[baddox]

I have no complaints about the claim that drivers should more often be charged with reckless driving, but that's very different than suggesting that a significant portion of these incidents are purposeful collisions initiated by the automobile driver.

[stephendedalus]

> I have no complaints about the claim that drivers should more often be charged with reckless driving, but that's very different than suggesting that a significant portion of these incidents are purposeful collisions initiated by the automobile driver.

I don't believe the author was saying that. He said...

> We’re already at the point where every car-on-bike “accident” (police always assume it’s an accident; drivers are allowed unlimited “oopsies”)

I believe what the author meant is that there's an accident and then there's something far less than accident that's more the result of reckless driving, poor driving or aggressive driving. And yet the law always errs on the side of it being an unavoidable accident.

[baddox]

Perhaps we are quibbling over the definition of "accident." I would consider an unintentional collision to be an accident even if one person was driving recklessly. As far as I can tell, that is standard usage of the word, especially in the context of vehicle collisions.

[paintrayne]

Unintentional doesn't mean no fault. The fact that it is standard usage is the whole point -- it shouldn't be. Drivers do not pay attention, they do not look when they change lanes, and they hit bicycles and motorcycles and it is called an accident, as if the driver had no control of their vehicle.

[baddox]

I don't understand. My point is that "accident" just means that something is unintentional. It doesn't mean there is no fault. Calling a traffic collision accident does not imply that the driver had no control over their vehicle. It only means that the driver did not intend to have the collision.