Talk:Near miss (safety)

Is "near miss" a miss or not?

This doesn't make any sense whatsoever. If I try to punch someone in the face, and I miss, then *I NEARLY HIT HIM*. NOT "I nearly missed him" which would be complete bullshit. IF I nearly missed him, it means that I DID in fact hit him.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.0.91.165 (talk • contribs)

"Near Miss" is an idiomatic English term which is defined in this article. You are correct, the term doesn't make sense. But that doesn't change the fact that it is a term in common use, and defines the article. Wikipedia is a reference, not a grammar text. Ryanjo (talk) 21:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

English idioms of long standing are proper English and are good grammar, even though the individual words may appear ungrammatical when picked apart. The nature of idiomatic phrases is that they mean more than the sum of the individual words. "Near miss" has long been used to describe a miss that is still near enough to have some effect.-- Naaman Brown (talk) 13:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

The misunderstanding arises because of the tendency in contemporary American English to drop the "-ly" suffix that distinguishes adjective and adverb. If "near" is read strictly as an adjective, a "near hit" makes no sense, because it wasn't a actually a hit.24.69.25.223 (talk) 01:02, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. A "near miss" and "nearly missing" are different things. One is an adjective applied to a noun, the other an adverb applied to a separate verb. They both make sense. A "near hit" would be redundant, and "nearly hitting" would be the same as a "near miss." (All this, despite my reluctance to disagree with George Carlin.) Pojo (talk) 02:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

"Near" is both an adjective and an adverb. When used as an adverb, it is interchangeable with "nearly". Those people, such as George Carlin, who object to "near miss" are interpreting the phrase as "nearly a miss." All world be right with the world if "near hit" or "near collision" were used instead.

The term "near miss" originated in artillery or later in aerial bombing, for a shell or bomb that did not strike the target, i.e. the projectile missed, not hit, but was close enough to do damage through blast or splinters. "Near hit" is sloppy English using "near" to mean "nearly a".24.108.28.165 (talk) 00:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

In reading military history I have read "near miss" to describe a bomb that missed but caused hull damage by exploding in the water (Anthony Prescott, "Battleships 1856-1977", Phoebus, 1977; Robert Jon Cox, "Battle Off Samar"). As to Near miss (safety) I recall reading "near miss" used to describe several driving situations where one or more parties had to take evasive action (brake, accelerate or turn) to avoid a hit. In all cases, a "near miss" had some effect without actually being a hit. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 13:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I disagree that "near hit" or "near collision" would make things clearer. A "near hit/collision" would imply a hit/collision, you can't have a "far hit" or a "near hit", you just get hit. Alternatively, you can have a "far miss" or a "near miss". Near miss implies a miss but was very close to distinguish it from missing by a greater amount. Perhaps you mean that using the phrase "nearly a hit/collision" would make things clearer as this phrase, just as "near hit", implies that it was NOT a hit/collision but there almost was. 75.166.219.232 (talk) 16:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Near in "near miss" refers to the proximity of the miss to the affected target, not the closeness (nearness) or distance (farness) of the target. The phrase "near miss" describes a "near hit" but "near miss" is a long standing idiom, whereas "near hit" is a neologism that duplicates the function. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 13:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Near miss (safety). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140801161106/http://www.caa.co.uk:80/docs/7/EIS%2009.pdf to http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/7/EIS%2009.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Near miss (safety). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060717212521/http://www.patientsafetyfirst.org/safetynet/ to http://www.patientsafetyfirst.org/safetynet/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA23 - Sect 202 - Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2023 and 14 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): EdereOmnes (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by EdereOmnes (talk) 14:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC)