> The word "accident" suggests nothing could have been done to predict or prevent the collision.
I mean, that's clearly rubbish, isn't? When I accidentally shut my thumb in the door, I use the word accident to indicate I didn't do it intentionally. It doesn't minimise the fact that I was a blithering idiot and could have avoided a broken thumb with the minimum of attention.
The language is definitely a bit tricky: think about how many accidents are caused by driving aggressively or choosing to use a phone while driving. Nobody chose the accident but it was a direct, easily predicted consequence of a deliberate choice and wouldn’t have happened if they had followed the law. That seems to be rather different from you hitting your finger with a hammer, unless perhaps you were trying to check Facebook at the same time like the average commuter.
To me it's just a matter of stakes. No one will die if you close your door without taking care. On a road that's a realistic threat so people should account for it in how they act. For me that moves it from accident to negligence (in an everyday language sense, not legalese).
The traffic people avoid the word, the people that study commute patterns and write policy papers about how reducing the number of vehicles reduces accidents (have a phd for that one). The people who design crumple zones, who decide traffic light brightness, who build the brakes that prevent crashes and the seatbelts that make them survivable ... the people who represent 99% of your safety still call them accidents.
I mean, that's clearly rubbish, isn't? When I accidentally shut my thumb in the door, I use the word accident to indicate I didn't do it intentionally. It doesn't minimise the fact that I was a blithering idiot and could have avoided a broken thumb with the minimum of attention.