Richard wrote:
> Mark Thompson wrote:
>>> The comments are not on the personal situations, and I agree with
>>> your sentiments on them, but rather on the immediate response from
>>> the media that this was an "accident".
>>> Of course it is tragic for all concerned, but until the facts are
>>> investigated no one can be sure this was an "accident".
>>
>>
>> You mean the driver ploughed through the central reservation in a
>> deliberated attempt to hit the cyclists?
>>
>> I'm pretty happy with the term 'accident' to describe the unintended
>> consequences of someones actions, however stupid/negligent they were.
>
> I'm not.
In that case check out:
http://www.answers.com/topic/accident
There you will find a whole range of definitions of "accident" The focus in
all the various definitions is on
"unintentional/unexpected/unforeseen/undesirable", including, from a legal
dictionary:
"An unexpected usually sudden event that occurs without intent or volition
although sometimes through carelessness, unawareness, ignorance, or a
combination of causes and that produces an unfortunate result (as an injury)
for which the affected party may be entitled to relief under the law or to
compensation under an insurance policy see also unavoidable accident
- The term accident has been held to include intentional acts (such as an
assault and battery) under workers' compensation laws. "
Only the wikipedia definition strays into the uncertain territory arguing
that the unintended consequences of a negligent act are not an accident.
but the "Car accident" link goes further:
"Terminology issues
There is a debate about the use of the word accident in the context of
motor-vehicle incidents. Incidents often result from carelessness or
deliberate dangerous driving, rather than from circumstances beyond the
control of one or more participants. Some road traffic safety authorities
have started using alternative expressions such as car crashes, car wrecks,
collisions or incidents in an attempt to educate drivers and emphasise that
many incidents are entirely avoidable. Further, in some areas (e.g.
Victoria, Australia), authorities are considering counting single-vehicle
single-occupant road traffic crash fatalities in that state's suicide
statistics as well as in road toll statistics."
Which to me seem to stretch the point beyond breaking: if "single-vehicle
single-occupant road traffic crash fatalities" are to be termed suicide then
so should most pedestrian fatalities when the pedestrian steps infront of a
legally and correctly driven vehicle. See how straying from the original
understanding of "unintentional/unexpected/unforeseen/undesirable" get you
into very murky areas.
My negligent driving may result in an accident which kills someone. It only
ceases to be an accident if I *deliberately* use the vehicle as a weapon:
key word deliberately.
There are very few "accidents" (motoring or other wise) that are not the
result of some deliberate act having unintended consequences. Better it
seems to me to retain the distinction between "acts deliberately intended to
cause harm" and "negligence resulting in harm".
pk