Oh sure. I'm not proposing people who fuck up be treated as murderers. It's just that in my head, saying it's "an accident" is minimising the blame. If you drive through a light unintentionally, that's totally your fault. You should have and could have avoided doing that by paying attention. You're right that it's negligence. I'm less sure than you are that it deserves to be called "an accident". It seems to me way to close to the schoolyard bully claiming "I was just waving my arm around, he put his face in front of my fist."
> But if the road is icy because of something like a broken water line, it is very possible for nobody to be responsible: a truly blameless accident.
I don't live in a place where it freezes, so I'm kinda not the right person to have an opinion here - but I would have thought that if you live/drive somewhere that ice or black ice happens, then there's at least some "driving to the conditions" argument to be made that the driver was negligent in that case?
I guess bottom line there is that to me, negligence is not covered under the term "accident". If the incident should have been avoided by a driver not being negligent, then it wasn't an accident.
(But I'm not a linguist, and am questioning whether that's a widely held opinion. Thinking about it, it's likely because I'm a long-term motorcycle rider. I cannot afford to have "accidents", because they hurt _way_ more than people driving cars having "accidents". I consider myself at fault for any situation _I_ could have avoided by "being less negligent", and perhaps unfairly impose that burden on other drivers as well. But I will none the less get angry when they say "Sorry. It was just an accident" while I'm the one lying bleeding on the road because they were negligent...)
The first negligent action could be climbing on the bike.
I think I'm safer slowing and rolling through a stop sign in my truck than I am getting on the bike in the first place.
I realize it's different-- causing a threat for others and all. But I think the point stands-- you're just debating where negligence starts.
I tend to agree with the GP. It's an accident anytime it wasn't intentional, even if it's a preventable accident.
Generally this is in the context of driving too fast.
Speeding is a choice. You are either intentionally disregarding your speedometer, or the designers of the street have made it too easy to get to higher rates of speed rather than apply calming designs to slow traffic down (another intentional choice).
The intention is baked in.
No, traffic violations are generally strict liability, intent, or mental state more generally, does not matter.
Sure, if you intend to kill and do, then you will also be guilty of murder, but that is a separate and additional issue.
Intention absolutely always matters. People often do drive through lights unintentionally. If that is a proximate cause of an accident they are punished for negligence, not murder. Even intentionally driving through a light is a form of negligence. The only intentional crashes happen where people use the vehicle as a weapon[1]. If you deliberately run someone down you are a murderer, whether you broke any traffic laws while doing so is irrelevant. If you kill your wife by deliberately crashing into her, the cops aren't going to write you a speeding ticket while they read you your rights.
[1] There are also rare cases where crashes are deliberately caused by non-drivers. A crash resulting from someone icing a road, throwing a brick at a car from an overpass, or tampering with a vehicle are deliberate crashes even though the driver(s) involved are not at fault. But if the road is icy because of something like a broken water line, it is very possible for nobody to be responsible: a truly blameless accident.