The #CrashNotAccident movement asks us to stop referring to vehicle collisions as “accidents.” A great example of why it’s the wrong term to use comes from my local New Bedford Standard-Times, which used “accident” three times in describing a recent incident downtown.
Police say 38-year-old Heather Gonsalves:
- Got drunk, then got in her car despite having a suspended license
- Hit a parked car
- Hit an 85-year-old woman
- Left the crime scene
- Came back
- Almost ran over a firefighter
- Refused to stop for a police officer
- Went the wrong way down a one-way street
- When police finally stopped her, she was still drinking in the car
Whoops! An accident! Like when I dropped an egg in my kitchen this morning!
Why is it so important to use the right language? From CrashNotAccident.com:
Before the labor movement, factory owners would say “it was an accident” when American workers were injured in unsafe conditions.
Before the movement to combat drunk driving, intoxicated drivers would say “it was an accident” when they crashed their cars.
Planes don’t have accidents. They crash. Cranes don’t have accidents. They collapse. And as a society, we expect answers and solutions.
Traffic crashes are fixable problems, caused by dangerous streets and unsafe drivers. They are not accidents. Let’s stop using the word “accident” today.
Despite it all being totally accidental, for some reason police are charging Gonsalves with:
- Leaving the scene of personal injury
- Operating a car under the influence of alcohol
- Negligent operation of a motor vehicle
- Operating after suspension of license
- Failing to stop for a police officer
- Leaving the scene of property damage
- Assault with a dangerous weapon
- Possession of an open container of alcohol on a public way
There’s one small step our legislators could take in the right direction. Many driving laws and Registry of Motor Vehicles documents refer to “accidents.” Why not change that language to crashes, collisions, etc.?
Christopher says
The incident you describe was no accident, but some really are.
sabutai says
I agree. Some collisions occur due to negligence, but others are indeed accident. It’s an imperfect world in which we live, accidents happen.
petr says
… Everytime I get behind the wheel of a car, I try to remind myself that what I’m about to do is an extremely dangerous activity that could result in my death and/or the deaths of others. The last ‘accident’ I was in involved snow and visibility conditions on a day I should not have been driving… (and the insurance company hasn’t let me forget it. ) Nobody else got hurt (just one car and the rail I dented)
The example given by thegreenmiles is egregious, to be sure, but scratch the surface of any ‘accident’ and you’ll find less unforseen and unfortunate chance and more simply bad decisions. I’ve made them. You’ve made them. We all make them. Well, cars can amplify the consequences of them…
stomv says
But all accidents are crashes.
If we refer to all incidents as crashes, we’re always correct. When we refer to them as accidents, not only are we not always correct — especially because our understanding of the circumstances may change over time — but we downplay responsibility. The operators of the vehicles (including autos, bikes, and feet) have a responsibility to not crash. They have a responsibility to operate vehicles with correctly functioning components. They have a responsibility to give their task their full attention, both mental and physical. They have a responsibility to obey the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. They have a responsibility to behave even more cautiously as conditions require — dark, wet, cold, hot, chaotic, windy, slippery, windy, whatever.
It’s true. You could pick up your auto from your annual inspection where it passed with flying colors, and be driving the speed limit in the middle of the day without the sun in your eyes when, apropos of nothing, a branch of a perfectly-healthy looking tree snaps, falling right on your windshield. Crash. Things like that sometimes really do happen. But, more often than not, a contributor to the crash is the motorist’s speed, or lack of full attentiveness, or tire treads that aren’t as robust as they should be.
Some incidents really are accidents. In others, even if the motorist had some contributory factor, it’s within the realm of reasonable human error and we offer nothing but forgiveness (this is easier with property damage than damage to health). But the fact remains that every single transportation operator — every motorist, cyclist, and pedestrian — travels some of the time while failing to operate the vehicle at full attention. We all need to do better. By calling the incidents “crashes” instead of “accidents” we stop using language that presumes the operator couldn’t have avoided the crash.
Trickle up says
in the field of traffic engineering and safety.
Traffic engineers always refer to such incident as “crashes” or “collisions.”
Contra the fine distinction that some are already making, the professionals recognize these events as the products of choices and circumstances that can be changed. That includes human factors.
thegreenmiles says
It seems like what commenters are saying is that not every crash is malicious or negligent, but that speaks to motive, not cause.
Every crash has a cause and “accident” isn’t a synonym for “human error.” Even if my car skids out on ice, was I going too fast for the conditions?
Trickle up says
leading to a crash, society should identify the exact cause so as to have the choice of whether to engineer or take other steps against it happening again.
So you might get, for instance, a better program for sanding the road, or warning signs, or better lighting, or the invention of antilock breaks—whatever is appropriate.
That’s how traffic engineers approach the problem.
Thought experiment (and not a legal argument): If we fail to treat a problem in that way because we prefer to argue about negligence and malice and intent, and if the problem consequently recurs and someone dies, is that negligence? Is it malicious?
marcus-graly says
No more late night T, as of this Friday:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/02/29/late-night-service-end-march-board-votes/bHZM7BHgU32YDn9zTX6OHK/story.html
Everyone has personal responsibility for their actions, obviously. But we also share some collective responsibility for building a community where people are dependent on cars for transportation. We’ve been desensitized to the equivalent of a dozen 9-11s annually, and whether we call them “accidents” or “crashes”, we still don’t seem to care.