Author Topic: In collision with...  (Read 3772 times)

Pingu

  • Put away those fiery biscuits!
  • Mrs Pingu's domestique
    • the Igloo

Re: In collision with...
« Reply #1 on: September 28, 2020, 10:55:28 pm »
About time, though I'm not quite sure how showing a van apparently travelling faster than persistence of vision fits in with the guidelines.

Jaded

  • The Codfather
  • Formerly known as Jaded
Re: In collision with...
« Reply #2 on: September 28, 2020, 11:46:09 pm »
I’ve always said that these things should be called crashes or incidents.

But mattc has always disagreed. He is happy with accident, the pant-wetting, toddler, unwitting term.  ;)
If you don't like your democracy, vote against it.

Re: In collision with...
« Reply #3 on: September 29, 2020, 08:11:11 am »
Indeed, I believe the Police stopped referring to "accidents" quite a while ago, as someone is always at fault. The are all incidents.
We are making a New World (Paul Nash, 1918)

Re: In collision with...
« Reply #4 on: September 29, 2020, 09:04:09 am »
Indeed, I believe the Police stopped referring to "accidents" quite a while ago, as someone is always at fault. The are all incidents.

I've always disagreed with that. As I frequently tell my kids, 'accident' means 'not intended', not 'not at fault'.  However, I fear that battle is long-lost.  However, it does leave a gap in the language for a word meaning, 'something that was somebody's fault but not deliberately so'.   :-\
Life is too important to be taken seriously.

Jaded

  • The Codfather
  • Formerly known as Jaded
Re: In collision with...
« Reply #5 on: September 29, 2020, 09:57:41 am »
I think that's where 'Incident' comes in?
If you don't like your democracy, vote against it.

ElyDave

  • Royal and Ancient Polar Bear Society member 263583
Re: In collision with...
« Reply #6 on: September 29, 2020, 10:45:37 am »
Indeed, I believe the Police stopped referring to "accidents" quite a while ago, as someone is always at fault. The are all incidents.

I've always disagreed with that. As I frequently tell my kids, 'accident' means 'not intended', not 'not at fault'.  However, I fear that battle is long-lost.  However, it does leave a gap in the language for a word meaning, 'something that was somebody's fault but not deliberately so'.   :-\

That would depend on the intent - driver pulls onto roundabout not looking, T-bones cyclist.  Whilst the collision was not intended, pulling onto the roundabout without looking was a deliberate act.

Accident would suggest something neither party has control over, perhaps a patch of diesel on the road, causing a skid, or a rear-ending causing a car to move forward into the bike. 

I await the ritual flogging with glee ;D
“Procrastination is the thief of time, collar him.” –Charles Dickens

Re: In collision with...
« Reply #7 on: September 29, 2020, 11:02:59 am »

That would depend on the intent - driver pulls onto roundabout not looking, T-bones cyclist.  Whilst the collision was not intended, pulling onto the roundabout without looking was a deliberate act.


Surely next to nobody actively thinks "I'm deliberately not going to look" as they enter a roundabout?

"A mindless act" would be a more accurate description maybe? Or do you actually believe people deliberately don't look?

ian

  • feat. Undead Jess & Finestre, Queen of Hell
Re: In collision with...
« Reply #8 on: September 29, 2020, 11:30:26 am »
Does this mean we can move away from the painfully contrived language about 'cars doing things' of apparently their own volition? Often leaving their bemused drivers the opportunity to pop home and sleep off their night in the pub. I honestly don't know how my car ended up embedded in your house. Perhaps we should ask the car.
Support the Great Surrey Bear Census 2020

Re: In collision with...
« Reply #9 on: September 29, 2020, 11:32:58 am »
And I have absolutely no idea what my house does while I'm asleep....

Re: In collision with...
« Reply #10 on: September 29, 2020, 11:36:59 am »
I think that's where 'Incident' comes in?

'Incident' leaves the question of responsibility entirely open. And indeed also the nature of the outcome - an incident could be a good thing.

Historically, something that is completely out of anybody's control would have been an 'act of God' but I have to accept that 'accident' now serves that role in most people's minds.  In my own mind, though, I maintain that 99% of accidents have human causes, and we shouldn't be letting sloppy language suggest otherwise.
Life is too important to be taken seriously.

Re: In collision with...
« Reply #11 on: September 29, 2020, 11:39:53 am »

That would depend on the intent - driver pulls onto roundabout not looking, T-bones cyclist.  Whilst the collision was not intended, pulling onto the roundabout without looking was a deliberate act.


Surely next to nobody actively thinks "I'm deliberately not going to look" as they enter a roundabout?

"A mindless act" would be a more accurate description maybe? Or do you actually believe people deliberately don't look?

Indeed. The collision is the 'accident', caused by a deliberate or mindless act (for which the driver is culpable) but not in itself deliberate. A deliberate collision would, off course, be assault (or worse!).
Life is too important to be taken seriously.

Jaded

  • The Codfather
  • Formerly known as Jaded
Re: In collision with...
« Reply #12 on: September 29, 2020, 11:40:19 am »

That would depend on the intent - driver pulls onto roundabout not looking, T-bones cyclist.  Whilst the collision was not intended, pulling onto the roundabout without looking was a deliberate act.


Surely next to nobody actively thinks "I'm deliberately not going to look" as they enter a roundabout?

"A mindless act" would be a more accurate description maybe? Or do you actually believe people deliberately don't look?

I think some people deliberately don't look. They have a right, so there shouldn't be anything in the way.

Here's an entitled twerp who probably, if he crashed into someone on a lane, would have had an "accident".
If you don't like your democracy, vote against it.

ElyDave

  • Royal and Ancient Polar Bear Society member 263583
Re: In collision with...
« Reply #13 on: September 29, 2020, 11:44:49 am »

That would depend on the intent - driver pulls onto roundabout not looking, T-bones cyclist.  Whilst the collision was not intended, pulling onto the roundabout without looking was a deliberate act.


Surely next to nobody actively thinks "I'm deliberately not going to look" as they enter a roundabout?

"A mindless act" would be a more accurate description maybe? Or do you actually believe people deliberately don't look?

The not looking may not have been deliberate, but the decision to proceed without looking was.


Indeed. The collision is the 'accident', caused by a deliberate or mindless act (for which the driver is culpable) but not in itself deliberate. A deliberate collision would, off course, be assault (or worse!).

As for this one, I have had a driver follow me into a narrow one way street and attempt to ram me off the road, all becasue I had the temerity to ride past a queue of traffic stopped at a red light and position myself at the front. In the altercation he clearly thought it reasonable to use his car as a weapon because "you have no right to get in front of me"
“Procrastination is the thief of time, collar him.” –Charles Dickens

Re: In collision with...
« Reply #14 on: September 29, 2020, 11:46:20 am »
So, assault then.  >:(
Life is too important to be taken seriously.

Jaded

  • The Codfather
  • Formerly known as Jaded
Re: In collision with...
« Reply #15 on: September 29, 2020, 12:00:42 pm »

That would depend on the intent - driver pulls onto roundabout not looking, T-bones cyclist.  Whilst the collision was not intended, pulling onto the roundabout without looking was a deliberate act.


Surely next to nobody actively thinks "I'm deliberately not going to look" as they enter a roundabout?

"A mindless act" would be a more accurate description maybe? Or do you actually believe people deliberately don't look?

Thinking more bout this.

It isn't deliberately not looking.
It is not deliberately looking.
If you don't like your democracy, vote against it.

ian

  • feat. Undead Jess & Finestre, Queen of Hell
Re: In collision with...
« Reply #16 on: September 29, 2020, 12:11:11 pm »
It's easy to see how language leads thinking. It does a lot to divorce drivers from the actions of their vehicles and shift the balance to the more vulnerable party. Those little pivots towards a cyclist not wearing a helmet or a pedestrian having stepped out into the road. These seem to infect nearly all the reporting. It would be good to see that change.

If you want a good example from another sphere, take the US police predilection for shooting people. However, officially the US police never shoot an individual. They just happen to have been engaged in an 'officer-involved shooting.' It's that same passive I-was-there-and-it-happened shruggery.
Support the Great Surrey Bear Census 2020

ElyDave

  • Royal and Ancient Polar Bear Society member 263583
Re: In collision with...
« Reply #17 on: September 29, 2020, 01:09:29 pm »

That would depend on the intent - driver pulls onto roundabout not looking, T-bones cyclist.  Whilst the collision was not intended, pulling onto the roundabout without looking was a deliberate act.


Surely next to nobody actively thinks "I'm deliberately not going to look" as they enter a roundabout?

"A mindless act" would be a more accurate description maybe? Or do you actually believe people deliberately don't look?

Thinking more bout this.

It isn't deliberately not looking.
It is not deliberately looking.

Which in my view still doesnt make it an accident.  Not deliberately looking to me is also chosing to omit a required action, and therefore deliberate, even if the outcome is not intended
“Procrastination is the thief of time, collar him.” –Charles Dickens

FifeingEejit

  • Not Small
Re: In collision with...
« Reply #18 on: September 29, 2020, 05:55:10 pm »
Indeed, I believe the Police stopped referring to "accidents" quite a while ago, as someone is always at fault. The are all incidents.

Traffic polis said that when they visited my school around 1998...

Cudzoziemiec

  • Eating all the pies and drinking all the tea.
Re: In collision with...
« Reply #19 on: September 29, 2020, 06:21:20 pm »

That would depend on the intent - driver pulls onto roundabout not looking, T-bones cyclist.  Whilst the collision was not intended, pulling onto the roundabout without looking was a deliberate act.


Surely next to nobody actively thinks "I'm deliberately not going to look" as they enter a roundabout?

"A mindless act" would be a more accurate description maybe? Or do you actually believe people deliberately don't look?

Thinking more bout this.

It isn't deliberately not looking.
It is not deliberately looking.
Yes.
Faster than a walk, slower than a train, often slightly higher than a person. (David Byrne)

Cudzoziemiec

  • Eating all the pies and drinking all the tea.
Re: In collision with...
« Reply #20 on: September 29, 2020, 06:24:30 pm »
I thought this was going to be about the passive. "A grey Ford was in collision with..." And the transfer of autonomy and therefore responsibility from driver to driven. We very rarely read "A 44 year old man drove his grey Ford into a house and broke his legs," we read "A 44 year old man had his legs broken when his grey Ford left the road and collided with a house."
Faster than a walk, slower than a train, often slightly higher than a person. (David Byrne)

ian

  • feat. Undead Jess & Finestre, Queen of Hell
Re: In collision with...
« Reply #21 on: September 29, 2020, 08:09:49 pm »
I thought this was going to be about the passive. "A grey Ford was in collision with..." And the transfer of autonomy and therefore responsibility from driver to driven. We very rarely read "A 44 year old man drove his grey Ford into a house and broke his legs," we read "A 44 year old man had his legs broken when his grey Ford left the road and collided with a house."

That's my thing. I think that's a far more dangerous use of language than arguing about the intent in an 'accident.' A car doesn't lose control, the driver loses control of the car. It's an important distinction. If you take this up with a newspaper editor they'll tell you they are trying not to attribute blame, but it's not an attribution, it's a statement of fact. The car has a driver. They wouldn't write about anything else in this weird passive voice and indeed, like the example of 'officer-involved shooting' it's not about attribution, it's about divorcing cause and effect, an exculpation of fact. The officer shot the gun. It may have been justified or it may not. Stating that he did the act doesn't affect that.
Support the Great Surrey Bear Census 2020

ElyDave

  • Royal and Ancient Polar Bear Society member 263583
Re: In collision with...
« Reply #22 on: September 29, 2020, 09:24:46 pm »
An aeroplane crashed today killing XXX

“Procrastination is the thief of time, collar him.” –Charles Dickens

ian

  • feat. Undead Jess & Finestre, Queen of Hell
Re: In collision with...
« Reply #23 on: September 29, 2020, 09:50:51 pm »
You're making a category error though. Planes don't hit the ground for the same reasons as cars hit each other (and anything else).
Support the Great Surrey Bear Census 2020

ElyDave

  • Royal and Ancient Polar Bear Society member 263583
Re: In collision with...
« Reply #24 on: September 29, 2020, 10:15:11 pm »
not really, there is event X
After event X, people report that it has happened.
After it is reported people try to understand why
i.e. car hits person. Driver failed to stop.
Brakes failed
MOT inspector found out his wife was having an affair and missed the corroded brakes 3 months earlier

All of these errors are system errors, the trick is understanding the system and identifying the error.
One of the reasons planes don't hit other planes is becasue of the system planes operate within.
“Procrastination is the thief of time, collar him.” –Charles Dickens