An accident is now a "crash."

Discussion in 'UPS Discussions' started by under the radar, Feb 19, 2011.

  1. under the radar

    under the radar A Trained Professional

    I haven't been around the Cafe for a while but, has anyone noticed how an "accident" is now called a "crash?" The term "accident" implies that one might be innocent. A "crash" insinuates that there is now no such thing as an "accident."
     
  2. Monkey Butt

    Monkey Butt You can call me Chappy Staff Member

    Or it could be a poster's username.
     
  3. JonFrum

    JonFrum Member

    Best to call them "mishaps."
     
  4. Anonymous 10

    Anonymous 10 Guest

    How about wrecks or fender benders.
     
  5. hypocrisy

    hypocrisy Banned

    Unintentional vehicular co-mingling
     
  6. Integrity

    Integrity Binge Poster

    under the radar,

    I think it is probably a good thing.

    The term accident probably lures the driver involved into a good faith discussion as to how the accident might be able to have been prevented or prevented in the future.

    If done in good faith, this shouldn't be a problem, but it often is not done in good faith and is a problem.

    The result of this is usually an accident being considered avoidable when it should not have been.

    The avoidable term implies and is generally accepted as meaning "at fault".

    This is wrong.

    The term crash should not lure anyone involved in the crash into any discussion. When it is called a crash the only thing important is who is at fault.

    "At fault" should be determined by the police officer investigating the "crash". Not a biased party like the employer of a professional driver involved.

    Sincerely,
    I
     
  7. Monkey Butt

    Monkey Butt You can call me Chappy Staff Member

    This is the same problem with semantics that existed 30 years ago.
    An incident classified as "avoidable" by UPS does not have the same meaning as "at fault" by a police officer.
    Peoples insistence on making them have the same meaning is a source of frustration and misunderstanding for years and years.
     
  8. Bubblehead

    Bubblehead My Senior Picture

    It's close enough in the respect that "avoidable" or "at fault" both subject the driver to discipline.
    "Avoidable" is just a clever way for the company to pin the liability on the bonded driver and the insurance carrier of said driver rather than the company.
    It's my hope that one day a lawyer somewhere is able to link these two terms in a liability lawsuit making UPS rethink their position.
    Me failing to "avoid" somebody who is "at fault" should not subject me to progressive discipline.
     
  9. dannyboy

    dannyboy From the promised LAND

    Lets focus on a prime example of the differences.

    I am in a package car, waiting for the light to turn green. The light turns green, and I head out into the intersection, where I am broad-sided by someone running a red light.

    The cop charges the other person with the "accident", or is at fault for causing the crash. UPS charges me with an avoidable "accident" because I did not look L< R< L before entering the intersection to double check for possible red-light-runners. So this is a prime example of someone else being charged, at fault, but the UPS driver is still charged with it being avoidable.

    There are many examples of this type of crash.

    Accident infers that neither party could have avoided the crash, as it was truly an accident.

    IT is not just UPS that has changed the terminology. Insurance companies, police departments etc are also now using crash instead of accident.

    I,
    as professional drivers, it is important to understand that we can avoid crashes by being "better" than the average driver. We are trained to see things beginning to set the stage for the crash BEFORE it happens, and thereby avoid it altogether.

    Think of it like the tornado advisory. When conditions are ripe for tornadoes are visible, they issues warnings. Then it is up to you to act on those warnings, with avoidance being a key. Yes, there are some times when tornadoes appear with not much warning, and those would be where you have accidents. The rest would be avoidable crashes, because you saw the potential, and did not take the steps to avoid the problem.

    I totally agree that it is highly unfair to the drivers to have UPS alone (and usually just one manager is the one) that determines the true avoidable/unavoidable charge with no chance of an appeal or hearing.

    d
     
  10. Anonymous 10

    Anonymous 10 Guest

    Crash501 is one bad Mother :censored2:
     
  11. 804brown

    804brown Well-Known Member

    You are right. We are expected to "expect the unexpected" . Incredible! Now accidents are treated with the third degree, followed by discipline because don't you know "it is our fault" for not seeing that car behind us not hit his brakes! And therefore, "There will be no liberty for any member of this crew for the next three months " (as Capt Queeg would say).
     
  12. Funfact

    Funfact Well-Known Member

    Who cares what they call them accidents, crash, incedents, etc. They are just words.
     
  13. over9five

    over9five Moderator Staff Member

    "Avoidable" is just a way UPS can blame the driver even though he was not at fault. It is a huge scam, and if you defend it you are a company fool drinking too much brown kool-aid.
     
  14. dannyboy

    dannyboy From the promised LAND

    Pst, not defending anything, just explaining it to I, since this is another subject where he has no practical information on how UPS operates in the real world.

    As I said, if the safe driving system were to have any real meaning, the wreck would be reviewed by a group of people not directly involved, and the driver allowed to present his case with assistance if needed.

    d
     
  15. menotyou

    menotyou bella amicizia

    Not trying to step on toes, but wouldn't the union be presenting its case? And the driver could assist in some fashion?
    The don't do much as it is, so let's at least let the do something, right?:wink2::winks:
     
  16. dannyboy

    dannyboy From the promised LAND

    It depends.

    I have been represented by business agents who knew a lot less about representing someone than my dog does. My goodness, most had to be drawn a map, and then led to the doorway to be able to find the mens room. All they were interested in was getting back to the hotel room for the free porn channel, room service, and beer.

    I have also been represented by some that I would trust my life to. But they are rare. Most try at least some, but usually need help. Experience helps, but you dont want to be the driver that gets them experience, now do you?

    Also, most BA's dont have the first clue as to how safety works at UPS. That was one of the big reasons that we kept a steward as the safety co-chair. They knew what was going on, and how to keep focus on what needed done.

    But again, UPS has changed the game. It is no longer the employee/UPS safety committee. IT belongs to them totally. So as a practical matter, what input we once had is gone. They want to rule and dominate it all. So now, as Sober had reported years ago from his center, it has become a dog and pony show for Liberty and OSHA to enjoy.

    d
     
  17. Monkey Butt

    Monkey Butt You can call me Chappy Staff Member

    Well I guess we can close the thread now.
     
  18. Covemastah

    Covemastah Suspension Ovah !!! Tom is free FU Goodell !!

    If a guy breaks out of jail on Christmas Eve,burns down an
    orphanage , killing the kids & nuns, then steals the nuns van and is being chased by the Cops & FBI thus running a red light at an intersection I have just CLEARED hitting my UPS vehicle,I am to blame !!!! Sounds fair to me !! I should have known that was gonnah happen !!!!! Believe it or not they would blame me lol lol Gottah love their reasoning !!!!
     
  19. Monkey Butt

    Monkey Butt You can call me Chappy Staff Member

    I still think the getting hit by a meteor scenario was funnier ... And more probable.