Jdsk wrote: ↑3 Dec 2021, 7:17pm
PS: I'll assume that "99.999%" is obviously rhetorical, unless you'd prefer otherwise...
Well sure - but would you care to propose another acceptable upper bound for "the vast majority"? I'm pretty sure whatever figure you come up with, the folks at BMJ will make no difference.
I'll repeat - for the hard of reading, perhaps - almost everyone uses the same meaning of accident. Some folks may put "accident" into different sentences than others, that's all; some with different intent to others. That's English for you ...
Everyone will know what you mean if you use the word collision or crash too.
Re policing by social media, obviously police road policing budgets are in tatters but I think what social media is mostly doing is highlighting the huge disparity in what different police forces will follow up on when it comes to motoring offences. My impression from social media is that Derbyshire do not have a good reputation in this matter.
The contents of this post, unless otherwise stated, are opinions of the author and may actually be complete codswallop
Stevek76 wrote: ↑3 Dec 2021, 7:26pm
Everyone will know what you mean if you use the word collision or crash too.
And those don't carry that same implication of "by chance" or "unavoidable", and wouldn't change when the immediate cause became known in those examples.
eh? I must have missed the war regarding collision?
That said, it's quite clear to me that both the dictionary and colloquial definition of accident involve a significant degree of absolving the party(ies) involved of blame, else phrases like 'don't worry it's just an accident' wouldn't be so well used.
Also it is rather less clear even outside of that. 'Steve had an accident on the M5' might just mean he's had some bladder control issues for all the listener knows
The contents of this post, unless otherwise stated, are opinions of the author and may actually be complete codswallop
Stevek76 wrote: ↑3 Dec 2021, 7:26pm
Everyone will know what you mean if you use the word collision or crash too.
YES! Thrice YES !!!
I'm fine with using other - hopefully more appropriate - words.
But don't try to persuade me by claiming some spurious definition of "accident". It just doesn't wash.
(p.s. we've already fought wars over "collision", please don't bring that up again; let's go with CRASH! )
There are no wars over the word collision, just the decision over the subject and object.
The likelihood is that a pedestrian didn't collide with a car, but that a motorist collided with a pedestrian.
It is possible - walking across the road, car stops suddenly, you walk into the side of it... then you have collided with the car. but that's not likely to make the news.
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way.No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse. There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
I detect ambiguity in No speed limit would do that though.
Problems would be eliminated by scrapping the speed limit
This will not be solved by any speed limit (The solution lies elsewhere
There is no possible speed limit which would accomplish this goal.
Of course not having a limit might actually help a little, since they wouldn't be overtaking with both limited by a speed limiter which is within a percent or two of the true speed. The overtakes could certainly be made in less distance, although it's not hard to suggest that it would be significantly less safe.
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way.No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse. There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
Stevek76 wrote: ↑3 Dec 2021, 7:26pm
Everyone will know what you mean if you use the word collision or crash too.
YES! Thrice YES !!!
I'm fine with using other - hopefully more appropriate - words.
But don't try to persuade me by claiming some spurious definition of "accident". It just doesn't wash.
(p.s. we've already fought wars over "collision", please don't bring that up again; let's go with CRASH! )
There are no wars over the word collision, just the decision over the subject and object.
The likelihood is that a pedestrian didn't collide with a car, but that a motorist collided with a pedestrian.
It is possible - walking across the road, car stops suddenly, you walk into the side of it... then you have collided with the car. but that's not likely to make the news.
Stevek76 wrote: ↑3 Dec 2021, 7:43pm
That said, it's quite clear to me that both the dictionary and colloquial definition of accident involve a significant degree of absolving the party(ies) involved of blame, else phrases like 'don't worry it's just an accident' wouldn't be so well used.
Nay!
That just shows that context matters - which hopefully you, bob and jd all know,
Equally the phrase " person X caused an accident" is well used, and equally easily understood.
(I don't recall any stats listing "just an accident", or any "Just an Accident and Emergency" departments at Hospitals.
Can anyone find a headline using "just an accident"? Unlikely, but I expect we could keep jd busy for a few minutes looking for one ... )
Not a headline and no "just", but this seems to be apposite
Hellhound wrote: ↑2 Dec 2021, 12:34pm
It was an accident.
No need to prosecute anyone.
The 'prosecute this and prosecute' that mentality of the UK,especially where motorists are concerned,is a joke :roll:
Are you suggesting that the use of a word is defined by headlines?
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way.No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse. There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.