AAA wants us to stop calling car crashes “accidents”(capitolfax.com)
capitolfax.com
AAA wants us to stop calling car crashes “accidents”
https://capitolfax.com/2021/01/26/aaa-wants-us-to-stop-calling-car-crashes-accidents
18 comments
They are a skeleton because they were not a tech culture and so totally missed the online travel boat. And online maps boat. And online review boat.
Most people book their hotels and flights online, and not by calling an agent. No one needs a trip tic, they have google maps and a host of other on demand guides in their pockets. There’s no way Aaa could provide it’s old services in a cost effective way when there would be so little demand.
Most people book their hotels and flights online, and not by calling an agent. No one needs a trip tic, they have google maps and a host of other on demand guides in their pockets. There’s no way Aaa could provide it’s old services in a cost effective way when there would be so little demand.
Partner in auto-insurance startup here:
Nothing you've said is correct. The insurance industry doesn't determine fault based on minute linguistic decisions like this.
This change is mostly driven by public health and govt orgs.
Nothing you've said is correct. The insurance industry doesn't determine fault based on minute linguistic decisions like this.
This change is mostly driven by public health and govt orgs.
Ambulance chaser’s perspective: “Accident” is not a legal term. I use “accident” because to me, and I think most, it carries the connotation of unintentional. It could be due to negligence or an Act of God.
I get where AAA is coming from, if we were more careful, fewer people would die. They aren’t dying in droves because unexpected gusts of wind are pushing you through red lights, they’re dying because you won’t put down the phone.
I get where AAA is coming from, if we were more careful, fewer people would die. They aren’t dying in droves because unexpected gusts of wind are pushing you through red lights, they’re dying because you won’t put down the phone.
Anything you say could imply fault, sadly. It's a lawyer's call after all.
No it can't, and no it isn't. Lawyers rarely get involved.
In the US, the claims adjuster determines who is at fault. The police report is weighted more heavily than anything either party says, as is physicak evidence of the collision.
If there's a disagreement, most insurers will go through a special arbitration process. Whether one of thr parties says "accident" or "collision" is not one of the factora considered.
In the US, the claims adjuster determines who is at fault. The police report is weighted more heavily than anything either party says, as is physicak evidence of the collision.
If there's a disagreement, most insurers will go through a special arbitration process. Whether one of thr parties says "accident" or "collision" is not one of the factora considered.
Lawyers often get involved, and it’s better to be cautious. I’ll be leaving the insurance industry (which is NOT your friend even if you are a client) advice aside here.
Accident it is. I won’t be language policed by an insurance industry mouthpiece like AAA, that’s for sure.
Accident it is. I won’t be language policed by an insurance industry mouthpiece like AAA, that’s for sure.
> Lawyers often get involved.
They do? Whose? And when? I'll confess I have very little experience in this area.
I'd imagine that only happens when the people involved in the accident want to go after an insurance company for denying a claim or not paying the full agreed upon amount. In fact the only time I've ever heard of it in my life was when my ex sued the insurance company for trying to get away with covering less than 10% of her medical bills following an accident that had totaled both cars and left the at-fault driver dead.
I don't think lawyers are common in most trivial accidents- I don't know how accurate it is to say that lawyers often get involved.
They do? Whose? And when? I'll confess I have very little experience in this area.
I'd imagine that only happens when the people involved in the accident want to go after an insurance company for denying a claim or not paying the full agreed upon amount. In fact the only time I've ever heard of it in my life was when my ex sued the insurance company for trying to get away with covering less than 10% of her medical bills following an accident that had totaled both cars and left the at-fault driver dead.
I don't think lawyers are common in most trivial accidents- I don't know how accurate it is to say that lawyers often get involved.
I don't understand why you're acting 100% confident about this industry. Have you worked in it? What are your sources for any of your claims?
Maybe I’m being naive, but I think it’s good that more entities are “demanding answers” and making changes rather than calling crashes “accidents.”
Calling a collision or allision an "accident" is what you do because otherwise you could be admitting fault. And top-down language policing like this isn't an actual change unless people catch on. Often it takes an enormous, top-down shaming and ostracism campaign to affect a long lasting change in usage like this. Will it stick?
> Calling a collision or allision an "accident" is what you do because otherwise you could be admitting fault.
I think you’ve got it backwards. The point is don’t call it an accident, because that implies no fault, and instead call it an incident or collision or similar that implies nothing.
I think you’ve got it backwards. The point is don’t call it an accident, because that implies no fault, and instead call it an incident or collision or similar that implies nothing.
Nope, I’ve got it forwards. I carry a little card with me that says “always do the opposite of what industry groups and bodies tell you to do” and this attitude works out great for me, most of the time. I’ll just keep doing what I’m doing, it will be interesting to see if the insurers and their mouthpieces and friends can bully the public into complying.
But I mean it doesn't even achieve what you say you want to achieve... think about it:
You call it an accident up front, and then you try to get damages from for example the car manufacturer because you find out the car was faulty... no wait a minute you can't do that because you already declared you think it was an 'accident'.
You call it an accident up front, and then you try to get damages from for example the car manufacturer because you find out the car was faulty... no wait a minute you can't do that because you already declared you think it was an 'accident'.
Seems like AAA is late to the party. I learned about not using "accident" when Washington, DC started talking about Vision Zero (https://ddot.dc.gov/page/vision-zero-initiative; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_Zero) prior to the passage of legislation in 2014. But, late is better than never.
Going forward, though, they need to put the idea into action at the local, state, and federal levels when transpo policy and funding discussions are held. Language means nothing if automobiles continue to rule the road.
Going forward, though, they need to put the idea into action at the local, state, and federal levels when transpo policy and funding discussions are held. Language means nothing if automobiles continue to rule the road.
I mean, this was a plot point in Hot Fuzz (2007). https://youtu.be/puK5CwThaq4
In the jurisdiction in which I used to practise law, the police motor-manslaughter unit was renamed the Major Collision Investigation Division, having previously been known as the Accident Appreciation Squad.
In which case we could start calling them "intentions" instead. As in, "I was in a t-bone intention on the weekend."
I remember when AAA offered a host of services. I could call them and they would call hotels on my behalf to inquire if there were pet-free rooms, for example. They're a skeleton shell of their former self, it's a real shame.