"Accident implies that it was unintentional. It makes no implication about fault or negligence."

It makes every implication about fault and negligence. Children learn this from the earliest years. Picture arms in the air, "But Mom.... it was an accident" - the "I can't really be blamed" is implicit. When somebody is accused of causing harm, and the response is "it was an accident" the implicit message is always "It wasn't my fault, because, of course, accidents happen."

Every time something hits something else on the road it is a collision. It is a crash. It is a wreck. These words are all objective statements of fact.

Accident is always a subjective statement of cause.

Even if you feel that accident *only* means intent, that is subjective. We know it was a crash. We can't know for sure what the intent was. But clearly if you look around all that the definitions floating around there you will find much more than intent. Accident also means "unpreventable, no obvious cause, act of god." It is inappropriately subjective

And the bottom line: Why defend the use of a subjective word when we have objective words that are even shorter and easier to type?

"The term "accident" implies that no one was at fault."

False: Accident implies that it was unintentional. It makes no implication about fault or negligence.

1/3 of all fatalities are DUI. 1/3 from high speed. 1/10 are Distracted. These are crimes, not "accidents". Most crashes result from behaviors that everyone knows are likely to lead to crashes. These negligent, often criminal, behaviors should not be dismissed as "accidents". Crash makes no accusation of fault or blame. In using "accident" you are stating that there was no fault, no negligence, and no intent. Please be accurate.

The Associated Press, NHTSA, Federal Highway, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, most state DOT's and most first responders stopped calling them "accidents" long ago. Not all crashes are "accidents" and it has little to do with intent. Negligent crashes, and crimes (drunk, drugged, distracted, high speed) are not "accidents". The wholly predictable crashes that result from these decisions are not "accidents". Just think of the number of character space @Waze could save if it used crash instead. #1 it's more accurate. #2 it's shorter. Do it. #crashnotaccident

So I used waze recently and noticed this, but see these comments date as far back as March. Why is Waze so far behind journalism, which had widely accepted this term for at least the last few YEARS!

I believe that some people see the word "accident" as meaning "not intentional." Of course no one plans to be involved in a crash, but that does not make it an "accident". Crash or collision describes the event well enough, without any suggestion as to fault, blame, or intent.
#crashnotaccident.

If you do something stupid and something bad happens, it's not an accident.

There is also a world of difference between "not my fault" and "could not have been prevented"

I teach defensive driving to "professional drivers" and I have to explain the difference between crash and accident every time.

Crash, not accident!

We've been trying to use crash instead of accident for my 25 years in DE. Still hard to get people to understand, or change.

Agreed 100%! DropTheAWord

Agree!!!

I totally agree!

This is a complete no brainer. First of all, think about the character space WAZE would save. But more importantly, not all crashes are "accidents". Drunk, drugged, distracted, road rage, and crashes involving criminal actions are not "accidents". They are predictable. The are not "chance" events. Using "accident" makes a statement about the circumstances of an event. Crash is just a clear, accurate description of an event. Crash makes no statement of intent, guilt, blame, or criminality. 94% of crashes result from poor choices.