🚀 go-pugleaf

Scott M. Kozel wrote:
> 
> Walt Horning <whorning@pipeline.com> wrote:
> >
> > "Scott M. Kozel" <kozelsm@richmond.infi.net> wrote:
> >
> > >Walt Horning <whorning@pipeline.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Well, if you have an accident, even if it truly is an accident, it is
> > >> no longer to be called an "accident" by one federal agency, but a
> > >> "crash". In otherwords, it will no longer be called "accident
> > >> statistics" but "crash statistics".
> > >
> > >"Crash" is a poor word, IMO.
> > >
> > >What if a car goes into a creek?  It doesn't go "crash", it goes
> > >"splash".  What if a car catches fire, it doesn't go "crash", it goes
> > >"whoosh" or "foom".
> 
> What if a car's gas tank explodes, it doesn't go "crash", it goes
> "boom".

More of a "fwoomp," I think. 


> > Yes, and if the car goes off a cliff with no guard rail, while
> > airborne, it may only "whistle" for awhile. (The impact with the
> > ground is merely incidental and after the fact that it left the road
> > and went airborne, so it does not count.)
> 
> Depends on where it landed.  If on land, it could be called a
> "whistle-crash".  If in a lake/river/creek, it could be called a
> "whistle-splash".

When you think about it, only Corvettes and other fiberglass cars really
"crash."  Metal cars crunch or crumple.
 
> Of course, I'll be satisfied to continue use the traditional term
> "accident".  Unless a motorist actually does it "on purpose", then it's
> an "accident", IMO; even if there was reckless driving, that doesn't
> mean that it's not an "accident".

True.