And to reiterate: this is what prompted me to start this thread as an illustration of where we are. I now wish I hadn't.
IMHO it was a worthwhile and well-intentioned thread start.
Unfortunately Replies 2 & 3 started a diversionary squabble about the word "accident", which mushroomed into a squillion posts. I note you didn't even use the word in your OP (and it probably wasn't in the report you linked to).
[XAP]Bob wrote: ↑9 Dec 2021, 9:34am
In what was is colliding with a vehicle which you are following too closely unexpected...
The collision was entirely predictable, which has the very opposite meaning of unexpected.
The opposite of unexpected, hmmm ...
Is it ... expected? I don't have any formal English qualifications beyond "O" Level, so I'm prepared to learn.
Are you saying the driver expected to crash into the vehicle in front? Help me out here buddy!
The definition of the word accident as you supplied used 'unintentional AND unpredictable' rather than 'unintentional OR unpredictable'. Whilst the driver of the second vehicle had no intention of colliding with the first, it was a predictable outcome as he failed to maintain a safe stopping distance.
As such the collision under the definition which you have indicated can not, through logic be described as an accident, but rather a collision.
[XAP]Bob wrote: ↑9 Dec 2021, 9:34am
In what was is colliding with a vehicle which you are following too closely unexpected...
The collision was entirely predictable, which has the very opposite meaning of unexpected.
The opposite of unexpected, hmmm ...
Is it ... expected? I don't have any formal English qualifications beyond "O" Level, so I'm prepared to learn.
Are you saying the driver expected to crash into the vehicle in front? Help me out here buddy!
The definition of the word accident as you supplied used 'unintentional AND unpredictable' rather than 'unintentional OR unpredictable'. Whilst the driver of the second vehicle had no intention of colliding with the first, it was a predictable outcome as he failed to maintain a safe stopping distance.
As such the collision under the definition which you have indicated can not, through logic be described as an accident, but rather a collision.
An event can be unexpected by one of the participants but expected at a statistical level... if you do it many times it's likely to happen. Driving dangerously close to another vehicle would be a common example of this.
cycle tramp wrote: ↑9 Dec 2021, 10:54am
...
The definition of the word accident as you supplied used 'unintentional AND unpredictable' rather than 'unintentional OR unpredictable'. Whilst the driver of the second vehicle had no intention of colliding with the first, it was a predictable outcome as he failed to maintain a safe stopping distance.
As such the collision under the definition which you have indicated can not, through logic be described as an accident, but rather a collision.
An event can be unexpected by one of the participants but expected at a statistical level... if you do it many times it's likely to happen. Driving dangerously close to another vehicle would be a common example of this.
Police drink/drive crackdowns seem as predictable as autumnal lighting reviews in cycling mags.
When Sir Colin Sampson was chief constable of West Yorkshire (1983-89), his unfailing media line in response to queries was that the force had a policy of enforcement of drink/drive laws all the year round and that it would continue through the Christmas period. I read today:
A crackdown on Christmas drink and drug-driving in West Yorkshire has caught 77 offenders since it began nine days ago, say police.
[XAP]Bob wrote: ↑9 Dec 2021, 9:51amIt could be administrative, but there would need to be recourse to appeal - possibly similar to various fines... pay now and you get a 50% discount, challenge and lose, and you're paying the lot.
Yes, we need to do it at the level of granting and withdrawing privileges while maintaining legal rights.
I don't know how effective fines will ever be, but IIUC there has been a move towards linking them to ability to pay, as in the Nordic model.
Jonathan
I wasn't meaning that they should be fines, but that the license downgrade would be two bands, unless you accepted it early in which case it would only be one band
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.
[XAP]Bob wrote: ↑9 Dec 2021, 9:34am
In what was is colliding with a vehicle which you are following too closely unexpected...
The collision was entirely predictable, which has the very opposite meaning of unexpected.
The opposite of unexpected, hmmm ...
Is it ... expected? I don't have any formal English qualifications beyond "O" Level, so I'm prepared to learn.
Are you saying the driver expected to crash into the vehicle in front? Help me out here buddy!
It is to be expected that if you drive without sufficient distance then you will crash into the vehicle in front.
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.
[XAP]Bob wrote: ↑9 Dec 2021, 9:51amIt could be administrative, but there would need to be recourse to appeal - possibly similar to various fines... pay now and you get a 50% discount, challenge and lose, and you're paying the lot.
Yes, we need to do it at the level of granting and withdrawing privileges while maintaining legal rights.
I don't know how effective fines will ever be, but IIUC there has been a move towards linking them to ability to pay, as in the Nordic model.
I wasn't meaning that they should be fines, but that the license downgrade would be two bands, unless you accepted it early in which case it would only be one band
[XAP]Bob wrote: ↑9 Dec 2021, 9:34am
In what was is colliding with a vehicle which you are following too closely unexpected...
The collision was entirely predictable, which has the very opposite meaning of unexpected.
The opposite of unexpected, hmmm ...
Is it ... expected? I don't have any formal English qualifications beyond "O" Level, so I'm prepared to learn.
Are you saying the driver expected to crash into the vehicle in front? Help me out here buddy!
It is to be expected that if you drive without sufficient distance then you will crash into the vehicle in front.
That's not really the case. Fortunately Comrade jdsk has already given us a clear summary:
Jdsk wrote: ↑9 Dec 2021, 11:00am
An event can be unexpected by one of the participants but expected at a statistical level... if you do it many times it's likely to happen. Driving dangerously close to another vehicle would be a common example of this.
To which I would only add: maybe an external observer expects the crash to occur. Such as XAPBob. But that doesn't change things at all
BTW, what do folks think of the phrase
"Accident waiting to happen" ?