Accident or Incident - split from Cyclists widow forgives

UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUMS THE UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUM (INTERACTIVE)
21

Boomerang Dave:

switchlogic:
I do love how the authorities get their priorities in the right order, ‘right, first things first, what words should we use?’…

:smiley:

I understand what you mean, but I don’t think it precisely follows that order.

When you think about it, we are all wordsmiths to some degree or another. Practical people, often dealing with what is there ‘right in front of them’ are not interested in the academic implications of an immediate situation. I would say this is true for the mainstream ‘hands-on’ peeps of the emergency services. A Firefighter attending a serious incident isn’t interested in what the incident is termed, he or she is only interested in the practicalities of saving life - in the immediate sense.

Beyond that, it all becomes quite academic, with boffins and lawyers churning over every aspect. What has happened historically is that ‘The Great Unwashed’ have become victims of a system that does not allow for accidents, and have been aggrieved - or felt some sense of injustice at what they ‘incorrectly’ thought should have been put down to “An Act of God”. The accused, stood in court not understanding why the judge is saying - you will go to prison for ‘X’ amount of time - must be a real shock to the system. So the first thing that must change is education, understanding and possibly a main part of that process is also greater awareness of the terms used to describe such incidents.

When the majority of people realise that there is ‘no such thing as an accident’ they are one step away from becoming much better at what they do.

The tried and tested evidence is that, people who take ownership of their actions (responsibility) without excuse, are better at what they do. Tis one reason why we have the best trained Armed Forces in the world - in the British Armed Forces - there is not such thing as an accident. If it’s good enough for them, it’s good enough for everyone.

If it’s good enough for the Armed Forces it’s good enough for everyone?
Are you suggesting we should live our lives under an authoritarian regime where nobody ever makes a mistake, “owns their actions” (whatever that means) and never has an accident?!

I can recommend North Korea if you’re looking for a nice holiday this year.

22

switchlogic:

FarnboroughBoy11:
I ■■■■■■ the other day and followed through…

Nice that you can bring such a lovely comment to this topic about an amazing act of humanity.

You can’t buy class.

23

Scanner:
Are you suggesting we should live our lives under an authoritarian regime where nobody ever makes a mistake, “owns their actions” (whatever that means) and never has an accident?!

I can recommend North Korea if you’re looking for a nice holiday this year.

Scanner,

Assuming you are in the UK… then (like it or not) you do live your life under a kind of authoritarian regime and you do own your actions. What makes you think you don’t?

Have you misunderstood the words ‘Free Society’, of which does not exist anywhere. Here, we live in a Democracy - with authorities, rules, laws, regulation, responsibility, legal systems, courts and punishment for transgressors.

You don’t need to go to North Korea - where there is what you would call a ‘Totalitarian Regime’. Just words, but they make all the difference. :wink:

24

Boomerang Dave:

Scanner:
Are you suggesting we should live our lives under an authoritarian regime where nobody ever makes a mistake, “owns their actions” (whatever that means) and never has an accident?!

I can recommend North Korea if you’re looking for a nice holiday this year.

Scanner,

Assuming you are in the UK… then (like it or not) you do live your life under a kind of authoritarian regime and you do own your actions. What makes you think you don’t?

Have you misunderstood the words ‘Free Society’, of which does not exist anywhere. Here, we live in a Democracy - with authorities, rules, laws, regulation, responsibility, legal systems, courts and punishment for transgressors.

You don’t need to go to North Korea - where there is what you would call a ‘Totalitarian Regime’. Just words, but they make all the difference. :wink:

Is your surname Brent?

25

Scanner:
Is your surname Brent?

:laughing:

26

I’ve never understood this obsession with the word accident. An accident is defined as an

a. An unexpected and undesirable event, especially one resulting in damage or harm

The authorities ■■■■■■■ around with naming incidents different things miss the point that blame can be attached to an accident. Nowhere in the definition does it say anything about blame. A couple of years ago I had a bad accident when I put my lorry in the ditch, it was my fault. All this obsession with words is in aid of is to keep pen pushers busy, and alas we have rapidly turned into a nation of pen pushers. RTA, RTC, incident, accident, who flipping cares.

27

switchlogic:
I’ve never understood this obsession with the word accident. An accident is defined as an

a. An unexpected and undesirable event, especially one resulting in damage or harm

The authorities ■■■■■■■ around with naming incidents different things miss the point that blame can be attached to an accident. Nowhere in the definition does it say anything about blame. A couple of years ago I had a bad accident when I put my lorry in the ditch, it was my fault. All this obsession with words is in aid of is to keep pen pushers busy, and alas we have rapidly turned into a nation of pen pushers. RTA, RTC, incident, accident, who flipping cares.

switchlogic,

I assure you, the definition of accident changes depending on which dictionary you look in and depending on the context.

It’s nothing to do with pen-pushers.

Truth is, we all lack understanding of language and that’s why we have so many reference books - dictionaries, thesaurus and not least legal reference & glossary.

The use or non-usage of the word accident is to do with several matter, not least of those is fairness and expedience. There have been cases in the past where legal briefs have debated the meaning of even common terminology… for several days. Give them an opportunity and they’ll spend every penny in the world arguing over the meaning of the word: NO.

We could argue until Kingdom Come about the word accident, whereas there is no such argument to be had about the word incident, because they are all incidents.

EXAMPLES OF WHY INCIDENT IS A BETTER WORD

Someone who drives a car the wrong way down a motorway in order to commit suicide can never be described has being in an accident. That is an extreme example, but ask any traffic cop and they’ll tell you nothing is assumed, everything is examined and investigated.

To give you an example of how this has evolved. In years gone by, there would be a fatal collision on the motorway, the plod would come along, as quick as you like… the emphasis was to re-open the road. Often the worst incidents would be cleared in short order. Nowadays, the emphasis is on investigation - making sure all the evidence is collected and that the final result is not corrupted by either rushing the job, or jumping to conclusions. What may initially look like an accident to some, could actually be an instance of road rage gone pear shaped or some other cause.

28

Jesus Christ, I didn’t even make it to the end. That post makes Carryfast look succinct and to the point.

29

Going by the logic that there is no accidents because someone or something is always to blame somewhere down the line, then the word “accident” should be eradicated from the English language if that’s the logic that’s being applied as there is no such thing according to that logic.
As someone said above, there can still be accidents with blame attached.

30

FarnboroughBoy11:
As someone said above, there can still be accidents with blame attached.

I have responded to that - try reading the response.

31

What is really interesting to me is the lack of acceptance of the facts by so many ‘so called’ professional drivers.

The fact is: These are called incidents. That’s how it is. Just like the world is not flat.

Now you can argue as much as you like - but it remains a fact.

32

Boomerang Dave:
What is really interesting to me is the lack of acceptance of the facts by so many ‘so called’ professional drivers.

The fact is: These are called incidents. That’s how it is. Just like the world is not flat.

Now you can argue as much as you like - but it remains a fact.

Yes but you are not accepting that there is such thing as an accident.
In this case, the driver didn’t start his day intending to kill a cyclist and neither did the cyclist start his day intent on being killed = Accident.

I accept that they are all incidents and completely see where you are coming from but unless something is done pre meditated or on purpose then it is an accident.

33

FarnboroughBoy11:

Boomerang Dave:
What is really interesting to me is the lack of acceptance of the facts by so many ‘so called’ professional drivers.

The fact is: These are called incidents. That’s how it is. Just like the world is not flat.

Now you can argue as much as you like - but it remains a fact.

Yes but you are not accepting that there is such thing as an accident.
In this case, the driver didn’t start his day intending to kill a cyclist and neither did the cyclist start his day intent on being killed = Accident.

I accept that they are all incidents and completely see where you are coming from but unless something is done pre meditated or on purpose then it is an accident.

Someone is at fault = not an accident. Your opinion doesn’t change the facts. They are incidents - end of the matter.

34

Boomerang Dave:

FarnboroughBoy11:

Boomerang Dave:
What is really interesting to me is the lack of acceptance of the facts by so many ‘so called’ professional drivers.

The fact is: These are called incidents. That’s how it is. Just like the world is not flat.

Now you can argue as much as you like - but it remains a fact.

Yes but you are not accepting that there is such thing as an accident.
In this case, the driver didn’t start his day intending to kill a cyclist and neither did the cyclist start his day intent on being killed = Accident.

I accept that they are all incidents and completely see where you are coming from but unless something is done pre meditated or on purpose then it is an accident.

Someone is at fault = not an accident. Your opinion doesn’t change the facts. They are incidents - end of the matter.

They both jumped a red light, so both were at fault, therefore it was an accident, fact.

35

:unamused: Is this thread for ■■■■■■■ real? JUST STFU ABOUT WHETHER IT WAS AN ACCIDENT/INCIDENT/ACT OF GOD/WHATEVER :exclamation: FFS what is wrong with you people? Have you heard yourselves? Get a ■■■■■■■ life. :unamused:

Mods, delete all this irrelevant BS that’s clogged up the past 2 pages or better still just lock the thread.

36

Boomerang Dave:

FarnboroughBoy11:

Boomerang Dave:
What is really interesting to me is the lack of acceptance of the facts by so many ‘so called’ professional drivers.

The fact is: These are called incidents. That’s how it is. Just like the world is not flat.

Now you can argue as much as you like - but it remains a fact.

Yes but you are not accepting that there is such thing as an accident.
In this case, the driver didn’t start his day intending to kill a cyclist and neither did the cyclist start his day intent on being killed = Accident.

I accept that they are all incidents and completely see where you are coming from but unless something is done pre meditated or on purpose then it is an accident.

Someone is at fault = not an accident. Your opinion doesn’t change the facts. They are incidents - end of the matter.

:laughing: Its not the end of the matter.
And the facts are, that no one purposely caused this incident which also makes it an accident. Not my opinion, just the facts of the story.

And going back to my original but maybe crude scenario of someone soiling themselves, why is that a kid has an accident and not an incident?

37

…and we’re back to FarnboroughBoy11 [zb]ing himself. FML

38

This is what"lawyers" do.Spout crap steal your money and pretend to be “intelligent”

For lawyer insert the word parasite.Tony Blair was a para… sorry lawyer wasnt he?

39

Contraflow:
…and we’re back to FarnboroughBoy11 [zb]ing himself. FML

:unamused: obviously i was just using that as an example to get my point across, i went through that stage months ago. :smiley:

40

FarnboroughBoy11:
:laughing: Its not the end of the matter.
And the facts are, that no one purposely caused this incident which also makes it an accident. Not my opinion, just the facts of the story.

And going back to my original but maybe crude scenario of someone soiling themselves, why is that a kid has an accident and not an incident?

The difference between your arse-hole and your mouth may be confusing - I’ll give you that… :laughing: (just joking), but the difference between a matter covered under English law and you ■■■■■■■■ yourself is very clear.

As I have said already, this is a matter of legal terminology (not my decisions), your opinion on the matter has no bearing - neither does mine. And to top-gun, notwithstanding that they both were at fault, which was obviously considered by the Judge and reflected in the sentence, It always remains an incident.

It’s an incident for all the reasons I have already given, and we are now starting to go around in circles. Hole in my bucket etc.

I don’t decide what the terminology is, but in this instance I agree with the lawyers, judges and legal academics/experts.