In NYC the urbanists have a trend of saying "crash" instead of "accident" when referring to traffic collisions. They feel that "accident" gives the driver too much credit in situations where they were completely at fault for not looking, going too fast, running a light, etc.

> In NYC the urbanists have a trend of saying "crash" instead of "accident" when referring to traffic collisions.

Everyone I've known in law enforcement, especially CHP officers, does this by default (though they tend to prefer “collision”) when referring to an event where a car hit something. As one of them explained, “collision” or “crash” is a readily discernable physical fact; “accident” is a conclusion about the mental state of the participants.

Which by the way is idiotic. Last century, people switched from "crash" to "accident" for exactly the same reason -- to shift liability from the machine to the operator. IT's a nonsensical euphemism treadmill.

The idea that an "accident" isn't the drivers false is an absurd premise. Drivers are obligated to be diligent. "Crash" is a neutral term that doesn't assign liability to anyone.

I feel that this sentiment could be applied to almost anything and isn't really meaningful. Almost every accident ever could be attributed to negligence somewhere.

I think the point here is a firearm in particular is designed to project deadly force and should be treated as such. If someone "accidentally" shoots someone, it means they were negligent in their treatment of the instrument in their hand.

Autonomous vehicles are expected to be able to safely navigate a large variety of streets and highways, and possibly trails and countryside in the future, without killing anybody else around or killing the people inside, nor destroying the fixtures and buildings that make up your typical city street. The only problem is cars are inherently deadly, go look up the number of people that have died in automobile "accidents" since the automobile was invented, total it up for just one country. They need to be treated with and afforded the same respect as any other instrument intended to project deadly force, because they do, as do whatever algorithms are controlling the instrument.

I try pretty hard to refer to "vehicle collisions" and things like that instead of "car accidents".

So yeah.

Agreed; more generally, there's a movement to avoid calling these incidents "crashes" instead of "accidents", since it's arguable that crashes are avoidable: https://www.crashnotaccident.com/

Accidents are avoidable. Legislating euphemisms is feelgood nonsense.

This is a dumb saying that ignores the fact that humans are fallible beings who make mistakes.

Sure, you might shoot yourself because you're just careless with your gun. Or you might be also thinking of an argument you had with your spouse, or you might be tired when you're handling your everyday carry on your way to work, or you might get startled, or a million and one other things that might prevent you from singly focusing your attention the gun you're handling.

Machines exist to serve us, not the other way around. If a product doesn't take human habits and flaws into account, it's a bad product, because over a large enough sample size someone will make a mistake.

> This is a dumb saying that ignores the fact that humans are fallible beings who make mistakes.

It's not, because the basic rules of gun handling are designed in such a way that failing to obey one of them will not result in injury. They are:

* Never point a gun at anything you don't wish to destroy * Keep your finger off the trigger until you're ready to fire * Always assume the gun is loaded * Know your target and what's beyond it.

> Machines exist to serve us, not the other way around. If a product doesn't take human habits and flaws into account, it's a bad product, because over a large enough sample size someone will make a mistake.

Modern firearms are absolutely designed to this criteria - it takes a willful act to discharge them. If someone "mistakenly" fires a gun and hits someone, it requires multiple failures and clearly rises to the point of negligence.

As long as you follow the basic rules of car safety, you won't crash. Stay within the speed limit, be aware of your surroundings, keep a safe distance from the car in front of you, signal 100 feet before a turn. Unless someone else doesn't follow the basic rules of car safety!

You know what system we've come up with to improve car safety that has only one rule to remember? Always wear your seatbelt.

You know what we've come up with that requires zero effort from the driver? Laminated glass. Crumple zones. Airbags. Automatic braking.

This isn't about whether people use a product negligently — put it in enough hands and it will happen. The point is to design products such that the consequence of negligence is not injury or death.

I agree completely. Here, there's perhaps negligence of the system, and the driver that was supposed to be overriding it in situations like this.