|Posted: Aug/19/2016 at 6:51pm – author:jdolan|
If we insist on leaving 2.4.9 as “accident,” but changing 2.4.12 and its included definitions to crash, then there are many places in the document where one would have to be careful to use both terms. Also, that still requires 2.4.12 to be included in 2.4.9 as an “accident.” So, then a crash is defined as an accident. Now, because this is a manual for classifying motor vehicle accidents I find it a little strange that D.16 even addresses accidents that do not involve a motor vehicle as defined in 2.2.7, which 2.4.9 appears to do. Why not get rid of 2.4.9, and make every crash (“accident”) defined in D.16 a subset of those defined in 2.4.12, which are really the only accidents to which this standard applies (according to the title)? Then you could use the word crash, like the majority of the traffic safety community, without worry that it isn’t appropriate for some definitions in the standard, which aren’t necessary for the classification of motor vehicle crashes anyway.
Edited by jdolan – Aug/19/2016 at 6:58pm