Author Topic: Even wearing a seatbelt can't save you from this kind of accident... (Read 1126 times)

vorticon · « **Reply #15 on:** October 14, 2007, 01:21:02 PM »

maverik, i'm assuming your disregarding wildlife collisions?

SaburoS · « **Reply #16 on:** October 14, 2007, 01:52:02 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
yep... you can pay attention and learn how to drive and thereby avoid 99% of the "accidents" or... you can just buckle up and hope for the best.

lazs

I buckle up and pay attention to how I drive. It's the other driver's lack of attention while driving that I buckle up for. At 10 y.o. our car was plowed into on the side I was sitting. The resulting collar bone breakage and concussion wasn't going to be prevented (probably), but my getting tossed around in the car would have.
There are too many people driving that simply should not be driving.

crockett · « **Reply #17 on:** October 14, 2007, 02:01:02 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by JB73
what exactly is the point of that film? why would someone make a film like that? the CGI effects we really well done, so I imagine there was a good deal of money spent on it.

It was from the movie Final Destination 2 I think.

Maverick · « **Reply #18 on:** October 14, 2007, 02:04:51 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by vorticon
maverik, i'm assuming your disregarding wildlife collisions?

I'm talking about the vast majority of collisions that involve other traffic vehicles, fixed objects or pedestrians. Wildlife and their predilection for doing the absolutely wrong thing at the worst time fall under the category of out of the control of the operator, provided the operator was driving in a speed and manner prudent for conditions. IE, not speeding and so on.

gshultz,

Perhaps you didn't read this part of Marks post.

"Why to they call crashes caused by someone's mistake accidents? Accidents don't happen, someone screws up somewhere down the line every time."

Look at the key words there, "caused by someone's mistake". That's not the description of an "accident" and it does not have to be intentional. If it was intentional it would be something else like aggravated assault, attempted homicide, intentional homicide but still not an accident.

SaburoS · « **Reply #19 on:** October 14, 2007, 02:05:31 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Viking
Maverick, had Mr. Luper used the word "negligent" I might have agreed with him. He didn't. In either case there are accidents that are not the result of someone's negligence. They may be few and far between, but they happen. So Mr. Luper's statement that "accidents don't happen, someone screws up somewhere down the line every time" is wrong in every sense.

Splitting hairs don't you think?
We call them car "accidents" even though technically they are usually anything but that.
Most vehicle accidents are the result of people not adjusting their driving for the conditions, just plain ignoring common sense (Lack of sleep, driving under the influence, adjusting and playing with assorted new electronic gadgets, talking on the cellphone, eating, reading, reaching around to wack the misbehaving kids, putting on make up, etc.), not knowing traffic laws, or not paying attention to basic vehicle maintenance.

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #20 on:** October 14, 2007, 02:06:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Viking
BS.

Agreed

Viking · « **Reply #21 on:** October 14, 2007, 02:26:12 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Maverick
I'm talking about the vast majority of collisions that involve other traffic vehicles, fixed objects or pedestrians. Wildlife and their predilection for doing the absolutely wrong thing at the worst time fall under the category of out of the control of the operator, provided the operator was driving in a speed and manner prudent for conditions. IE, not speeding and so on.

gshultz,

Perhaps you didn't read this part of Marks post.

"Why to they call crashes caused by someone's mistake accidents? Accidents don't happen, someone screws up somewhere down the line every time."

Look at the key words there, "caused by someone's mistake". That's not the description of an "accident" and it does not have to be intentional. If it was intentional it would be something else like aggravated assault, attempted homicide, intentional homicide but still not an accident.

Why do I have to repeat myself? Accidents are still accidents no matter if is is someone's fault or not ... as long as it is unintentional. The definition of the English word "accident" does not leave much for debate on this issue. See my second post in this thread. That someone should be punished for causing the accident does not change the fact that is was an accident.

Viking · « **Reply #22 on:** October 14, 2007, 02:29:29 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by SaburoS
Splitting hairs don't you think?

No. Using the correct meaning of the word. The notion that "accidents don't happen" is a misnomer.

Maverick · « **Reply #23 on:** October 14, 2007, 03:47:55 PM »

That which is unintentional is not necessarily an accident. Once again I'm going to direct you to the specific situation that Mark was talking and posted about that you are conveniently disregarding.

"Why to they call crashes caused by someone's mistake accidents? Accidents don't happen, someone screws up somewhere down the line every time."

If an individual takes a bow and arrow outside and shoots blindly down the street hitting a person. Is that an "accident"? They did not intend to hit anyone but a person died.

Substitute slingshot, is it still an accident?

How about a firearm?

How is that different from driving a car into an intersction against a red light? Failing to stop a car in time and running into a stopped car at a red light because you are talking on a cell phone, or even drunk?

Each of those situations are examples of negligence, not accidents.

Viking · « **Reply #24 on:** October 14, 2007, 04:00:09 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Maverick
If an individual takes a bow and arrow outside and shoots blindly down the street hitting a person. Is that an "accident"? They did not intend to hit anyone but a person died.

Yes, that's an accident.

Quote

Originally posted by Maverick
Substitute slingshot, is it still an accident?

Yes.

Quote

Originally posted by Maverick
How about a firearm?

Yes.

You don't seem to understand that no matter how idiotic, unlawful or otherwise inept the actions of a person may be ... if the consequence of those actions are unintended they are by definition "accidents".

"Negligence" addresses culpability. "Accident" addresses intent.

Viking · « **Reply #25 on:** October 14, 2007, 04:10:01 PM »

In other words, "if an individual takes a bow and arrow outside and shoots blindly down the street hitting a person", the individual in question would have caused an accident by the negligent use of a weapon and quite possibly made himself guilty of involuntary manslaughter.

Any clearer now?

Maverick · « **Reply #26 on:** October 14, 2007, 04:55:13 PM »

There is no intent in negligence, the definitions I posted made that clear. If there is intent to commit the act it isn't negligence, it becomes willful and then a criminal act.

In your rewrite of the bow situation he didn't create an "accident" he used the bow in a negligent manner and caused a death. Same situation in traffic where a death results from negligent action of the driver, hence the charge vehicular homicide also know in some areas as negligent homicide again without intent because the extent of the negligence was culpable. In the vast majority of moving traffic laws, intent is not a requirement.

Viking · « **Reply #27 on:** October 14, 2007, 05:04:30 PM »

Perhaps that's how your justice system defines it, but we are not writing "legaleeze" here. We're writing English (preferably the Queen's English, but nobody's perfect

). Mr. Luper was not writing "legaleeze", he was writing in English. The word "accident" means an unintended consequence or incident ... nothing more.

Rocks fall ... Lightning strikes ... Accidents happen.

Mark Luper · « **Reply #28 on:** October 14, 2007, 06:06:39 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Viking
Perhaps that's how your justice system defines it, but we are not writing "legaleeze" here. We're writing English (preferably the Queen's English, but nobody's perfect ). Mr. Luper was not writing "legaleeze", he was writing in English. The word "accident" means an unintended consequence or incident ... nothing more.

Rocks fall ... Lightning strikes ... Accidents happen.

Rocks fall, lightening strikes, those are accidents.

When you take control of a moving vehicle and don't operate it properly or maintain it properly and have a crash caused by the way you operated said vehicle or maintained said vehicle it is not an accident whether it was intended that way or not.

I will take that one step further and state that if you don't maintain your vehicle yourself you are still responsible for the state of maintenance it is in.

What it all boils down to is accountability for your actions or a lack thereof.

People like to call such crashes accidents because they do not want to be held accountable for their actions.

I hope I made myself clear on my meaning this time. Sorry for the confusion it seems to have caused. You may or may not agree with it. That is your prerogative.

Mark

Oogly50 · « **Reply #29 on:** October 14, 2007, 06:13:34 PM »

WOW!!!

WHAT a Hi-Jack!!! Wow...

I give it a 10/10... Both points were put across clearly, but I'm going to have to agree with the fact that there are no accidents, it's always SOMEBODY'S fault.