4 ms·

>an aside but can we please stop with using "accident" as the default term to describe mayhem involving motor vehicles? This simply dismisses the many risk fact

by serf 5y ago

>an aside but can we please stop with using "accident" as the default term to describe mayhem involving motor vehicles? This simply dismisses the many risk factors as being simply inevitable even though there are more than likely preventable causes to address. the word accident by no means conveys inevitability to me. ac·ci·dent /ˈaksədənt/ noun: accident; plural noun: accidents 1. an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury. So.. unless we're talking about intentional automotive manslaughter or some equivalent, I think 'accident' applies well to 'unintentional,unexpected,unfortunate incidents', which there tends to be quite a few of related to motor-vehicles. What terms do you want to use? mayhem and murder? Those both describe motive that just isn't present in most cases of motor-vehicle accident. * violence : behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. * 'violence' conveys yet another motive, an intent to hurt. Another no-go as far as suitable candidates, as far as i'm concerned. Automotive accidents do not usually come about as a result of a negative motive towards another human. They're accidental, in most cases.

riffic 5y ago
"accident" is a problematic word to describe vehicle crashes because it minimizes the agency of a driver and intentional decision making processes that lead up to a crash. Intent is a funny thing to determine though, but the same article I linked above and provided an excerpt from also deals with how there is a "degree of intention", either from other road users, or from engineers and officials that are tasked with managing traffic and road safety. --- Drivers aren't out there aiming for pedestrians and cyclists, so how does intention factor in? UCLA's Madeline Brozen argues it can be traced back to both failure to follow road safety laws and a lack of understanding about how dangerous driving a car is — especially since unsafe speed is the top contributing factor in L.A. traffic deaths. Research shows that a pedestrian struck by a driver going 20 mph has an 80% chance of survival. If that driver accelerates to 40 mph and hits a pedestrian, the victim's chance of surviving drops to just 10%. "The act of going above the speed limit or going fast [in unsafe] road conditions...that is an intention," Brozen said. "When someone is driving in a way that can kill someone, they are creating a risk." According to John Yi, another "degree of intention" in traffic deaths falls on car-centric society and L.A.'s leaders, who are "intentional about what we're building and what we're not building."
- AbrahamParangi 5y ago
  Industrial accidents, aviation accidents and workplace accidents are much like vehicle accidents in that people spend a huge amount of time, money, and energy on figuring out what went wrong and how to fix it. The term accident in this context is understood to mean exactly what happened, which is that the event wasn't immediately intended- not that nobody is at fault.
  - ericmay 5y ago
    The difference is frequency. I’m not sure why intention matters in calling a car crash or wreck exactly that instead of an accident. When an airliner goes down we don’t call it an accident. Midair collision, plane crash, etc. When planes flew into the WTC was that an aviation accident? Do you see how the terms used change this? “Car accident” implies a normal state of behavior and softens and normalizes what is a pretty crazy thing to happen. Calling it a wreck or crash doesn’t imply any sort of culpability, yet denormalizes these interactions. If someone willfully ignored ATC in a plane and crashed the plane would you call that an accident? No? Why do we not say the same when someone drives a car over the speed limit and crashes it? Why is that an accident but plane crashes aren’t? If you take a step back it’s easy to see society has been modified to think of car crashes differently.
    - AbrahamParangi 5y ago
      If you shoot someone accidentally, that might be a firearm accident. If you shoot someone intending to kill them, that might be murder. The term accident doesn’t necessarily imply “normal”, but rather “no intent”. 9/11 would not qualify as an accident because the intent of the hijackers was to crash the plane. You say car crashes are treated differently but your examples imply the opposite! That car crashes are treated identically to other mishaps which are classed as accidental or not by the intent of the actor(s).
      - ericmay 5y ago
        Let me ask you this, if you are going over the speed limit or drunk driving and crash into someone else is that an accident or intentional? And why is it that everyone here is defending using the term "accident" by suggesting that car crash or wreck is not a correct description? In drunk driving for example, you intently operated the vehicle impaired and caused a crash. If you drive over the speed limit you are intently operating the vehicle recklessly. We do on occasion use the term vehicular homicide when describing these actions, but it depends on whether someone was hurt or not, even with the same action being taken (drunk/speeding/etc.). My point of contention is that "accident" assumes no intent or reckless behavior. Crash and wreck just describe what happened. There's a reason that accident was injected into our vocabulary. That reason is that we generally accept that accidents happen in society. We don't accept crashes or wrecks. If a lot of car crashes are happening and society doesn't accept them, you better figure out a way to re-categorize them.
kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
In military aviation they're "mishaps" for precisely this reason. For things to go wrong somebody had to drop the ball, be it pilot error, ground crew, or maintenance deficiencies.
- inglor_cz 5y ago
  What about a bird sucked into an engine? That cannot really be completely prevented by people.
  - Gwypaas 5y ago
    Is a test requirement when certifying a new engine.
CalRobert 5y ago
There's a mindset shift depending on how you view space allocation. Crash on a motorway because you spilled coffee on yourself? Ok, accident. Crash on a neighbourhood street where kids could be walking, cycling, playing, etc? Negligence, just as much as if you "accidentally" shot a kid while deer hunting at the playground. But this is based on the idea that people have just as much right to be in the street as drivers do. Most people disagree with me on this, outside of urbanists and perhaps Dutch people.
pftburger 5y ago
Maybe an interesting intersection point is “systemic violence” Violence is a confusing and disputed term, often bogged down by the visual of two sides, one striking, one struck. Systemic violence is maybe more interesting here because it acknowledges that the system involves violence by design. A certain amount of violence is accepted because of a prevailing narrative. Here specifically one of fault and blame. IE the driver wasn’t paying attention / the pedestrian was doing something silly Systemic violence acknowledges that the design of road infrastructure can be made safer but we choose to be ok with a certain amount of violence. Take hospital check lists as an example. By using check lists for procedures staff reduce the chance of mistakes. The event is still a mistake but we chose to put more energy into preventing it.

by serf 5y ago

riffic 5y ago

"accident" is a problematic word to describe vehicle crashes because it minimizes the agency of a driver and intentional decision making processes that lead up to a crash. Intent is a funny thing to determine though, but the same article I linked above and provided an excerpt from also deals with how there is a "degree of intention", either from other road users, or from engineers and officials that are tasked with managing traffic and road safety. --- Drivers aren't out there aiming for pedestrians and cyclists, so how does intention factor in? UCLA's Madeline Brozen argues it can be traced back to both failure to follow road safety laws and a lack of understanding about how dangerous driving a car is — especially since unsafe speed is the top contributing factor in L.A. traffic deaths. Research shows that a pedestrian struck by a driver going 20 mph has an 80% chance of survival. If that driver accelerates to 40 mph and hits a pedestrian, the victim's chance of surviving drops to just 10%. "The act of going above the speed limit or going fast [in unsafe] road conditions...that is an intention," Brozen said. "When someone is driving in a way that can kill someone, they are creating a risk." According to John Yi, another "degree of intention" in traffic deaths falls on car-centric society and L.A.'s leaders, who are "intentional about what we're building and what we're not building."

AbrahamParangi 5y ago
Industrial accidents, aviation accidents and workplace accidents are much like vehicle accidents in that people spend a huge amount of time, money, and energy on figuring out what went wrong and how to fix it. The term accident in this context is understood to mean exactly what happened, which is that the event wasn't immediately intended- not that nobody is at fault.
- ericmay 5y ago
  The difference is frequency. I’m not sure why intention matters in calling a car crash or wreck exactly that instead of an accident. When an airliner goes down we don’t call it an accident. Midair collision, plane crash, etc. When planes flew into the WTC was that an aviation accident? Do you see how the terms used change this? “Car accident” implies a normal state of behavior and softens and normalizes what is a pretty crazy thing to happen. Calling it a wreck or crash doesn’t imply any sort of culpability, yet denormalizes these interactions. If someone willfully ignored ATC in a plane and crashed the plane would you call that an accident? No? Why do we not say the same when someone drives a car over the speed limit and crashes it? Why is that an accident but plane crashes aren’t? If you take a step back it’s easy to see society has been modified to think of car crashes differently.
  - AbrahamParangi 5y ago
    If you shoot someone accidentally, that might be a firearm accident. If you shoot someone intending to kill them, that might be murder. The term accident doesn’t necessarily imply “normal”, but rather “no intent”. 9/11 would not qualify as an accident because the intent of the hijackers was to crash the plane. You say car crashes are treated differently but your examples imply the opposite! That car crashes are treated identically to other mishaps which are classed as accidental or not by the intent of the actor(s).
    - ericmay 5y ago
      Let me ask you this, if you are going over the speed limit or drunk driving and crash into someone else is that an accident or intentional? And why is it that everyone here is defending using the term "accident" by suggesting that car crash or wreck is not a correct description? In drunk driving for example, you intently operated the vehicle impaired and caused a crash. If you drive over the speed limit you are intently operating the vehicle recklessly. We do on occasion use the term vehicular homicide when describing these actions, but it depends on whether someone was hurt or not, even with the same action being taken (drunk/speeding/etc.). My point of contention is that "accident" assumes no intent or reckless behavior. Crash and wreck just describe what happened. There's a reason that accident was injected into our vocabulary. That reason is that we generally accept that accidents happen in society. We don't accept crashes or wrecks. If a lot of car crashes are happening and society doesn't accept them, you better figure out a way to re-categorize them.

kevin_thibedeau 5y ago

In military aviation they're "mishaps" for precisely this reason. For things to go wrong somebody had to drop the ball, be it pilot error, ground crew, or maintenance deficiencies.

inglor_cz 5y ago
What about a bird sucked into an engine? That cannot really be completely prevented by people.
- Gwypaas 5y ago
  Is a test requirement when certifying a new engine.

CalRobert 5y ago

There's a mindset shift depending on how you view space allocation. Crash on a motorway because you spilled coffee on yourself? Ok, accident. Crash on a neighbourhood street where kids could be walking, cycling, playing, etc? Negligence, just as much as if you "accidentally" shot a kid while deer hunting at the playground. But this is based on the idea that people have just as much right to be in the street as drivers do. Most people disagree with me on this, outside of urbanists and perhaps Dutch people.

pftburger 5y ago

Maybe an interesting intersection point is “systemic violence” Violence is a confusing and disputed term, often bogged down by the visual of two sides, one striking, one struck. Systemic violence is maybe more interesting here because it acknowledges that the system involves violence by design. A certain amount of violence is accepted because of a prevailing narrative. Here specifically one of fault and blame. IE the driver wasn’t paying attention / the pedestrian was doing something silly Systemic violence acknowledges that the design of road infrastructure can be made safer but we choose to be ok with a certain amount of violence. Take hospital check lists as an example. By using check lists for procedures staff reduce the chance of mistakes. The event is still a mistake but we chose to put more energy into preventing it.