I'll take it that the answer is "No."thirdcrank wrote: ↑1 Dec 2021, 6:18pm (....)Does anybody wonder why juries are so reluctant to convict when this sort of driving kills or injures people? (...)
More policing by social media
-
- Posts: 36781
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
Re: More policing by social media
Re: More policing by social media
Are you new to the Rhetorical Questions game??thirdcrank wrote: ↑7 Dec 2021, 3:25pmI'll take it that the answer is "No."thirdcrank wrote: ↑1 Dec 2021, 6:18pm (....)Does anybody wonder why juries are so reluctant to convict when this sort of driving kills or injures people? (...)
;- )
Re: More policing by social media
I wouldn't describe it accidental... I would describe it as negligence - There are reasons why carrying knifes in public is somewhat restricted.mattheus wrote: ↑7 Dec 2021, 3:22pm If I walked around this place with an exposed sharp knife-blade in the course of a normal task; then tripped and stabbed a colleague; and someone shortly after asked if it was an accident, no-one would say "That was no accident!"
UNLESS they believed I did it deliberately.
I would therefore not use the word accident, I would use the word incident (or more likely stabbing) - I would also argue that it was no accident. That's why even in Texas they have regulations around open carrying of firearms in venues which serve alcohol...
If you take a firearm into the middle of town every day at 6am and twirl round and shoot in a random direction then the time you shoot someone isn't an accident - it's the direct and predictable result of your deliberate, repeated, actions.
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.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
Re: More policing by social media
I presume it's because any jury will probably have a majority of drivers.thirdcrank wrote: ↑7 Dec 2021, 3:25pmI'll take it that the answer is "No."thirdcrank wrote: ↑1 Dec 2021, 6:18pm (....)Does anybody wonder why juries are so reluctant to convict when this sort of driving kills or injures people? (...)
Possibly there will be one or two reluctant to convict a fellow motorist for "something that could happen to anyone" - maybe they see it as an accident
-
- Posts: 3573
- Joined: 5 Aug 2009, 7:22pm
Re: More policing by social media
Er... is that a rhetorical question?... if not I'm going with 42 as the answer...mattheus wrote: ↑7 Dec 2021, 4:01pmAre you new to the Rhetorical Questions game??thirdcrank wrote: ↑7 Dec 2021, 3:25pmI'll take it that the answer is "No."thirdcrank wrote: ↑1 Dec 2021, 6:18pm (....)Does anybody wonder why juries are so reluctant to convict when this sort of driving kills or injures people? (...)
;- )
Re: More policing by social media
To summarise; you seem to use language and reason in a way that is at odds with most of us:[XAP]Bob wrote: ↑7 Dec 2021, 5:02pmmattheus wrote: ↑7 Dec 2021, 3:22pm If I walked around this place with an exposed sharp knife-blade in the course of a normal task; then tripped and stabbed a colleague; and someone shortly after asked if it was an accident, no-one would say "That was no accident!"
UNLESS they believed I did it deliberately.
I wouldn't describe it accidental... I would describe it as negligence - There are reasons why carrying knifes in public is somewhat restricted.
I would therefore not use the word accident, I would use the word incident (or more likely stabbing) - I would also argue that it was no accident. That's why even in Texas they have regulations around open carrying of firearms in venues which serve alcohol...
If you take a firearm into the middle of town every day at 6am and twirl round and shoot in a random direction then the time you shoot someone isn't an accident - it's the direct and predictable result of your deliberate, repeated, actions.
- Hey Bob, would you like this banana?
- That's not a banana - it's a fruit.
Re: More policing by social media
I have been working in safety in one aspect or another for over 25 years, I used to spend my days reading safety reports that were submitted as a result of injuries or damage, and out of literally thousands, perhaps 10s of thousands of incident reports, less than a handful were accidents. Some were horribly tragic, and entirely preventable. Did you read the links I posted abovemattheus wrote: ↑7 Dec 2021, 3:19pm
I'm afraid you're mind-reading there!
It may be their common practice to avoid the word in their reports, stats etc - and I would agree, based on the parts of my job that impinge on that world - but that doesn't mean they do not understand what an accident is, in the same terms as the general public.
After all, how many injuries in the workplace are not preventable in some way? It's a ridiculous concept.
Which give the reasons not to use the word accident?Vorpal wrote: ↑7 Dec 2021, 2:34pm The word accident has been used heavily in media precisely because it avoids placing responsibility on anyone. However, this has led to also avoiding any terms that imply agency by motorists.
As a result, there have, in recent years, been some effort to change this
https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonrei ... uidelines/
https://pressgazette.co.uk/new-guidelin ... -accident/
https://www.comminit.com/content/report ... ournalists
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
Re: More policing by social media
So you don't like the out come so it's wrong[XAP]Bob wrote: ↑7 Dec 2021, 1:45pmNo - common sense has not prevailed.Hellhound wrote: ↑6 Dec 2021, 5:57pmWow,common sense prevails!!Now, it certainly was an "accident" in terms of the Road Traffic Act etc but the rest of that implies the "only an accident" sense which upsets some campaigners.
To be fair to Hellhound, his interpretation is now the accepted official analysis, and if anybody doubts this the apparent police response confirms he is correct. They even made a joke about it.
It wasn't an accident except in the sense that that word is used in the legislation.
It was an entirely foreseeable and preventable collision caused entirely by the poor driving of one, very lucky, motorist.
It would have been no more or less an accident if there had been another road user in between them and they had been killed.
That's a typical anti-motoring response.Cyclists always seem to bang on about the anti-cycling rubbish from the media and car forums but many cyclists on forums are as bad as or in some cases worse than the opposite anti-brigade
It was an accident,that's the official response.Get over it and move on.
As I stated earlier common sense fas prevailed!
-
- Posts: 36781
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
Re: More policing by social media
The official response is that the authorities no longer bother with any but the most serious crashes. That that's the reality isn't necessarily right or desirable. As the police joker opined in my link, the difference between this crash and something more much serious was luck - as in "buy a lottery ticket."
Vulnerable road users have particular reason to be concerned because the likelihood of serious consequences for them is so much greater. The suggestion that they are not allowed to comment is absurd.
As I posted higher up, the Ministry of Transport seems to be getting the message as discussed here where the report of the inspectorate of constabulary is critical of "Roads Policing.".
viewtopic.php?p=1508569#p1508569
Vulnerable road users have particular reason to be concerned because the likelihood of serious consequences for them is so much greater. The suggestion that they are not allowed to comment is absurd.
As I posted higher up, the Ministry of Transport seems to be getting the message as discussed here where the report of the inspectorate of constabulary is critical of "Roads Policing.".
viewtopic.php?p=1508569#p1508569
Re: More policing by social media
There's little point in repeating yourself and expecting me to suddenly change my mind about the meaning of a word. So I'll give you the same summary of the debate:Vorpal wrote: ↑8 Dec 2021, 9:46amI have been working in safety in one aspect or another for over 25 years, I used to spend my days reading safety reports that were submitted as a result of injuries or damage, and out of literally thousands, perhaps 10s of thousands of incident reports, less than a handful were accidents. Some were horribly tragic, and entirely preventable. Did you read the links I posted abovemattheus wrote: ↑7 Dec 2021, 3:19pm
I'm afraid you're mind-reading there!
It may be their common practice to avoid the word in their reports, stats etc - and I would agree, based on the parts of my job that impinge on that world - but that doesn't mean they do not understand what an accident is, in the same terms as the general public.
After all, how many injuries in the workplace are not preventable in some way? It's a ridiculous concept.
Which give the reasons not to use the word accident?Vorpal wrote: ↑7 Dec 2021, 2:34pm The word accident has been used heavily in media precisely because it avoids placing responsibility on anyone. However, this has led to also avoiding any terms that imply agency by motorists.
As a result, there have, in recent years, been some effort to change this
https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonrei ... uidelines/
https://pressgazette.co.uk/new-guidelin ... -accident/
https://www.comminit.com/content/report ... ournalists
- Hey Bob, would you like this banana?
- That's not a banana - it's a fruit.
Re: More policing by social media
Let's review what happens if Joe Bloggs types "accident" into their computer.
Once they scroll past the ads, they get to this:
Dictionary
Search for a word
accident
/ˈaksɪd(ə)nt/
Learn to pronounce
noun
1.
an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury.
"he had an accident at the factory"
Once they scroll past the ads, they get to this:
Dictionary
Search for a word
accident
/ˈaksɪd(ə)nt/
Learn to pronounce
noun
1.
an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury.
"he had an accident at the factory"
Re: More policing by social media
People who think that 'accident' by definition means that an incident was a random, unpredictable event are too stupid to waste time arguing with, and it is a distraction from the issue of road safety to do so.
With regard to the reference above to 'safety professionals', they will likewise not waste their time on such semantics. They do not conflate 'accident' with 'fortuitous', and accident investigations (and that is the term commonly used by safety professionals) are often one of their main responsibilities and skillsets, using various standardised methods to establish what happened and why. That will include identifying the extent to which human error was a cause, and the seriousness of any human error, e.g. what rules or regulations were breached.
Safety professionals, and anyone else with basic common sense, are able to grasp the common meaning of accident as being an event with an unintended outcome, and also to understand that even if someone did not intend the outcome, their negligence which caused it may be serious enough for it to be determined that they have committed a criminal offence.
Someone who believes that 'accident' means that no one was seriously at fault, is likely to be both a poor driver and also lack awareness of how bad their driving is. There is probably little that can be done about them other than to hope that a) they they do not kill or injure someone, and b) will be caught and prosecuted at some point for careless/dangerous driving (which is probably the only thing that might make them change). If such morons end up on the jury trying a serious driving offence, you just have to hope that the number of them is small enough for the rest of the jury to able to reach a majority verdict.
With regard to the reference above to 'safety professionals', they will likewise not waste their time on such semantics. They do not conflate 'accident' with 'fortuitous', and accident investigations (and that is the term commonly used by safety professionals) are often one of their main responsibilities and skillsets, using various standardised methods to establish what happened and why. That will include identifying the extent to which human error was a cause, and the seriousness of any human error, e.g. what rules or regulations were breached.
Safety professionals, and anyone else with basic common sense, are able to grasp the common meaning of accident as being an event with an unintended outcome, and also to understand that even if someone did not intend the outcome, their negligence which caused it may be serious enough for it to be determined that they have committed a criminal offence.
Someone who believes that 'accident' means that no one was seriously at fault, is likely to be both a poor driver and also lack awareness of how bad their driving is. There is probably little that can be done about them other than to hope that a) they they do not kill or injure someone, and b) will be caught and prosecuted at some point for careless/dangerous driving (which is probably the only thing that might make them change). If such morons end up on the jury trying a serious driving offence, you just have to hope that the number of them is small enough for the rest of the jury to able to reach a majority verdict.
-
- Posts: 36781
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
Re: More policing by social media
I'm reluctant to get into the this bit of the discussion, but there are things which may be expected in that they are likely, and intentional to the extent that the person knew what they were doing. In the case which started this, a presumably experienced driver - at least certainly an adult who was qualified to drive an HGV drove so closely behind the vehicle directly in front that he was unable to avoid crashing into it when it slowed and stopped in an emergency. Was this intentional in the sense that he meant the collision to occur? Almost certainly not. But intentional in the sense that he didn't use his skills to maintain a safe distance? I'd say so.unexpectedly and unintentionally
Re: More policing by social media
Yesslowster wrote: ↑8 Dec 2021, 2:14pm
Safety professionals, and anyone else with basic common sense, are able to grasp the common meaning of accident as being an event with an unintended outcome, and also to understand that even if someone did not intend the outcome, their negligence which caused it may be serious enough for it to be determined that they have committed a criminal offence.
Someone who believes that 'accident' means that no one was seriously at fault, is likely to be both a poor driver and also lack awareness of how bad their driving is
&
Yes.
It should be so simple ...
Re: More policing by social media
All bananas are fruit, not all fruit are bananas.mattheus wrote: ↑8 Dec 2021, 1:56pmThere's little point in repeating yourself and expecting me to suddenly change my mind about the meaning of a word. So I'll give you the same summary of the debate:Vorpal wrote: ↑8 Dec 2021, 9:46amI have been working in safety in one aspect or another for over 25 years, I used to spend my days reading safety reports that were submitted as a result of injuries or damage, and out of literally thousands, perhaps 10s of thousands of incident reports, less than a handful were accidents. Some were horribly tragic, and entirely preventable. Did you read the links I posted abovemattheus wrote: ↑7 Dec 2021, 3:19pm
I'm afraid you're mind-reading there!
It may be their common practice to avoid the word in their reports, stats etc - and I would agree, based on the parts of my job that impinge on that world - but that doesn't mean they do not understand what an accident is, in the same terms as the general public.
After all, how many injuries in the workplace are not preventable in some way? It's a ridiculous concept.
Which give the reasons not to use the word accident?Vorpal wrote: ↑7 Dec 2021, 2:34pm The word accident has been used heavily in media precisely because it avoids placing responsibility on anyone. However, this has led to also avoiding any terms that imply agency by motorists.
As a result, there have, in recent years, been some effort to change this
https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonrei ... uidelines/
https://pressgazette.co.uk/new-guidelin ... -accident/
https://www.comminit.com/content/report ... ournalists
- Hey Bob, would you like this banana?
- That's not a banana - it's a fruit.
You're describing the entirely predictable outcome of a conscious decision as something "unexpected".
I object to the use of that word because the incident was not unexpected - and the word is used to imply that there is nothing to learn from the incident by those involved, or those in similar situations elsewhere. That is epitomised by the "just an accident, no need to prosecute anyone" comments above.
Driving a motor vehicle is easily the most dangerous thing that the vast majority of us ever do - to suggest to people that their behaviour isn't responsible for the deaths and injuries on the roads is not something we should be doing.
Language is important, it shapes the way people think...
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.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.