|
Welcome to the ATSIP Discussion Board! If you are an ATSIP member, you have already been registered! Your username is your first initial and last name (IE: John Doe = jdoe), your password is the same that you use to log in to the membership site. |
Accident versus Crash |
Post Reply 
|
Page <12 |
| Author | |
wstanley 
ATSIP Member 
ANSI D16 Panel Member Joined: Mar/29/2016 Location: Washington Status: Offline Points: 13 |
 Post Options
 Thanks(2)
 Quote Reply
 Posted: Jun/14/2016 at 1:43pm |
|
In 2000 our state originally shifted from accident to collision and in 2014 adopted crash. I also agree that the safety community should adopt one uniform term of crash.
|
|
 |
|
|
tgorman
ATSIP Member
Joined: Jun/06/2016 Location: CT Status: Offline Points: 19 |
Post Options
Thanks(2)
Quote Reply
Posted: Jun/19/2016 at 11:15pm |
|
The term crash is becoming more prevalent and
is being taught as the proper description of the event. Crash
investigation doesn't imply that it was accidental as many layers seem to want
the term of accident to imply. In CT it is called a "Connecticut
Uniform Crash Report". I have to put my vote in for
"crash"! In regards to the earlier question/statement of running off the
roadway - if there is no damage then it is not a crash, if there is any type of
"harmful" event, regardless of how minor it may be then it would be
considered a crash. |
|
|
|
|
JeffLarason
New User 
Joined: Jun/30/2016 Location: Boston Status: Offline Points: 2 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Jul/01/2016 at 10:30am |
|
It's a question of accuracy. Not all crashes are "accidents". While it's also true that not all incidents are crashes, at least crash does not make a statement of personal fault, blame, intent. "Accident" says something about the actions and behaviors of the people involved - crash, collision, wreck do not.
The Associated Press has directed media reporters to avoid using "accident" in any crash event in which negligence is claimed or proven. This is a statement that drunk, drugged, distracted, high speed, aggressive and other negligent crashes should not be called "accidents". Not to mention that intentional events (road rage, murder, vehicular suicide) are in no way "accidents". In calling an incident "accident" we make a statement about the circumstances, and the mindset of the involved parties. We are stating that there was no negligence and that there was no intent. Again, in some cases this may be true, but we should not use a word that states this assumption. Crash does not make any accusation or implication of guilt, fault or blame. It is a neutral statement regarding a physical circumstance. In addition to AP, as noted in other comments, NHTSA and AAMVA have long standing policies with regard to avoiding the word, as does the International Association of Chiefs of Police. Words have meaning. We should use a word that most accurately reflects the circumstances and represents our knowledge of that circumstance. I most cases we know it's an crash, we don't know that it's an "accident".
|
|
|
Jeff Larason
|
|
|
|
|
Kellee_TSASS
Administrator 
Board Administrator Joined: Mar/24/2016 Location: Ohio Status: Offline Points: 58 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Jul/18/2016 at 12:42pm |
|
I am attaching the current
version of D.16 with changes from accident to crash. In changing the
terminology, I did not feel that ATSIP has either the expertise or the
authority to change the term in regard to aircraft, watercraft or railway
accidents. I did, however, change the term in cases related to road
vehicle crashes. This includes other-road-vehicle crashes and street car
crashes. Please review and advise if the current changes are adequate, or
have overstepped the bounds of this consensus body. Other-road-vehicles
and street cars were issues that I questioned. Thanks for your review and
comments related to the changes in this document.uploads/4/ANSI_D.16_-_CrashVSAccident-doc.doc
Joan Vecchi Edited by Kellee_TSASS - Jul/18/2016 at 12:44pm |
|
|
|
|
mmcdonald
ATSIP Member
ANSI D16 Panel Member Joined: Apr/22/2016 Location: Wilmington DE Status: Offline Points: 21 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Aug/08/2016 at 9:41pm |
|
I concur with Joan and Bob Scopatz that it was not by "accident" that the term accident has been replaced for some time now with the work crash. It took me some time and I often used them inter-changeably and some still do, but now most refer to the term crash for many of the reasons Bob points out.
|
|
|
Michael McDonald
ANSI D16 Panel Member Delaware State Police Director, Information Technology 302-672-5444 |
|
|
|
|
jdolan
ATSIP Member
ANSI D16 Panel Member Joined: Mar/29/2016 Location: Tennessee Status: Offline Points: 22 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Aug/19/2016 at 5:40pm |
MMUCC does not include roadway departure as a harmful event, and ANSI defines a harmful event as " an occurrence
of injury or damage." So, I think it's clear that merely leaving the roadway does not constitute a crash.
|
|
|
|
|
jdolan
ATSIP Member
ANSI D16 Panel Member Joined: Mar/29/2016 Location: Tennessee Status: Offline Points: 22 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Aug/19/2016 at 6:51pm |
If we insist on leaving 2.4.9 as "accident," but changing 2.4.12 and its included definitions to crash, then there are many places in the document where one would have to be careful to use both terms. Also, that still requires 2.4.12 to be included in 2.4.9 as an "accident." So, then a crash is defined as an accident. Now, because this is a manual for classifying motor vehicle accidents I find it a little strange that D.16 even addresses accidents that do not involve a motor vehicle as defined in 2.2.7, which 2.4.9 appears to do. Why not get rid of 2.4.9, and make every crash ("accident") defined in D.16 a subset of those defined in 2.4.12, which are really the only accidents to which this standard applies (according to the title)? Then you could use the word crash, like the majority of the traffic safety community, without worry that it isn't appropriate for some definitions in the standard, which aren't necessary for the classification of motor vehicle crashes anyway.
Edited by jdolan - Aug/19/2016 at 6:58pm |
|
|
|
|
JeffLarason
New User
Joined: Jun/30/2016 Location: Boston Status: Offline Points: 2 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Sep/15/2016 at 4:07pm |
|
I know much of this discussion has been technical in nature, and I was not able to attend what sounds like a fruitful discussion in Baltimore. I thought this quote from Justice Kagan in the majority opinion in Voisine versus US might be of some interest. Thanks.
“Reckless conduct, which requires the conscious disregard of a
known risk, is not an accident: It involves a deliberate decision to endanger
another.” |
|
|
Jeff Larason
|
|
|
|
|
Post Reply
|
Page <12 |
Tweet
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Topic Options
Mark Pritchard wrote: