🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Article View: dc.driving
Article #14111

Re: Daily gripe: Feds change "accident" to "crash"

#14111
From: John R Cambron
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 00:00
51 lines
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-mail
References: <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