If a car is involved in a head on collision would you expect damage to the front end?
The car in the picture in this story was involved in a head on crash yesterday. Unfortunately the driver passed away. It appears from reading the story that this accident was not her fault. I always thought that if there was a head on crash, both cars had to hit 'head on'. Has the definition changed, or have I always misunderstoon?
I agree the description is a little misleading but think the author was trying to express that the damaged car encountered an object in front of it (at its head) at the time of impact -- a generic way of saying the damaged car was "headed" forward and the momentum of the other vehicle was in opposition.
As a generic definition, I would not think a "head-on collision" inherently describes fault on both drivers' parts (and agree that an object or even a person can be hit head-on) but in a two-car incident I would expect the majority of damage at both front ends as opposed to a front and side, I suppose (now that I think about it).
What an awful wreck. If Jaguar brakes and steering can't avoid such an occurrence, I figure nothing can. Karma.
I think most would agree a head on collision looks like this:
It makes me wonder if the press sticks to the dramatic phrases because blood and death sells.
I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.
"Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the Government take care of him; better take a closer look at the American Indian." - Henry Ford
Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges; When the Republic is at its most corrupt the laws are most numerous. - Publius Cornelius Tacitus
Mary, my comment was a reference to the apparently unavoidable nature of the accident from the victim's perspective, and simply shorthand for, "There are some things we'll never understand," that's all. Maybe "Fate" is a better word, for the piano falling on the innocent person who just happens to be walking underneath it.