no accident.

How can you say the above when you state there are no accidents.
Actually if you are unaware of you are driving in that way, it is an
accident. If you smash into anything as a result it is an accident.

Post by Peter McNichol

Post by DiscoDuck

Post by Peter McNichol
The only truly unavoidable collision is one of a freak
of nature, such as a tree falling.

A tree falling collides with the ground, house, car, etc. It is not
an accident since no people caused the collision. This is not an
accident when people are not involved in the cause.

Wrong. People are not gods. Collisions do occur without people.
Blame can be labelled on acts of nature or animals. People still pay the cost.

You are wrong and cannot admit it. No where can you show me that
police, insurance company's, etc say accidents do not exist.

Peter, you can only learn from your mistakes if you admit them. You're
refusal to admit you wrong in this case is a classic example of ego
getting in the way of admission of wrong doing.
Actually in this case it is no mistake-you are sticking to an
"opinion", in spite of reason, arguments, or persuasion. Certainly no
accident.

Post by Peter McNichol
-------

[DiscoDuck]

So much for your "Final word", Peter

Post by Peter McNichol

Post by DiscoDuck

Post by Peter McNichol
Collision - The act or process of colliding; a crash or conflict.
1. Collision does not imply fault or lack of it.

Yet you want to use the term, as you previously stated it DOES connote
fault.

The term does not connotate it was an accident when 90% of the cause
was intentional.

OH MY GOD! Do you realize you just supported my argument (again).
What do YOU call the other 10%, then Peter? (guarantee you don't answer
this). Huh? What about the unintentional 10%? What do you call them?
You just proved me right (again).

Accidents ARE UNINTENTIONAL by definition.

IF someone speeds on purposes, but didn't plan on hitting another car,
that is an accident. You know this, Peter but refusing to admit it is
another issue.

Post by Peter McNichol

Post by DiscoDuck

Post by Peter McNichol
2. Collision does not imply accidental or intentional.

You're going against what you want here, do you know that?

It does not imply it was an accident when 90% of the cause
was intentional.

IF someone speeds on purposes, but didn't plan on hitting another car,
that is an accident. You know this, Peter.

Post by Peter McNichol

Post by DiscoDuck

Post by Peter McNichol
3. Collision does not imply avoidability or unavoidability.
What collision does NOT say, is that it is accidental.
Therefore it does not minimize the collision.

You wanted to allocate blame. Accident does that.

No. "Accident" minimizes the blame. Collision does not do that.

No, collision does not even suggest people are involved. It could be a

tree falling and colliding with a car.
Accident by definition, is when people are involved.

Post by Peter McNichol
My 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.

Copying and pasting again, Peter. LOL

Notice the term above YOU used "Motor Vehicle Accidents."
Why? Because they are accidental.

Post by Peter McNichol

Post by DiscoDuck

Post by Peter McNichol
What is does say to those that know, and everyone who
care to understand it, is that it put into question
what intention acts or lack of thought lead to the
collision.

Or unintentional.

Which is the point. Even unintentional act can be corrected
if you do not call them an accident.

No, it can be corrected if you recognize it IS an accident. Calling it

collision is not acknowledging error.

Thanks to that other writer, here is ANOTHER dictionary's definition.
collision: from http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/collision
1 : an act or instance of colliding : CLASH
2 : an encounter between particles (as atoms or molecules) resulting in

exchange or transformation of energy


and accident
1 a : an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance b : lack of
intention or necessity : CHANCE <met by accident rather than by design>

2 a : an unfortunate event resulting especially from carelessness or
ignorance b : an unexpected and medically important bodily event
especially when injurious <a cerebrovascular accident> c : an
unexpected happening causing loss or injury which is not due to any
fault or misconduct on the part of the person injured but for which
legal relief may be sought


Now you will note, PEter that the definition above (particularly # 2)
uses the word "carelessness or ignorance". Things that only PEOPLE can

exhibit.
#1 above also states of lack of intention as accidents are
"accidental."

Post by Peter McNichol

Post by DiscoDuck

Post by Peter McNichol
People who use collision in the media, and to others,
are saying that the incident is preventable.

As with accidents. Again the terms accident and collision are not
mutually exclusive.

All crashes are collisions, but not all crashes, even
by your standards, are rated accidents.

I have never stated all crashes are accidents. It s your "standard"
which refuses to acknowledge people make mistakes. It is also you who
is saying everyone is wrong, but you (insurance company's,
dictionary's, etc)

Post by Peter McNichol
Crashes are only preventable when you realize the actions were
NOT an unfortunate event resulting especially from carelessness or
ignorance.

Crash and accident are not mutually exclusive. Consult an english
professor if you don't believe me.
You cannot eliminate accidents of the face of the planet. IT is
literally impossible. You can reduce accidents, sure through education

and recognizing your errors (something you cannot do, Peter)
I was in an accident that was my fault.-I learned from it and haven't
repeated that mistake since.

Post by Peter McNichol
The preventability is realizing that carelessness and ignorance
is serious business and taking care to prevent them is no accident.

Correct, as it is intentional. You INTENTIONALLY trying to prevent
motor vehicle accidents.

Post by Peter McNichol

Post by DiscoDuck

Post by Peter McNichol
Reports who report collisions do so to indicate that
the level of intent has not been determined. An accident
cannot be confirmed until it has been ruled that way.
The level of wreckless driving has not been determined either.

Accidents are accidents and will happen.

Again you have fallen into the fally that accidents have to happen.

That is no folly-it is a fact. They do happen. You say there is no
such thing as accidents. There are.

Post by Peter McNichol
Collisions are preventable. Drivers who drive with are and attention
have less collisions than those that do not.

So? What does that have to do with accidents? I agree, you reduce
your chances of having an accident if you drive with attention. But no

matter how much attention you use, you can still be in an accident.
Elderly people are VERY attentive yet cause many many accidents. But
of course you feel they purposely smash into homes and business, and
murder people. LOL.

Post by Peter McNichol
Vancouverites might not be familiar with snow storms, but why does
the majority of Canadians not know how to drive, or avoid driving,
in stormy conditions. It is because they do not take proper attention
to the elements and drive appropriately. That is no accident. Yet
every storm several collisions occur from people driving unsafely.
An intentional act.

Driving unsafely an intentional Act? IF you do not REALIZE your
driving unsafely, then that is accidental. IT is a matter of intent as

you refuse to admit.
IF you get in an accident as a result, then that too is accidental.

Post by Peter McNichol

Post by DiscoDuck

Post by Peter McNichol
Accidents imply unavoidability and lack of thought.

No it does not. The dictionary's definition, which you
said is wrong. Showed you quote from several insurance company's-all
of which you said are wrong.

The police are not wrong. Radio and TV stations are not wrong.

No they are not, which is why the say "accident."

Post by Peter McNichol
The 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. YOU ARE WRONG when you say there is not such

thing as accidents. Reconstructionalists do not say accidents do not
happen.
You are lying.

Post by Peter McNichol
An accident is unintentional. Intentionally driving without due care
is no accident.

again, you're using a word you claim does not happen. How can that be
unless you KNOW accidents happen.

Post by Peter McNichol

Post by DiscoDuck

Post by Peter McNichol
Collisions are avoidable with proper care, and proper
operation of a vehicle.

Accidents are avoidable with proper care, and proper
operation of a vehicle.

An accident is unintentional. Intentionally driving without due care
is no accident.

How can you say the above when you state there are no accidents.
Actually if you are unaware of you are driving in that way, it is an
accident. If you smash into anything as a result it is an accident.

Post by Peter McNichol

Post by DiscoDuck

Post by Peter McNichol
The only truly unavoidable collision is one of a freak
of nature, such as a tree falling.

A tree falling collides with the ground, house, car, etc. It is not
an accident since no people caused the collision. This is not an
accident when people are not involved in the cause.

Wrong. People are not gods. Collisions do occur without people.
Blame can be labelled on acts of nature or animals. People still pay the cost.

You are wrong and cannot admit it. No where can you show me that
police, insurance company's, etc say accidents do not exist.

Peter, you can only learn from your mistakes if you admit them. You're

refusal to admit you wrong in this case is a classic example of ego
getting in the way of admission of wrong doing.
Actually in this case it is no mistake-you are sticking to an
"opinion", in spite of reason, arguments, or persuasion. Certainly no
accident.

[n***@yahoo.com]

Post by Peter McNichol
My 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.

Am I reading this right? This guy is comparing unintentional car
accidents to terrorism? Crime? War?
All of which are intentional acts? Can you say "frightening"?
Nick.

[smn]

I think what he is saying is human stupidity and negligence is no match for
organized war, crime and mother nature put together over time. Although,
stupidity is not exclusive of the first two. Turtle wins the race. Right
Peter?

Post by n***@yahoo.com

Post by Peter McNichol
My 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.

Am I reading this right? This guy is comparing unintentional car
accidents to terrorism? Crime? War?
All of which are intentional acts? Can you say "frightening"?
Nick.

[n***@yahoo.com]

I don't think that is what he is saying. Accidents can be a result of
stupidity. Trying to follow this thread (next to impossible), he said
there is no such thing as accidents, and that when there are accidents
(he calls them collisions, and as Disco pointed out Peter thinks that
collisions are "mutually exclusive" from accidents. They are not),
people did it on purpose.

IN particular he said:
"It is no accident if you drive drunk and hit someone or something.
It is no accident if you speed and loose control.
It is no accident if you do not check to see a lane is clear before
moving.

If you drive drunk you are purposely putting people in danger.
If you speed and loose control you purposely did so.
If you fail to look you purposely caused the collision."

(From http://groups.google.com/group/bc.cycling/msg/026d1de8c087c1eb )

All the above are stupid things to do (ESPECIALLY drinking while
driving). But they are still accidents.
"If you fail to look you purposely caused the collision".

So little kids who are hit on the street, did it on purpose?

This Peter, is dangerous, and is more interested in being obstinate,
than reducing accidents.

Post by smn
I think what he is saying is human stupidity and negligence is no match for
organized war, crime and mother nature put together over time. Although,
stupidity is not exclusive of the first two. Turtle wins the race. Right
Peter?

Post by n***@yahoo.com

Post by Peter McNichol
My 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.

Am I reading this right? This guy is comparing unintentional car
accidents to terrorism? Crime? War?
All of which are intentional acts? Can you say "frightening"?
Nick.

[smn]

"people did it on purpose" because they chose with purpose to be careless
when they could have chosen with purpose to be extra careful. to be
careless or to be lazy is a choice. Just like voting or not voting. Is
that a better angle?
If 80% of bike accidents are caused by bikers going the wrong way in
traffic, that is a whole lot of purpose. What purpose I do not know.
Turtle wins the race.
I agree this thread is hard to follow.
thanks for sharing
smn

Post by n***@yahoo.com
I don't think that is what he is saying. Accidents can be a result of
stupidity. Trying to follow this thread (next to impossible), he said
there is no such thing as accidents, and that when there are accidents
(he calls them collisions, and as Disco pointed out Peter thinks that
collisions are "mutually exclusive" from accidents. They are not),
people did it on purpose.
"It is no accident if you drive drunk and hit someone or something.
It is no accident if you speed and loose control.
It is no accident if you do not check to see a lane is clear before
moving.
If you drive drunk you are purposely putting people in danger.
If you speed and loose control you purposely did so.
If you fail to look you purposely caused the collision."
(From http://groups.google.com/group/bc.cycling/msg/026d1de8c087c1eb )
All the above are stupid things to do (ESPECIALLY drinking while
driving). But they are still accidents.
"If you fail to look you purposely caused the collision".
So little kids who are hit on the street, did it on purpose?
This Peter, is dangerous, and is more interested in being obstinate,
than reducing accidents.

Post by smn
I think what he is saying is human stupidity and negligence is no match for
organized war, crime and mother nature put together over time. Although,
stupidity is not exclusive of the first two. Turtle wins the race.
Right
Peter?

Post by n***@yahoo.com

Post by Peter McNichol
My 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.

Am I reading this right? This guy is comparing unintentional car
accidents to terrorism? Crime? War?
All of which are intentional acts? Can you say "frightening"?
Nick.

[n***@yahoo.com]

Post by smn
"people did it on purpose" because they chose with purpose to be careless
when they could have chosen with purpose to be extra careful. to be
careless or to be lazy is a choice. Just like voting or not voting. Is
that a better angle?

Not really. Accidents are accidents. It sounds like this guy is
trying to remove the term accident from the english language.

Post by smn
If 80% of bike accidents are caused by bikers going the wrong way in
traffic, that is a whole lot of purpose. What purpose I do not know.

What?

Post by smn
Turtle wins the race.

What X 2?

Post by smn
I agree this thread is hard to follow.
thanks for sharing
smn

Post by n***@yahoo.com
I don't think that is what he is saying. Accidents can be a result of
stupidity. Trying to follow this thread (next to impossible), he said
there is no such thing as accidents, and that when there are accidents
(he calls them collisions, and as Disco pointed out Peter thinks that
collisions are "mutually exclusive" from accidents. They are not),
people did it on purpose.
"It is no accident if you drive drunk and hit someone or something.
It is no accident if you speed and loose control.
It is no accident if you do not check to see a lane is clear before
moving.
If you drive drunk you are purposely putting people in danger.
If you speed and loose control you purposely did so.
If you fail to look you purposely caused the collision."
(From http://groups.google.com/group/bc.cycling/msg/026d1de8c087c1eb )
All the above are stupid things to do (ESPECIALLY drinking while
driving). But they are still accidents.
"If you fail to look you purposely caused the collision".
So little kids who are hit on the street, did it on purpose?
This Peter, is dangerous, and is more interested in being obstinate,
than reducing accidents.

Post by smn
I think what he is saying is human stupidity and negligence is no match for
organized war, crime and mother nature put together over time. Although,
stupidity is not exclusive of the first two. Turtle wins the race.
Right
Peter?

Post by n***@yahoo.com

Post by Peter McNichol
My 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.

Am I reading this right? This guy is comparing unintentional car
accidents to terrorism? Crime? War?
All of which are intentional acts? Can you say "frightening"?
Nick.

[smn]

I put this in a post half a year ago>> If 80% of bike accidents are caused
by bikers going the wrong way in

Post by n***@yahoo.com

traffic, that is a whole lot of purpose. What purpose I do not know.>>
I would not do it.

They are trying to make short cuts and it has been surveyed that 80 % of
bike accidents are caused from that activity. Probably because drivers are
not expecting it. Turtle wins the race. true X 2. Purposely putting
themselves in danger because they do not know how the driver will react.
http://www.adv-cycling.org/resources/crashandinjuries.pdf
look at page one last paragraph. must have rationalized the 80/% or saw it
elsewhere. His thesis is to change the chain of reaction.
Look at how many times accident and collision are used. Basically, it is
about how to prevent accidents and not be where one might happen. Good
defense wins the game. Eskimos have 16 words for snow because it is that
important to survival. I would suggest doing the same for "accident" and
"collision". There are at least that many forms of both.
Peter has his own selfish reasons which no one will understand. It is not
going to help anybody.

Have a great cycling day folks.

Post by n***@yahoo.com

"people did it on purpose" because they chose with purpose to be careless
when they could have chosen with purpose to be extra careful. to be
careless or to be lazy is a choice. Just like voting or not voting. Is
that a better angle?

Not really. Accidents are accidents. It sounds like this guy is
trying to remove the term accident from the english language.

If 80% of bike accidents are caused by bikers going the wrong way in
traffic, that is a whole lot of purpose. What purpose I do not know.

What?

Turtle wins the race.

What X 2?

I agree this thread is hard to follow.
thanks for sharing
smn

Post by n***@yahoo.com
I don't think that is what he is saying. Accidents can be a result of
stupidity. Trying to follow this thread (next to impossible), he said
there is no such thing as accidents, and that when there are accidents
(he calls them collisions, and as Disco pointed out Peter thinks that
collisions are "mutually exclusive" from accidents. They are not),
people did it on purpose.
"It is no accident if you drive drunk and hit someone or something.
It is no accident if you speed and loose control.
It is no accident if you do not check to see a lane is clear before
moving.
If you drive drunk you are purposely putting people in danger.
If you speed and loose control you purposely did so.
If you fail to look you purposely caused the collision."
(From http://groups.google.com/group/bc.cycling/msg/026d1de8c087c1eb )
All the above are stupid things to do (ESPECIALLY drinking while
driving). But they are still accidents.
"If you fail to look you purposely caused the collision".
So little kids who are hit on the street, did it on purpose?
This Peter, is dangerous, and is more interested in being obstinate,
than reducing accidents.

Post by smn
I think what he is saying is human stupidity and negligence is no
match
for
organized war, crime and mother nature put together over time.
Although,
stupidity is not exclusive of the first two. Turtle wins the race.
Right
Peter?

Post by n***@yahoo.com

Post by Peter McNichol
My 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.

Am I reading this right? This guy is comparing unintentional car
accidents to terrorism? Crime? War?
All of which are intentional acts? Can you say "frightening"?
Nick.

[Peter McNichol]

My reasons are not selfish and I did not start this trend.

Vehicle Collision Reconstruction experts started calling crashes
-- collisions.

Ottawa, the city, police officers, paramedics, cyclists, radio, and
TV have recognized the importance of preventing collisions and realizing
that if you prevent the 90% of collisions caused from intentional acts of driving without
due care you have gone a long way to improving the safety
of our roads.

Collisions may not be acts of terrorism but they are both caused by
intentional acts.

An accident is what your mother said when you spilt a glass of milk
when you were five years old.

A collision is a crash as a result of failing to drive with due care.

Post by smn
I put this in a post half a year ago>> If 80% of bike accidents are caused
by bikers going the wrong way in

Post by n***@yahoo.com

traffic, that is a whole lot of purpose. What purpose I do not know.>>
I would not do it.

They are trying to make short cuts and it has been surveyed that 80 % of
bike accidents are caused from that activity. Probably because drivers are
not expecting it. Turtle wins the race. true X 2. Purposely putting
themselves in danger because they do not know how the driver will react.
http://www.adv-cycling.org/resources/crashandinjuries.pdf
look at page one last paragraph. must have rationalized the 80/% or saw it
elsewhere. His thesis is to change the chain of reaction.
Look at how many times accident and collision are used. Basically, it is
about how to prevent accidents and not be where one might happen. Good
defense wins the game. Eskimos have 16 words for snow because it is that
important to survival. I would suggest doing the same for "accident" and
"collision". There are at least that many forms of both.
Peter has his own selfish reasons which no one will understand. It is not
going to help anybody.
Have a great cycling day folks.

Post by n***@yahoo.com

"people did it on purpose" because they chose with purpose to be careless
when they could have chosen with purpose to be extra careful. to be
careless or to be lazy is a choice. Just like voting or not voting. Is
that a better angle?

Not really. Accidents are accidents. It sounds like this guy is
trying to remove the term accident from the english language.

If 80% of bike accidents are caused by bikers going the wrong way in
traffic, that is a whole lot of purpose. What purpose I do not know.

What?

Turtle wins the race.

What X 2?

I agree this thread is hard to follow.
thanks for sharing
smn

Post by n***@yahoo.com
I don't think that is what he is saying. Accidents can be a result of
stupidity. Trying to follow this thread (next to impossible), he said
there is no such thing as accidents, and that when there are accidents
(he calls them collisions, and as Disco pointed out Peter thinks that
collisions are "mutually exclusive" from accidents. They are not),
people did it on purpose.
"It is no accident if you drive drunk and hit someone or something.
It is no accident if you speed and loose control.
It is no accident if you do not check to see a lane is clear before
moving.
If you drive drunk you are purposely putting people in danger.
If you speed and loose control you purposely did so.
If you fail to look you purposely caused the collision."
(From http://groups.google.com/group/bc.cycling/msg/026d1de8c087c1eb )
All the above are stupid things to do (ESPECIALLY drinking while
driving). But they are still accidents.
"If you fail to look you purposely caused the collision".
So little kids who are hit on the street, did it on purpose?
This Peter, is dangerous, and is more interested in being obstinate,
than reducing accidents.

Post by smn
I think what he is saying is human stupidity and negligence is no
match
for
organized war, crime and mother nature put together over time.
Although,
stupidity is not exclusive of the first two. Turtle wins the race.
Right
Peter?

Post by n***@yahoo.com

Post by Peter McNichol
My 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.

Am I reading this right? This guy is comparing unintentional car
accidents to terrorism? Crime? War?
All of which are intentional acts? Can you say "frightening"?
Nick.

[DiscoDuck]

Post by Peter McNichol
My reasons are not selfish and I did not start this trend.

Yes they are you are being "obstinate".

Post by Peter McNichol
Vehicle Collision Reconstruction experts started calling crashes
-- collisions.

But that doesn't mean they aren't accidents. I keep asking these
experts and so far they have all said they are accidents, whi8ch
resulted in a collision.

Post by Peter McNichol
Ottawa, the city, police officers, paramedics, cyclists, radio, and
TV have recognized the importance of preventing collisions and realizing
that if you prevent the 90% of collisions caused from intentional acts of driving without
due care you have gone a long way to improving the safety
of our roads.

WRONG!!! You are Lying Peter. I contacted the office of the Chief in
Ottawa and he REFUSED to confirm what you are saying. Read it again.
REFUSED to CONFIRM WHAT YOU ARE SAYING.

Also, in war when there are accidental acts of fire (friendly fire)
those soldiers are PURPOSLY murdering soldiers on their own side?

Post by Peter McNichol
Collisions may not be acts of terrorism but they are both caused by
intentional acts.

If you mean to smash into the car, yes. If your action did not mean to
result in a collision, but caused damage, then no.

Post by Peter McNichol
An accident is what your mother said when you spilt a glass of milk
when you were five years old.

That is incorrect. Accidents cover a wide range of incidents
-ESPCIALLY car accidents.
Here are the definitions again, for you Peter.

from http://dictionary.cambridge.org/ (let me guess, these guys are
wrong too. EVERYONE is wrong, INCLUDING EXPERTS AND THE ENGLISH
LANGUAGE)

accident Show phonetics
noun [C]
1 something which happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, and which
often damages something or injures someone:
Josh had an accident and spilled water all over his work.
She was injured in a car/road accident (= when one car hit another).

2 by accident without intending to, or without being intended:
I deleted the file by accident.
I found her letter by accident as I was looking through my files.

accidental Show phonetics
adjective
happening by chance:
Reports suggest that 11 soldiers were killed by accidental fire from
their own side.
The site was located after the accidental discovery of bones in a
field.

Post by Peter McNichol
A collision is a crash as a result of failing to drive with due care.

Incorrect again. That is an accident. Driving without due care can
result in an accident.
I find it interesting you think driving without due care and PURPOSELY
crashing into the twin towers are the same thing-they are not.

Post by Peter McNichol

Post by smn
I put this in a post half a year ago>> If 80% of bike accidents are caused
by bikers going the wrong way in

Post by n***@yahoo.com

traffic, that is a whole lot of purpose. What purpose I do not know.>>
I would not do it.

They are trying to make short cuts and it has been surveyed that 80 % of
bike accidents are caused from that activity. Probably because drivers are
not expecting it. Turtle wins the race. true X 2. Purposely putting
themselves in danger because they do not know how the driver will react.
http://www.adv-cycling.org/resources/crashandinjuries.pdf
look at page one last paragraph. must have rationalized the 80/% or saw it
elsewhere. His thesis is to change the chain of reaction.
Look at how many times accident and collision are used. Basically, it is
about how to prevent accidents and not be where one might happen. Good
defense wins the game. Eskimos have 16 words for snow because it is that
important to survival. I would suggest doing the same for "accident" and
"collision". There are at least that many forms of both.
Peter has his own selfish reasons which no one will understand. It is not
going to help anybody.
Have a great cycling day folks.

Post by n***@yahoo.com

"people did it on purpose" because they chose with purpose to be careless
when they could have chosen with purpose to be extra careful. to be
careless or to be lazy is a choice. Just like voting or not voting. Is
that a better angle?

Not really. Accidents are accidents. It sounds like this guy is
trying to remove the term accident from the english language.

If 80% of bike accidents are caused by bikers going the wrong way in
traffic, that is a whole lot of purpose. What purpose I do not know.

What?

Turtle wins the race.

What X 2?

I agree this thread is hard to follow.
thanks for sharing
smn

Post by n***@yahoo.com
I don't think that is what he is saying. Accidents can be a result of
stupidity. Trying to follow this thread (next to impossible), he said
there is no such thing as accidents, and that when there are accidents
(he calls them collisions, and as Disco pointed out Peter thinks that
collisions are "mutually exclusive" from accidents. They are not),
people did it on purpose.
"It is no accident if you drive drunk and hit someone or something.
It is no accident if you speed and loose control.
It is no accident if you do not check to see a lane is clear before
moving.
If you drive drunk you are purposely putting people in danger.
If you speed and loose control you purposely did so.
If you fail to look you purposely caused the collision."
(From http://groups.google.com/group/bc.cycling/msg/026d1de8c087c1eb )
All the above are stupid things to do (ESPECIALLY drinking while
driving). But they are still accidents.
"If you fail to look you purposely caused the collision".
So little kids who are hit on the street, did it on purpose?
This Peter, is dangerous, and is more interested in being obstinate,
than reducing accidents.

Post by smn
I think what he is saying is human stupidity and negligence is no
match
for
organized war, crime and mother nature put together over time.
Although,
stupidity is not exclusive of the first two. Turtle wins the race.
Right
Peter?

Post by n***@yahoo.com

Post by Peter McNichol
My 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.

Am I reading this right? This guy is comparing unintentional car
accidents to terrorism? Crime? War?
All of which are intentional acts? Can you say "frightening"?
Nick.

[Peter McNichol]

Post by DiscoDuck

Post by Peter McNichol
My reasons are not selfish and I did not start this trend.

Yes they are you are being "obstinate".

You refuse to accept that anyone else has spoke on collisions
and you expect me to take your word that you have spoken or written
to other people who call them accidents.

Rather than discuss this subject and accept that people, groups,
and members of groups, have different opinions than your own, you
result to name calling, and condescending behaviour.

The use of the word accident or collision is a very contencious issue.
I accept that. However the issue is out there and refusing to accept
the discussion is out there is being "obstinate".

Post by DiscoDuck

Post by Peter McNichol
Vehicle Collision Reconstruction experts started calling crashes
-- collisions.

But that doesn't mean they aren't accidents. I keep asking these
experts and so far they have all said they are accidents, whi8ch
resulted in a collision.

No!! Collisions may be partially accidental but they are not accidents.
Driving without due care is a deliberate act that has consequences.

Driving Drunk and hitting someone is not accidental.
Running a Red light and hitting someone is not accidental.
They are intentional acts and have consequences.

Post by DiscoDuck

Post by Peter McNichol
Ottawa, the city, police officers, paramedics, cyclists, radio, and
TV have recognized the importance of preventing collisions and realizing
that if you prevent the 90% of collisions caused from intentional acts of driving without
due care you have gone a long way to improving the safety
of our roads.
Collisions may not be acts of terrorism but they are both caused by
intentional acts.

If you mean to smash into the car, yes. If your action did not mean to
result in a collision, but caused damage, then no.

Intentional running a red light caused the collision.
Intentionally hitting the Twin Towers, a collision occured.

It has been reported that the Terrorists did not intend for the twin towers
to fall. Therefore by your count that was an accident.(???)

Post by DiscoDuck

Post by Peter McNichol
An accident is what your mother said when you spilt a glass of milk
when you were five years old.

That is incorrect. Accidents cover a wide range of incidents
-ESPCIALLY car accidents.

No. That is exactly a common correct understanding of the use of the word "accident"
Definitions and understanding are not the same thing.

========

[n***@yahoo.com]

Post by Peter McNichol
My reasons are not selfish and I did not start this trend.

You're simply being obstinate by refusing to admit that motor vehicle
accidents are still accidents. You are trying to change centuries of
the English language. Sounds pretty selfish to me.

Post by Peter McNichol
Vehicle Collision Reconstruction experts started calling crashes
-- collisions.

so they aren't crashes, either? Oh my. Here is Peter when he talks.
Loading Image...

Post by Peter McNichol
Ottawa, the city, police officers, paramedics, cyclists, radio, and
TV have recognized the importance of preventing collisions and realizing
that if you prevent the 90% of collisions caused from intentional acts of driving without
due care you have gone a long way to improving the safety
of our roads.

Preventing accidents is very important. You do that by not talking
foolishness, like you are here.

Post by Peter McNichol
Collisions may not be acts of terrorism but they are both caused by
intentional acts.

Loading Image...

Collision can be deliberate and accidental.

Post by Peter McNichol
An accident is what your mother said when you spilt a glass of milk
when you were five years old.

According to you, the definition of accident is contingent upon the
types of matter or molecules are involved?

Here is what you look like when talking like that.
Loading Image...

Post by Peter McNichol
A collision is a crash as a result of failing to drive with due care.

OK, but how do you make the Herculean leap that driving without due to
care is the same thing as purposely intending to harm someone or damage
property?

Another picture of you what you are, when you talk like this:
Loading Image...


Normally I would not respond to such flapdoodle, but you should not be
allowed to get away with such irrationality.

nick.

Post by Peter McNichol

Post by smn
I put this in a post half a year ago>> If 80% of bike accidents are caused
by bikers going the wrong way in

Post by n***@yahoo.com

traffic, that is a whole lot of purpose. What purpose I do not know.>>
I would not do it.

They are trying to make short cuts and it has been surveyed that 80 % of
bike accidents are caused from that activity. Probably because drivers are
not expecting it. Turtle wins the race. true X 2. Purposely putting
themselves in danger because they do not know how the driver will react.
http://www.adv-cycling.org/resources/crashandinjuries.pdf
look at page one last paragraph. must have rationalized the 80/% or saw it
elsewhere. His thesis is to change the chain of reaction.
Look at how many times accident and collision are used. Basically, it is
about how to prevent accidents and not be where one might happen. Good
defense wins the game. Eskimos have 16 words for snow because it is that
important to survival. I would suggest doing the same for "accident" and
"collision". There are at least that many forms of both.
Peter has his own selfish reasons which no one will understand. It is not
going to help anybody.
Have a great cycling day folks.

Post by n***@yahoo.com

"people did it on purpose" because they chose with purpose to be careless
when they could have chosen with purpose to be extra careful. to be
careless or to be lazy is a choice. Just like voting or not voting. Is
that a better angle?

Not really. Accidents are accidents. It sounds like this guy is
trying to remove the term accident from the english language.

If 80% of bike accidents are caused by bikers going the wrong way in
traffic, that is a whole lot of purpose. What purpose I do not know.

What?

Turtle wins the race.

What X 2?

I agree this thread is hard to follow.
thanks for sharing
smn

Post by n***@yahoo.com
I don't think that is what he is saying. Accidents can be a result of
stupidity. Trying to follow this thread (next to impossible), he said
there is no such thing as accidents, and that when there are accidents
(he calls them collisions, and as Disco pointed out Peter thinks that
collisions are "mutually exclusive" from accidents. They are not),
people did it on purpose.
"It is no accident if you drive drunk and hit someone or something.
It is no accident if you speed and loose control.
It is no accident if you do not check to see a lane is clear before
moving.
If you drive drunk you are purposely putting people in danger.
If you speed and loose control you purposely did so.
If you fail to look you purposely caused the collision."
(From http://groups.google.com/group/bc.cycling/msg/026d1de8c087c1eb )
All the above are stupid things to do (ESPECIALLY drinking while
driving). But they are still accidents.
"If you fail to look you purposely caused the collision".
So little kids who are hit on the street, did it on purpose?
This Peter, is dangerous, and is more interested in being obstinate,
than reducing accidents.

Post by smn
I think what he is saying is human stupidity and negligence is no
match
for
organized war, crime and mother nature put together over time.
Although,
stupidity is not exclusive of the first two. Turtle wins the race.
Right
Peter?

Post by n***@yahoo.com

Post by Peter McNichol
My 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.

Am I reading this right? This guy is comparing unintentional car
accidents to terrorism? Crime? War?
All of which are intentional acts? Can you say "frightening"?
Nick.

[n***@yahoo.com]

forgot one:
Loading Image...

[DiscoDuck]

LOL. HILARIOUS!!!
Now I can't believe I am about to do this, but maybe not be so hard on
Peter.
Maybe his helmet is on too tight.
Seriously, I know he sounds nuts, bananas, coo coo, etc. But this
probably isn't going to make him admit he is wrong. If anything it
will antagonize him.

Post by n***@yahoo.com
http://www.hlb.com/inovlog/bananas-1-DHD.jpg

[n***@yahoo.com]

Disco,
dont you think he is TRYING to antagonize you and others with this BS?!
Disco, youve done a valiant job. I'll take over from here.
Nick

Post by DiscoDuck
LOL. HILARIOUS!!!
Now I can't believe I am about to do this, but maybe not be so hard on
Peter.
Maybe his helmet is on too tight.
Seriously, I know he sounds nuts, bananas, coo coo, etc. But this
probably isn't going to make him admit he is wrong. If anything it
will antagonize him.

Post by n***@yahoo.com
http://www.hlb.com/inovlog/bananas-1-DHD.jpg

[Peter McNichol]

Rather than discuss this subject and accept that people, groups,
and members of groups, have different opinions than your own, you
[DD] result to name calling, and condescending behaviour.

[DiscoDuck]

First off, I just finsihed telling nick, that maybe he shouldn't be
calling you names, so it was him, not me. But of course you won't
admit you're wrong there either.

As for differing opinions, the definition of accident is not up for
debate. The definition IS WHAT IT IS!!! IT IS A FACT!!!!! It is YOU
who that wants to demonize those who are at fault in car accidents. IT
is YOU who said all the dictionary's, insurance company's and
professionals that are wrong. IT is YOU who is not accepting
"differing opinions."

It is YOU who says that accident and collision are mutually exclusive.
The defination of collision IS what it IS. IT IS A FACT!!! The two
are not mutually exclusive.
Accidents always involve collisions of some sort.

I have tried to reason with you. The probelm is YOU are not reasonable
when you say accidents are no accidents, accidents and collisions are
NOT mutually exclusive, and you want to demonize those who are at fault
by comparing them to terrorists. This, and not to mention that when it
comes to cars, no accidents exist according to you.

It is YOU who is trying to change the english language.

NIck, you are right-he is bananas. Back to you.

Post by Peter McNichol
Rather than discuss this subject and accept that people, groups,
and members of groups, have different opinions than your own, you
[DD] result to name calling, and condescending behaviour.

[smn]

I am on nobody's side, just being a referee here. The saying goes
"Accidents are no accident" I think it was an ICBC commercial, and
unfortunately what you are calling Peter on is
"accidents are no accidents" which does not even make sense
At least you guys should try to be on the same page. Just pointing out the
obvious. Life hurts sometimes.

Post by DiscoDuck
First off, I just finsihed telling nick, that maybe he shouldn't be
calling you names, so it was him, not me. But of course you won't
admit you're wrong there either.
As for differing opinions, the definition of accident is not up for
debate. The definition IS WHAT IT IS!!! IT IS A FACT!!!!! It is YOU
who that wants to demonize those who are at fault in car accidents. IT
is YOU who said all the dictionary's, insurance company's and
professionals that are wrong. IT is YOU who is not accepting
"differing opinions."
It is YOU who says that accident and collision are mutually exclusive.
The defination of collision IS what it IS. IT IS A FACT!!! The two
are not mutually exclusive.
Accidents always involve collisions of some sort.
I have tried to reason with you. The probelm is YOU are not reasonable
when you say accidents are no accidents, accidents and collisions are
NOT mutually exclusive, and you want to demonize those who are at fault
by comparing them to terrorists. This, and not to mention that when it
comes to cars, no accidents exist according to you.
It is YOU who is trying to change the english language.
NIck, you are right-he is bananas. Back to you.

Post by Peter McNichol
Rather than discuss this subject and accept that people, groups,
and members of groups, have different opinions than your own, you
[DD] result to name calling, and condescending behaviour.

[DiscoDuck]

Agreed, we should be trying to minimize accidents. But suggesting that
people purposely cause damage and injury if involved in an accident due
to negligence, is plain wrong and does nothing but demonize the guilty
party when they had no ill intent.

Peter has stated multiple times that those that cause accidents MEANT
TO do harm which is nothing short of asinine.

Post by smn
I am on nobody's side, just being a referee here. The saying goes
"Accidents are no accident" I think it was an ICBC commercial, and
unfortunately what you are calling Peter on is
"accidents are no accidents" which does not even make sense

You're right, it doesn't make sense which I have stated several times.
I contacted ICBC and here is what they said, however.
http://groups.google.com/group/bc.cycling/msg/c9f1745ea7b8a4d2

Peter followed that up with saying dictionary's and ICBC are wrong

Post by smn
At least you guys should try to be on the same page. Just pointing out the
obvious. Life hurts sometimes.

I'm not sure how we can be on the same page when he thinks those who
cause accidents are on the same level as those that purposely crash
into buildings with airplanes. He thinks there is no difference. I
see a world of difference.

[smn]

Right, and the towers did not fall because of negligence.
thanks for the link

Post by DiscoDuck
Agreed, we should be trying to minimize accidents. But suggesting that
people purposely cause damage and injury if involved in an accident due
to negligence, is plain wrong and does nothing but demonize the guilty
party when they had no ill intent.
Peter has stated multiple times that those that cause accidents MEANT
TO do harm which is nothing short of asinine.

Post by smn
I am on nobody's side, just being a referee here. The saying goes
"Accidents are no accident" I think it was an ICBC commercial, and
unfortunately what you are calling Peter on is
"accidents are no accidents" which does not even make sense

You're right, it doesn't make sense which I have stated several times.
I contacted ICBC and here is what they said, however.
http://groups.google.com/group/bc.cycling/msg/c9f1745ea7b8a4d2
Peter followed that up with saying dictionary's and ICBC are wrong

Post by smn
At least you guys should try to be on the same page. Just pointing out the
obvious. Life hurts sometimes.

I'm not sure how we can be on the same page when he thinks those who
cause accidents are on the same level as those that purposely crash
into buildings with airplanes. He thinks there is no difference. I
see a world of difference.

[Colin B.]

I don't disagree that accidents are deliberate. The term "accident"
isn't incorrect. However, the term "accident" implies that it is just
one of those things, minimizes responsibility and that there was
nothing that could have prevented it. The term minimizes responsibility.

Many health and accident prevention specialists are suggesting that
the term "collision" is better to use, because most
collisions/accident are preventable and that one or more parties made
a mistake and that should be the emphasis.


Colin

Post by DiscoDuck
Agreed, we should be trying to minimize accidents. But suggesting that
people purposely cause damage and injury if involved in an accident due
to negligence, is plain wrong and does nothing but demonize the guilty
party when they had no ill intent.
Peter has stated multiple times that those that cause accidents MEANT
TO do harm which is nothing short of asinine.

[n***@yahoo.com]

Oh my, some people are delusional.

Post by Colin B.
I don't disagree that accidents are deliberate.

Accidents are deliberate? Do I need to post to you the dictionary
definitions?

deliberate: Done with or marked by full consciousness of the nature and
effects; intentional: mistook the oversight for a deliberate insult.
Arising from or marked by careful consideration: a deliberate decision.
See Synonyms at voluntary.
Unhurried in action, movement, or manner, as if trying to avoid error:
moved at a deliberate pace. See Synonyms at slow.

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

The term "accident"

Post by Colin B.
isn't incorrect.

Of course it is if the result was no intended. The term does not
change depending on the molecules involved. See definition above (or
anywhere for that matter).

However, the term "accident" implies that it is just

Post by Colin B.
one of those things, minimizes responsibility and that there was
nothing that could have prevented it. The term minimizes responsibility.

It is just one of those things. So then Colin, what is the word YOU
use for "one of those things"? Do you have a word?
Accidents are accidents. They are not deliberate. No matter how much
you want to demonize people, they are already held accountable. Saying
they did it purposely is lying.
People who change lanes without proper care did not deliberately cause
damage to the car they hit. And when it is their fault they are held
accountable through charges and and insurance premium increase.
It is that simple.

No matter how much you want to pretend that someone purposely caused
damage, they did not. You may have the odd nut case that takes a bat
to a car, (but then they probably had someone like Peter driving them
to it). How you can say a person who takes a bat to car is on the same
level as someone who forgot did not see a car during a lane change, is
beyond all reasoning.

The man who backed into the back of my car 8 years ago, did not use due
care but did not purposely cause the damage. No point me telling him
that he purposely caused the damage to my car because he didn't. And
while not pleased about it I recognize it was a accident. IT was not
deliberate. He paid for the damage (out of his pocket actually), and
apologized. I give him credit for admitting his error and owning up to
his responsibility.

Post by Colin B.
Many health and accident prevention specialists are suggesting that
the term "collision" is better to use, because most
collisions/accident are preventable and that one or more parties made
a mistake and that should be the emphasis.

How can you use "accident prevention specialists" when you are saying
accidents are deliberate? Do they call themselves "deliberate
collision prevention specialists"?

If someone wants to deliberately harm your car there is nothing you can
do about it. Saying everyone there who caused an accident is
foolishness. If you really feel that way (and I doubt you really do),
why don't you lobby the government to charge all those people with
Vandelsim?

Show me a accident prevention specialist that says damage to cars is
always deliberate and I'll show you someone who is
Loading Image...

Nick

Post by Colin B.
Colin

Post by DiscoDuck
Agreed, we should be trying to minimize accidents. But suggesting that
people purposely cause damage and injury if involved in an accident due
to negligence, is plain wrong and does nothing but demonize the guilty
party when they had no ill intent.
Peter has stated multiple times that those that cause accidents MEANT
TO do harm which is nothing short of asinine.

[Colin B.]

That's what I get when I post in a hurry and fail to proof read before
sending.

What I meant was I disagree that accidents are deliberate.

Whether they are called accidents or collisions, almost all are caused
by somebody doing something stupid.

I believe that the word collision should be the preferred term that is
used, because it advances the cause of prevention further than by
calling them accidents.


Colin

Post by n***@yahoo.com
Oh my, some people are delusional.

Post by Colin B.
I don't disagree that accidents are deliberate.

Accidents are deliberate? Do I need to post to you the dictionary
definitions?

[DiscoDuck]

Post by Colin B.
That's what I get when I post in a hurry and fail to proof read before
sending.

Lord knows I have done that enough.

Post by Colin B.
What I meant was I disagree that accidents are deliberate.

Sigh, some sanity. Thank goodness. By definition they are opposites.

Post by Colin B.
Whether they are called accidents or collisions, almost all are caused
by somebody doing something stupid.

Yup, as my point but no point demonizing. ALL of us on the planet have
caused accidents of some sort.

Post by Colin B.
I believe that the word collision should be the preferred term that is
used, because it advances the cause of prevention further than by
calling them accidents.

Sorry Colin but using a term such as collision omits the fact the
someone was at fault so it does nothing to advance the cause. A
collision can happen when no people are involved. Accidents by
definition, involve people.
If you truly want to minimize accidents, then that is the fitting term.
Using collision suggests maybe or maybe not. someone was at fault. A
collision can be an act of god leaving doubt if a person is
responsible.

A tree falling on a house is a collision. The tree collides with the
house. Contrary to what Peter says (I don't know how he can
rationalize this), accidents are not acts of god. By definition they
involve people. Hurricane Katrina was no accidents. IT was an act of
God. Many collisions happened during that disaster.

I have been the cause of an accident and been in accidents that were
not my fault. All all cases there was no deliberate or purposeful
intent. That is the case with the vast vast vast majority of
accidents. No amount of Rhetoric can change that.

Post by Colin B.
Colin

Post by n***@yahoo.com
Oh my, some people are delusional.

Post by Colin B.
I don't disagree that accidents are deliberate.

Accidents are deliberate? Do I need to post to you the dictionary
definitions?

[Király]

Post by DiscoDuck

Post by Colin B.
I believe that the word collision should be the preferred term that is
used, because it advances the cause of prevention further than by
calling them accidents.

Sorry Colin but using a term such as collision omits the fact the
someone was at fault so it does nothing to advance the cause. A
collision can happen when no people are involved. Accidents by
definition, involve people.
If you truly want to minimize accidents, then that is the fitting term.
Using collision suggests maybe or maybe not. someone was at fault. A

When two vehicles collide, "collision" is the most appropriate term to
describe what happened. Yes the collision was very likely an accident.
The three times I have been involved in a collision have all been
accidents (all were 100% the other party's fault) none of the incidents
were intentional on their part. They just failed to be aware of what was
going on around them were thus negligent.

But some collisions are not accidents. Some (I condede it's rare) are
intentional. My neighbour was involved in a 5-car pileup that was caused
by a deranged guy on a suicide mission, who intentionally crashed his car
into traffic stopped at a red light in front of him.

"Collision" is the preferred term for a collision; simply referring to
all collisions as "accidents" without first determining that it is really
an accident is making an assumption that may or may not be correct. This
is why people in the business are increasingly using the word
"collision" instead of "accident", at least until it is determined that the
collision really was an accident.

K.

[n***@yahoo.com]

Post by Király

Post by DiscoDuck

Post by Colin B.
I believe that the word collision should be the preferred term that is
used, because it advances the cause of prevention further than by
calling them accidents.

Sorry Colin but using a term such as collision omits the fact the
someone was at fault so it does nothing to advance the cause. A
collision can happen when no people are involved. Accidents by
definition, involve people.
If you truly want to minimize accidents, then that is the fitting term.
Using collision suggests maybe or maybe not. someone was at fault. A

When two vehicles collide, "collision" is the most appropriate term to
describe what happened. Yes the collision was very likely an accident.
The three times I have been involved in a collision have all been
accidents (all were 100% the other party's fault) none of the incidents
were intentional on their part. They just failed to be aware of what was
going on around them were thus negligent.

That is right.

Post by Király
But some collisions are not accidents. Some (I condede it's rare) are
intentional. My neighbour was involved in a 5-car pileup that was caused
by a deranged guy on a suicide mission, who intentionally crashed his car
into traffic stopped at a red light in front of him.

This is exceedingly rare. Less than 1% of 1%, I bet. But you are
correct-what you describe above is not an accident as it was done with
the intention of causing harm or damage.

Post by Király
"Collision" is the preferred term for a collision; simply referring to
all collisions as "accidents" without first determining that it is really
an accident is making an assumption that may or may not be correct. This
is why people in the business are increasingly using the word
"collision" instead of "accident", at least until it is determined that the
collision really was an accident.

I think it is safe to say virtually all collisions are accidental,
therefore it is safe to refer to them as accidents as that is what they
are.
ICBC (and other professionals) recognize the difference between
intentional and non intentional collisions, the latter are called
accidents.

Police officers file "Accident Reports" when a collision between two
cars occurs, then they determine fault and charge accordingly (as will
ICBC when it comes to premiums)
Anything other than accidental would and should be considered criminal
acts and charged accordingly.

[Tom Keats]

Post by Colin B.
That's what I get when I post in a hurry and fail to proof read before
sending.
What I meant was I disagree that accidents are deliberate.

So do I. But the [un|semi]conscious decision to be negligent
might be considered deliberate.

Post by Colin B.
Whether they are called accidents or collisions, almost all are caused
by somebody doing something stupid.

I recently had an accident with my bike -- a pebble squirted out
from under my front tire and went 'ping' on a parked car.
I didn't mean to do it. There were no witnesses but I high-tailed
it outa there anyway. Shame on me I guess, but I can't afford to
have somebody's paint touched-up.

Post by Colin B.
I believe that the word collision should be the preferred term that is
used, because it advances the cause of prevention further than by
calling them accidents.

With that I agree. I noted how deliberately the word "collision"
was used after that last major collision on the Patullo bridge.
It's not the bridge's fault it hosts so many collisions. Same
with the Sea-to-Sky Highway. Like you say: somebody doing
(or /deciding/ to do) something stupid, like speeding or
unsafe overtaking.


cheers,
Tom

[DiscoDuck]

Post by Tom Keats

Post by Colin B.
That's what I get when I post in a hurry and fail to proof read before
sending.
What I meant was I disagree that accidents are deliberate.

So do I. But the [un|semi]conscious decision to be negligent
might be considered deliberate.

Not at all. Absolutely not. Lets not demonize people for (even dumb)
errors. There is no way that someone, who want to consciously wants to
cause damage, can be stopped. Using your logic, then someone who
doesn't cause damage should be criminally charged with vandalism since
they INTENDED to cause damage.

Post by Tom Keats

Post by Colin B.
Whether they are called accidents or collisions, almost all are caused
by somebody doing something stupid.

I recently had an accident with my bike -- a pebble squirted out
from under my front tire and went 'ping' on a parked car.
I didn't mean to do it. There were no witnesses but I high-tailed
it outa there anyway. Shame on me I guess, but I can't afford to
have somebody's paint touched-up.

But according to what you said up there, you MEANT to cause that
damage? You meant to have a collision between the parked car and
pebble.
You should be charged with Vandalism according to you.

My theory is this was an accident and you did not mean to cause any
damage to the parked car. But according to above, and Peter, YOU
DELIBERATLY caused any damage to that car.
Your panic reponse to flee is another issue but I must say I probably
would have split, too since it was minor.

Post by Tom Keats

Post by Colin B.
I believe that the word collision should be the preferred term that is
used, because it advances the cause of prevention further than by
calling them accidents.

With that I agree. I noted how deliberately the word "collision"
was used after that last major collision on the Patullo bridge.
It's not the bridge's fault it hosts so many collisions. Same
with the Sea-to-Sky Highway. Like you say: somebody doing
(or /deciding/ to do) something stupid, like speeding or
unsafe overtaking.

"Collision" involves both accidental and non-accidental incidents. The
terms "accident" and "collision"are not mutually exclusive.

Post by Tom Keats
cheers,
Tom
--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[Colin B.]

Post by Tom Keats
I recently had an accident with my bike -- a pebble squirted out
from under my front tire and went 'ping' on a parked car.
I didn't mean to do it. There were no witnesses but I high-tailed
it outa there anyway. Shame on me I guess, but I can't afford to
have somebody's paint touched-up.

I would think that in this situation, the city would be liable, not
you, as they failed to clean the streets properly.


Colin

[n***@yahoo.com]

Post by Colin B.

Post by Tom Keats
I recently had an accident with my bike -- a pebble squirted out
from under my front tire and went 'ping' on a parked car.
I didn't mean to do it. There were no witnesses but I high-tailed
it outa there anyway. Shame on me I guess, but I can't afford to
have somebody's paint touched-up.

I would think that in this situation, the city would be liable, not
you, as they failed to clean the streets properly.

I have to ask, is this a joke?

[Jim Garnett]

Post by n***@yahoo.com

Post by Colin B.

Post by Tom Keats
I recently had an accident with my bike -- a pebble squirted out
from under my front tire and went 'ping' on a parked car.
I didn't mean to do it. There were no witnesses but I high-tailed
it outa there anyway. Shame on me I guess, but I can't afford to
have somebody's paint touched-up.

I would think that in this situation, the city would be liable, not
you, as they failed to clean the streets properly.

I have to ask, is this a joke?

Not sure. What if a car hit a stone in the street that damaged someone
else's car? Maybe it's just the rub of the green.

j.

[Colin B.]

Post by n***@yahoo.com

Post by Colin B.

Post by Tom Keats
I recently had an accident with my bike -- a pebble squirted out
from under my front tire and went 'ping' on a parked car.
I didn't mean to do it. There were no witnesses but I high-tailed
it outa there anyway. Shame on me I guess, but I can't afford to
have somebody's paint touched-up.

I would think that in this situation, the city would be liable, not
you, as they failed to clean the streets properly.

I have to ask, is this a joke?

Only partially. I doubt you would be found responsible, as there was
no liability on your part, as you did nothing wrong.

The city could be held liable if it was a known hazard or didn't do a
good job of cleaning the streets, but I doubt that would happen. If
the owner of the car would prove who put the stone there (eg a nearby
construction site) and there was negligence (eg. they allowed trucks
leaving to track gravel onto nearby streets), then they have a case
against whoever was responsible.


Colin

[n***@yahoo.com]

Post by Colin B.
That's what I get when I post in a hurry and fail to proof read before
sending.

Using Peter's definition you MEANT to write it that way.
Whereas I bet it was accidental

Post by Colin B.
What I meant was I disagree that accidents are deliberate.
Whether they are called accidents or collisions, almost all are caused
by somebody doing something stupid.
I believe that the word collision should be the preferred term that is
used, because it advances the cause of prevention further than by
calling them accidents.
Colin

Post by n***@yahoo.com
Oh my, some people are delusional.

Post by Colin B.
I don't disagree that accidents are deliberate.

Accidents are deliberate? Do I need to post to you the dictionary
definitions?

[n***@yahoo.com]

Oh my, some people are delusional. Duck, why have you wasted your
time on such BS?

Post by Colin B.
I don't disagree that accidents are deliberate.

Accidents are deliberate? Do I need to post to you the dictionary
definitions? Here you go:

from: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/thesaurus
Entry Word: deliberate
to give serious and careful thought to <the jury deliberated the case
for three days before returning a verdict>

So people are looking at cars and thinking "Oh yeah, I could cause some
serious damage to right corner rear panel on that car over there. Here
I go. Hell, I think I'll try and kill that baby in the back seat."

Entry Word: accident
a chance and usually sudden event bringing loss or injury <was involved
in an accident on her way home from work

The term "accident"

Post by Colin B.
isn't incorrect.

Of course it is if the result was no intended. The term does not
change depending on the molecules involved. See definition above (or
anywhere for that matter).

However, the term "accident" implies that it is just

Post by Colin B.
one of those things, minimizes responsibility and that there was
nothing that could have prevented it. The term minimizes responsibility.

It is just one of those things. So then Colin, what is the word YOU
use for "one of those things"? Do you have a word?
Accidents are accidents. They are not deliberate. No matter how much
you want to demonize people, they are already held accountable. Saying

they did it purposely is lying.
People who change lanes without proper care did not deliberately cause
damage to the car they hit. And when it is their fault they are held
accountable through charges and and insurance premium increase.
It is that simple.

No matter how much you want to pretend that someone purposely caused
damage, they did not. You may have the odd nut case that takes a bat
to a car, (but then they probably had someone like Peter driving them
to it). How you can say a person who takes a bat to car is on the same

level as someone who forgot did not see a car during a lane change, is
beyond all reasoning.


The man who backed into the back of my car 8 years ago, did not use due

care but did not purposely cause the damage. No point me telling him
that he purposely caused the damage to my car because he didn't. And
while not pleased about it I recognize it was a accident. IT was not
deliberate. He paid for the damage (out of his pocket actually), and
apologized. I give him credit for admitting his error and owning up to

his responsibility.

Post by Colin B.
Many health and accident prevention specialists are suggesting that
the term "collision" is better to use, because most
collisions/accident are preventable and that one or more parties made
a mistake and that should be the emphasis.

How can you use "accident prevention specialists" when you are saying
accidents are deliberate? Do they call themselves "deliberate
collision prevention specialists"?

If someone wants to deliberately harm your car there is nothing you can

do about it. Saying everyone there who caused an accident is
foolishness. If you really feel that way (and I doubt you really do),
why don't you lobby the government to charge all those people with
Vandalism?


Show me a accident prevention specialist that says damage to cars is
always deliberate and I'll show you someone who is
http://oseb79.free.fr/images/Serie,%20cartoon/Looney%20tunes%2003.jpg


Nick

Post by Colin B.
I don't disagree that accidents are deliberate. The term "accident"
isn't incorrect. However, the term "accident" implies that it is just
one of those things, minimizes responsibility and that there was
nothing that could have prevented it. The term minimizes responsibility.
Many health and accident prevention specialists are suggesting that
the term "collision" is better to use, because most
collisions/accident are preventable and that one or more parties made
a mistake and that should be the emphasis.
Colin

Post by DiscoDuck
Agreed, we should be trying to minimize accidents. But suggesting that
people purposely cause damage and injury if involved in an accident due
to negligence, is plain wrong and does nothing but demonize the guilty
party when they had no ill intent.
Peter has stated multiple times that those that cause accidents MEANT
TO do harm which is nothing short of asinine.

[n***@yahoo.com]

Oh my, some people are delusional. Are there any other words in the
English langauage you would like to change after centuries?
Duck, why have you wasted your time on such BS?

Post by Colin B.
I don't disagree that accidents are deliberate.

Accidents are deliberate? Do I need to post to you the dictionary
definitions? Here you go:
From: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/thesaurus

Entry Word: deliberate
to give serious and careful thought to <the jury deliberated the case
for three days before returning a verdict>

So people are looking at cars and thinking "Oh yeah, I could cause some

serious damage to right corner rear panel on that car over there. Here

I go. Hell, I think I'll try and kill that baby in the back seat."

Entry Word: accident
a chance and usually sudden event bringing loss or injury <was involved

in an accident on her way home from work
The term "accident"

Post by Colin B.
isn't incorrect.

Of course it is if the result was not intended. The term does not
change depending on the molecules involved. See definition above (or
anywhere for that matter).

However, the term "accident" implies that it is just

Post by Colin B.
one of those things, minimizes responsibility and that there was
nothing that could have prevented it. The term minimizes responsibility.

It is just one of those things. So then Colin, what is the word YOU
use for "one of those things"? Do you have a word?
Accidents are accidents. They are not deliberate. No matter how much
you want to demonize people, they are already held accountable. Saying

they did it purposely is lying.
People who change lanes without proper care did not deliberately cause
damage to the car they hit. And when it is their fault they are held
accountable through charges and an insurance premium increase.

It is that simple.

No matter how much you want to pretend that someone purposely caused
damage, they did not. You may have the odd nut case that takes a bat
to a car, (but then they probably had someone like Peter driving them
to it). How you can say a person who takes a bat to car is on the same

level as someone who forgot did not see a car during a lane change, is
beyond all reasoning.

The man who backed into the back of my car 8 years ago, did not use due

care but did not purposely cause the damage. No point me telling him
that he purposely caused the damage to my car because he didn't. And
while not pleased about it I recognize it was an accident. IT was not
deliberate. He paid for the damage (out of his pocket actually), and
apologized. I give him credit for admitting his error and owning up to

his responsibility.

Post by Colin B.
Many health and accident prevention specialists are suggesting that
the term "collision" is better to use, because most
collisions/accident are preventable and that one or more parties made
a mistake and that should be the emphasis.

How can you use "accident prevention specialists" when you are saying
accidents are deliberate? Do they call themselves "deliberate
collision prevention specialists"?
If someone wants to deliberately harm your car there is nothing you can

do about it. Saying everyone there who caused an accident is
foolishness. If you really feel that way (and I doubt you really do),
why don't you lobby the government to charge all those people with
Vandalism?

Show me an accident prevention specialist that says damage to cars is
always deliberate and I'll show you someone who is
http://oseb79.free.fr/images/Serie,%20cartoon/Looney%20tunes%2003.jpg
Nick

Post by Colin B.
I don't disagree that accidents are deliberate. The term "accident"
isn't incorrect. However, the term "accident" implies that it is just
one of those things, minimizes responsibility and that there was
nothing that could have prevented it. The term minimizes responsibility.
Many health and accident prevention specialists are suggesting that
the term "collision" is better to use, because most
collisions/accident are preventable and that one or more parties made
a mistake and that should be the emphasis.
Colin

Post by DiscoDuck
Agreed, we should be trying to minimize accidents. But suggesting that
people purposely cause damage and injury if involved in an accident due
to negligence, is plain wrong and does nothing but demonize the guilty
party when they had no ill intent.
Peter has stated multiple times that those that cause accidents MEANT
TO do harm which is nothing short of asinine.

[DiscoDuck]

Considering accident and deliberate are opposites, what you say below
is an oxymoron.

Please tell me the term you apply to the following definition.

1 a : an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance b : lack of
intention or necessity : CHANCE <met by accident rather than by design>
2 a : an unfortunate event resulting especially from carelessness or
ignorance b : an unexpected and medically important bodily event
especially when injurious <a cerebrovascular accident> c : an
unexpected happening causing loss or injury which is not due to any
fault or misconduct on the part of the person injured but for which
legal relief may be sought
3 : a nonessential property or quality of an entity or circumstance
<the accident of nationality>

Post by Colin B.
I don't disagree that accidents are deliberate. The term "accident"
isn't incorrect. However, the term "accident" implies that it is just
one of those things, minimizes responsibility and that there was
nothing that could have prevented it. The term minimizes responsibility.
Many health and accident prevention specialists are suggesting that
the term "collision" is better to use, because most
collisions/accident are preventable and that one or more parties made
a mistake and that should be the emphasis.

[DiscoDuck]

First off, I just finsihed telling nick, that maybe he shouldn't be
calling you names, so it was him, not me. But of course you won't
admit you're wrong there either.

As for differing opinions, the definition of accident is not up for
debate. The definition IS WHAT IT IS!!! IT IS A FACT!!!!! It is YOU
who that wants to demonize those who are at fault in car accidents. IT

is YOU who said all the dictionary's, insurance company's and
professionals that are wrong. IT is YOU who is not accepting
"differing opinions."


It is YOU who says that accident and collision are mutually exclusive.
The defination of collision IS what it IS. IT IS A FACT!!! The two
are not mutually exclusive.
Accidents always involve collisions of some sort.


I have tried to reason with you. The probelm is YOU are not reasonable

when you say accidents are no accidents, accidents and collisions are
mutually exclusive, and you want to demonize those who are at fault
by comparing them to terrorists. This, and not to mention that when it

comes to cars, no accidents exist according to you.

It is YOU who lied about the Chief of Police in Ottawa (who refused to
confirm what you said).

It is YOU who is trying to change the english language.

NIck, you are right-he is bananas. Back to you.



- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Post by Peter McNichol
Rather than discuss this subject and accept that people, groups,
and members of groups, have different opinions than your own, you
[DD] result to name calling, and condescending behaviour.

[DiscoDuck]

Post by n***@yahoo.com
This Peter, is dangerous, and is more interested in being obstinate,
than reducing accidents.

What is "obstinate"? ;)
I agree (although I have to confess to looking the the term up). We've
been arguing about this for a couple of months. His initial post which
caused this was something along the lines of "accidents are no
accidents." I don't think he even gets the irony of that statement.