1976, police warning for short mudguards

[Alex321]

It isn't stupidity, it's negligence. You can be Stoopid, and yet be an effective driver/ rider.
You can be super intelligent, but negligent, and do Stoopid as stupid does.
It's negligence that got me knocked off and in a hospital bed 20 odd years ago, not stupidity.
Stupidity is more a lack of training or ability.
Negligence is plain fact ,you are competent, but disregarded the situation so caused an incident.
Hence your oik who blatts about in/on high powered vehicles, speeds then collides.
That's not an accident things happen.

Yes, OK, I'll accept negligence rather than stupidity. But I still doubt very much if the fcat most other vehicles will have tail lights makes any difference to that.

And unless you are suggesting it is deliberate, then it is an accident. Sorry, but people saying "That's not an accident" because they don't understand the meaning of the word annoys me rather.

 

[grldtnr]

Yes, OK, I'll accept negligence rather than stupidity. But I still doubt very much if the fcat most other vehicles will have tail lights makes any difference to that.

And unless you are suggesting it is deliberate, then it is an accident. Sorry, but people saying "That's not an accident" because they don't understand the meaning of the word annoys me rather.

My definition of 'accident' is an unforeseeable result of a mistake or major event.
Yo for instance may suffer some sort of medical episode then lose control, or there may be an unexplained mechanical failure of a component.
Borderline is loss of control due to extenuating conditions.
But mainly 'accidents' are caused by failure to be in reasonable control , that's negligence, for instance you might be driving in wintery weather, then have a collision, if it's wet and freezing ,it's reasonable to expect it to be slippery.

If you are in such conditions,then it's reasonable to suppose that you might lose control.
It's being pendantic ,but how many want to blame negligence as an accident.

Cause and effect .

 

[dicko]

Back in the early 60s we would watch The Milk Race zoom past our factory in Stamford Lincolnshire. None of these competitors had mudguards and were racing on public roads and had a Police motorcycle escort too.

 

[Drago]

Back in the early 60s we would watch The Milk Race zoom past our factory in Stamford Lincolnshire. None of these competitors had mudguards and were racing on public roads and had a Police motorcycle escort too.

Maniacs!

 

[Alex321]

My definition of 'accident' is an unforeseeable result of a mistake or major event.

That is not the main dictionary definition.

Which is basically any unintended consequence of ones actions (exact wording varies by dictionary).

Nothing to do with being unforeseeable. Or unavoidable, which some people seem to believe.

If you are in such conditions,then it's reasonable to suppose that you might lose control.
It's being pendantic ,but how many want to blame negligence as an accident.

Anybody who understands what the word actually means.

And yes, I am the one being pedantic.

I have no beef with people preferring to use other words because of those connotations that too many people associate with the word, but I DO get irritated by people saying "it's not an accident" when it meets the dictionary definition of one.

 

[Drago]

The dictionary sets the language standard, not the technical definition.

Almost all smacks are due to wilful negligence or recklessness. Genuinely unforeseeable and unavoidable collisions, real "accidents", are rare almost beyond comprehension.

 

[Alex321]

The dictionary sets the language standard, not the technical definition.

It should do. Or actually, it should follow the language standard, rather than setting it.

But in this particular case, too many people think it means something different to the dictionary definition.

Almost all smacks are due to wilful negligence or recklessness.

Agreed. They are still accidents unless you actually deliberately choose to run into somebody/something.

Genuinely unforeseeable and unavoidable collisions, real "accidents", are rare almost beyond comprehension.

Agreed, with the strikeout.

 

[mjr]

That is not the main dictionary definition.

Which is basically any unintended consequence of ones actions (exact wording varies by dictionary).

Nothing to do with being unforeseeable. Or unavoidable, which some people seem to believe.

Depends on the dictionary. The main definition in the Cambridge dictionary says an accident is "not expected or intended" and an entirely predictable collision is expected, so not an accident. The main/first definition in the Collins dictionary is "an unforeseen event or one without an apparent cause" which also excludes foreseeable motoring crashes.

I expect the OED supports your view but they're stuck waaaay back in the past and still fighting against the shift from z to s in many words a few centuries ago!

Nonetheless, enough dictionaries say accidents are unforeseeable that calling a predictable event an "accident" is obviously going to imply to many people that you're excusing whoever caused it, so I wouldn't do that unless that's your intent. Language is about communication, ultimately, not compiling dictionary definitions.

 

[Profpointy]

Depends on the dictionary. The main definition in the Cambridge dictionary says an accident is "not expected or intended" and an entirely predictable collision is expected, so not an accident. The main/first definition in the Collins dictionary is "an unforeseen event or one without an apparent cause" which also excludes foreseeable motoring crashes.

I expect the OED supports your view but they're stuck waaaay back in the past and still fighting against the shift from z to s in many words a few centuries ago!

Nonetheless, enough dictionaries say accidents are unforeseeable that calling a predictable event an "accident" is obviously going to imply to many people that you're excusing whoever caused it, so I wouldn't do that unless that's your intent. Language is about communication, ultimately, not compiling dictionary definitions.

Where a dictionary lists a number of meanings of a word, it is a little disingenuous to use that as evidence ghat the dictionary only supports the first listed meaning

Can you suggest a non-clumsy word for an "accident" where some kind of negligence or stupidity was involved? A "pure" accident with no mistakes or negligence would be an rare thing, on the road or elsewhere

 

[mjr]

Where a dictionary lists a number of meanings of a word, it is a little disingenuous to use that as evidence ghat the dictionary only supports the first listed meaning

Some, but not all, try to put the most-used meaning(s) first. (Some go chronological. No idea what others do.)

Can you suggest a non-clumsy word for an "accident" where some kind of negligence or stupidity was involved? A "pure" accident with no mistakes or negligence would be an rare thing, on the road or elsewhere

Dammit, Jim, I'm a statistician, not a lexicographer!

 

[Drago]

Can you suggest a non-clumsy word for an "accident" where some kind of negligence or stupidity was involved?

A clusterf**k.

 

[Fastpedaller]

I am 100% certain that rear lights (on all vehicles, not just bikes) have caused a significant reduction overall in accidents.

Yes, some will travel too fast because they expect anything in their way to have lights. But regardless of what SHOULD happen, far more will have only seen something in time because it did have lights. FAR more.

Except on the Isle of sheppey in kent when over 300 vehicles collided because they were going too fast following the fog lights in front!

 

[Drago]

Except on the Isle of sheppey in kent when over 300 vehicles collided because they were going too fast following the fog lights in front!

Oh aye, that was horrific. I was at my mates house in Grain at the time, remember the fog well.

 

[Smokin Joe]

And there is evidence that daytime light usage, particularly over bright lights, actually promotes a certain type of collision - by breaking up the riders outline the observer is deprived of the necessary visual datum required to accurately calculate velocity, and T bone type collisions in particular arise out of this.

That's the reason I never used the headlamp on a motorcycle during daylight hours.

 

[grldtnr]

Some, but not all, try to put the most-used meaning(s) first. (Some go chronological. No idea what others do.)

Dammit, Jim, I'm a statistician, not a lexicographer!

I was counting on that!