Post by Bill Z.Post by BIG ONEPost by Bill Z.BTW, the newspapers in the Bay Area had a lot of coverage of an
accident in San Francisco that happened a year or two ago. A driver
crossed over the center line, hit a car making a right turn into a
parking lot, bounced off that and side swiped a number of parked cars,
knocking down some motorcycles, and then something leaked some
gasoline, so the whole mess went up in flames. It turned out that the
cause was a sudden medical emergency - some sort of stroke or seizure
- that more or less instantly resulted in the driver not being able to
control the vehicle. It's not the sort of thing anyone can plan for
when there are no symptoms in advance.
you are mostly correct - if you take the position that there is a
valid justification for driving a car in the first place - I happen
not to be persuaded that such behavior has been justified. But that's
quite another story & not relevant to either critical mass, or any of
the groups crossposted to here.
It's relevant to the post I replied to, which made a claim about
accidents in general. If you want to pretend that is off topic, you
should have complained about your own post.
a bit touchy there Bill, no offence intended. - if you review the
comments I made to which you are replying you will no doubt discover
that I am not in the slightest being critical of your post (indeed I
support your conclusions), merely pointing towards the potential for
this thread to be taken even more off topic, than it was by (I
believe) Janet. You will see that I was informing you of my
convictions, regarding use of cars and stating that discussions of the
justification of use of cars which do not relate to cycling are not
strictly on topic in the majority of groups to which this thread has
been addressed ( I can't imagine what alt.planning.urban is included
for) and are not central as issue for CM as a movement, if at all. I
am sure every person whether they support CM or not has an opinion on
the matter, but here is not the place to discuss it - and so I stated
that I did not wish to do so and would not have been doing so if I had
not felt that some tendency to wander off topic onto the car driving
issues was not approaching.
Post by Bill Z.Post by BIG ONEbut even in the example you provide, the stroke/seizure is not an
'accident' do you think the driver (had they survived) would come out
saying "sorry I didn't mean to have a stroke- it was just an
accident" ?
no ... it doesn't seem right somehow does it.
Except that what would really be said is that he was sorry that the
accident occurred, just as you might tell someone you were sorry to
learn that his/her house was hit by a tornado.
What's an accident is that the stroke/seizure occurred at a time when
it would result in a car crash.
arguably this is correct, when the word 'accident' is used to refer to
the unintentional and unavoidable tornado/stroke, and not the
collision itself.
Post by Bill Z.Post by BIG ONEI agree that shit happens & we couldn't (nor may wish to) plan for
everything, and "accidents will happen" but to apply the word
'accident' to every one of the millions of yearly violent incidents
involving car use is just ignoring the problem.
??? Read what I originally posted, specifically, "whlie many
(probably most) accidents are the result of drivers not leaving
sufficient safety margins, the reality is that any reasonable safety
margin you leave can be exceeded, although with low probability."
??? and I agree with the sentiment you had expressed (as I have and
had already posted) but as I have said - and will continue to say- I
disagree with the word 'accident' being used to describe every and any
collision involving a motorized vehicle (planes strangely enough don't
seem to have 'accidents' - they have crashes)
Post by Bill Z.How is stating that many or most drivers involved in accdients are not
leaving sufficient safety margins ignoring the problem. Surely you
1. Literally, a befalling; an event that takes place without
one's foresight or expectation; an undesigned, sudden, and
unexpected event; chance; contingency; often, an
undesigned and unforeseen occurrence of an afflictive or
unfortunate character; a casualty; a mishap; as, to die by
an accident.
I agree it could be and has been used in these ways... but why stop
there, it is not always even a noun, but to restrict it so would still
leave a very vague and imprecise word:
OED entry(snipped):
As in many other adopted words, the historical order in which the
senses appear in Eng. does not correspond to their logical
development, a fact still more noticeable in the derivatives.
I. Anything that happens.
1. {dag}a. An occurrence, incident, event. Obs. b. Anything
that happens without foresight or expectation; an unusual event, which
proceeds from some unknown cause, or is an unusual effect of a known
cause; a casualty, a contingency. the chapter of accidents: the
unforeseen course of events. c. esp. An unfortunate event, a
disaster, a mishap.
d. colloq. An accidental or untimely call of nature.
e. A child conceived or born as a result of an unintended
pregnancy; (an event which leads to) an unplanned pregnancy. Cf.
MISTAKE n. 1d. colloq.
2. abstractly, Chance, fortune. (By accident = Fr. par accident
(14th c.), L. per accidens.)
{dag}3. Med. An occurring symptom; esp. an unfavourable symptom.
Obs.
{dag}4. A casual appearance or effect, a phenomenon. Obs.
5. An irregular feature in a landscape; an undulation.
II. That which is present by chance, and therefore non-essential.
6. a. Logic. A property or quality not essential to our conception
of a substance; an attribute. Applied especially in Scholastic
Theology to the material qualities remaining in the sacramental bread
and wine after transubstantiation; the essence being alleged to be
changed, though the accidents remained the same.
b. Textual Criticism. = ACCIDENTAL B. n. d.
7. Hence, by extension, Any accidental or non-essential
accompaniment, quality, or property; an accessory, a non-essential.
8. Heraldry. An additional point or mark that may be retained or
omitted in a coat of arms.
{dag}9. Grammar. pl. (L. accidentia, Quintil.) The changes to
which words are subject, in accordance with the relations in which
they are used; the expression of the phenomena of gender, number,
case, mood, tense, etc. Obs. replaced by ACCIDENCE.
10. a. attrib. and Comb.
b. accident neurosis, a neurosis caused or precipitated by an
accident; accident-prone a., predisposed or likely to cause or attract
an accident; also absol.; so accident-proneness, such predisposition
or likelihood.
DRAFT ADDITIONS APRIL 2001
accident, n.
* accident and emergency n. chiefly Brit. and N.Z. attrib. of or
relating to a hospital department or ward that deals with patients
requiring urgent assessment and treatment of injuries and acute
illnesses (also absol.); abbreviated A and E; cf. CASUALTY n.
[
* colloq. an accident waiting to happen n. a situation which is
potentially hazardous, esp. one resulting from neglect or
carelessness; someone or something considered liable to cause such a
situation.
Post by Bill Z.The word's standard meaning includes the case where people are not
acting with due care but don't expect the outcome.
yes. But, it is so commonplace a term that when used in relation to
the sort of risk filled activities to which we have been referring it
normalizes the severity of the danger - which I propose is a deceptive
use and certainly on occasions is not in the interest of portraying an
accurate relation of events.
Post by Bill Z.Post by BIG ONEback on topic - when CM run red lights it is often (IME) at the
insistence of the police who herd the mass.
Many cyclists such as myself disapprove of this practice http://stopatred.org/
surely a group is more efficient if every member is free to react
responsibly according to what they see best, while the marshalling of
the police simply makes the mass less efficient and slower as well as
denying liberty to a specific group for no good reason
State law allows the police to override traffic signals to expedite
traffic in particular circumstances (e.g., a large number of people
leaving from an event where the traffic-signal controller hardware
isn't up to the task.) Ignoring a red light at the direction of the
police is both legal and proper.
I am sure most people (cyclists included) would agree with you there.
But as I believe we are posting from separate continents the specifics
of law and liberty are perhaps best avoided.