GamblerGORD53

The most likely scenario I see, is that the left trailer wheel was to the left of the rumble strip, but could still be in the shoulder.
And maybe the car was squeezed by other traffic.
Yesterday I rode 119 miles on my heavy tour bike. I was bothering nobody, 5 feet from the line with a 4 vehicle bunch going by. Long travel trailer, car, pickup truck and another car.
I heard something on the rumbles behind me. The truck buzzed by within a foot of me, seemed on purpose to me. I was too tired to react at all, and going slow into the wind.

rydabent

Uh------------------carelessness and ignorance is NO accident.

rydabent

BTW Is the driver under arrest?

njkayaker

Both. There's nothing that requires this scenario to be unavoidable.

It's really no different than the case where one of the vehicles was running a red light, The person with the green should have some idea that the red light might be run: that's basic defensive driving.

(Anyway, I don't think traffic signals fail this way at all.)

This might be a case that is unavoidable.

Rydabent's statement is an exaggeration. But this position makes people more safe because it encourages defensive driving. (It doesn't make truly unavoidable situations less safe.)

You, on the other hand, see avoidable situations (the green light example) as unavoidable. This position makes people less safe.

N2deep

WRONG, you assume that because it was termed an "Accident" that no one was at fault, nothing could be further from the truth, actually it's a lie from the pits of hell designed to let people off the hook. If investigated properly they will determine the causal factors of the accident and publish their findings.

I'm not going to assume the cager was at fault, but someone failed to control their vehicle and devastated a family. Remember, the bike has a legal right to ride in the road, they are not limited to riding on the side.

njkayaker

The first definition is considered the common/usual one.

Safety advocates (car or bicycle) prefer "collision" over "accident".

The reason why is the first definition.

To most people, "accident" suggests "unavoidable", which is not always the case and might be rare.

"Collision" is considered more neutral (it doesn't suggest "by chance" or "unavoidable").

noimagination

You all are doing violence to the English language. You are changing the definition of a basic word to fit your prejudices. While you are entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts (nor, your own definitions).

If I ACCIDENTALLY knock over a glass full of water, it is my FAULT for not noticing the glass when I moved my hand. The fact that it is my FAULT does not mean it is not an ACCIDENT.

Again, read the dictionary definition. You don't get to change the definition to suit yourselves.

N2deep

Too Funny, Obliviously your definition is constrained, or maybe self-absorbed. What happened to this family was not an accident, it was preventable and to call it an accident is a calloused attempt to divert responsibility.

njkayaker

You keep ignoring/skipping-over this part.

https://johnsonlivingston.com/its-ca...-car-accident/
https://safetydriven.ca/resource/accident-or-collision/

https://crashnotaccident.com/

noimagination

Cherry picking. YOU skipped over this part: "lack of intention or necessity".

Again, you all are distorting the DEFINITION of accident. This is not opinion, or interpretation. This is the literal DEFINITION of a word.

Look, I get it. It is disturbing to realize that our lives are governed so much by happenstance, and it is comforting to deny the term "accident" and instead ascribe events to intention/malice/design. Whether or not the particular incident that is the subject of this thread is an "accident" is not yet determined, as far as I've read. But you don't get to change the definition of a word to fit your particular prejudices. Some accidents are preventable, others are not. That does not mean that preventable accidents are not accidents.

Sorry, but you and those that agree with you are simply wrong. Not only that, you are DEMONSTRABLY wrong.

Webster's dictionary definition:
1a: an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance. Their meeting was an accident.
b: lack of intention or necessity : CHANCE They met by accident rather than by design.
2a: an unfortunate event resulting especially from carelessness or ignorance was involved in a traffic accident.

American Heritage dictionary definition:
1.
a. An unexpected and undesirable event, especially one resulting in damage or harm: an accident on the assembly line; car accidents on icy roads.
b. An unforeseen event that is not the result of intention or has no apparent cause: A series of happy accidents led to his promotion.

Cambridge Dictionary:
something bad that happens that is not expected or intended and that often damages something or injures someone:

Britannica Dictionary
1 : a sudden event (such as a crash) that is not planned or intended and that causes damage or injury
2 : an event that is not planned or intended : an event that occurs by chance

And so on.

Sorry, but YOU ARE WRONG. Absolutely, categorically, demonstrably WRONG.

GhostRider62

Motorists crashing into us are not unforeseen if they were looking at the road.

I prefer to use the word crash.

Who knows who is at fault.

I put the blame on the traffic engineer and her boss who shoved rumble strips up our asses.

noimagination

Please show me where I am "attempt(ing) to divert responsibility". I have no opinion on whether or not the incident described in the original post was an accident or not, and nowhere do I try to show that it was an accident. Also, nowhere do I argue that people causing accidents are not responsible for the results simply because it was an "accident' and not intentional.

If you actually read my original post, I was objecting to the nonsense statement by Daniel4 "The article(s) state that it was an accident, which does not exist." Subsequently, there was the equally nonsensical statement by rydabent "A collision between a car and a bike is never an accident. Someone did something wrong."

I am arguing against people spouting errant nonsense, to whit: that the word "accident" excludes events that are caused by carelessness, inattention and so on. Or, to use your words, that something that is "preventable" is not an accident. This is ignorant baloney, hokum, drivel, balderdash, false, bzzzt, sorry, you are incorrect, please try again.

The very definition of the word, as noted in several citations I listed in a post above, and in common usage, CLEARLY and UNABIGUOUSLY demonstrate that the word "accident" is specifically intended to include events due to carelessness, inattention, and the like.

Res ipsa loquitur.

Daniel4

Accident is the term we use for a mode of transportation that causes over 38,000 deaths per year in the US, one death every second somewhere in the world.


"The primary meaning of the word accident is that it was not intended or planned. That means there is no one to blame. In the case of a car “accident,” calling it an accident may mean you are letting someone off the hook for blame."

https://www.motorbiscuit.com/collisi...ts-same-thing/

We don't ever consider aircraft incidences as accidents even though it is the safest mode of transportation in the world. Incidences involve hundreds and hundreds of hours of investigations usually resulting in new regulations and improved standards.

Why is bad driving an acceptable norm? Drivers (except under DUI and suspended licences) who cause the death of pedestrians and cyclists are usually released without charges at most fined.

njkayaker

No one is arguing that an "accident" is the result of intention!

The objection that some people have with the term "accident" is the common impression that it is a thing that couldn't have been avoided (something due purely to chance).

While some incidents are unavoidable, it's fewer than many people assume. That is, many of the things that many people think are unavoidable are due to people being less careful than they should be.

The problem with the term "accident" is that you could want to communicate the other meanings but many people will understand it with this meaning (the one you keep imagining doesn't exist).

You have not control over what definition other people will use as the definition.

This is kind a complicated argument (likely not one with "noimagination" will understand).

Anyway, why does it matter that some other people prefer (with reasons!) another word?

noimagination

So, the actual, literal, documented definition, you say, "doesn't exist". While we're supposed to instead define the word based on your interpretation supported by nothing other than your say-so and in direct contradiction to documented fact. This type of "imagination" I can do without.

I have no objection if people prefer to use words other than "accident" to describe a crash between a car and a bike (or, any other car crash). What I object to is the ignorant statements in this thread regarding what the term "accident" means. You don't get to use the word differently because you want to. Words have definitions. They are written down for your reference. See above.

And, you're wrong that people interpret the word "accident" to mean an event that "couldn't have been avoided".
- I had an "accident", I peed my pants. That could have been avoided by using the bathroom, or wearing a diaper, or drinking less fluid, or....
- I bumped into you by accident. That could have been avoided by paying attention, or by staying still.
- I accidentally left my phone at home. That could have been avoided by checking my pockets before leaving the house.
And so on, and so on.
These and similar statements are commonly used and are commonly understood. There is no "common impression that it (an accident) is a thing that couldn't have been avoided". That is simply, factually, incorrect.

njkayaker

No. That's your reading comprehension failure. I didn't say it didn't exist (go back and read it again).

So, peeing in your pants is the same thing as a collision that might actually kill people?

This sort of usage is part of why some people object to the use of "accident" to describe collisions. The word tends to trivialize the responsibility drivers are supposed to adhere to.

noimagination

Sorry, I can see I have to explain.

I listed the sentences in my post to demonstrate that the word "accident" does not mean an event that could not have been avoided, as you contended (but for which contention you offered no support). There was no intent to equate the "accidents" (sorry, I know you don't think that's a word) listed to a collision that killed people. You're simply trying to stir controversy because you have no coherent argument.

If you think that the word "accident" has anything to do with "responsibility", then that's too bad. The fact that they are different words should offer a clue, but that evidently escapes you. "Accident" describes the event, it has nothing to say about the cause of the event, nor about responsibility, nor about the consequences of the event. I've tried to explain, but you are impervious to explanation, it seems. I've demonstrated through citations and clear, relevant examples that you're incorrect, but you keep bringing up irrelevancies. If that is your conception of "winning" an argument, then I concede. You win.

njkayaker

Crap. I didn't say that either.

You are missing the point. Over and over again. Maybe, if you were not "noimagination", you'd be able to get it.

So, peeing in your pants is the same thing as a collision that might actually kill people?

rydabent

If there was a car - bike collision, how can no one be at fault?

rydabent

Again was the driver arrested?

rydabent

If all cyclist rode with the Idea that all auto driver are out to hit them there would be fewer "accidents"!!! Never never never assume the right of way.

tomato coupe

Both the cyclist and driver were laughing hysterically at a recumbent rider, and accidentally bumped into each other. Neither was at fault.

njkayaker

It might be quite rare but it's not impossible.

A cyclist slips on black ice (hard to see) and slides into a car that was passing at 4+ feet.

mr_bill

Wow. Just wow.

You've both "WITNESSED" this?

We return to our originally scheduled compassion-free I don't see dead people thread.

-mr. bill

tomato coupe

It wasn't black ice, but a rider in our group hit something that took him down. His bike shot sideways and was hit by a car that was passing him. No one was at fault and, luckily, his injuries were minor.