Originally Posted by
LV2TNDM
Wow, if you can't possibly wrap your tiny brain around what I wrote, then further explanation won't help. But continuing to use the "A" work makes you complicit in the ongoing immediate exoneration of drivers. You continue to be part of the problem.
It would take a tiny brain to buy that you have any clue about anything.
I'll take that petty and pitiful libel as an admission you can't logically answer what I wrote.
And as to my supposed "exoneration of drivers", you're just pointedly ignoring what I actually wrote:
If you really want to adopt a term that conveys what's going on here, I'm all in. You want to adopt something evocative of the real tragedy? Pick a really better term. How about "person/people hit by car/truck" or "vehicular killing and maiming"? If that's too long, how about "vehicular slaughter"?
" Crash" and "collision" don't even refer to people at all, and cover everything from a minor fender bender to ramming a full school bus into a gas truck. "Incident" is even worse than "accident" as it doesn't even convey any sense of misadventure. "Incidental" implies insignificance."
By advocating for "crash" and "collision", you are complicit in disguising the actual nature of the problem.
By advocating for the word "incident", you're complicit in denying that motor vehicles hitting people is even a bad thing. Is that the level of your argument?