Two dead in Vernon crash

[Hassel99]

To be clear,

The drinking then deciding to drive was not an accident, that is a very much on purpose.
The accident is ONLY the physical act of the car leaving the road and crashing.

Negligence causes accidents, Negligence gets punished.

I will agree with many that often there is not enough punishment but that has nothing to do with the word "accident"

[Hassel99]

The word accident does not invoke sympathy that it does not deserve, ESPECIALLY in the contaxt of a Motor Vehicle Accident.

If it does mean that FOR YOU, that sounds like a personal problem.
I am curious how you think a reporter calling a MVA has anything to do with a light sentence, do you think a judge is going to slow his roll and check if castanet to see what terminology was used when first reported? Give your head a shake.


Vehicular manslauter is a criminal charge, do you really think it is better for a news paper to say, Watch on out Highway 6 as the road is closed due to a "vehicular manslaugter"

At his point i am not sure if you are being purposefully obtuse or if it is just an accident.

[gordon_as]

Watch on out Highway 6 as the road is closed due to a "vehicular manslaugter"

How about " road closed due to a fatal crash " ?

[krocky]

The word accident does not invoke sympathy that it does not deserve, ESPECIALLY in the contaxt of a Motor Vehicle Accident.

I see, you speak for everyone do you. You are entitled to your "opinion" as am I. How do you know it doesn't invoke sympathy for some. I think you are wrong, for some people it does, have you never heard a bleeding heart say "well it was an unfortunate accident and he'll/she'll have to live with the consequences, that's punishment enough, or something similar. Of course you have unless you're living in a bubble.

I am curious how you think a reporter calling a MVA has anything to do with a light sentence, do you think a judge is going to slow his roll and check if castanet to see what terminology was used when first reported? Give your head a shake.

Not at all, the judge is going to hand out the two year sentence no matter what we call it because that is all a human life is worth these days but how the public at large accepts the sentence is a different story and yes, I do believe that if it is constantly referred to as an ACCIDENT rather than a "homicide" so to speak, then society is much more likely to accept a lighter sentence.

Vehicular manslauter is a criminal charge, do you really think it is better for a news paper to say, Watch on out Highway 6 as the road is closed due to a "vehicular manslaughter"

YES..!!

[krocky]

How about " road closed due to a fatal crash " ?

PERFECT..!!!

[krocky]

Crash Not Accident
Crash Not Accident is our campaign for more neutral, constructive terminology when referring to collisions on the roads.
We understand that many collisions occur without intent. But we object to the use of ‘accident’ as the standard term for all collisions, including those where the driver is convicted of causing the death, manslaughter, or even murder.
Our campaign is for the use of appropriate terminology that
•does not demean the devastation caused by crashes
•does not excuse any culpable behaviour
•does not contribute to the discrimination against road crash victims
but instead promotes accountability and an evidence based approach.
We urge the media, the police, the emergency services, health professionals and all others to adopt a neutral, constructive terminology when referring to collisions on the roads such as crash, collision or incident.

OH, look what I found, I guess I'm NOT the only one who thinks like this, go figure..!!!

[krocky]

Oh gee another one.. I think this article makes the point more eloquently than I did but the message is the same.

Our joint campaign with the street safety advocates at Transportation Alternatives is about language, but it isn’t an academic exercise in scolding people about word choice. Our objective is actually to challenge the assumptions behind those words—assumptions that lead to policy decisions that allow the carnage on our streets to continue, with no driver accountability. How could a DMV judge throw out the tickets for the SUV driver who killed my daughter? I believe that the use of the word “accident”—by DMV officials, the media, and general public—is a big part of the problem. When we say “accident,” we are basically throwing up our hands and saying that the deaths of children like Allison are inevitable, something no one is responsible for, like bad weather. We know that the crash that ended our daughter’s life was preventable, as are so many collisions. That’s one reason we say Crash not Accident. Another reason is that “accident” is not neutral. It implies a lack of guilt. Yet reporters often use the word in news stories before crash investigations are complete, just as they did in Allison’s case.

“It was just an accident.” That’s what drunk drivers used to say after killing or injuring someone in a crash, before MADD led its successful campaigns to stigmatize and criminalize DWI. As a result of their efforts, today we expect people to be held accountable when they’re caught drinking and driving. When a plane crashes, we don’t call it an “accident.” We expect a thorough investigation to determine how similar disasters can be prevented in the future.

[Hassel99]

/shrug, or they could just come to terms with the proper use of the word.

Social justice warriors and their campaigns /sigh what a world.

[krocky]

Social justice warriors and their campaigns /sigh what a world.

Finally, something we can agree on.. Cheers mate..!!

[mexi cali]

Accident and intent. Two very different words yet inextricably linked.

Accident; did not intend to.

Incident; an occurrence.

My issue with the word accident is that it in and of itself is devoid of ownership. As if to say while I consciously drank to excess and decided to drive and consequently ran my car off the road, the level of ownership is diminished as the intent was not to drive off the road.

However, you go into the bar sober and in your mind you know that the stakes are higher for "accidents" when alcohol is involved and driving is undertaken, it makes it less accidental because in my mind, there was intent.

Not driving to the road conditions and driving off the road to me demonstrates a level of intent because there is knowledge that driving carelessly in poor conditions has a much increased opportunity of incident.

Maybe what we should really be calling "incidents" like this is "cause and effect". Or maybe we prefer this term; rolling the dice.

Or lets bring in more legal terms; diminished capacity which is what his lawyer will argue.

I taught my kids that at very early ages. That they couldn't break the glass when they picked it up with soapy hands and call it an accident.

However, be that as it may, the law will refer to this as an accident, in 2 or maybe 3 years this shittt stain will got to court and he may see time behind bars. He may receive a driving ban. he can drive now because he hasn't been convicted yet (that may not be entirely accurate but I think so).

And life will go on except for the dead girls and their families.

So lets move past the definitions of words that have zero bearing on the outcome.

[Smurf]

I have to agree that the outcome is much more important than the words used, unless of course the words really do affect the outcome. If that is the case and I can definitely see where they easily could, then the wording should absolutely be changed.

[dogspoiler]

The emergency workers refer to them as M.V.I.'s . Motor vehicle incidents. Doing this will avoid endless pointless word games.