Skylarking
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2018
- Messages
- 10,113
- Reaction score
- 10,562
- Points
- 113
- Age
- 123
- Location
- Downunder
- Members Ride
- Commodore Motorsport Edition
Bollocks... No one intends to run into another vehicle on a road or at an intersection...An accident is defined by intent
Carelessness, lack of attentiveness or stupidity does not equate to intent.
Intent is a purposeful and mindful act which is a rather difficult thing to prove in court. Carelesness, lack of attentiveness or stupidity are a much easier think to prove. And that's why when a crash occurs and someone dies, the driver isn't charged with the much more serious crime of murder (where intent defines it as a crime above manslaughter and way above driving causing death). They are charged with driving causing death which has no element of intent required for conviction...
In any case, Ralph Nada's point was simple, calling a car crash a car accident implies acts outide the drivers control, thus it's not his responsability when an accident occured. He felt a much driver ownership of the situation was required which is why he called it a crash...
He also fought his working life to make products safer and improve business behaviours. As a result he suffered through personal attacks and strong opposition at every turn so some indigration on his part is probably warranted.
His activism has been directly credited with the passage of several landmark pieces of American consumer protection legislation including the Clean Water Act, the Freedom of Information Act, the Consumer Product Safety Act, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the Whistleblower Protection Act, and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. In 1990, he was voted the "100 Most Influential Americans of the 20th century" by Life magazine.