When its car vs. deer on the road, whos at fault? The driver, or the deer?
The deer, of course. Unless the driver has swerved off the road intentionally to strike the deer.
Does it matter where the point of impact is on the car? Technically, if its the front, the vehicle has hit the deer. And if its on the side, the deer has hit the car.
Still, does it matter? Heavens, no.
Obviously, it does matter enough to some people to change how the Green County Sheriffs Department reports deer accidents to the news media. In the past, the department in its daily accident reports always referred to such incidents as car hits deer.
Apparently, someone or some people complained, insisting their car didnt hit a deer but rather the deer hit their car. Good lord!
The complaints were strong enough that this week the Green County Sheriffs Department began rewording its releases to include the less offensive car collided with a deer phrase.
Amazing.
I certainly cant fault the sheriffs department. Theres no need for its personnel to waste time quibbling with a driver who is upset with how their, ahem, collision with a deer was worded in the newspaper. If I were the sheriff, Id make the same decision. Fine, word it this way and get rid of the headache.
Its sad to think people would expend the time and energy to make such a complaint in the first place. I guess people will argue just about anything, wont they?
That said, the Times is going begin using collide rather than hit, as well. Not that I like it.
Our general policy has been that, to help avoid legal snafus with how police blotter and accident items are published, the Times uses the same words and phrases as the law enforcement agency that reports the incident, so as not to misinterpret anything. Well do the same with car vs. deer accidents.
Or are those deer vs. car accidents?
The deer, of course. Unless the driver has swerved off the road intentionally to strike the deer.
Does it matter where the point of impact is on the car? Technically, if its the front, the vehicle has hit the deer. And if its on the side, the deer has hit the car.
Still, does it matter? Heavens, no.
Obviously, it does matter enough to some people to change how the Green County Sheriffs Department reports deer accidents to the news media. In the past, the department in its daily accident reports always referred to such incidents as car hits deer.
Apparently, someone or some people complained, insisting their car didnt hit a deer but rather the deer hit their car. Good lord!
The complaints were strong enough that this week the Green County Sheriffs Department began rewording its releases to include the less offensive car collided with a deer phrase.
Amazing.
I certainly cant fault the sheriffs department. Theres no need for its personnel to waste time quibbling with a driver who is upset with how their, ahem, collision with a deer was worded in the newspaper. If I were the sheriff, Id make the same decision. Fine, word it this way and get rid of the headache.
Its sad to think people would expend the time and energy to make such a complaint in the first place. I guess people will argue just about anything, wont they?
That said, the Times is going begin using collide rather than hit, as well. Not that I like it.
Our general policy has been that, to help avoid legal snafus with how police blotter and accident items are published, the Times uses the same words and phrases as the law enforcement agency that reports the incident, so as not to misinterpret anything. Well do the same with car vs. deer accidents.
Or are those deer vs. car accidents?
