A CAR CRASH IS NOT AN ACCIDENT

A CAR CRASH IS NOT AN ACCIDENT: WORDS FOR ROAD SAFETY
When campaigning for better road safety, it is imperative that we use the correct words to achieve our goals. One big topic of discussion is using the word “crash” instead of “accident.” If you have read our articles or social media posts, you may have noticed that we never use the word “accident.”
In this article, we want to explore the reasons behind this deliberate choice of wording, the implications, and the appropriateness of one over the other. We also want to look at some other commonly used terms and phrases that are harmful when talking about road safety.
WHY NOT “ACCIDENT”?
Calling a crash a “car accident” is a social norm. As the writer of these articles, it was a phrase I had to train myself out of using because it was so ingrained. But that begs the question: if we all use the term, how is it wrong?
The Oxford Dictionary defines an accident as “something that happens by chance and without an obvious cause”.
When we examine a crash, there are almost always identifiable factors that caused it. When so many people lose their lives on the road or are left with life-changing injuries, we should always strive for the improvement of road safety. While no one plans to be involved in a car crash, crashes are preventable.
There will always be a case of if something had been different, the crash would not have happened. A drunk person should have called a cab. A child should have worn a seatbelt. The tyres could have been replaced sooner. Fewer passengers should have been allowed in the vehicle. The bus driver should have been properly vetted. The driver should have stopped to sleep. The road should have had better lighting.
To affect change and save lives, we need to acknowledge that crashes are preventable. They do not happen by random chance to someone unlucky that day. If we want to view them happening through a lens of “chance”, then it should be understood that the factors that increase and decrease the likelihood of that chance are variables. Variables can be changed.
WHY DO WE CALL IT AN ACCIDENT THEN?
Losing someone to a car crash is devastating. It feels as though someone was taken away from you in an instant. Even if you have not experienced this loss personally, we all empathise with the loss when we hear about it, especially when it comes to children. It feels unfair.
Often we turn to questioning the universe or God as to why this happened, not to explore the actual mechanisms of what went wrong, but to make sense of a tragedy.
When talking to someone who is grieving a loss, we often use phrases like “It was God’s plan”, “Everything happens for a reason”, and “It was his time to go”. These phrases can provide comfort. They allude to a greater plan, rather than a senseless loss. When someone is coming to terms with loss, it is not an appropriate time to tell them that their loved one’s death was preventable or the result of someone’s actions. For a lot of people, calling it an “accident” is easier to accept on a personal level.
But on the other side of the coin, for some families who want justice, calling these deaths an accident when their loved one has died on account of another careless or irresponsible driver is aggravating.
Knocking over a glass of milk is an accident, but the preventable death of a person should not be spoken about similarly.
THE BIGGER PROBLEM
To see a positive change in road safety, we have to hold people or governments accountable for factors that increase the dangers on our roads.
It angers us to read about yet another taxi full of school children involved in a horrific crash. It is disrespectful to the lives lost to chalk these crashes down to an “accident” when there is so much that could be done to save young lives. Road-related injuries are the leading cause of death in children aged 5-19 years old. This is a crisis. Yet not nearly enough is being done to mitigate the dangers to our children.
When we write off a crash as an accident, we are inadvertently saying that it is something that “just happens”. It suggests that it was an unintentional event, yet the causes that lead to the outcome are very often intentional disregard for safety. Child fatalities in road-related incidents are studied and analyzed almost more than any other childhood disease. We know that more often than not it is preventable.
To offer a different perspective: should you be involved in a collision, the language used when reporting the incident or submitting an insurance claim can greatly affect the legal and financial outcomes. If described as an “accident”, this suggests no fault. If described as a “crash” or “collision” this implies there is fault which can greatly influence liability and insurance claims.
This distinction of different terminology carries weight in many areas. In other words, words have meaning and nuance, and the difference matters.
“HUMAN ERROR”
A few months ago, when writing about a taxi of school children driving in front of a train, a quote stood out to me – one I still think about often. “It was down to stupid human error”. Human error. “People make mistakes” is an appropriate thing to tell a child when they knock over a glass of juice, but the same sentiment applied to a driver whose reckless driving cost ten children their lives is obscene.
Often when “human error” is mentioned, it is framed as if it is a reason for a crash. But much like “accident”, it also comes across as “one of those things that just happens”. It certainly feels like it absolves some of the blame.
“ACT OF GOD”
Framing a crash as an “Act of God” has some more serious implications. Some may understand the sentiment similar to “part of God’s plan”, but the term “Act of God” carries legal weight.
Often used to describe events that are not a result of human action such as natural disasters or extreme weather. In these events, a person cannot legally be held liable for death, injury or damage. “Act of God” is appropriate to the aftermath of a flood, but not a collision as a result of reckless driving.
“THE VEHICLE LOST CONTROL”
Often when crashes are reported in the news, the phrase “the vehicle lost control” is not uncommon. This has a few problems. Firstly, “the driver lost control of the vehicle” is the correct phrase. Vehicles are under the control of a driver, not the other way around. There are of course situations in which the driver is more likely to lose control of a vehicle, such as on account of adverse weather conditions. However, there are also situations in which the loss of control is preventable or at least could have been minimised.
Losing control of a vehicle can also be on account of poor and irregular maintenance, overloading of vehicles and dangerous driving. When it is stated that “the vehicle lost control” accountability is directed away from the driver.
To a lot of people, this article may seem like a case of nitpicking semantics. However, the words used to describe road incidents can have real-life impacts or consequences. In some countries, advocacy groups, safety officials and public health officials have even gone as far as to try to ban the use of words like “accident” in media reporting. On a topic as serious as road safety, it is crucially important that terminology is appropriate and correct, both legally, and socially and to create change for the better.
A CAR CRASH IS NOT AN ACCIDENT Read More »