When is an accident not an accident? When it's an incident of course....

From an early age we start to take language for granted. As soon as we are able to speak and be understood, and at the same time understand everything that is said to us, a whole new world opens up. Language is, without hyperbole, what defines us and what decides us.

It's a shame, therefore, that it can be so bloody ambiguous at times!

Take the innocuous word 'accident' for instance, for this is the word which originally sparked this train of thought, and which forms the cornerstone of many an argument on the very perception of cycling as a whole.

There is often an immediate reaction to this word amongst the cycling fraternity, with many pouncing on it as an example of automatically lifting any possibility of guilt when there is a 'coming together' between cyclist and motorist. Cyclists rile at the use of the word, with its suggestive undertones that here was something that was unavoidable, and even further in some minds that it hints at the acceptability of thousands dying every year in the face of the motor car. The way around this, therefore, is to replace the word with something more 'neutral', which does not imply no-one was at fault, while at the same time not incriminatnig anyone.

'Incident' is the word of choice for this role in most cases.

In defence of this anger and resentment at the media insistence on using 'accident' is the belief that that particular word resonates with the general public, it very strongly states to people that a motorist ran over a cyclist, but hey, he wasn't to blame. Dictionaries are brandished, and it is shouted from the rooftops that most accidents are not 'unforeseen' if you're sensible about it.

I'm really not so sure.