UK Gov Petition - words matter

[mjr]

To redifine a word then argue that your new definition is objectionable is a a bit dissappearing up your own arse isn't it?

It would be, but that is not what is happening. It is not the authors of the petition or the reporting guidelines changing the definition in dictionaries and encyclopedias. They are trying to handle it.

The ostrich approach, burying one's head in the sand and saying language never changes, doesn't work. If you doubt it, try challenging the blameless bit of the wikipedia description or the "not expected" bit of the Cambridge dictionary definition and let us know how that goes!

 

[Profpointy]

It would be, but that is not what is happening. It is not the authors of the petition or the reporting guidelines changing the definition in dictionaries and encyclopedias. They are trying to handle it.

The ostrich approach, burying one's head in the sand and saying language never changes, doesn't work. If you doubt it, try challenging the blameless bit of the wikipedia description or the "not expected" bit of the Cambridge dictionary definition and let us know how that goes!

Yebbut the changing the definition bit isn't natural evolution it seems a deliberate intent, which is then objected to. That, to me at least, is silly, and undermines whatever safety gain we might wish for.

It really is "newspeak"; remove the use of a word so we can't think bad thoughts

And anyhow, none of the alternatives suggested have the same meaning as accident.

Kind of related but as a reference to the management-speak "we don't have problems, we have opportunities" a pal came in saying "we had several opportunities on the system last night". He was being ironic just to be clear. To be even the managment-speak is an admonition to get on and fix it, so isn't entirely silly

 

[matticus]

Yebbut the changing the definition bit isn't natural evolution it seems a deliberate intent, which is then objected to. That, to me at least, is silly, and undermines whatever safety gain we might wish for.

It really is "newspeak"; remove the use of a word so we can't think bad thoughts

And anyhow, none of the alternatives suggested have the same meaning as accident.

Exactomundo.

 

[mjr]

Yebbut the changing the definition bit isn't natural evolution it seems a deliberate intent, which is then objected to. That, to me at least, is silly, and undermines whatever safety gain we might wish for.

I don't understand the first sentence completely. I think some punctuation is missing. I don't think the petition is intending to change the meaning of "accident" at all. It is merely acknowledging the current meaning.

It really is "newspeak"; remove the use of a word so we can't think bad thoughts

Not so much that as to use a more accurate word where it's available, so we have a different starting point for thoughts. Where do you stand on the Sapir/Whorf Hypothesis and linguistic relativity (not determinism)?

And anyhow, none of the alternatives suggested have the same meaning as accident.

Well, no, because the problem being addressed is that "accident" now doesn't have the correct meaning for this situation, so of course it won't replace it with another word that has the same ambiguity.

 

[Profpointy]

I don't understand the first sentence completely. I think some punctuation is missing. I don't think the petition is intending to change the meaning of "accident" at all. It is merely acknowledging the current meaning.


Not so much that as to use a more accurate word where it's available, so we have a different starting point for thoughts. Where do you stand on the Sapir/Whorf Hypothesis and linguistic relativity (not determinism)?


Well, no, because the problem being addressed is that "accident" now doesn't have the correct meaning for this situation, so of course it won't replace it with another word that has the same ambiguity.

Yet there you are claiming a different, or at least very specific meaning of accident, excluding the wider and arguably more common meaning. And you go further by wanting to disallow the possibility of another word as that too would be objectionable.

just think about what you are saying for a moment

 

[mjr]

Yet there you are claiming a different, or at least very specific meaning of accident, excluding the wider and arguably more common meaning. And you go further by wanting to disallow the possibility of another word as that too would be objectionable.

You still seem to be assuming that the wider meaning is arguably more common, whereas too many dictionaries and encyclopedias now define it with unexpectedness or no-blame.

I'm not wanting to disallow the possibility of another word. Not sure where you got that from. It feels to me like you are wanting to block use of a more accurate word in the legislation.

just think about what you are saying for a moment

I've thought about this quite a bit over the years. I don't think it's a top priority, but I don't think it's anywhere near as harmful as you seem to suggest. I really don't see any good reason to argue for continued use of "accident" as the general term in law.

 

[classic33]

You still seem to be assuming that the wider meaning is arguably more common, whereas too many dictionaries and encyclopedias now define it with unexpectedness or no-blame.

I'm not wanting to disallow the possibility of another word. Not sure where you got that from. It feels to me like you are wanting to block use of a more accurate word in the legislation.


I've thought about this quite a bit over the years. I don't think it's a top priority, but I don't think it's anywhere near as harmful as you seem to suggest. I really don't see any good reason to argue for continued use of "accident" as the general term in law.

Why don't the police use "accident" when it's two cars that collide in that case?

 

[mjr]

Why don't the police use "accident" when it's two cars that collide in that case?

My local police mostly use accident where it is from legislation, like https://www.norfolk.police.uk/news/latest-news/man-sentenced-dangerous-driving-a47-norwich

 

[Profpointy]

Why don't the police use "accident" when it's two cars that collide in that case?

If two cars have collided, the clearly it's a collision be it accidental or deliberate.

But it's hardly reasonable to talk about colliding with the road where I skidded my front wheel in the wet or collision with a river after a failing to unclip incident, or even my own "collision with a field", after driving like a twat in my younger days. "Industrial accident" is also a common and well understood phrase and if serious there's likely to be an investigation and indeed prosecution if there's culpability

 

[mjr]

But it's hardly reasonable to talk about colliding with the road where I skidded my front wheel in the wet or collision with a river after a failing to unclip incident, or even my own "collision with a field", after driving like a twat in my younger days.

Who is trying to make anyone talk about that? What legislation do you think affects any of those? That is what I really do not understand about your objection to the petitioner's proposal.

 

[Profpointy]

Who is trying to make anyone talk about that? What legislation do you think affects any of those? That is what I really do not understand about your objection to the petitioner's proposal.

It proposes that we call accidents collisions; I think that's silly and misleading because not all accidents are collisions and some collisions are not accidents

I've been driven at albeit not hit, and I recall a lady on here was deliberately run over and injured - not an accident

 

[mjr]

It proposes that we call accidents collisions;

No, it proposes we call collisions collisions because calling them accidents is silly and misleading.

I think that's silly and misleading because not all accidents are collisions and some collisions are not accidents

What non-collision accidents do you think are covered by the Road Traffic Act and related legislation? To start you off, "accident" is mentioned in sections 6(5), 6E, 7A, 12E, 15A, 17(1), 39(3), 67(7), 95(4)(a), 145(4)(b), 151(6)(a), 161(3), 162, 164(1), 165, 170, 181, 182, and Schedule 1 section 5 (1A)(a)(i). The lower-numbered ones are more often contrivances like "accident in a case where the constable reasonably suspects that the accident involved injury of any person" and "Fatal Accident", so you may prefer to start with the later ones.

 

[Profpointy]

No, it proposes we call collisions collisions because calling them accidents is silly and misleading.


What non-collision accidents do you think are covered by the Road Traffic Act and related legislation? To start you off, "accident" is mentioned in sections 6(5), 6E, 7A, 12E, 15A, 17(1), 39(3), 67(7), 95(4)(a), 145(4)(b), 151(6)(a), 161(3), 162, 164(1), 165, 170, 181, 182, and Schedule 1 section 5 (1A)(a)(i). The lower-numbered ones are more often contrivances like "accident in a case where the constable reasonably suspects that the accident involved injury of any person" and "Fatal Accident", so you may prefer to start with the later ones.

are you saying that we should no longer use "fatal accident" and change the wording in the acts or have I got the wrong end of the stick entirely

By the way, why is calling an unintended collision an accident misleading ?

And for that matter I recal a fatality in Cheltenham years back where someone had driven off the road into a reservoir - what would you call that ? Hardly a collision (unless it was know another vehicle had been involved -not in this case I think) I doubt the driver was blameless

 

[classic33]

My local police mostly use accident where it is from legislation, like https://www.norfolk.police.uk/news/latest-news/man-sentenced-dangerous-driving-a47-norwich

From further down that page, before it gets to court.

Wording tends to be changed afterwards.

Note it says "Fatal Collision", not accident.

 

[mjr]

From further down that page, before it gets to court.
View attachment 635764
Wording tends to be changed afterwards.

Note it says "Fatal Collision", not accident.

Indeed. As I wrote, most use of accident is if referring to something from legislation.