I’m observing that she intentionally put her car on the right hand side of the road, that it wasn’t a fault with the car or a signpost. She was not there inadvertantly or accidentally.
As has been said a few times here, this seems to be a relatively common mistake. Which just supports something I’ve thought for a long time, that far too many drivers are effectively on autopilot, not paying full attention to what they’re doing.
I don’t think she intended to harm or kill anyone. I think it’s certain she intended to drive on that side of the road.
But they ARE on purpose. Which do you feel should receive a harsher punishment: Someone who kills someone in what is 100% an accident (if she was, say, drunk, that’d be absolutely different), or someone who routinely beats their wife so hard they end up hospitalized?
Do you still seriously not understand that, “She intentionally drove on the right side of the road,” and “She didn’t intend to drive on the wrong side of the road,” can both be true statements?
I understand that very well, which is why any crime she would be guilty of would involve negligence or recklessness. My point is that her car did not accidentally end up on that side of the road, it ended up there because she intentionally put it there - but I’m assuming she put it there due to not paying enough attention, not due to malice.
But killing someone when driving because you’re not paying enough attention is still a serious crime. This was not an accident, this was 100% her fault.
Those aren’t mutually exclusive terms. “Accident” doesn’t mean, “Something happened that’s nobody’s fault,” it means, “Something happened that nobody intended.” This woman didn’t deliberately hit this guy with her car; that was an accident. It was an accident that was (apparently) entirely her fault, but it’s still an accident.
That’s the case where it could actually be an accident rather than a mistake by the driver, if you want to argue that it’s not reasonable that a driver should know that a car has that feature. It’s an interesting hypothetical, but I expect that she would have said if that happened rather than admitting responsibility.
That’s not the way the term is used in the UK (officially) these days. Here’s a Wiki link, both the cites are UK organisations.
As for the meaning of the word “accident” a basic Google search gives this -
This event was neither unexpected nor without apparent cause, and was therefore not an accident. It did not happen by chance, it happen because one person acted in a way prohibited by law.
I don’t think I’m being needlessly pedantic here, I think it’s important to realise that incidents like this are not simply unfortunate chance but are directly caused by, and preventable by, specific individuals.
[QUOTE=Steophan;21922948…
As for the meaning of the word “accident” a [basic Google search]
(accident definition - Google Search) gives this -
This event was neither unexpected nor without apparent cause, and was therefore not an accident. It did not happen by chance, it happen because one person acted in a way prohibited by law.
I don’t think I’m being needlessly pedantic here, I think it’s important to realise that incidents like this are not simply unfortunate chance but are directly caused by, and preventable by, specific individuals.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, no one 'expected it". It was certainly “unintentionally”.
All accidents have a cause., so by your reasoning there are no accidents.
There is a line of argument out there to rename automobile accidents as ‘crashes’, to change the subtle implication that they are an unavoidable consequence of driving.
It is obviously to be expected that if you drive on the wrong side of the road you’ll hit someone. That’s the point, this is not some inadvertent, random happening, it’s a clearly forseeable result of someone’s action.
That would get rather deeper into philosophy and physics than this thread really warrants, but determinism is certainly a valid position, although may well be incompatible with quantum physics.
What I would say is that anything caused by carelessness, recklessness, negligence, or anything of that nature is not an accident. Using the term “accident” is a way to allow people to avoid responsibility for their actions in many cases - such as this one.
I think you are being needlessly pedantic, and the way you are using the words is at best confusing in US usage. (and really, I think it’s just wrong in US usage.)
I work in the Property/casualty insurance industry, and we care a great deal about whether incidents are intentional or unintentional. In particular, for first party coverages (when the insurance company pays the policy holder, rather than paying some person injured by the policy holder) we only cover unintentional damage. But we absolutely cover carelessness and stupidity.
For example:
If you pour gasoline around your home and light it on fire, we will not pay for the damage to your home – because you intentionally burned down your home.
If you fall asleep while smoking and light your house on fire, we will pay.
If you are stir-frying, get a phone call, wander off, and then flee your burning house (because the oil caught on fire, and set the kitchen on fire…) we will pay.
If you add a few electrical circuits, without knowing or following the relevant electrical code, and your shitty wiring causes your house to catch on fire, we will pay. (unless there’s some reason to believe you ran those wires for the purpose of burning down your house.)
Yes, she intentionally drove on the right side of the road. She did not intentionally drive on the wrong side of the road. I don’t know UK auto insurance law, but if that had happened in the US, and she’d been a UK visitor driving on the left side of the road and gotten into a collision, her auto insurance would pay for the damage to her car. Because we would consider that unintentional.
Now… “criminal negligence” is a thing. The precise laws vary widely from state to state, but she could well be found criminally liable for the kid’s death in the US. But it would be criminal negligence.
If the court found that she intentionally drove on the wrong side of the road (rather than intentionally driving on the left, not realizing that was the wrong side) that would be a more serious crime in most US jurisdictions. So that distinction is important to us.
You are rather comically misinterpreting your cites. “Some organizations have begun avoiding the word ‘accident’” isn’t some new official meaning of the word. And the first definition from your google fits this situation perfectly well.
There is no way that anyone could not have expected that driving on the wrong side of the road would lead to a collusion. This was not an accident, and the only reason to call it such is to try to claim that its OK to drive a car without paying sufficient attention.
Oh gee, I watch the street sweepers and postal trucks weaving back and forth, often driving on the wrong side of the road for minutes at a time. They clearly do not 'expect" to cause a accident.