Article View: dc.driving
Article #14111Re: Daily gripe: Feds change "accident" to "crash"
From: John R Cambron
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 00:00
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 00:00
51 lines
3402 bytes
3402 bytes
Walt Horning 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". > > I missed the name on the radio, but think it was U.S. DOT, and they > claimed that by changing from "accident" to "crash" this is going > effect everyone's thinking to make them think more seriously, that its > not an "accident" but something caused by someone, sort of to make us > all act more "responsibly". > > Wow! The death rate is going to drop by 30% now that they changed the > name!!!! People are really going to be thinking after boozing it up > that they no longer could have an "accident", but an "on purpose". And > young, inexperienced drivers are out there to do it "on purpose". > And "driver error" is going to be eradicated. > > What a crock of shit!!! What lame-brain, psychologist thought this one > up!!!! I know, someone at U.S. DOT will say that if it even saves one > life, it was worth the name change. I would agree, of course, but its > just strikes me as doing too little about more serious problems like > stopping diplomats from drinking and driving, and Congress members > too. > > Maybe they need a new slogan at DOT, like "put drunk-driving Congress > members behind bars". But I am sure DOT will find some funds shrinking > as Congress passes appropriation bills and DOT did that. > > So this is yet another attack on citizens, just like the attack on > fabricated aggressive drivers, steering our thoughts away from > lawmakers who have failed miserably at giving us better driving > conditions, and blaming citizens. The proof is in the pudding, and > those on Capitol Hill will continue to have "accidents" while the rest > of us will have "on purposes". You may think it as being PC, and all the rest of the dribble you state above. But I think it is is quite a correct reference. I have never used the term 'accident' when referring to an auto collision, or an other incidence involving one or more vehicles. As far as I am concerned there is no such thing as an accident. -- ====================================================================== NT Geek, John R Cambron Carpenter, Transit Geek, North Beach MD USA I am getting Road Geek, Remove '*' to reply by email to old Railroad Geek, fairland@mail.*chesapeake*.net for this Model Railroader HO N kind of work! ======================================================================
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<6rag3l$1sj$1@news7.ispnews.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!unknown!not-for-mailReferences:
<35d9c510.121554753@news.pipeline.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 1011e5,480ebd6afcfeb866 X-Google-Attributes: gid1011e5,public From: John R Cambron <fairland@mail.*chesapeake*.net> Subject: Re: Daily gripe: Feds change "accident" to "crash" Date: 1998/08/17 Message-ID: <6rag3l$1sj$1@news7.ispnews.com> X-Deja-AN: 382127604 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <35d9c510.121554753@news.pipeline.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: news7.ispnews.com 903398325 1939 199.75.226.172 (17 Aug 1998 23:58:45 GMT) Organization: What Organization? Mime-Version: 1.0 NNTP-Posting-Date: 17 Aug 1998 23:58:45 GMT Newsgroups: dc.driving