In reading through some of the motor vehicle crash threads...I mean Lights and POV threads, the issue was brought up to stop using the term "motor vehicle accident" in order to force the issue for someone to accept responsibility for the crash. The term "crash"or "collision" would be used in place of "accident".
What about replacing the term "accidental fire" to something like "non-incendiary"? It would force the moron who puts oil in the deep fryer and then goes to take a shower to take responsibility for his stupidity.
What do you think?
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 10 of 10
Thread: "Accidental" Fires
11-26-2005, 04:52 PM #1
- Join Date
- Jul 1999
- Flanders, NJ
11-26-2005, 05:14 PM #2
Just call 'em "unintentionals", a.k.a. MVU'sFire Lieutenant/E.M.T.
IAFF Local 2339
K of C 4th Degree
"Fir na tine"
11-26-2005, 05:45 PM #3Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI
11-26-2005, 05:47 PM #4
Although the idea is a good one, I dont think semantics will force anyone to take responsibility for their actions. Is this a matter of the wording in the reports to the insurance companies? If that is the case maybe a change in the language put in the reports would be helpful. But in our everyday use of the terms, I dont think you are going to get the morons as you described them to accept responsiblity for anything.Shawn M. Cecula
IACOJ Division of Fire and EMS
11-26-2005, 05:57 PM #5
- Join Date
- Dec 1998
- Black Hawk VFD, South Dakota
George, It's worth a try. I see the complaints coming from the moron's friends and family now about the embarassment we caused by telling everyone it wasn't an "accident" but a lapse of judgement.
We had a mobile home fire caused by unattended cooking. Dad put a pan of oil on the stove to make french fries for the kids for lunch. He then retired to the master bathroom with the new issue of Penthouse and forgot the oil. We saved the bathrooms, bedrooms and the master bathroom library. We told the media that the fire was caused by unattended cooking. We didn't elaborate on the reason.
11-26-2005, 07:18 PM #6
- Join Date
- Jul 2005
Well...I think semantics has a lot to do with it. Many days I work, I get called an ambulance driver, while that may be true when I'm driving, the second I step foot into the court room, I'm an accountable medical professional even If I have not had PT care in the incident. I think the MVC/MVA can be used as seperate terms. I see and MVA as two or more vehicles that collide without intention, but the blame for beginning the incident still needs to be placed. But the MVC, would be one vehicle striking an object, such as a tree. The difference comes in what was involved.FF/NREMT-B
Brass does not equal brains.
Courage is not the absence of fear, but rather the ability to control it.
11-26-2005, 07:26 PM #7
- Join Date
- Oct 2005
I myself have been swayed in the past for "collisions"
But you know,
If you drop the political correct crapola of trying to come up with newer, spiffier names for the same old thing, the Merriam Webster definition still works:
Main Entry: ac·ci·dent
Pronunciation: 'ak-s&-d&nt, -"dent; 'aks-d&nt
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin accident-, accidens nonessential quality, chance, from present participle of accidere to happen, from ad- + cadere to fall -- more at CHANCE
1 a : an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance b : lack of intention or necessity : CHANCE
2 a : an unfortunate event resulting especially from carelessness or ignorance b : an unexpected and medically important bodily event especially when injurious c : an unexpected happening causing loss or injury which is not due to any fault or misconduct on the part of the person injured but for which legal relief may be sought
3 : a nonessential property or quality of an entity or circumstance
Doesn't say "Unforeseable" just "unforseen" by the dumb *** who did it.
Says a lack of intent, which meets the definition of most "collisions" in that the person didn't intend to do it (although they may very well be responsible by negligence...and they might even be responsible for putting themselves in a condition (drunk) that caused the negligence.)
Says careless, says ignorance.
Kind of seems that "accident" is the accurate description for, um, an accident.
Perhaps we switch over to a term like "Motor Vehicle Collision" when it's an intentional act only (Why does Garth Brook's Papa Loves Mama suddenly pop into my head )
11-27-2005, 01:08 PM #8
- Join Date
- Mar 2005
- Waterboro, Maine
I know what you mean George, sometimes it could be an understatement to call it an accident, when you've seen this moron driving like an a hole every day since he got his license.
Our dispatch recently started calling them Motor Vehicle Crashes. It makes sense I guess, because whether it was accidental, planned, or even predictable, it still resulted in a crash. One car, or ten cars, crash sums it up.There goes the neighborhood.
11-27-2005, 01:39 PM #9
How about this. When asked what caused the collision or what caused the fire, us married guys can just say HER.
Human Error Responsible.
11-27-2005, 02:27 PM #10
Hows that George?Psychiatrists state 1 in 4 people has a mental illness.
Look at three of your friends, if they are ok, your it.
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
By rumlfire in forum Volunteer ForumReplies: 14Last Post: 08-01-2006, 10:35 PM
By KemalT in forum Firefighters ForumReplies: 22Last Post: 09-25-2005, 07:07 AM
By PaulBrown in forum World of Fire Daily ReportReplies: 0Last Post: 09-07-2003, 08:26 PM
By Lallo in forum Firefighters ForumReplies: 6Last Post: 03-18-2002, 08:34 PM
By wtfd92 in forum Firefighters ForumReplies: 23Last Post: 06-27-2001, 08:41 PM