Stew Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 While at my works defensive driving course recently (we do a practical every year and theory every 2 - I do 0 business miles a year!!!!!) we were posed an interesting question. On the roads, do accidents exist? Now we were asked what the definition of an accident was, we reckoned a true accident was a totally unavoidable incident with nobody at fault. The rest are crashes. Do you agree? If you do can you think of an incident that is a proper 'accident' and not a crash? If you disagree - state your case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zugara Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 IMO, what ever happens is someones fault. Like, dropping a glass of liquid, Analyse why it was dropped.....Ultimately it is someones fault. I was on the understanding that the police DONT use the terminology of "accident" for crash's any longer , is it not, "there has been an incident on......." Everything that involves a human......is avoidable, its just a series of mistakes that make up the final outcome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 Nothing happens without reason. Cause and effect and all that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mega Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 lol! An accident is always an accident. An accident is when something you didn't mean to happen happens. The official definition from google is: an undesirable or unfortunate happening that occurs unintentionally and usually results in harm, injury, damage, or loss So all crashes are accidents: Outside of the possibility of a deliberate crash, etc. So whilst I take your point, I disagree due to the way I'd define the term 'accident' in the first place All crashes are accidents. You need to consider the difference between "doing something on purpose" and "an accident". If I drive like a tit and smack a tree; IT's still an accident. I unintentially smacked a tree. Similarly if I slip and fall over whilst walking to the shops, I didn't *HAVE* to walk to the shops. I could have stayed in a white padded cell and rocked back and forth. But the slipping is still an accident. I didn't choose to hurt myself, even though I took on the risk of the possiblity of hurting myself due to going to the shops. And if I was just staying in that white padded cell, rocking; I could have picked up whiplash. That'd be an accident too. I didn't need to rock back and forth but I still didn't want whiplash! Consider the english Indy car driver who unfortunately died 2 weeks ago. He was partaking in motor racing. It doesn't mean that what happened to him wasn't accidental ?!?!? So I think this is utter rubbish really Not that I'm putting this on you at all; but: It's this kind of ridiculous argument, imho, that leads to heath and safety lobbyists slowly but surely destroying all inclination of 'fun' left in our society due to the desire for mitigation of risk and for being able to blame someone for everything. Please won't someone think of the children (etc..). Your very definition seems to be "an accident is only an accident if there's nobody to blame". I'd flip this around and say, that insurance companies, lawyers etc: Want to define everything with a root cause, and get away from the possibility that anything can just be unfortunate; Because then the party responsible for that root cause can be sued. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stew Posted November 5, 2011 Author Share Posted November 5, 2011 We were given an example of an 'accident' that every police force has claimed for themselves..... I think it's pure theory though! Horse rider in a tall walled estate 1/2 mile from any road, she falls off her horse. The horse bolts. Mororcyclist riding along a country road. Nice relaxed and legal pace, no entrances etc and on a well sighted piece of road. dry stone wall one side and a tall wall to the other. Suddenly, the motorcyclist is blootered off his bike by a horse that has jumped the wall! This is being used as an example of an 'accident' as the motorcyclist was definitely not at fault, no way you can expect or anticipate a horse jumping over a tall wall. The horse rider was not at fault as they had taken precautions to ride away from the road etc. It can make for an interesting saturday morning debate! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 Similarly if I slip and fall over whilst walking to the shops, I didn't *HAVE* to walk to the shops. I could have stayed in a white padded cell and rocked back and forth. But the slipping is still an accident. I didn't choose to hurt myself, even though I took on the risk of the possiblity of hurting myself due to going to the shops. But what did you slip on? What shoes were you wearing? What speed where you walking at? If passing through water whilst wearing slippery shoes and then breaking into a gentle jog caused you to slip then that is your fault, and as a direct effect of your actions you slipped. I'm no fan of the compo-culture and blaming everyone, but even if you break stuff down into the most simplest of forms everything is always someone or something's fault. Always. I was under the car last week with the wheel off trying to put the wheel arch liner back in, when I smacked my knee on the rather sizeable and heavy brake disc. Hurt like buggery it did, and whilst it's technically an accident it was still my fault for not getting some help or trying it a different way or being a bit ham-fisted. I soon got over the initial OW-MY-GOD-MY-KNEE-MUST-BE-SMASHED-THE-WORLD-IS-ENDING kind of pain we all know only too well from working on cars, but pure accident? No way. Wind blows tree into house during storm? Shouldn't have let the tree grow there. Xbox RROD's in the middle of a 50+ kill streak in CoD? Shouldn't have left it running so long and/or blame MS for crappy building. Child runs into the road and gets hit by a car? Shouldn't have let the thing run loose without basic road knowledge. I could go on, but I guess the point has been made. That said, very well argued point Mega as I've had to write loads to counter it, so top marks for debating skills Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stew Posted November 5, 2011 Author Share Posted November 5, 2011 Mega - 1) if someone pulls out in front of you and you hit them is that an accident? 2) My favourite one off the compo adverts 'I was given the wrong ladder while installing a fire alarm, I slipped and broke my arm and was off work for 3 months so I sued the company I work for..... Is that an accident? My answers. 1) That's not an accident.... thats a crash. The person pulling out made a conscious decision to do so. Sure, they didn't want to crash but they did as a direct consequence of their actions. There is far more to it than that obviously. 2) Is it hell. The dude knew it was wrong so shouldn't have used it. Again, he didn't mean to fall off but he did as a result of his actions. Feel free to give us some examples. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EH 370z Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 Couple of discussion points on this. When watching the film HOT FUZZ ( ), I learnt that the police don’t refer to incidents as "Accidents" as is implies no fault! However, as a hypothetically counter to your argument. If you were driving in heavy traffic, and you were afflicted with a sneezing fit, and as such you involuntarily shut your eyes and crash in to the car in front, could this not be argued as a genuine accident? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jumping350 Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 what about a meteorite landing on your zed would that go down as a fault claim?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stew Posted November 5, 2011 Author Share Posted November 5, 2011 Couple of discussion points on this. When watching the film HOT FUZZ ( ), I learnt that the police don’t refer to incidents as "Accidents" as is implies no fault! However, as a hypothetically counter to your argument. If you were driving in heavy traffic, and you were afflicted with a sneezing fit, and as such you involuntarily shut your eyes and crash in to the car in front, could this not be argued as a genuine accident? That's an interesting one.... If you kept a 'safe zone' around you then I don't think you'd hit the car in front. what about a meteorite landing on your zed would that go down as a fault claim?? That's a little silly...... TThis isn't a debate about insurance so the 'fault claim' thing doesn't make sense. This is about while you're driving and are involved in an incident not 'acts of god' etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyser Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 what about a meteorite landing on your zed would that go down as a fault claim?? Don't the insurance company (in the past) class that one as "an act of god" and exclude them from cover? Although I assume there is new wording for "act of god" these days to be PC? Of course that means "god" is to blame. Your walking along a beach with a friend - due to weathering a rock falls from the cliff face above you and hits you - you fall onto your friend and break his leg. Accident ??? Like the debate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MidnightRacer Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 Mega's Reply +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EH 370z Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 Couple of discussion points on this. When watching the film HOT FUZZ ( ), I learnt that the police don’t refer to incidents as "Accidents" as is implies no fault! However, as a hypothetically counter to your argument. If you were driving in heavy traffic, and you were afflicted with a sneezing fit, and as such you involuntarily shut your eyes and crash in to the car in front, could this not be argued as a genuine accident? That's an interesting one.... If you kept a 'safe zone' around you then I don't think you'd hit the car in front. I only mention it as a hay fever sufferer, and I have come close a couple of times, it’s very disorientating Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jumping350 Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 well maybe silly to you but can still cause an accident or incident whatever you want to call it...insurance may not be relevant but i thought they were quite key people in deciding whether something is in fact an accident or a deliberate crash??and if someone is at fault all the time like people say, then there the ones that usually piece it together i just think things like rain on the roads or high winds blowing stuff into your path and causing you to crash could be seen as an act of god as techinically no ones at fault Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stew Posted November 5, 2011 Author Share Posted November 5, 2011 Couple of discussion points on this. When watching the film HOT FUZZ ( ), I learnt that the police don’t refer to incidents as "Accidents" as is implies no fault! However, as a hypothetically counter to your argument. If you were driving in heavy traffic, and you were afflicted with a sneezing fit, and as such you involuntarily shut your eyes and crash in to the car in front, could this not be argued as a genuine accident? That's an interesting one.... If you kept a 'safe zone' around you then I don't think you'd hit the car in front. I only mention it as a hay fever sufferer, and I have come close a couple of times, it’s very disorientating Haven't we all done a sneeze and veered??? It's bloody scary sometimes! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docwra Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 Car related it has to be soemthing that no-one has any control over - the horse/motorbike example is a good one, if someone passes out at the wheel and hits you that same thing IMO. Single car accident, Id argue a big patch of black ice could count as no fault, if you cant see it and youll still crash doing 5mph then theres no blame IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoff-r Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 No such thing as an accident just idiots, we've all been there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waltzinblack Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 Mega is right... you can cause a crash but it can still be an accident. Your recklessness was undoubtedly the cause, but you didn't intend to lose control and smash into the Saloon coming the other way and kill the family of 4 inside it, thus it was an accident. The only way it could not be an accident is if you actually meant to cause all of that destruction. I see what you're getting at though, something that happened and was nobody's fault. Unfortunately that's not the definition of an 'accident'! Finding something that wasn't someone's fault is possible, but at the same time Ekona is right, everything has a cause. There's only one thing I could think of that might not have a cause or reason for happening, and that's the Big Bang. Whether something is a fault or not depends on the definition of fault, and you'd have to bring in the Lawyer's friend the test of reasonableness Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stew Posted November 5, 2011 Author Share Posted November 5, 2011 Ahhh, well I think it falls into two camps. Those that believe an accident is avoidable and those that think it's unavoidable. I am in the avoidable camp. You may not intend to lose control and kill the family but why did you lose control? Were you going too fast (avoidable), conditions bad (see last one - two fast for the conditions can be 15 mph....), car badly maintained (avoidable), 'it came of nowhere!!!!' (Did it hell, you didn't notice it - avoidable), etc etc. Ok, nobody intended it to happen but usually it's avoidable. To me that would make it a crash. The person driving the car has intentionally made an input - steering, throttle, brake etc. Another car example..... You are on a track day and you've done a few laps, you are in the zone but you feel the brake travel a little more than usual. You continue to push on. Three corners time you wipe out two cars. Is that a really unfortunate accident? Or should you have started a cool down and pitted while your brakes recover? You certainly didn't intend to wipe out the two cars but you did. Accident or crash? Maybe my thoughts are if there is accountability then it's not an accident. As I say, it's a debate, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacW Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 lol! An accident is always an accident. An accident is when something you didn't mean to happen happens. The official definition from google is: an undesirable or unfortunate happening that occurs unintentionally and usually results in harm, injury, damage, or loss So all crashes are accidents: Outside of the possibility of a deliberate crash, etc. So whilst I take your point, I disagree due to the way I'd define the term 'accident' in the first place All crashes are accidents. You need to consider the difference between "doing something on purpose" and "an accident". If I drive like a tit and smack a tree; IT's still an accident. I unintentially smacked a tree. Similarly if I slip and fall over whilst walking to the shops, I didn't *HAVE* to walk to the shops. I could have stayed in a white padded cell and rocked back and forth. But the slipping is still an accident. I didn't choose to hurt myself, even though I took on the risk of the possiblity of hurting myself due to going to the shops. And if I was just staying in that white padded cell, rocking; I could have picked up whiplash. That'd be an accident too. I didn't need to rock back and forth but I still didn't want whiplash! Consider the english Indy car driver who unfortunately died 2 weeks ago. He was partaking in motor racing. It doesn't mean that what happened to him wasn't accidental ?!?!? So I think this is utter rubbish really Not that I'm putting this on you at all; but: It's this kind of ridiculous argument, imho, that leads to heath and safety lobbyists slowly but surely destroying all inclination of 'fun' left in our society due to the desire for mitigation of risk and for being able to blame someone for everything. Please won't someone think of the children (etc..). Your very definition seems to be "an accident is only an accident if there's nobody to blame". I'd flip this around and say, that insurance companies, lawyers etc: Want to define everything with a root cause, and get away from the possibility that anything can just be unfortunate; Because then the party responsible for that root cause can be sued. This. Anything else is just an excuse for lawyers to make money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.