DrewE wrote:
Grit dog wrote:
toedtoes wrote:
Most law enforcement, etc, no longer use the word "accident". Instead they use "crash". Because in 95 percent or more of incidents it was not an accident.
If any traffic law was broken, is it not an accident? If it was caused by someone else, is it not an accident because you can't be sure they didn't do it on purpose?
In some legal contexts, "accident" has the implication that nobody is at fault or bears legal responsibility. If a bolt of lightning struck a vehicle and destroyed it, that would presumably be considered an accident; but if someone ran a red light and destroyed the vehicle, that would not be an accident in such contexts.
In general everyday use, however, the word accident doesn't carry this additional connotation; it merely means something that was not done intentionally. Indeed, it seems to me that there's most often a bit of an implication that an accident could have been avoided with care or foresight. A toddler peeing his or her pants has an accident. Bob Ross putting a brush stroke in not quite the right place has a happy little accident. A speeding car careening off the road is in an accident, assuming the driver wasn't actually setting out to commit suicide or attempt a dangerous bit of stunt driving.
I personally don't very much appreciate people attempting to redefine the common, everyday meaning of words to match technical legal definitions. I'll continue to call entirely preventable but unintended misfortunes accidents.
The reason for the change of wording is that it was felt that using "accident" made it sound like know one could have done anything to prevent it.
In the OP's post, the driver of the vehicle was driving at an unsafe speed for the road and conditions - calling that an accident made it seem like the driver had no role and so it was decided to call it a crash. A crash may be an accident or it may be negligence or worse.
