To call these collisions is objectively accurate. To call them accidents is subjective until further evidence accrues. Even if you're a direct witness to the collision and the driver claims they didn't mean to do it, you can't call it an accident yet because you can't read their mind. The driver could be lying. How many parents here have witnessed their young child do something bad right in front of them only to hear the child say it was an accident? They lied straight to your face because deception is an ingrained part of our biological drive for self preservation. The key difference is that children are terrible liars, whereas grown adults have been around the block and learned to be better at it. I can accept the claim of "accident" if someone bumps into me in the hallway since the level of harm, if any, is extremely minimal. However, when somebody kills another human being with their multi-ton vehicle, I think it's reasonable to demand more than a hall pass and a note from Mom. We don't take this accident stance when one person shoots and kills another. We automatically assume the worst and wait for the investigation to reveal whether or not there was intent. Even in the absence of intent, we don't let the perpetrator off the hook if there was gross negligence. Yet, when motor vehicles kill the same amount of Americans annually as firearms, somehow we're willing to accept at face value that it was an accident.