In NYC the urbanists have a trend of saying "crash" instead of "accident" when referring to traffic collisions. They feel that "accident" gives the driver too much credit in situations where they were completely at fault for not looking, going too fast, running a light, etc.
> In NYC the urbanists have a trend of saying "crash" instead of "accident" when referring to traffic collisions.
Everyone I've known in law enforcement, especially CHP officers, does this by default (though they tend to prefer “collision”) when referring to an event where a car hit something. As one of them explained, “collision” or “crash” is a readily discernable physical fact; “accident” is a conclusion about the mental state of the participants.
Which by the way is idiotic. Last century, people switched from "crash" to "accident" for exactly the same reason -- to shift liability from the machine to the operator. IT's a nonsensical euphemism treadmill.
The idea that an "accident" isn't the drivers false is an absurd premise. Drivers are obligated to be diligent. "Crash" is a neutral term that doesn't assign liability to anyone.
