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,
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.
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
