Government considering raising motorway speed limit to 80mph 'toshorten journey times and help economy'

On Mar 11, 2:59*am, Nate Nagel > wrote:
> On 03/10/2011 11:50 PM, Matthew Russotto wrote:
>
> > In >,
> > > *wrote:
>
> >> Very few traffic incidents are accidents. *The vast majority are due
> >> to driver error, and are easily preventable. *If you don't recognize
> >> that, then you are part of the problem.
>
> > An incident which occurs due to error, preventable or otherwise is an
> > "accident".
>
> The word "accident," in common usage when applied to a traffic incident,
> carries connotations of a lack of fault. *Therefore I do not like to use
> it, because it likely doesn't apply.
>
> nate
>
> --
> replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Then what term _do_ you want to use? Unfortunately it is the "common
usage" that rules how a term is used in languages.

Harry K

On Mar 11, 3:00*am, Nate Nagel > wrote:
> On 03/11/2011 04:15 AM, Guy Olsen wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 10, 9:37 am, > *wrote:
> >> On 2011-03-10, Guy > *wrote:
>
> >>> On Mar 9, 8:49 am, > *wrote:
> >>> "Accident" and "preventable" are not mutually exclusive. *The only MVA
> >>> (not MVC) that is not an accident is an assault with a vehicle.
>
> >>> That does not, however, exonerate the parties at fault in *accidents*,
> >>> nor relieve anyone of the obligation to prevent them -- and that goes
> >>> beyond just drivers.
>
> >> The problem is that way too many people in north america consider
> >> traffic collisions to be something like bad weather. That they can do
> >> nothing to prevent them only reduce the severity of the damage. This is
> >> part of why we have absurdly low speed limits. Because of this nothing
> >> is done about all sorts of horrible driving that puts vehicles on
> >> collision courses. The mentality is ass-backwards and calling
> >> collisions "accidents" is part of that mentality.
>
> > You are sure reading a LOT into a simple choice of words. *Again,
> > "accident" does not imply unpreventable, just not deliberate.
>
> > Guy Olsen, PE(NJ), PTOE
>
> I'm with Brent on this one. *I'm sick of listening to people bitch about
> having been in an "accident" like it's bad weather or a broken sump pump
> or something. *I *want* to say "you were in an accident because you were
> a ****ty driver, you know" but sometimes that isn't PC.
>
> nate
>
> --
> replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

While I agree that "automobile accident" in most cases is not an
accident, it is the common term and is embedded in the language. No
amount of pedantry is going to change it.

Another dictionary result does allow it though:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/accident

3. any event that happens unexpectedly, without a deliberate plan or
cause.


Harry K

On Mar 11, 10:37*am, Harry K > wrote:
> On Mar 11, 2:59*am, Nate Nagel > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 03/10/2011 11:50 PM, Matthew Russotto wrote:
>
> > > In >,
> > > > *wrote:
>
> > >> Very few traffic incidents are accidents. *The vast majority are due
> > >> to driver error, and are easily preventable. *If you don't recognize
> > >> that, then you are part of the problem.
>
> > > An incident which occurs due to error, preventable or otherwise is an
> > > "accident".
>
> > The word "accident," in common usage when applied to a traffic incident,
> > carries connotations of a lack of fault. *Therefore I do not like to use
> > it, because it likely doesn't apply.
>
> > nate
>
> > --
> > replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel
>
> Then what term _do_ you want to use? *Unfortunately it is the "common
> usage" that rules how a term is used in languages.
>
> Harry K

"wreck," "crash," "incident," anything that doesn't imply lack of
responsibility like "accident" does.

Which sounds like the speaker is accepting responsibility for his
actions:

"I crashed my car the other day."

"I was involved in an accident the other day."

Unfortunately, the second *is* common usage, and IMO is indicative of
the ****ed up mindset that we have towards traffic crashes.

nate

On 2011-03-11, Harry K > wrote:

> While I agree that "automobile accident" in most cases is not an
> accident, it is the common term and is embedded in the language. No
> amount of pedantry is going to change it.

Language undergoes lots of changes some of them deliberate and
purposeful. The use of "accident" is the left over of an outdated way of
thinking and thus should fall out of usage. It comes from the same
mentality of unpadded steel dash boards and no seat belts. That
collisions are some act of god we can do nothing about. Many of the old
arguments against safety equipment are based on this "accident"
mentality. That it's just something we have to live (and die) with.

Nate Nagel > wrote:
>On 03/10/2011 03:35 AM, Ray Fischer wrote:
>> > wrote:
>>> On Mar 9, 1:44 am, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 8, 2:19 am, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mar 6, 9:34 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>> Nate > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 03/06/2011 07:05 PM, Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Nate > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/06/2011 03:19 PM, Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> The crazy anti-semite racist nazi who started this thread screeches
>>>>>>>>>>>> that everybody MUST drive slower in order to save lives. I just point
>>>>>>>>>>>> out that 35MPH is about the maximum safe speed.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If you're planning on bumping into stuff, that may well be true.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I prefer to avoid bumping into stuff, and would really appreciate it if
>>>>>>>>>>> those that don't mind bumping into stuff were prohibited from driving
>>>>>>>>>>> (and I don't mean just that their licenses were revoked.)
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Their"? Why not yours? Or do you believe that you're immune?
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Since a) I actually pay attention to what the **** I'm doing while
>>>>>>>>> driving and b) have only made one insurance claim related to a vehicle
>>>>>>>>> that I owned, that for being hit while parked, and having been driving
>>>>>>>>> for something like 20 years now, I am confident in saying that I'm
>>>>>>>>> definitely in the "above average" category of driver.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> And should you be distracted that ONE time and "bump" into something
>>>>>>>> and then lose your car and your license as a result? Then what?
>>>>
>>>>>>> I'd deserve it.
>>>>
>>>>>> So you believe that people should have their lives ruined for denting
>>>>>> another car.
>>>>
>>>>>> You're a crazy extremist.
>>>>
>>>>> really? You feel that you have an inalienable right to damage other
>>>>> people's property and endanger them?
>>>>
>>>> Are you really this stupid? People get into "accidents". They pay to
>>>> have the damage "repaired". Ruining a person's life because some
>>>> crazy extremist can't grasp those concepts is malicious stupidity.
>>>>
>>>>> I don't think that *I* am the
>>>>> extremist here,
>>>>
>>>> Oh, you are, without a doubt.
>>>
>>> Very few traffic incidents are accidents. The vast majority are due
>>> to driver error, and are easily preventable.
>>
>> Just expect people to be infallible and destroy them when they're not.
>>
>> The insanity of the irrational extremist.
>
>I expect people to take due care in the operation of their motor vehicles.

That's not what you wrote before.

>Unfortunately I apparently am the only one.

So you're just an arrogant ass with delusions of infallibility.

>If you don't want to be "destroyed" by your **** poor driving, don't be
>a **** poor driver.

"If you don't want to be murdered for being an asshole then don't be
an asshole."

--
Ray Fischer | Mendacracy (n.) government by lying
| The new GOP ideal

On Mar 11, 8:25*am, N8N > wrote:
> On Mar 11, 10:37*am, Harry K > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 11, 2:59*am, Nate Nagel > wrote:
>
> > > On 03/10/2011 11:50 PM, Matthew Russotto wrote:
>
> > > > In >,
> > > > > *wrote:
>
> > > >> Very few traffic incidents are accidents. *The vast majority are due
> > > >> to driver error, and are easily preventable. *If you don't recognize
> > > >> that, then you are part of the problem.
>
> > > > An incident which occurs due to error, preventable or otherwise is an
> > > > "accident".
>
> > > The word "accident," in common usage when applied to a traffic incident,
> > > carries connotations of a lack of fault. *Therefore I do not like to use
> > > it, because it likely doesn't apply.
>
> > > nate
>
> > > --
> > > replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel
>
> > Then what term _do_ you want to use? *Unfortunately it is the "common
> > usage" that rules how a term is used in languages.
>
> > Harry K
>
> "wreck," "crash," "incident," anything that doesn't imply lack of
> responsibility like "accident" does.
>
> Which sounds like the speaker is accepting responsibility for his
> actions:
>
> "I crashed my car the other day."
>
> "I was involved in an accident the other day."
>
> Unfortunately, the second *is* common usage, and IMO is indicative of
> the ****ed up mindset that we have towards traffic crashes.
>
> nate- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Exactly and there is no hope of changing it.

Harry K

On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 07:50:05 -0800 (PST), Harry K
> wrote:

>On Mar 11, 3:00*am, Nate Nagel > wrote:
>> On 03/11/2011 04:15 AM, Guy Olsen wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 10, 9:37 am, > *wrote:
>> >> On 2011-03-10, Guy > *wrote:
>>
>> >>> On Mar 9, 8:49 am, > *wrote:
>> >>> "Accident" and "preventable" are not mutually exclusive. *The only MVA
>> >>> (not MVC) that is not an accident is an assault with a vehicle.
>>
>> >>> That does not, however, exonerate the parties at fault in *accidents*,
>> >>> nor relieve anyone of the obligation to prevent them -- and that goes
>> >>> beyond just drivers.
>>
>> >> The problem is that way too many people in north america consider
>> >> traffic collisions to be something like bad weather. That they can do
>> >> nothing to prevent them only reduce the severity of the damage. This is
>> >> part of why we have absurdly low speed limits. Because of this nothing
>> >> is done about all sorts of horrible driving that puts vehicles on
>> >> collision courses. The mentality is ass-backwards and calling
>> >> collisions "accidents" is part of that mentality.
>>
>> > You are sure reading a LOT into a simple choice of words. *Again,
>> > "accident" does not imply unpreventable, just not deliberate.
>>
>> > Guy Olsen, PE(NJ), PTOE
>>
>> I'm with Brent on this one. *I'm sick of listening to people bitch about
>> having been in an "accident" like it's bad weather or a broken sump pump
>> or something. *I *want* to say "you were in an accident because you were
>> a ****ty driver, you know" but sometimes that isn't PC.
>>
>> nate
>>
>> --
>> replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>While I agree that "automobile accident" in most cases is not an
>accident, it is the common term and is embedded in the language. No
>amount of pedantry is going to change it.
>
>Another dictionary result does allow it though:
>
>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/accident
>
>3. any event that happens unexpectedly, without a deliberate plan or
>cause.
>
>
>Harry K


the safety mavens at the fed and state level are switching to calling
them all crashes instead of accidents. It's silly semantics and won't
do a thing to change anything but it will make them all feel better
about themselves.

On Mar 12, 12:23*am, Ashton Crusher > wrote:
>
> the safety mavens at the fed and state level are switching to calling
> them all crashes instead of accidents.

The Feds started in 1994.

> It's silly semantics

I don't think you know what semantics means. Believe it or not, words
have meanings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics

> and won't
> do a thing to change anything

What change is intended...?

> but it will make them all feel better
> about themselves.

How...?
-----

- gpsman

On 03/11/2011 11:16 PM, Ray Fischer wrote:
> Nate > wrote:
>> On 03/10/2011 03:35 AM, Ray Fischer wrote:
>>> > wrote:
>>>> On Mar 9, 1:44 am, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>> On Mar 8, 2:19 am, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mar 6, 9:34 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Nate > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 03/06/2011 07:05 PM, Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Nate > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/06/2011 03:19 PM, Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The crazy anti-semite racist nazi who started this thread screeches
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that everybody MUST drive slower in order to save lives. I just point
>>>>>>>>>>>>> out that 35MPH is about the maximum safe speed.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If you're planning on bumping into stuff, that may well be true.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I prefer to avoid bumping into stuff, and would really appreciate it if
>>>>>>>>>>>> those that don't mind bumping into stuff were prohibited from driving
>>>>>>>>>>>> (and I don't mean just that their licenses were revoked.)
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Their"? Why not yours? Or do you believe that you're immune?
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Since a) I actually pay attention to what the **** I'm doing while
>>>>>>>>>> driving and b) have only made one insurance claim related to a vehicle
>>>>>>>>>> that I owned, that for being hit while parked, and having been driving
>>>>>>>>>> for something like 20 years now, I am confident in saying that I'm
>>>>>>>>>> definitely in the "above average" category of driver.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And should you be distracted that ONE time and "bump" into something
>>>>>>>>> and then lose your car and your license as a result? Then what?
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'd deserve it.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> So you believe that people should have their lives ruined for denting
>>>>>>> another car.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're a crazy extremist.
>>>>>
>>>>>> really? You feel that you have an inalienable right to damage other
>>>>>> people's property and endanger them?
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you really this stupid? People get into "accidents". They pay to
>>>>> have the damage "repaired". Ruining a person's life because some
>>>>> crazy extremist can't grasp those concepts is malicious stupidity.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think that *I* am the
>>>>>> extremist here,
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, you are, without a doubt.
>>>>
>>>> Very few traffic incidents are accidents. The vast majority are due
>>>> to driver error, and are easily preventable.
>>>
>>> Just expect people to be infallible and destroy them when they're not.
>>>
>>> The insanity of the irrational extremist.
>>
>> I expect people to take due care in the operation of their motor vehicles.
>
> That's not what you wrote before.

What I wrote before was that penalties for being at fault in a traffic
incident were not severe enough, which is also a true statement.

>
>> Unfortunately I apparently am the only one.
>
> So you're just an arrogant ass with delusions of infallibility.

I'm arrogant at times, don't particularly think I'm an ass or
infallible. What I *am* is a ****ed off good driver sick of "sharing"
the roads with people who take driving as seriously as air hockey.

>> If you don't want to be "destroyed" by your **** poor driving, don't be
>> a **** poor driver.
>
> "If you don't want to be murdered for being an asshole then don't be
> an asshole."

You'd do well to follow that advice too.

nate


--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 22:23:53 -0700, Ashton Crusher >
wrote in misc.transport.road:

>On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 07:50:05 -0800 (PST), Harry K
> wrote:
>
>>On Mar 11, 3:00*am, Nate Nagel > wrote:
>>> On 03/11/2011 04:15 AM, Guy Olsen wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > On Mar 10, 9:37 am, > *wrote:
>>> >> On 2011-03-10, Guy > *wrote:
>>>
>>> >>> On Mar 9, 8:49 am, > *wrote:
>>> >>> "Accident" and "preventable" are not mutually exclusive. *The only MVA
>>> >>> (not MVC) that is not an accident is an assault with a vehicle.
>>>
>>> >>> That does not, however, exonerate the parties at fault in *accidents*,
>>> >>> nor relieve anyone of the obligation to prevent them -- and that goes
>>> >>> beyond just drivers.
>>>
>>> >> The problem is that way too many people in north america consider
>>> >> traffic collisions to be something like bad weather. That they can do
>>> >> nothing to prevent them only reduce the severity of the damage. This is
>>> >> part of why we have absurdly low speed limits. Because of this nothing
>>> >> is done about all sorts of horrible driving that puts vehicles on
>>> >> collision courses. The mentality is ass-backwards and calling
>>> >> collisions "accidents" is part of that mentality.
>>>
>>> > You are sure reading a LOT into a simple choice of words. *Again,
>>> > "accident" does not imply unpreventable, just not deliberate.
>>>
>>> > Guy Olsen, PE(NJ), PTOE
>>>
>>> I'm with Brent on this one. *I'm sick of listening to people bitch about
>>> having been in an "accident" like it's bad weather or a broken sump pump
>>> or something. *I *want* to say "you were in an accident because you were
>>> a ****ty driver, you know" but sometimes that isn't PC.
>>>
>>> nate
>>>
>>> --
>>> replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>While I agree that "automobile accident" in most cases is not an
>>accident, it is the common term and is embedded in the language. No
>>amount of pedantry is going to change it.
>>
>>Another dictionary result does allow it though:
>>
>>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/accident
>>
>>3. any event that happens unexpectedly, without a deliberate plan or
>>cause.
>>
>>
>>Harry K
>
>
>the safety mavens at the fed and state level are switching to calling
>them all crashes instead of accidents. It's silly semantics and won't
>do a thing to change anything but it will make them all feel better
>about themselves.

I thought the point was to stop drivers who cause crashes from feeling
better about themselves.
--

ACCIDENT, n. An inevitable occurrence due to the action of immutable
natural laws. - Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary