Let's explore that.
If an hour later it transpires that the immediate cause was a drunk driver who would still call it an accident?
Or if the immediate cause was a terrorist bomb?
Thanks
Jonathan
Let's explore that.
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.
YES! Thrice YES !!!
There are no wars over the word collision, just the decision over the subject and object.mattheus wrote: ↑3 Dec 2021, 7:34pmYES! 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! )
thirdcrank wrote: ↑3 Dec 2021, 7:15pmI 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
Oh no, it's started again. I did warn you ...[XAP]Bob wrote: ↑3 Dec 2021, 10:17pmThere are no wars over the word collision, just the decision over the subject and object.mattheus wrote: ↑3 Dec 2021, 7:34pmYES! 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! )
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.
Nay!
Keep trying then.
Oh my Lord!?!!..... Are they?... That's terrible!