More policing by social media

Use this board for general non-cycling-related chat, or to introduce yourself to the forum.
thirdcrank
Posts: 36764
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: More policing by social media

Post by thirdcrank »

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? (...)
I'll take it that the answer is "No."
mattheus
Posts: 5031
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: More policing by social media

Post by mattheus »

thirdcrank wrote: 7 Dec 2021, 3:25pm
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? (...)
I'll take it that the answer is "No."
Are you new to the Rhetorical Questions game??
;- )
User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 19793
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: More policing by social media

Post by [XAP]Bob »

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 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.
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.
ANTONISH
Posts: 2958
Joined: 26 Mar 2009, 9:49am

Re: More policing by social media

Post by ANTONISH »

thirdcrank wrote: 7 Dec 2021, 3:25pm
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? (...)
I'll take it that the answer is "No."
I presume it's because any jury will probably have a majority of drivers.
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 :)
cycle tramp
Posts: 3483
Joined: 5 Aug 2009, 7:22pm

Re: More policing by social media

Post by cycle tramp »

mattheus wrote: 7 Dec 2021, 4:01pm
thirdcrank wrote: 7 Dec 2021, 3:25pm
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? (...)
I'll take it that the answer is "No."
Are you new to the Rhetorical Questions game??
;- )
Er... is that a rhetorical question?... if not I'm going with 42 as the answer...
It's time to go :-)
mattheus
Posts: 5031
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: More policing by social media

Post by mattheus »

[XAP]Bob wrote: 7 Dec 2021, 5:02pm
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 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.
To summarise; you seem to use language and reason in a way that is at odds with most of us:

- Hey Bob, would you like this banana?
- That's not a banana - it's a fruit.
Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 20697
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: More policing by social media

Post by Vorpal »

mattheus 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.
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 above
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
Which give the reasons not to use the word accident?
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
User avatar
Hellhound
Posts: 756
Joined: 19 May 2021, 7:39am

Re: More policing by social media

Post by Hellhound »

[XAP]Bob wrote: 7 Dec 2021, 1:45pm
Hellhound wrote: 6 Dec 2021, 5:57pm
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.
Wow,common sense prevails!!
No - common sense has not prevailed.
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.
So you don't like the out come so it's wrong :roll:
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 :lol:
It was an accident,that's the official response.Get over it and move on.
As I stated earlier common sense fas prevailed!
thirdcrank
Posts: 36764
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: More policing by social media

Post by thirdcrank »

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
mattheus
Posts: 5031
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: More policing by social media

Post by mattheus »

Vorpal wrote: 8 Dec 2021, 9:46am
mattheus 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.
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 above
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
Which give the reasons not to use the word accident?
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:
- Hey Bob, would you like this banana?
- That's not a banana - it's a fruit.
mattheus
Posts: 5031
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: More policing by social media

Post by mattheus »

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"
slowster
Moderator
Posts: 4612
Joined: 7 Jul 2017, 10:37am

Re: More policing by social media

Post by slowster »

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.
thirdcrank
Posts: 36764
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: More policing by social media

Post by thirdcrank »

unexpectedly and unintentionally
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.
mattheus
Posts: 5031
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: More policing by social media

Post by mattheus »

slowster 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
&
Yes.

It should be so simple ...
User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 19793
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: More policing by social media

Post by [XAP]Bob »

mattheus wrote: 8 Dec 2021, 1:56pm
Vorpal wrote: 8 Dec 2021, 9:46am
mattheus 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.
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 above
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
Which give the reasons not to use the word accident?
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:
- Hey Bob, would you like this banana?
- That's not a banana - it's a fruit.
All bananas are fruit, not all fruit are bananas.

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.
Post Reply