The law is entirely semantics. Perhaps ordinary people (who don't watch fictional lawyers on tv and become legal experts like me) don't
appreciate this, but a state legislature that employs professionals who
are specifically experts in legal language and statutory construction
fail to grasp the consequence of a semantic change?
In this video, Steve Lehto discusses the unintended consequence of substituting "collision" for "accident" when Hawaii amended a law. Years
ago, I was one of those people who stopped using the word "accident", influenced by others who wanted newspaper reporters and others in the
media to stop reporting such incidents as "accidents" because the reader
or listener would assume that the incident was unavoidable.
But that's not what "accident" means. Neither in dictionary definitions
nor statutory language has it meant "unavoidable" in which there is no
fault to find. Instead, it means that the party at fault for the
incident had not committed an intentional act.
"Accident", therefore, means "without intent" not "without fault".
To the uninformed reader or listener, as "crash" or "collision" is just
a factual statement without finding of fault and without proving intent, "unavoidable" isn't incorrectly assumed.
Lehto went off on a bit of an incorrect tangent about why people were
pushing for the word "accident" not to be used.
There are unintended consequences of changing statutory language because "feelings". Here's an example:
In Honolulu, Five-Oh was chasing another motorist without lights and
sirens. The driver of the vehicle being chased flipped the vehicle.
People inside the vehicle were seriously injured.
The cop driving was charged with a felony based on colliding with the
vehicle being chased, because language in the statute had been changed
from "accident" to "collision". Now, the state may have been able to
prove that the cop was at fault for causing an accident because of the
unsafe manner of pursuit and that conduct during pursuit was criminally negligent or reckless. But was the cop at fault for causing a collision?
If in fact the vehicles had not collided, then the change in statutory language prevents charges in which an accident occurred that was not the result of a collision.
Oops.
Here's the video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FATTJtvXbeU
Rhino <[email protected]> wrote:
. . .
When I was driving school buses, I found that my employers never used
the word "accident". If someone hit something while driving their bus,
even if it was the merest scratch, it was never an accident: it was
*always* a collision. (I'm sure this would have been true if a person
were hit, although I don't recall anyone ever hitting a person while I
worked there.) I feel sure this was their way of making us take
responsibility for what had happened. We didn't get to say anything that
implied that whatever happened couldn't be helped in some way. Even if
we weren't at fault, I think they expected that we could have done
something to prevent or minimize the event. Drivers were always taken
off the road for a day or two and made to have a retraining session with
another driver after a collision.
Your employer wasn't wrong: there was a collision.
I was a school bus driver too. We were told we would be blamed for a
rear end collision (the vehicle behind colliding with the rear of the
school bus) regardless of what the law said, because they always wanted
us to leave adequate distance behind the vehicle ahead of the bus.
I can't really find fault with that approach. Language DOES matter and
calling a collision what it was is the right thing to do. You can always
add an adjective like "unavoidable" if that applies.
Ok, but that's a finding after a review or investigation; never state
that without investigating at all.
Calling everything an accident is dishonest since most "accidents"
involved some actions that made the accident more likely, even if there
was no intent involved.
Here, you've fallen into the semantic trap yourself. First off, you just misused the word "accident". A pedestrian crosses in front of a driver and
is struck by the vehicle. After gathering witness statements, the patrol officer or accident investigator learns that the vehicle accelerated rather than braking. That's evidence of intent. The collision was no accident.
Calling incidents without intent "accidents" is NOT dishonest. The word
does not and never has implied "unavoidable" nor "without fault". People
who think that's what "accident" implies are wrong.
For example, if I'm yapping on a cell phone - or in an animated
conversation with my passengers - I am contributing to the likelihood of
an accident even if I very much don't want to have one. Anything that
distracts me as a driver may contribute to a collision whether it is
talking or driving drunk or on too little sleep.
You're right. Nevertheless, if you are at fault for a collision, it's still an accident due to the lack of intent.
Because Lehto pointed out chargable criminal conduct by the driver at fault for causing the accident under the old language THAT WAS NOT A COLLISION
WITH THE AT FAULT DRIVER'S VEHICLE, I am going to resume my own use of
the word "accident" as this scenario has been brought to my attention.
. . .
When I was driving school buses, I found that my employers never used
the word "accident". If someone hit something while driving their bus,
even if it was the merest scratch, it was never an accident: it was
*always* a collision. (I'm sure this would have been true if a person
were hit, although I don't recall anyone ever hitting a person while I
worked there.) I feel sure this was their way of making us take >responsibility for what had happened. We didn't get to say anything that >implied that whatever happened couldn't be helped in some way. Even if
we weren't at fault, I think they expected that we could have done
something to prevent or minimize the event. Drivers were always taken
off the road for a day or two and made to have a retraining session with >another driver after a collision.
I can't really find fault with that approach. Language DOES matter and >calling a collision what it was is the right thing to do. You can always
add an adjective like "unavoidable" if that applies.
Calling everything an accident is dishonest since most "accidents"
involved some actions that made the accident more likely, even if there
was no intent involved.
For example, if I'm yapping on a cell phone - or in an animated
conversation with my passengers - I am contributing to the likelihood of
an accident even if I very much don't want to have one. Anything that >distracts me as a driver may contribute to a collision whether it is
talking or driving drunk or on too little sleep.
Rhino <[email protected]> wrote:
. . .
When I was driving school buses, I found that my employers never used
the word "accident". If someone hit something while driving their bus,
even if it was the merest scratch, it was never an accident: it was
*always* a collision. (I'm sure this would have been true if a person
were hit, although I don't recall anyone ever hitting a person while I
worked there.) I feel sure this was their way of making us take
responsibility for what had happened. We didn't get to say anything that
implied that whatever happened couldn't be helped in some way. Even if
we weren't at fault, I think they expected that we could have done
something to prevent or minimize the event. Drivers were always taken
off the road for a day or two and made to have a retraining session with
another driver after a collision.
Your employer wasn't wrong: there was a collision.
I was a school bus driver too. We were told we would be blamed for a
rear end collision (the vehicle behind colliding with the rear of the
school bus) regardless of what the law said, because they always wanted
us to leave adequate distance behind the vehicle ahead of the bus.
I can't really find fault with that approach. Language DOES matter and
calling a collision what it was is the right thing to do. You can always
add an adjective like "unavoidable" if that applies.
Ok, but that's a finding after a review or investigation; never state
that without investigating at all.
Calling everything an accident is dishonest since most "accidents"
involved some actions that made the accident more likely, even if there
was no intent involved.
Here, you've fallen into the semantic trap yourself. First off, you just misused the word "accident". A pedestrian crosses in front of a driver and
is struck by the vehicle. After gathering witness statements, the patrol officer or accident investigator learns that the vehicle accelerated rather than braking. That's evidence of intent. The collision was no accident.
Calling incidents without intent "accidents" is NOT dishonest. The word
does not and never has implied "unavoidable" nor "without fault". People
who think that's what "accident" implies are wrong.
For example, if I'm yapping on a cell phone - or in an animated
conversation with my passengers - I am contributing to the likelihood of
an accident even if I very much don't want to have one. Anything that
distracts me as a driver may contribute to a collision whether it is
talking or driving drunk or on too little sleep.
You're right. Nevertheless, if you are at fault for a collision, it's still an accident due to the lack of intent.
Because Lehto pointed out chargeable criminal conduct by the driver at fault for causing the accident under the old language THAT WAS NOT A COLLISION
WITH THE AT FAULT DRIVER'S VEHICLE, I am going to resume my own use of
the word "accident" as this scenario has been brought to my attention.
. . .
The year I joined the USSS, they announced a policy change with regard to >firearms. All mentions of 'accidental discharge' of a firearm were replaced >with 'negligent discharge'. Because there's no way a gun can just go off >accidentally. It's physically impossible. The only way a gun goes off >unintended is through negligence. It puts the responsibility for the discharge >squarely on the person holding the gun.
. . .
The law is entirely semantics. Perhaps ordinary people (who don't watch fictional lawyers on tv and become legal experts like me) don't
appreciate this, but a state legislature that employs professionals who
are specifically experts in legal language and statutory construction
fail to grasp the consequence of a semantic change?
In this video, Steve Lehto discusses the unintended consequence of substituting "collision" for "accident" when Hawaii amended a law. Years
ago, I was one of those people who stopped using the word "accident", influenced by others who wanted newspaper reporters and others in the
media to stop reporting such incidents as "accidents" because the reader
or listener would assume that the incident was unavoidable.
But that's not what "accident" means. Neither in dictionary definitions
nor statutory language has it meant "unavoidable" in which there is no
fault to find. Instead, it means that the party at fault for the
incident had not committed an intentional act.
"Accident", therefore, means "without intent" not "without fault".
To the uninformed reader or listener, as "crash" or "collision" is just
a factual statement without finding of fault and without proving intent, "unavoidable" isn't incorrectly assumed.
Lehto went off on a bit of an incorrect tangent about why people were
pushing for the word "accident" not to be used.
There are unintended consequences of changing statutory language because "feelings". Here's an example:
In Honolulu, Five-Oh was chasing another motorist without lights and
sirens. The driver of the vehicle being chased flipped the vehicle.
People inside the vehicle were seriously injured.
The cop driving was charged with a felony based on colliding with the
vehicle being chased, because language in the statute had been changed
from "accident" to "collision". Now, the state may have been able to
prove that the cop was at fault for causing an accident because of the
unsafe manner of pursuit and that conduct during pursuit was criminally negligent or reckless. But was the cop at fault for causing a collision?
If in fact the vehicles had not collided, then the change in statutory language prevents charges in which an accident occurred that was not the result of a collision.
Oops.
Here's the video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FATTJtvXbeU
On 2025-03-19 11:45 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
The law is entirely semantics. Perhaps ordinary people (who don't watch
fictional lawyers on tv and become legal experts like me) don't
appreciate this, but a state legislature that employs professionals who
are specifically experts in legal language and statutory construction
fail to grasp the consequence of a semantic change?
In this video, Steve Lehto discusses the unintended consequence of
substituting "collision" for "accident" when Hawaii amended a law. Years
ago, I was one of those people who stopped using the word "accident",
influenced by others who wanted newspaper reporters and others in the
media to stop reporting such incidents as "accidents" because the reader
or listener would assume that the incident was unavoidable.
But that's not what "accident" means. Neither in dictionary definitions
nor statutory language has it meant "unavoidable" in which there is no
fault to find. Instead, it means that the party at fault for the
incident had not committed an intentional act.
"Accident", therefore, means "without intent" not "without fault".
To the uninformed reader or listener, as "crash" or "collision" is just
a factual statement without finding of fault and without proving intent,
"unavoidable" isn't incorrectly assumed.
Lehto went off on a bit of an incorrect tangent about why people were
pushing for the word "accident" not to be used.
When I was driving school buses, I found that my employers never used
the word "accident". If someone hit something while driving their bus,
even if it was the merest scratch, it was never an accident: it was
*always* a collision. (I'm sure this would have been true if a person
were hit, although I don't recall anyone ever hitting a person while I
worked there.) I feel sure this was their way of making us take responsibility for what had happened. We didn't get to say anything that implied that whatever happened couldn't be helped in some way. Even if
we weren't at fault, I think they expected that we could have done
something to prevent or minimize the event. Drivers were always taken
off the road for a day or two and made to have a retraining session with another driver after a collision.
Rhino <[email protected]> wrote:
. . .
When I was driving school buses, I found that my employers never used
the word "accident". If someone hit something while driving their bus,
even if it was the merest scratch, it was never an accident: it was
*always* a collision. (I'm sure this would have been true if a person
were hit, although I don't recall anyone ever hitting a person while I
worked there.) I feel sure this was their way of making us take
responsibility for what had happened. We didn't get to say anything that
implied that whatever happened couldn't be helped in some way. Even if
we weren't at fault, I think they expected that we could have done
something to prevent or minimize the event. Drivers were always taken
off the road for a day or two and made to have a retraining session with
another driver after a collision.
Your employer wasn't wrong: there was a collision.
I was a school bus driver too. We were told we would be blamed for a
rear end collision (the vehicle behind colliding with the rear of the
school bus) regardless of what the law said, because they always wanted
us to leave adequate distance behind the vehicle ahead of the bus.
Mar 19, 2025 at 10:30:16 AM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]>:
Rhino <[email protected]> wrote:
. . .
When I was driving school buses, I found that my employers never used
the word "accident". If someone hit something while driving their bus, >>>even if it was the merest scratch, it was never an accident: it was >>>*always* a collision. (I'm sure this would have been true if a person >>>were hit, although I don't recall anyone ever hitting a person while I >>>worked there.) I feel sure this was their way of making us take >>>responsibility for what had happened. We didn't get to say anything that >>>implied that whatever happened couldn't be helped in some way. Even if
we weren't at fault, I think they expected that we could have done >>>something to prevent or minimize the event. Drivers were always taken
off the road for a day or two and made to have a retraining session with >>>another driver after a collision.
Your employer wasn't wrong: there was a collision.
I was a school bus driver too. We were told we would be blamed for a
rear end collision (the vehicle behind colliding with the rear of the >>school bus) regardless of what the law said, because they always wanted
us to leave adequate distance behind the vehicle ahead of the bus.
How do you control how much distance there is behind you from other traffic?
On 3/19/2025 3:43 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Mar 19, 2025 at 10:30:16 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <[email protected]>
wrote:
Rhino <[email protected]> wrote:
. . .
When I was driving school buses, I found that my employers never used >>>> the word "accident". If someone hit something while driving their bus, >>>> even if it was the merest scratch, it was never an accident: it was
*always* a collision. (I'm sure this would have been true if a person >>>> were hit, although I don't recall anyone ever hitting a person while I >>>> worked there.) I feel sure this was their way of making us take
responsibility for what had happened. We didn't get to say anything that >>>> implied that whatever happened couldn't be helped in some way. Even if >>>> we weren't at fault, I think they expected that we could have done
something to prevent or minimize the event. Drivers were always taken >>>> off the road for a day or two and made to have a retraining session with >>>> another driver after a collision.
Your employer wasn't wrong: there was a collision.
I was a school bus driver too. We were told we would be blamed for a
rear end collision (the vehicle behind colliding with the rear of the
school bus) regardless of what the law said, because they always wanted >>> us to leave adequate distance behind the vehicle ahead of the bus.
How do you control how much distance there is behind you from other traffic?
Use your accelerator.
On Mar 19, 2025 at 10:30:16 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <[email protected]> wrote:
Rhino <[email protected]> wrote:
. . .
When I was driving school buses, I found that my employers never used
the word "accident". If someone hit something while driving their bus,
even if it was the merest scratch, it was never an accident: it was
*always* a collision. (I'm sure this would have been true if a person
were hit, although I don't recall anyone ever hitting a person while I
worked there.) I feel sure this was their way of making us take
responsibility for what had happened. We didn't get to say anything that >>> implied that whatever happened couldn't be helped in some way. Even if
we weren't at fault, I think they expected that we could have done
something to prevent or minimize the event. Drivers were always taken
off the road for a day or two and made to have a retraining session with >>> another driver after a collision.
Your employer wasn't wrong: there was a collision.
I was a school bus driver too. We were told we would be blamed for a
rear end collision (the vehicle behind colliding with the rear of the
school bus) regardless of what the law said, because they always wanted
us to leave adequate distance behind the vehicle ahead of the bus.
How do you control how much distance there is behind you from other traffic?
Mar 19, 2025 1:15:23 PM PDT, moviePig <[email protected]>:
On 3/19/2025 3:43 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
Mar 19, 2025 10:30:16 AM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]>:
Rhino <[email protected]> wrote:
. . .
When I was driving school buses, I found that my employers never used >>>>>the word "accident". If someone hit something while driving their bus, >>>>>even if it was the merest scratch, it was never an accident: it was >>>>>*always* a collision. (I'm sure this would have been true if a person >>>>>were hit, although I don't recall anyone ever hitting a person while I >>>>>worked there.) I feel sure this was their way of making us take >>>>>responsibility for what had happened. We didn't get to say anything that >>>>>implied that whatever happened couldn't be helped in some way. Even if >>>>>we weren't at fault, I think they expected that we could have done >>>>>something to prevent or minimize the event. Drivers were always taken >>>>>off the road for a day or two and made to have a retraining session with >>>>>another driver after a collision.
Your employer wasn't wrong: there was a collision.
I was a school bus driver too. We were told we would be blamed for a >>>>rear end collision (the vehicle behind colliding with the rear of the >>>>school bus) regardless of what the law said, because they always wanted >>>>us to leave adequate distance behind the vehicle ahead of the bus.
How do you control how much distance there is behind you from other >>>traffic?
Use your accelerator.
And if there's traffic in front of you also?
On Mar 19, 2025 at 1:15:23 PM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/19/2025 3:43 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Mar 19, 2025 at 10:30:16 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <[email protected]> >>> wrote:
Rhino <[email protected]> wrote:
. . .
When I was driving school buses, I found that my employers never used >>>>> the word "accident". If someone hit something while driving their bus, >>>>> even if it was the merest scratch, it was never an accident: it was >>>>> *always* a collision. (I'm sure this would have been true if a person >>>>> were hit, although I don't recall anyone ever hitting a person while I >>>>> worked there.) I feel sure this was their way of making us take
responsibility for what had happened. We didn't get to say anything that
implied that whatever happened couldn't be helped in some way. Even if >>>>> we weren't at fault, I think they expected that we could have done >>>>> something to prevent or minimize the event. Drivers were always taken >>>>> off the road for a day or two and made to have a retraining session with
another driver after a collision.
Your employer wasn't wrong: there was a collision.
I was a school bus driver too. We were told we would be blamed for a >>>> rear end collision (the vehicle behind colliding with the rear of the >>>> school bus) regardless of what the law said, because they always wanted >>>> us to leave adequate distance behind the vehicle ahead of the bus.
How do you control how much distance there is behind you from other traffic?
Use your accelerator.
And if there's traffic in front of you also?
On 3/19/2025 4:32 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Mar 19, 2025 at 1:15:23 PM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote: >>
On 3/19/2025 3:43 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Mar 19, 2025 at 10:30:16 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <[email protected]> >>>> wrote:
Rhino <[email protected]> wrote:How do you control how much distance there is behind you from other >>>> traffic?
. . .
When I was driving school buses, I found that my employers never used >>>>>> the word "accident". If someone hit something while driving their bus,
even if it was the merest scratch, it was never an accident: it was >>>>>> *always* a collision. (I'm sure this would have been true if a person >>>>>> were hit, although I don't recall anyone ever hitting a person while I
worked there.) I feel sure this was their way of making us take >>>>>> responsibility for what had happened. We didn't get to say anything that
implied that whatever happened couldn't be helped in some way. Even if
we weren't at fault, I think they expected that we could have done >>>>>> something to prevent or minimize the event. Drivers were always taken >>>>>> off the road for a day or two and made to have a retraining session with
another driver after a collision.
Your employer wasn't wrong: there was a collision.
I was a school bus driver too. We were told we would be blamed for a >>>>> rear end collision (the vehicle behind colliding with the rear of the >>>>> school bus) regardless of what the law said, because they always wanted
us to leave adequate distance behind the vehicle ahead of the bus. >>>>
Use your accelerator.
And if there's traffic in front of you also?
Use your steering wheel.
On Mar 19, 2025 at 8:45:20 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <[email protected]> wrote:
The law is entirely semantics. Perhaps ordinary people (who don't watch
fictional lawyers on tv and become legal experts like me) don't
appreciate this, but a state legislature that employs professionals who
are specifically experts in legal language and statutory construction
fail to grasp the consequence of a semantic change?
In this video, Steve Lehto discusses the unintended consequence of
substituting "collision" for "accident" when Hawaii amended a law. Years
ago, I was one of those people who stopped using the word "accident",
influenced by others who wanted newspaper reporters and others in the
media to stop reporting such incidents as "accidents" because the reader
or listener would assume that the incident was unavoidable.
But that's not what "accident" means. Neither in dictionary definitions
nor statutory language has it meant "unavoidable" in which there is no
fault to find. Instead, it means that the party at fault for the
incident had not committed an intentional act.
"Accident", therefore, means "without intent" not "without fault".
To the uninformed reader or listener, as "crash" or "collision" is just
a factual statement without finding of fault and without proving intent,
"unavoidable" isn't incorrectly assumed.
The year I joined the USSS, they announced a policy change with regard to firearms. All mentions of 'accidental discharge' of a firearm were replaced with 'negligent discharge'. Because there's no way a gun can just go off accidentally. It's physically impossible. The only way a gun goes off unintended is through negligence. It puts the responsibility for the discharge
squarely on the person holding the gun.
Lehto went off on a bit of an incorrect tangent about why people were
pushing for the word "accident" not to be used.
There are unintended consequences of changing statutory language because
"feelings". Here's an example:
In Honolulu, Five-Oh was chasing another motorist without lights and
sirens. The driver of the vehicle being chased flipped the vehicle.
People inside the vehicle were seriously injured.
The cop driving was charged with a felony based on colliding with the
vehicle being chased, because language in the statute had been changed
from "accident" to "collision". Now, the state may have been able to
prove that the cop was at fault for causing an accident because of the
unsafe manner of pursuit and that conduct during pursuit was criminally
negligent or reckless. But was the cop at fault for causing a collision?
If in fact the vehicles had not collided, then the change in statutory
language prevents charges in which an accident occurred that was not the
result of a collision.
Oops.
Here's the video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FATTJtvXbeU
On Mar 19, 2025 at 10:03:23 AM PDT, "Rhino" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-03-19 11:45 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
The law is entirely semantics. Perhaps ordinary people (who don't watch >>> fictional lawyers on tv and become legal experts like me) don't
appreciate this, but a state legislature that employs professionals who >>> are specifically experts in legal language and statutory construction
fail to grasp the consequence of a semantic change?
In this video, Steve Lehto discusses the unintended consequence of
substituting "collision" for "accident" when Hawaii amended a law. Years >>> ago, I was one of those people who stopped using the word "accident",
influenced by others who wanted newspaper reporters and others in the
media to stop reporting such incidents as "accidents" because the reader >>> or listener would assume that the incident was unavoidable.
But that's not what "accident" means. Neither in dictionary definitions >>> nor statutory language has it meant "unavoidable" in which there is no >>> fault to find. Instead, it means that the party at fault for the
incident had not committed an intentional act.
"Accident", therefore, means "without intent" not "without fault".
To the uninformed reader or listener, as "crash" or "collision" is just >>> a factual statement without finding of fault and without proving intent, >>> "unavoidable" isn't incorrectly assumed.
Lehto went off on a bit of an incorrect tangent about why people were
pushing for the word "accident" not to be used.
When I was driving school buses, I found that my employers never used
the word "accident". If someone hit something while driving their bus,
even if it was the merest scratch, it was never an accident: it was
*always* a collision. (I'm sure this would have been true if a person
were hit, although I don't recall anyone ever hitting a person while I
worked there.) I feel sure this was their way of making us take
responsibility for what had happened. We didn't get to say anything that
implied that whatever happened couldn't be helped in some way. Even if
we weren't at fault, I think they expected that we could have done
something to prevent or minimize the event. Drivers were always taken
off the road for a day or two and made to have a retraining session with
another driver after a collision.
Even if a meteor fell out of the sky and hit the bus? You still have to go through retraining?
I absolutely hate bureaucratic nonsense like that.
When I was a super-secret government agent, the absolute worst thing that could happen was for you to have a car collision. You could walk down the street and shoot someone at random and have less paperwork and bureaucratic hoops to jump through than there was with a minor fender-bender.
In the aftermath of 9-11, I was assigned as the detail leader for Lauren Bush (George W's niece) who was a high school student at the time. It was a very loose detail and we didn't go into the school with her. We sat out in the parking lot in a car, parked near hers and would pick her up when she left school each afternoon. She had a panic button that she could push if anything happened inside the school that would bring us running in.
So over the course of several months, as I was sitting in my parked car, I was
backed into by high school kids not one, not two, but three different times. Each bump came with reams of paperwork and repair estimates (even when no repairs were necessary) and as a bonus on my third incident, I was told I had take a mandatory driver's education safety course.
Even though my car was parked in each instance and the engine wasn't even running. They told me if I'd been standing nearby and the car was empty, it wouldn't have counted, but because I was inside the car each time when it happened, then according to the bureaucratic rules, I was presumed to need re-education.
Whoever thought forcing people who carry loaded firearms to deal with such inscrutable and intractable bureaucracy wasn't thinking very clearly.
On 2025-03-19 3:42 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Mar 19, 2025 at 10:03:23 AM PDT, "Rhino" <[email protected]>My employers were reasonably sensible people for the most part so I like
wrote:
On 2025-03-19 11:45 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
The law is entirely semantics. Perhaps ordinary people (who don't watch >>>> fictional lawyers on tv and become legal experts like me) don't
appreciate this, but a state legislature that employs professionals who >>>> are specifically experts in legal language and statutory construction >>>> fail to grasp the consequence of a semantic change?
In this video, Steve Lehto discusses the unintended consequence of
substituting "collision" for "accident" when Hawaii amended a law. Years
ago, I was one of those people who stopped using the word "accident", >>>> influenced by others who wanted newspaper reporters and others in the >>>> media to stop reporting such incidents as "accidents" because the reader
or listener would assume that the incident was unavoidable.
But that's not what "accident" means. Neither in dictionary definitions >>>> nor statutory language has it meant "unavoidable" in which there is no >>>> fault to find. Instead, it means that the party at fault for the
incident had not committed an intentional act.
"Accident", therefore, means "without intent" not "without fault".
To the uninformed reader or listener, as "crash" or "collision" is just >>>> a factual statement without finding of fault and without proving intent,
"unavoidable" isn't incorrectly assumed.
Lehto went off on a bit of an incorrect tangent about why people were >>>> pushing for the word "accident" not to be used.
When I was driving school buses, I found that my employers never used
the word "accident". If someone hit something while driving their bus,
even if it was the merest scratch, it was never an accident: it was
*always* a collision. (I'm sure this would have been true if a person
were hit, although I don't recall anyone ever hitting a person while I
worked there.) I feel sure this was their way of making us take
responsibility for what had happened. We didn't get to say anything that >>> implied that whatever happened couldn't be helped in some way. Even if
we weren't at fault, I think they expected that we could have done
something to prevent or minimize the event. Drivers were always taken
off the road for a day or two and made to have a retraining session with >>> another driver after a collision.
Even if a meteor fell out of the sky and hit the bus? You still have to go >> through retraining?
I absolutely hate bureaucratic nonsense like that.
to think that they wouldn't force a retraining session on a driver if something like a meteor strike happened.
Then again, my brother - who worked for the same company but drove a
minivan instead of a bus - had a flat once. It took many hours for the
repair service to come and change out the tire and then he was told he
needed a retraining session. I asked why, given the circumstances, and
he said he didn't really understand it either. But I don't think he ever actually *did* the retraining session. It was one of the very last days
of the school year so it may simply have been lost in the shuffle. Or
maybe they realized how silly it was to do a retraining session for that circumstance.
And that reminds me that I had a flat tire myself once. I ran over a
piece of something on the road just before I got to the school and
didn't notice anything off but after I'd let the kids off and was doing
my child-check (to make sure no one was still on the bus), a teacher
crossed the laneway in from of my parked bus and noticed a hissing from
the left front tire. He brought that to my attention and I realized that
I'd driven over something. Having remembered how long it took someone to
come for my brother's flat and being in dire need of a washroom, I
decided to drive the bus back to our office - the repair bays are in the
same building - because drivers were not permitted to use the school washrooms. I took slower secondary roads rather than the expressway -
and got back without incident. However, I was surprised to discover that
the damaged tire was not even properly seated on the rim. The bus hadn't ridden oddly with the front left side sagging as I would have thought
given the circumstances. I told the mechanics that I probably shouldn't
have moved once I knew about the flat and they agreed but I didn't get
into any trouble let alone forced to take a retraining session.
When I was a super-secret government agent, the absolute worst thing that >> could happen was for you to have a car collision. You could walk down the >> street and shoot someone at random and have less paperwork and bureaucratic >> hoops to jump through than there was with a minor fender-bender.
In the aftermath of 9-11, I was assigned as the detail leader for Lauren
Bush
(George W's niece) who was a high school student at the time. It was a very >> loose detail and we didn't go into the school with her. We sat out in the >> parking lot in a car, parked near hers and would pick her up when she left >> school each afternoon. She had a panic button that she could push if
anything
happened inside the school that would bring us running in.
So over the course of several months, as I was sitting in my parked car, I >> was
backed into by high school kids not one, not two, but three different times.
Each bump came with reams of paperwork and repair estimates (even when no >> repairs were necessary) and as a bonus on my third incident, I was told I >> had
take a mandatory driver's education safety course.
Even though my car was parked in each instance and the engine wasn't even >> running. They told me if I'd been standing nearby and the car was empty, it >> wouldn't have counted, but because I was inside the car each time when it >> happened, then according to the bureaucratic rules, I was presumed to need >> re-education.
Whoever thought forcing people who carry loaded firearms to deal with such >> inscrutable and intractable bureaucracy wasn't thinking very clearly.
LOL!
I'm gonna guess that the paperwork was to cover their asses in case you,
or anyone else in the car, developed an injury after the fact - "I
thought it was just a bit of whiplash but the doctor says I've got a
serious injury" - and limit the government's liability.
I hear you though: the bureaucracy seems to be able to conjure up
mountains of paperwork for circumstances that don't seem to require it.
On 2025-03-19 3:28 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Mar 19, 2025 at 8:45:20 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <[email protected]>What about the situation where you drop your gun through circumstances
wrote:
The law is entirely semantics. Perhaps ordinary people (who don't watch >>> fictional lawyers on tv and become legal experts like me) don't
appreciate this, but a state legislature that employs professionals who >>> are specifically experts in legal language and statutory construction
fail to grasp the consequence of a semantic change?
In this video, Steve Lehto discusses the unintended consequence of
substituting "collision" for "accident" when Hawaii amended a law. Years >>> ago, I was one of those people who stopped using the word "accident",
influenced by others who wanted newspaper reporters and others in the
media to stop reporting such incidents as "accidents" because the reader >>> or listener would assume that the incident was unavoidable.
But that's not what "accident" means. Neither in dictionary definitions >>> nor statutory language has it meant "unavoidable" in which there is no
fault to find. Instead, it means that the party at fault for the
incident had not committed an intentional act.
"Accident", therefore, means "without intent" not "without fault".
To the uninformed reader or listener, as "crash" or "collision" is just >>> a factual statement without finding of fault and without proving intent, >>> "unavoidable" isn't incorrectly assumed.
The year I joined the USSS, they announced a policy change with regard to >> firearms. All mentions of 'accidental discharge' of a firearm were replaced >> with 'negligent discharge'. Because there's no way a gun can just go off
accidentally. It's physically impossible. The only way a gun goes off
unintended is through negligence. It puts the responsibility for the
discharge
squarely on the person holding the gun.
beyond your control - like stepping on a banana peel - the gun hits the ground and discharges?
I understand that most (modern) guns are designed
to be "drop safe" but that not all of them actually are. At least that's
what I was told when I asked my friend who was a career soldier in the Canadian Forces about that once. Of course that situation might be
nearly as improbable as the meteor strike you proposed earlier....
Lehto went off on a bit of an incorrect tangent about why people were
pushing for the word "accident" not to be used.
There are unintended consequences of changing statutory language because >>> "feelings". Here's an example:
In Honolulu, Five-Oh was chasing another motorist without lights and
sirens. The driver of the vehicle being chased flipped the vehicle.
People inside the vehicle were seriously injured.
The cop driving was charged with a felony based on colliding with the
vehicle being chased, because language in the statute had been changed
from "accident" to "collision". Now, the state may have been able to
prove that the cop was at fault for causing an accident because of the
unsafe manner of pursuit and that conduct during pursuit was criminally >>> negligent or reckless. But was the cop at fault for causing a collision? >>>
If in fact the vehicles had not collided, then the change in statutory
language prevents charges in which an accident occurred that was not the >>> result of a collision.
Oops.
Here's the video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FATTJtvXbeU
On 3/19/2025 4:32 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Mar 19, 2025 at 1:15:23 PM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On 3/19/2025 3:43 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Mar 19, 2025 at 10:30:16 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <[email protected]> >>>> wrote:
Rhino <[email protected]> wrote:
. . .
When I was driving school buses, I found that my employers never used >>>>>> the word "accident". If someone hit something while driving their bus, >>>>>> even if it was the merest scratch, it was never an accident: it was >>>>>> *always* a collision. (I'm sure this would have been true if a person >>>>>> were hit, although I don't recall anyone ever hitting a person while I >>>>>> worked there.) I feel sure this was their way of making us take
responsibility for what had happened. We didn't get to say anything >>>>>> that implied that whatever happened couldn't be helped in some way. >>>>>> Even if we weren't at fault, I think they expected that we could have >>>>>> done something to prevent or minimize the event. Drivers were always >>>>>> taken off the road for a day or two and made to have a retraining
session with another driver after a collision.
Your employer wasn't wrong: there was a collision.
I was a school bus driver too. We were told we would be blamed for a >>>>> rear end collision (the vehicle behind colliding with the rear of the >>>>> school bus) regardless of what the law said, because they always wanted >>>>> us to leave adequate distance behind the vehicle ahead of the bus.
How do you control how much distance there is behind you from other traffic?
Use your accelerator.
And if there's traffic in front of you also?
Use your steering wheel.
On Mar 19, 2025 at 2:25:16 PM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/19/2025 4:32 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Mar 19, 2025 at 1:15:23 PM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>
On 3/19/2025 3:43 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Mar 19, 2025 at 10:30:16 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <[email protected]>
wrote:
Rhino <[email protected]> wrote:How do you control how much distance there is behind you from other >>>>> traffic?
. . .
When I was driving school buses, I found that my employers never used
the word "accident". If someone hit something while driving their bus,
even if it was the merest scratch, it was never an accident: it was >>>>>>> *always* a collision. (I'm sure this would have been true if a person
were hit, although I don't recall anyone ever hitting a person while I
worked there.) I feel sure this was their way of making us take >>>>>>> responsibility for what had happened. We didn't get to say anything that
implied that whatever happened couldn't be helped in some way. Even if
we weren't at fault, I think they expected that we could have done >>>>>>> something to prevent or minimize the event. Drivers were always taken
off the road for a day or two and made to have a retraining session with
another driver after a collision.
Your employer wasn't wrong: there was a collision.
I was a school bus driver too. We were told we would be blamed for a >>>>>> rear end collision (the vehicle behind colliding with the rear of the
school bus) regardless of what the law said, because they always wanted
us to leave adequate distance behind the vehicle ahead of the bus. >>>>>
Use your accelerator.
And if there's traffic in front of you also?
Use your steering wheel.
And do what? Run off the road with a load full of kids in the back?
On Mar 19, 2025 at 2:44:36 PM PDT, "Rhino" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-03-19 3:42 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Mar 19, 2025 at 10:03:23 AM PDT, "Rhino" <[email protected]>My employers were reasonably sensible people for the most part so I like
wrote:
On 2025-03-19 11:45 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
The law is entirely semantics. Perhaps ordinary people (who don't watch
fictional lawyers on tv and become legal experts like me) don't
appreciate this, but a state legislature that employs professionals who
are specifically experts in legal language and statutory construction >>>>> fail to grasp the consequence of a semantic change?
In this video, Steve Lehto discusses the unintended consequence of >>>>> substituting "collision" for "accident" when Hawaii amended a law. Years
ago, I was one of those people who stopped using the word "accident", >>>>> influenced by others who wanted newspaper reporters and others in the >>>>> media to stop reporting such incidents as "accidents" because the reader
or listener would assume that the incident was unavoidable.
But that's not what "accident" means. Neither in dictionary definitions
nor statutory language has it meant "unavoidable" in which there is no
fault to find. Instead, it means that the party at fault for the >>>>> incident had not committed an intentional act.
"Accident", therefore, means "without intent" not "without fault". >>>>>
To the uninformed reader or listener, as "crash" or "collision" is just
a factual statement without finding of fault and without proving intent,
"unavoidable" isn't incorrectly assumed.
Lehto went off on a bit of an incorrect tangent about why people were >>>>> pushing for the word "accident" not to be used.
When I was driving school buses, I found that my employers never used >>>> the word "accident". If someone hit something while driving their bus, >>>> even if it was the merest scratch, it was never an accident: it was
*always* a collision. (I'm sure this would have been true if a person >>>> were hit, although I don't recall anyone ever hitting a person while I >>>> worked there.) I feel sure this was their way of making us take
responsibility for what had happened. We didn't get to say anything that >>>> implied that whatever happened couldn't be helped in some way. Even if >>>> we weren't at fault, I think they expected that we could have done
something to prevent or minimize the event. Drivers were always taken >>>> off the road for a day or two and made to have a retraining session with >>>> another driver after a collision.
Even if a meteor fell out of the sky and hit the bus? You still have to go
through retraining?
I absolutely hate bureaucratic nonsense like that.
to think that they wouldn't force a retraining session on a driver if
something like a meteor strike happened.
Then again, my brother - who worked for the same company but drove a
minivan instead of a bus - had a flat once. It took many hours for the
repair service to come and change out the tire and then he was told he
needed a retraining session. I asked why, given the circumstances, and
he said he didn't really understand it either. But I don't think he ever
actually *did* the retraining session. It was one of the very last days
of the school year so it may simply have been lost in the shuffle. Or
maybe they realized how silly it was to do a retraining session for that
circumstance.
And that reminds me that I had a flat tire myself once. I ran over a
piece of something on the road just before I got to the school and
didn't notice anything off but after I'd let the kids off and was doing
my child-check (to make sure no one was still on the bus), a teacher
crossed the laneway in from of my parked bus and noticed a hissing from
the left front tire. He brought that to my attention and I realized that
I'd driven over something. Having remembered how long it took someone to
come for my brother's flat and being in dire need of a washroom, I
decided to drive the bus back to our office - the repair bays are in the
same building - because drivers were not permitted to use the school
washrooms. I took slower secondary roads rather than the expressway -
and got back without incident. However, I was surprised to discover that
the damaged tire was not even properly seated on the rim. The bus hadn't
ridden oddly with the front left side sagging as I would have thought
given the circumstances. I told the mechanics that I probably shouldn't
have moved once I knew about the flat and they agreed but I didn't get
into any trouble let alone forced to take a retraining session.
When I was a super-secret government agent, the absolute worst thing that >>> could happen was for you to have a car collision. You could walk down the >>> street and shoot someone at random and have less paperwork and bureaucratic
hoops to jump through than there was with a minor fender-bender.
In the aftermath of 9-11, I was assigned as the detail leader for Lauren >>> Bush
(George W's niece) who was a high school student at the time. It was a very
loose detail and we didn't go into the school with her. We sat out in the >>> parking lot in a car, parked near hers and would pick her up when she left
school each afternoon. She had a panic button that she could push if
anything
happened inside the school that would bring us running in.
So over the course of several months, as I was sitting in my parked car, I
was
backed into by high school kids not one, not two, but three different times.
Each bump came with reams of paperwork and repair estimates (even when no >>> repairs were necessary) and as a bonus on my third incident, I was told I >>> had
take a mandatory driver's education safety course.
Even though my car was parked in each instance and the engine wasn't even >>> running. They told me if I'd been standing nearby and the car was empty, it
wouldn't have counted, but because I was inside the car each time when it >>> happened, then according to the bureaucratic rules, I was presumed to need
re-education.
Whoever thought forcing people who carry loaded firearms to deal with such
inscrutable and intractable bureaucracy wasn't thinking very clearly.
LOL!
I'm gonna guess that the paperwork was to cover their asses in case you,
or anyone else in the car, developed an injury after the fact - "I
thought it was just a bit of whiplash but the doctor says I've got a
serious injury" - and limit the government's liability.
I hear you though: the bureaucracy seems to be able to conjure up
mountains of paperwork for circumstances that don't seem to require it.
All it did was teach me the lesson: if it happens again, say you were out stretching your legs and not in the car, regardless of whether it was true or not.
On Mar 19, 2025 at 2:49:13 PM PDT, "Rhino" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-03-19 3:28 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Mar 19, 2025 at 8:45:20 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <[email protected]> >>> wrote:What about the situation where you drop your gun through circumstances
The law is entirely semantics. Perhaps ordinary people (who don't watch >>>> fictional lawyers on tv and become legal experts like me) don't
appreciate this, but a state legislature that employs professionals who >>>> are specifically experts in legal language and statutory construction >>>> fail to grasp the consequence of a semantic change?
In this video, Steve Lehto discusses the unintended consequence of
substituting "collision" for "accident" when Hawaii amended a law. Years >>>> ago, I was one of those people who stopped using the word "accident", >>>> influenced by others who wanted newspaper reporters and others in the >>>> media to stop reporting such incidents as "accidents" because the reader >>>> or listener would assume that the incident was unavoidable.
But that's not what "accident" means. Neither in dictionary definitions >>>> nor statutory language has it meant "unavoidable" in which there is no >>>> fault to find. Instead, it means that the party at fault for the
incident had not committed an intentional act.
"Accident", therefore, means "without intent" not "without fault".
To the uninformed reader or listener, as "crash" or "collision" is just >>>> a factual statement without finding of fault and without proving intent, >>>> "unavoidable" isn't incorrectly assumed.
The year I joined the USSS, they announced a policy change with regard to >>> firearms. All mentions of 'accidental discharge' of a firearm were replaced
with 'negligent discharge'. Because there's no way a gun can just go off >>> accidentally. It's physically impossible. The only way a gun goes off
unintended is through negligence. It puts the responsibility for the
discharge
squarely on the person holding the gun.
beyond your control - like stepping on a banana peel - the gun hits the
ground and discharges?
It can't. We didn't use Alec Baldwin guns. It's physically impossible for the SIG-Sauer P-229 to fire unless the trigger is pulled.
I understand that most (modern) guns are designed
to be "drop safe" but that not all of them actually are. At least that's
what I was told when I asked my friend who was a career soldier in the
Canadian Forces about that once. Of course that situation might be
nearly as improbable as the meteor strike you proposed earlier....
Lehto went off on a bit of an incorrect tangent about why people were >>>> pushing for the word "accident" not to be used.
There are unintended consequences of changing statutory language because >>>> "feelings". Here's an example:
In Honolulu, Five-Oh was chasing another motorist without lights and >>>> sirens. The driver of the vehicle being chased flipped the vehicle.
People inside the vehicle were seriously injured.
The cop driving was charged with a felony based on colliding with the >>>> vehicle being chased, because language in the statute had been changed >>>> from "accident" to "collision". Now, the state may have been able to >>>> prove that the cop was at fault for causing an accident because of the >>>> unsafe manner of pursuit and that conduct during pursuit was criminally >>>> negligent or reckless. But was the cop at fault for causing a collision? >>>>
If in fact the vehicles had not collided, then the change in statutory >>>> language prevents charges in which an accident occurred that was not the >>>> result of a collision.
Oops.
Here's the video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FATTJtvXbeU
On 3/19/2025 5:45 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Mar 19, 2025 at 2:25:16 PM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote: >>
On 3/19/2025 4:32 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Mar 19, 2025 at 1:15:23 PM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/19/2025 3:43 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Mar 19, 2025 at 10:30:16 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <[email protected]>
wrote:
Rhino <[email protected]> wrote:How do you control how much distance there is behind you from other >>>>>> traffic?
. . .
When I was driving school buses, I found that my employers never used
the word "accident". If someone hit something while driving their bus,
even if it was the merest scratch, it was never an accident: it was
*always* a collision. (I'm sure this would have been true if a person
were hit, although I don't recall anyone ever hitting a person while I
worked there.) I feel sure this was their way of making us take >>>>>>>> responsibility for what had happened. We didn't get to say anything that
implied that whatever happened couldn't be helped in some way. Even if
we weren't at fault, I think they expected that we could have done
something to prevent or minimize the event. Drivers were always taken
off the road for a day or two and made to have a retraining session with
another driver after a collision.
Your employer wasn't wrong: there was a collision.
I was a school bus driver too. We were told we would be blamed for a
rear end collision (the vehicle behind colliding with the rear of the
school bus) regardless of what the law said, because they always wanted
us to leave adequate distance behind the vehicle ahead of the bus. >>>>>>
Use your accelerator.
And if there's traffic in front of you also?
Use your steering wheel.
And do what? Run off the road with a load full of kids in the back?
Them's the brakes.
On 2025-03-19 5:50 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Mar 19, 2025 at 2:44:36 PM PDT, "Rhino" <[email protected]> >> wrote:That might work once but I suspect if that started being a regular thing among agents, the bureaucrats would insist that you couldn't leave the
On 2025-03-19 3:42 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Mar 19, 2025 at 10:03:23 AM PDT, "Rhino"My employers were reasonably sensible people for the most part so I like >>> to think that they wouldn't force a retraining session on a driver if
<[email protected]>
wrote:
On 2025-03-19 11:45 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
The law is entirely semantics. Perhaps ordinary people (who don't watch
fictional lawyers on tv and become legal experts like me) don't >>>>>> appreciate this, but a state legislature that employs professionals who
are specifically experts in legal language and statutory construction
fail to grasp the consequence of a semantic change?
In this video, Steve Lehto discusses the unintended consequence of >>>>>> substituting "collision" for "accident" when Hawaii amended a law. Years
ago, I was one of those people who stopped using the word "accident",
influenced by others who wanted newspaper reporters and others in the
media to stop reporting such incidents as "accidents" because the reader
or listener would assume that the incident was unavoidable.
But that's not what "accident" means. Neither in dictionary definitions
nor statutory language has it meant "unavoidable" in which there is no
fault to find. Instead, it means that the party at fault for the >>>>>> incident had not committed an intentional act.
"Accident", therefore, means "without intent" not "without fault". >>>>>>
To the uninformed reader or listener, as "crash" or "collision" is just
a factual statement without finding of fault and without proving intent,
"unavoidable" isn't incorrectly assumed.
Lehto went off on a bit of an incorrect tangent about why people were
pushing for the word "accident" not to be used.
When I was driving school buses, I found that my employers never used >>>>> the word "accident". If someone hit something while driving their bus, >>>>> even if it was the merest scratch, it was never an accident: it was >>>>> *always* a collision. (I'm sure this would have been true if a person >>>>> were hit, although I don't recall anyone ever hitting a person while I >>>>> worked there.) I feel sure this was their way of making us take
responsibility for what had happened. We didn't get to say anything that
implied that whatever happened couldn't be helped in some way. Even if >>>>> we weren't at fault, I think they expected that we could have done >>>>> something to prevent or minimize the event. Drivers were always taken >>>>> off the road for a day or two and made to have a retraining session with
another driver after a collision.
Even if a meteor fell out of the sky and hit the bus? You still have to go
through retraining?
I absolutely hate bureaucratic nonsense like that.
something like a meteor strike happened.
Then again, my brother - who worked for the same company but drove a
minivan instead of a bus - had a flat once. It took many hours for the
repair service to come and change out the tire and then he was told he
needed a retraining session. I asked why, given the circumstances, and
he said he didn't really understand it either. But I don't think he ever >>> actually *did* the retraining session. It was one of the very last days >>> of the school year so it may simply have been lost in the shuffle. Or
maybe they realized how silly it was to do a retraining session for that >>> circumstance.
And that reminds me that I had a flat tire myself once. I ran over a
piece of something on the road just before I got to the school and
didn't notice anything off but after I'd let the kids off and was doing >>> my child-check (to make sure no one was still on the bus), a teacher
crossed the laneway in from of my parked bus and noticed a hissing from >>> the left front tire. He brought that to my attention and I realized that >>> I'd driven over something. Having remembered how long it took someone to >>> come for my brother's flat and being in dire need of a washroom, I
decided to drive the bus back to our office - the repair bays are in the >>> same building - because drivers were not permitted to use the school
washrooms. I took slower secondary roads rather than the expressway -
and got back without incident. However, I was surprised to discover that >>> the damaged tire was not even properly seated on the rim. The bus hadn't >>> ridden oddly with the front left side sagging as I would have thought
given the circumstances. I told the mechanics that I probably shouldn't >>> have moved once I knew about the flat and they agreed but I didn't get
into any trouble let alone forced to take a retraining session.
When I was a super-secret government agent, the absolute worst thing thatLOL!
could happen was for you to have a car collision. You could walk down the
street and shoot someone at random and have less paperwork and
bureaucratic
hoops to jump through than there was with a minor fender-bender.
In the aftermath of 9-11, I was assigned as the detail leader for Lauren
Bush
(George W's niece) who was a high school student at the time. It was a >>>> very
loose detail and we didn't go into the school with her. We sat out in the
parking lot in a car, parked near hers and would pick her up when she left
school each afternoon. She had a panic button that she could push if >>>> anything
happened inside the school that would bring us running in.
So over the course of several months, as I was sitting in my parked car, I
was
backed into by high school kids not one, not two, but three different >>>> times.
Each bump came with reams of paperwork and repair estimates (even when no
repairs were necessary) and as a bonus on my third incident, I was told I
had
take a mandatory driver's education safety course.
Even though my car was parked in each instance and the engine wasn't even
running. They told me if I'd been standing nearby and the car was
empty, it
wouldn't have counted, but because I was inside the car each time when it
happened, then according to the bureaucratic rules, I was presumed to need
re-education.
Whoever thought forcing people who carry loaded firearms to deal with such
inscrutable and intractable bureaucracy wasn't thinking very clearly. >>
I'm gonna guess that the paperwork was to cover their asses in case you, >>> or anyone else in the car, developed an injury after the fact - "I
thought it was just a bit of whiplash but the doctor says I've got a
serious injury" - and limit the government's liability.
I hear you though: the bureaucracy seems to be able to conjure up
mountains of paperwork for circumstances that don't seem to require it.
All it did was teach me the lesson: if it happens again, say you were out >> stretching your legs and not in the car, regardless of whether it was true >> or
not.
car without prior permission from a supervisor or dispatcher (if you
have dispatchers). I'm not even joking.
Last year, I had to have a gastroscopy at a local hospital. I was having
a bit of trouble with things "going down the wrong way" so they stuck a
tube down my throat to look around, then to make a bit more room for
food, pills, whatever to go down smoothly. They sedated me first. The
whole thing apparently only took about 5 minutes and I felt absolutely
fine when I woke up but the rules of this procedure are that I am
absolutely forbidden to drive myself home, take the bus home, or even
take a cab. The ONLY way they would do the procedure was for me to have
a friend pick me up afterwards and drive me home. Luckily, I have
friends that are retired who could drive me and someone was available
for when my procedure was scheduled but my friend lives out of town,
maybe half an hour from the hospital. It really irked me that this was
the only way to get the procedure. I was absolutely fully capable of
walking to the bus stop and getting home from there. I asked the doctor
and he said it was "hospital policy"; I have no doubt that policy was developed when their lawyers said it reduced liability.
It would make sense to have a policy like that if I was woozy after the procedure but I was 100% fine. But if I hadn't agreed to that, they
would have cancelled the procedure. Bloody bureaucrats!!!
On Mar 19, 2025 at 3:13:27 PM PDT, "Rhino" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-03-19 5:50 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Mar 19, 2025 at 2:44:36 PM PDT, "Rhino" <[email protected]>That might work once but I suspect if that started being a regular thing
wrote:
On 2025-03-19 3:42 PM, BTR1701 wrote:All it did was teach me the lesson: if it happens again, say you were out >>> stretching your legs and not in the car, regardless of whether it was true
On Mar 19, 2025 at 10:03:23 AM PDT, "Rhino"My employers were reasonably sensible people for the most part so I like >>>> to think that they wouldn't force a retraining session on a driver if >>>> something like a meteor strike happened.
<[email protected]>
wrote:
On 2025-03-19 11:45 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
The law is entirely semantics. Perhaps ordinary people (who don't watch
fictional lawyers on tv and become legal experts like me) don't >>>>>>> appreciate this, but a state legislature that employs professionals who
are specifically experts in legal language and statutory construction
fail to grasp the consequence of a semantic change?
In this video, Steve Lehto discusses the unintended consequence of
substituting "collision" for "accident" when Hawaii amended a law. Years
ago, I was one of those people who stopped using the word "accident",
influenced by others who wanted newspaper reporters and others in the
media to stop reporting such incidents as "accidents" because the reader
or listener would assume that the incident was unavoidable. >>>>>>>
But that's not what "accident" means. Neither in dictionary definitions
nor statutory language has it meant "unavoidable" in which there is no
fault to find. Instead, it means that the party at fault for the >>>>>>> incident had not committed an intentional act.
"Accident", therefore, means "without intent" not "without fault".
To the uninformed reader or listener, as "crash" or "collision" is just
a factual statement without finding of fault and without proving intent,
"unavoidable" isn't incorrectly assumed.
Lehto went off on a bit of an incorrect tangent about why people were
pushing for the word "accident" not to be used.
When I was driving school buses, I found that my employers never used
the word "accident". If someone hit something while driving their bus,
even if it was the merest scratch, it was never an accident: it was >>>>>> *always* a collision. (I'm sure this would have been true if a person
were hit, although I don't recall anyone ever hitting a person while I
worked there.) I feel sure this was their way of making us take >>>>>> responsibility for what had happened. We didn't get to say anything that
implied that whatever happened couldn't be helped in some way. Even if
we weren't at fault, I think they expected that we could have done >>>>>> something to prevent or minimize the event. Drivers were always taken
off the road for a day or two and made to have a retraining session with
another driver after a collision.
Even if a meteor fell out of the sky and hit the bus? You still have to go
through retraining?
I absolutely hate bureaucratic nonsense like that.
Then again, my brother - who worked for the same company but drove a >>>> minivan instead of a bus - had a flat once. It took many hours for the >>>> repair service to come and change out the tire and then he was told he >>>> needed a retraining session. I asked why, given the circumstances, and >>>> he said he didn't really understand it either. But I don't think he ever >>>> actually *did* the retraining session. It was one of the very last days >>>> of the school year so it may simply have been lost in the shuffle. Or >>>> maybe they realized how silly it was to do a retraining session for that >>>> circumstance.
And that reminds me that I had a flat tire myself once. I ran over a >>>> piece of something on the road just before I got to the school and
didn't notice anything off but after I'd let the kids off and was doing >>>> my child-check (to make sure no one was still on the bus), a teacher >>>> crossed the laneway in from of my parked bus and noticed a hissing from >>>> the left front tire. He brought that to my attention and I realized that >>>> I'd driven over something. Having remembered how long it took someone to >>>> come for my brother's flat and being in dire need of a washroom, I
decided to drive the bus back to our office - the repair bays are in the >>>> same building - because drivers were not permitted to use the school >>>> washrooms. I took slower secondary roads rather than the expressway - >>>> and got back without incident. However, I was surprised to discover that >>>> the damaged tire was not even properly seated on the rim. The bus hadn't >>>> ridden oddly with the front left side sagging as I would have thought >>>> given the circumstances. I told the mechanics that I probably shouldn't >>>> have moved once I knew about the flat and they agreed but I didn't get >>>> into any trouble let alone forced to take a retraining session.
When I was a super-secret government agent, the absolute worst thing thatLOL!
could happen was for you to have a car collision. You could walk down the
street and shoot someone at random and have less paperwork and
bureaucratic
hoops to jump through than there was with a minor fender-bender. >>>>>
In the aftermath of 9-11, I was assigned as the detail leader for Lauren
Bush
(George W's niece) who was a high school student at the time. It was a
very
loose detail and we didn't go into the school with her. We sat out in the
parking lot in a car, parked near hers and would pick her up when she left
school each afternoon. She had a panic button that she could push if >>>>> anything
happened inside the school that would bring us running in.
So over the course of several months, as I was sitting in my parked car, I
was
backed into by high school kids not one, not two, but three different >>>>> times.
Each bump came with reams of paperwork and repair estimates (even when no
repairs were necessary) and as a bonus on my third incident, I was told I
had
take a mandatory driver's education safety course.
Even though my car was parked in each instance and the engine wasn't even
running. They told me if I'd been standing nearby and the car was >>>>> empty, it
wouldn't have counted, but because I was inside the car each time when it
happened, then according to the bureaucratic rules, I was presumed to need
re-education.
Whoever thought forcing people who carry loaded firearms to deal with such
inscrutable and intractable bureaucracy wasn't thinking very clearly. >>>
I'm gonna guess that the paperwork was to cover their asses in case you, >>>> or anyone else in the car, developed an injury after the fact - "I
thought it was just a bit of whiplash but the doctor says I've got a >>>> serious injury" - and limit the government's liability.
I hear you though: the bureaucracy seems to be able to conjure up
mountains of paperwork for circumstances that don't seem to require it. >>>
or
not.
among agents, the bureaucrats would insist that you couldn't leave the
car without prior permission from a supervisor or dispatcher (if you
have dispatchers). I'm not even joking.
Last year, I had to have a gastroscopy at a local hospital. I was having
a bit of trouble with things "going down the wrong way" so they stuck a
tube down my throat to look around, then to make a bit more room for
food, pills, whatever to go down smoothly. They sedated me first. The
whole thing apparently only took about 5 minutes and I felt absolutely
fine when I woke up but the rules of this procedure are that I am
absolutely forbidden to drive myself home, take the bus home, or even
take a cab. The ONLY way they would do the procedure was for me to have
a friend pick me up afterwards and drive me home. Luckily, I have
friends that are retired who could drive me and someone was available
for when my procedure was scheduled but my friend lives out of town,
maybe half an hour from the hospital. It really irked me that this was
the only way to get the procedure. I was absolutely fully capable of
walking to the bus stop and getting home from there. I asked the doctor
and he said it was "hospital policy"; I have no doubt that policy was
developed when their lawyers said it reduced liability.
It would make sense to have a policy like that if I was woozy after the
procedure but I was 100% fine. But if I hadn't agreed to that, they
would have cancelled the procedure. Bloody bureaucrats!!!
So you tell them your friend is picking you up, they do the procedure, then you walk out the doors and go to the bus stop. They can't retroactively cancel
the procedure.
. . .
That might work once but I suspect if that started being a regular thing >among agents, the bureaucrats would insist that you couldn't leave the
car without prior permission from a supervisor or dispatcher (if you
have dispatchers). I'm not even joking.
Last year, I had to have a gastroscopy at a local hospital. I was having
a bit of trouble with things "going down the wrong way" so they stuck a
tube down my throat to look around, then to make a bit more room for
food, pills, whatever to go down smoothly. They sedated me first. The
whole thing apparently only took about 5 minutes and I felt absolutely
fine when I woke up but the rules of this procedure are that I am
absolutely forbidden to drive myself home, take the bus home, or even
take a cab. The ONLY way they would do the procedure was for me to have
a friend pick me up afterwards and drive me home. . . .
On Mar 19, 2025 at 3:09:35 PM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/19/2025 5:45 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Mar 19, 2025 at 2:25:16 PM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>
On 3/19/2025 4:32 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Mar 19, 2025 at 1:15:23 PM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/19/2025 3:43 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Mar 19, 2025 at 10:30:16 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <[email protected]>
wrote:
Rhino <[email protected]> wrote:
. . .
When I was driving school buses, I found that my employers never used
the word "accident". If someone hit something while driving their bus,
even if it was the merest scratch, it was never an accident: it was
*always* a collision. (I'm sure this would have been true if a person
were hit, although I don't recall anyone ever hitting a person while I
worked there.) I feel sure this was their way of making us take >>>>>>>>> responsibility for what had happened. We didn't get to say anything that
implied that whatever happened couldn't be helped in some way. Even if
we weren't at fault, I think they expected that we could have done
something to prevent or minimize the event. Drivers were always taken
off the road for a day or two and made to have a retraining session with
another driver after a collision.
Your employer wasn't wrong: there was a collision.
I was a school bus driver too. We were told we would be blamed for a
rear end collision (the vehicle behind colliding with the rear of the
school bus) regardless of what the law said, because they always wanted
us to leave adequate distance behind the vehicle ahead of the bus.
How do you control how much distance there is behind you from other
traffic?
Use your accelerator.
And if there's traffic in front of you also?
Use your steering wheel.
And do what? Run off the road with a load full of kids in the back?
Them's the brakes.
Which leads us back to how you control how close the guy behind you is.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 20:48:00 |
| Calls: | 12,104 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 15,004 |
| Messages: | 6,518,104 |