I think using collision instead of accident is a more accurate description. I don't think every collision between a motorist and a cyclist is the motorist's fault.

on a separate but related note, i have some new found optimism for changes in this area. as someone who works in the environmental field and has a degree in marine science, i have always been upset and opposed to how the media covers when sharks bite people, by calling them shark "attacks", and just having a fear-mongering approach. however, i've seen a slew of recent articles which show concrete movement toward not calling them attacks, and rather using the terms "bite" or "encounter" or "incident", and being considerate that sharks are not at really at fault in these instances. this is a much more accurate portrayal, and isn't demonizing to sharks. have you ever seen a shark "attack" a person the way they do seals? do the sharks eat the people? no. never. the sharks don't "attack" people in the literal sense of the word, yet it's been framed that way for decades now, and that affects the public's view of these beautiful, important creatures. so this new change is a step in the right direction for something that i personally thought would never change. here's a link to one article. https://www.npr.org/...-they-will-only-bite.

Gaimon is right. I like his example. something like: It's not a latte accident of a car runs into a starbucks.

[

I read the story on CNN and it doesn't assign blame to the driver, if anything it makes it sound like Knapp caused the accident?

"Knapp collided with a single motorist on Saturday in California, according to the San Ramon Police Department. After a preliminary investigation, authorities said they do not suspect drugs and/or alcohol were a factor in the incident. Police said the driver of the vehicle cooperated with the investigation."

I hear the perspectives on 'crash' vs 'accident'. BUT, the CNN piece...well, read it again...'Knapp collided with a single motorist...' THAT is the kind of language that seems totally inappropriate in this case. Is it true? Seems so, but the choice of wording also seems to place the blame on Knapp. What about 'a single motorist collided with a cyclist...' That, to me, implies the motorist as the initiator of the collision. And, as far as we know, that's what happened.

I actually think that this distinction is super important. Casual CNN viewers/listeners will interpret the original words as 'stupid cyclist not paying attention got himself run over by a law-abiding, attentive motorist'. Accumulate this type of reporting over many incidents and motorists think that 'heck, it's all those cyclists causing the problems - let's ban 'em from the roads or at least honk the horn behind them to tell them that they are unsafe here'. This accumulation of misinformation anesthetizes drivers to their obligations in keeping all users of the road safe.