Talk:Accident/Archive 1

25 October 2003

This page is a bit bizarre in its current form. The general intro is fine, but then to have a (longish) section on bicycle accidents yet not mentioning significant shipwrecks, air accidents, major car pile-ups, etc is weird!!! Calls for a significant reworking, IMO. GRAHAMUK 23:34, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

25 October 2005

OK, this paragaph:

"Some incidents are called accidents even if they are not accidental. The Chernobyl accident for example occurred when technicians disabled the safety system and violated a long list of safe operating procedures. The resultant explosion has been termed an "accident", even when it was clearly caused by intentional acts meant to undermine the stable operation of the plant. Such are not accidents within the literal meaning of the word, but by constant repetition, may become known as accidents."

... is just a bit silly. The paragraph of the Accident article defines accident as "unintended." The Chernobyl accident was CLEARLY unintentional. Yes, the 'acts' were intentional, but the intended outcome was a test of some of the safety features of the plant, not to cause a horrible accident. If it wasn't an accident then what was it ... a botched plot to take over the world? I propose changing this paragraph and possibly removing it. Ppe42 14:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree, it's bollocks. Of course it was an accident. I think the author is splitting semantic hairs for some reason - trying to draw a distinction where things "just happen" for no good reason, and a chain of events which lead to a particular outcome. Maybe lawyers enjoy arguing about this sort of thing, but the everyday meaning of the word accident is pretty clear. Graham 23:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

5 June 2006

For consistency, I am taking work accident and bike accident as separate entries, just like car accident. More cleanup is needed. Miguel Andrade 03:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

6 September 2006

I removed the link to cows under workplace safety, as it has the uncyclopedia nature, and thus is unfit for this page. If it actually has a place here, sorry about the remove. 83.109.216.254 21:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

13 September 2006

Why all the quotes? Saying that so-and-so many people died in "accidents" implies a lot of things. It does not take a large strech of the imagination to suggest that these people were murdered.Simen 88 18:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

13 September 2006

Just wondering about the line "Non-physical examples include babies being born.". This seems to be a bit POV. How is it an accident, unless it is assumed that all pregnancies are outside anyone's control?Simen 88 19:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• I completely agree, unless the original author can shed some light on it. 1) the wording 'babies being born' instead of 'pregnancy' is odd. 2) how is birth 'non-physical' ?? 3) I have never heard of a birth refered to as an accident.--Bridgecross 18:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Going through the history, this is a relatively recent change, and replaced a more apt example "Non-physical examples are unintendedly revealing a secret or otherwise saying something stupid, forgetting an appointment, etc." I am reverting. --Bridgecross 20:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"Gun" paragraph

The paragraph describing how guns do not go off accidentally seems out of place, as there are no other extended examples of non-accidents in the article. The page history reveals why;
In an early draft, one example of an accident is a gun going off. An editor took exception to this (and I agree); that guns rarely just "go off" and removed the reference. However they saw fit to place a "rebuttal" as to why it's not an accident, but in the article itself. IMO this should have been placed in the talk section.
Subsequently the article was pared down. There is no longer a need for this one rebuttal (to another reference which does not exist).
Editing unless somebody objects. --Bridgecross 21:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Intentional?

"Technically" accidents DO include incidents where someone is at fault. Very few accidents are completely random. Root causes the author refers to may include such things as a defect in a propeller, missed by a technician at a manufacturing plant which leads to a catastrophic failure and significant loss of life. I have studied many accident reports and what seems random rarely is. This was an accident, it was unintentional, otherwise it would have been sabotage or worse.

Carelessness is a degree of negligence, both are human failings and none of us are immune. Without the intent to cause damage or harm, an accident is just that. Fokkerdude 20:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)(ahhhh)

"Freak Accident"

I'm uncomfortable with the stated idea that "freak accidents" often imply doubt about whether an event was actually an accident. I can't remember ever seeing that usage, although I'm not sure what a good alternative definition would be. Does anyone have a citation for this interpretation? If not, I think at least the last sentence should be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.107.230.244 (talk) 01:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

• Agreed on that. I always thought 'freak accident' implied that the cause was unknown, not that the event itself is in doubt. Making appropriate changes. --Bridgecross 14:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Response to "Freak Accident"

I'm the author who made most of the significant changes to the 'Accident' entry since early September 2007, including cleaning out occasional spam and obscene entries. The earlier definition set, prior to my participation, was pretty weak. I fixed it quickly and come back periodically to refine it, when I have extra time. I feel as if this is one of 'my' words, so I'm interested in maintaining it, with others' input.

In response to "... the stated idea that "freak accidents" often imply doubt about about whether an event was actually an accident.", the author overstates my intent with 'often imply' rather than the entry's use of 'may imply'. The point of 'freak' in the definition is advised, as the implication is an event that is aberrational, deviant or hard to imagine in the 'normal accident' context.

Here is an exemplary quote from a NY Times article entitled "Riots Break Out as Nepal Gets 3rd King in 4 Days" at this link:

"On Sunday morning, Gyanendra had brought suspicion upon himself by issuing a bizarre explanation for the Friday blood bath, calling it a freak 'accident' caused when 'an automatic weapon suddenly exploded'."

There are thousands of examples of this sort of use, such as descriptions of victims who die 'accidentally' by shooting themselves in the back of the head six times. So, I'll stand by my inclusion and definition of 'freak accident' as casting doubt or suspicion upon actual cause. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Afrab null (talk • contribs) 18:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)