@ Steph Routh -

I'm pretty sure this is a pretty fucking horrifying event for Sandi Day, as well. You know, the woman responsible for unintentionally killing two people?

The very definition of accident is "an undesirable or unfortunate happening that occurs unintentionally and usually results in harm, injury, damage, or loss."

I'm pretty sure that's exactly what happened here. I highly doubt Sandi Day deliberately plowed into those folks.

I'm not saying Sandi's not liable for those people's deaths and injuries. I'm just saying that it was indeed an accident and believe me, Sandi is more than paying her fair share in this. She will more than likely lose her job (and quite possibly rightfully so), not to mention she has the blood of two fellow humans on her hands.

I don't know if it was Steph Routh's intention, but she seems to be suggesting that every 41,000 vehicle/pedestrian collision in 2008 were, in fact, attempted murder. That sounds like some pretty irresponsible talk.

Well said, Jackattak.

Wait... 41,000 vehicle/pedestrian collisions in Oregon in 2008? I call bullshit. Never happened. Dude is making up stats. That means that 1 out of every 92 Oregonians was hit by a car while walking in 2008.

Graham/Paul- I think its 41k vehicle "accidents" which includes hitting anything from a tree to a person to another car.

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TDATA/car/do…

Pretty sure that 41,000 figure refers to all traffic crashes: car, bus, pedestrian, bike, max, or otherwise.

It seems to me that it's equally irresponsible to refer to events as "accidents" which implies there's nothing that could have been done to avoid them, or "attempted murder" which implies premeditation. Fatal crashes have many causes, some of which we can influence and some we can't.

If someone runs me over and kills me I'd hope they feel bad about it, but it doesn't mean they're equally injured.

I think Ms. Routh is saying that 1 in every 92 Oregonians was involved in a motor vehicle crash, not a pedestrian specific motor vehicle crash.

The term "crash" is often used by traffic professionals as opposed to "accident". This is not because the incident is intentional with regard to the parties involved, but to highlight that the incident is a function of the transportation system overall, and as with any system it's function is not accidental, but is by design.

@Jackattack I couldn't agree more that it is a horrible event for all involved. My thoughts are with all involved during a personal trauma I can't begin to imagine.

Why do I abhor use of the word "accident?" Using the word "accident" carries with it more implications than one finds in the dictionary. I absolutely agree that "unfortunate" and "unintentional" describe this inconceivable tragedy, and then some. But that traffic crashes are unavoidable? That we as a society can do nothing to improve our roadways, and that traffic safety is beyond our control? I am not willing to accept that.

I am not willing to accept that the collision yesterday - which left two people dead and others wounded, and I include Ms. Day in this latter category - is beyond our collective ability to change and beyond our control. We made our roads and our vehicles. We can make them better. To call a traffic crash an "accident" is to absolve us of our collective responsibility to make our roads safer.

41,000 is, indeed, all crashes on the roads in Oregon in 2008. Thank you @Allan. Following is my source, and thank you for asking for clarification:
http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TDATA/car/do…

Who gives a shit about Ms. Day, she's the one home with her family. Jenee and Danielle can't be morons. Such a sad thing for her, maybe she'll have a nightmare. Mr. Jackattack, "accidents" are all well and fine until it's someone you know and love who's "unintentionally" killed by a driver of a 10 ton bus who maybe could have went a little slower and paid a little more attention. I'd like to see how far " it was an accident" if you knew these poor girls.

The word accident has nothing to do with "unavoidable". Not sure where that is coming into play, here. The investigation is still under way at this point so none of us even knows how "unavoidable" any of this was.

Lars - An accident is an accident. It doesn't matter if t was my mother getting hit, or my dog, or Jesse Jackson. It's still an accident and the media has every right to call it one. Anyone citing anything different is putting too much interpretation into the definition of the word. The term accident absolves no one from anything and does not clear anyone from negligence/wrongdoing.

Look: I'm a pedestrian nearly 100% of the time. I don't own a car and rely on my feet and TriMet to get me where I'm going (I have a bike as well but don't use it as often). These issues are extremely important to me and I look to see that they are rectified in the best possible manner. If I had it my way, we'd eraidcate cars out of Downtown Portland (my neighborhood) altogether and make things safer for all of us "at risk" roadway users.

@Lars

I completely agree with Jackattack.

Obviously, empathizing with the victims and their families is a normal response but I wonder how any of us would feel if say, our spouse, or heaven forbid, ourselves were responsible for killing two people by accident? It would be a nightmare. The fear of jail, of losing your livelihood coupled with the guilt is probably almost too much for one person to bear.

I mean, honestly, do not try to tell me you've never run a red light or looked down to fiddle with the stereo.

anothersteph - there is no such thing as 'collective ability' - it would be an attempt to absolve personal responsibility (or mistakes and neglect)

My heart goes out to everyone involved. What a horrific situation.

I think people are confusing intent with condition. We don't know all the details yet, so identifying it as an accident jumps the gun before all the facts are in. What some of us can attest to is almost being hit while crossing the street. I definitely have. If I get hit on the street, that is a failure on many levels.

Until all the facts are in, and until we implement safer solutions for dangerous crossings, there is only one safe conclusion: this was a crash, not an accident.

Actually, intersection911, being that the term "crash" connotes an impact accompanied by loud and crunchy noises, there event were more aptly be referred to as something like a "splat..." You know, until the facts are in.

Well said, pdxmike. It's been 15 years since I was in driver's ed class, but I distinctly remember this discussion on how crashes aren't well-classified as accidents. Rather, they should be considered "incidents" or "collisions." While this is an accident in the sense that the driver didn't intentionally run over people, it's not an accident in that it was a result of mistakes and was avoidable.

From my observation, on average drivers are not focusing on their driving. Cell phones, makeup, shaving, reaching to the backseat for something... I don't know when was the last time I ever rode with someone who was focused on driving the whole time. If you are not keeping full attention on the act of driving and then kill someone, then it was not "unavoidable" or merely "a mistake" it was the inevitable consequence of driving a deadly vehicle while not paying attention to what the vehicle is doing. Intent won't matter to the person you kill, they'll be just as dead whether you intended to run them over or not.

Let's all remember that each accident like each police shooting has its own circumstances, it's own explanation, and its own pattern of blame independent of others. We may feel that there are too many shootings by police or too many incidents involving TriMet vehicles, but that doesn't mean that every single shooting was unjustified or that every single incident is reflective of some problem with TriMet. It may turn out to be the pedestrians fault if they were drunk after leaving the club and charged out in front of a turning bus from an angle where the visibility was low (and let's remember from our own experiences as drivers: you can only look in one direction at a time). It may equally turn out that the driver was doing something stupid like talking on her cell phone or texting while driving. Let the investigation go forward.