So all crashes are accidents: Outside of the possibility of a deliberate crash, etc.
So whilst I take your point, I disagree due to the way I'd define the term 'accident' in the first place All crashes are accidents. You need to consider the difference between "doing something on purpose" and "an accident". If I drive like a tit and smack a tree; IT's still an accident. I unintentially smacked a tree. Similarly if I slip and fall over whilst walking to the shops, I didn't *HAVE* to walk to the shops. I could have stayed in a white padded cell and rocked back and forth. But the slipping is still an accident. I didn't choose to hurt myself, even though I took on the risk of the possiblity of hurting myself due to going to the shops.
And if I was just staying in that white padded cell, rocking; I could have picked up whiplash. That'd be an accident too. I didn't need to rock back and forth but I still didn't want whiplash!
Consider the english Indy car driver who unfortunately died 2 weeks ago. He was partaking in motor racing. It doesn't mean that what happened to him wasn't accidental ?!?!?
So I think this is utter rubbish really
Not that I'm putting this on you at all; but: It's this kind of ridiculous argument, imho, that leads to heath and safety lobbyists slowly but surely destroying all inclination of 'fun' left in our society due to the desire for mitigation of risk and for being able to blame someone for everything. Please won't someone think of the children (etc..). Your very definition seems to be "an accident is only an accident if there's nobody to blame". I'd flip this around and say, that insurance companies, lawyers etc: Want to define everything with a root cause, and get away from the possibility that anything can just be unfortunate; Because then the party responsible for that root cause can be sued.
This.
Anything else is just an excuse for lawyers to make money.