Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 09:53

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 10:41 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 22:02
Posts: 3266
other causes

stolen or criminal actions
thrill seeking
too bloody old to drive
ignored signals rail crossings/traffic lights
failed to control an automatic car
load shifted
hit a bridge

oh and one from work...car park barrier failed to detect motorbike, barrier came down on motorcyclist and bike carried on without him through 200 students leaving thier degree ceromony and then hit a parked van!
one motorcyclist and two students injured.

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 10:46 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Barkstar wrote:
I'm no big fan of the word accident. There are such things but 99.9% of incidents are not accidents.


Yeah they are. Have you tried looking up 'accident' in a good dictionary?

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 11:05 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 15:27
Posts: 683
Location: New Forest
SafeSpeed wrote:
Barkstar wrote:
I'm no big fan of the word accident. There are such things but 99.9% of incidents are not accidents.


Yeah they are. Have you tried looking up 'accident' in a good dictionary?


I looked the word up because I think that Barkstar has a point (although 99.9% may be a bit high).

Accident definition = "unfortunate happening" - but things don't "just happen". They tend to be the consequence of may things, most of which are preventable.

_________________
It's tricky doing nothing - you never know when you're finished


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 11:19 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Grumpy Old Biker wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
Barkstar wrote:
I'm no big fan of the word accident. There are such things but 99.9% of incidents are not accidents.


Yeah they are. Have you tried looking up 'accident' in a good dictionary?


I looked the word up because I think that Barkstar has a point (although 99.9% may be a bit high).

Accident definition = "unfortunate happening" - but things don't "just happen". They tend to be the consequence of may things, most of which are preventable.


Yeah, but that definition doesn't give any value to the cause of the happening, nor whether it could be forseen. In fact I could bet the farm on a rank outsider, lose my bet and still call it an 'unfortunate happening'

The shorter Oxford English Dictionary has this:

An event that is without apparent cause or unexpected; an unfortunate event, esp. one causing injury or damage.

Which perfectly accurately covers 99.9% of road crashes. They are 'unfortunate events', causing injury or damage; and they are 'unexpected'; frequently they are also 'without apparent cause' at least for a while.

I rather object to the 'Newspeak' approach to road safety as it happens.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 11:54 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 15:27
Posts: 683
Location: New Forest
SafeSpeed wrote:
I rather object to the 'Newspeak' approach to road safety as it happens.


What's that then?

_________________
It's tricky doing nothing - you never know when you're finished


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 12:34 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 15:27
Posts: 683
Location: New Forest
SafeSpeed wrote:
Yeah, but that definition doesn't give any value to the cause of the happening, nor whether it could be forseen. In fact I could bet the farm on a rank outsider, lose my bet and still call it an 'unfortunate happening'

The shorter Oxford English Dictionary has this:

An event that is without apparent cause or unexpected; an unfortunate event, esp. one causing injury or damage.

Which perfectly accurately covers 99.9% of road crashes. They are 'unfortunate events', causing injury or damage; and they are 'unexpected'; frequently they are also 'without apparent cause' at least for a while.


Whilst the dictionary doesn't say whether or not the happening could be forseen, someone who takes a 'risk' could not reasonably claim that a 'bad' result was an accident. I'm talking colloquial speak here.

I think that an 'accident' is an event that would evoke sympathy.

I don't think you'd get much sympathy when you lost your farm given that you knew the facts and decided to risk everything.

Are any 'crashes' ever finally defined as 'without apparent cause'?

_________________
It's tricky doing nothing - you never know when you're finished


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 12:46 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Grumpy Old Biker wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
I rather object to the 'Newspeak' approach to road safety as it happens.


What's that then?


In Orwell's 1984 the state progressively slimmed the official dictionary (called 'The Newspeak Dictionary') because they believed that a population without words for, for example, 'joy' or 'dissent' would be less able to express or formulate undesirable ideas.

Telling us that we should or shouldn't use a word to describe something could be the tip of such an iceberg.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 14:19 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 00:42
Posts: 310
Location: North West England
While there's no arguing with the OED I think we're into semantics here to a degree. When a driver turned right across my path when I had right of way that was no accident for me. He was simply rubber necking the previous 'accident', which was being attended by a traffic car with it blues on!

It's very much a sliding scale from a moments inattention and a bent rim having strayed up the kerb all the way to drug and alchohol fueled racing in a stolen car ending in tragedy.

As for incidents without 'apparent cause' I'm sure there have a few where with vehicles have left the road, the only witness is dead and there's no physical or medical evidence to give a clue as to why - few and far between I'd imagine.

Barkstar

_________________
The difference between intelligence and stupidity is that intelligence has limits.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 14:29 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 08:22
Posts: 2618
Whilst I don't think that getting into an argument over the technical meaning of a word will acheive anything, I do agree that the word 'accident' is over-used.

Tripping over in the street and falling into the path of a car is an accident. Mounting the pavement because you were fiddling with the radio certainly isn't. I don't think that any situation where there can be clear moral blame (as opposed to legal blame) can genuinely be called accidents.

Going into the back of someone because you were following too close. Is that an accident? I don't think so. The act of following too close is deliberate (for what ever reason) and so the consequences are not just 'something that happened at random'

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 19:17 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 21:17
Posts: 3734
Location: Dorset/Somerset border
Grumpy Old Biker wrote:
I suffer with the overwhelming desire to look at pretty women in the summer - I know I shouldn't............


Only in the summer? :love:

I guess not leaving enough space would cover both rear enders (travelling in the same direction) and collisions in narrow roads (travelling in the same direction)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.024s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]