5 ms·

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_collision#Criticism_of_%22accident%22_terminology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_collision#Criticism_of... > In 19

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_collision#Criticism_of_%22accident%22_terminology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_collision#Criticism_of... > In 1997, George L. Reagle, the Associate Administrator for Motor Carriers of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration wrote a letter stating that "A crash is not an accident", emphasizing that the Department's Research and Special Programs Administration, the Federal Highway Administration, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration had all declared that "accident" should be avoided in their published writings and media communications.[15] In 2016, the Associated Press updated its style guide to recommend that journalists use "crash, collision, or other terms" rather than "accident" unless culpability is proven. The AP also recommends avoiding "accident" when negligence is proven or claimed because the term "can be read as exonerating the person responsible."[16] In 2021, the American Automobile Association (AAA) passed a resolution to replace "car accident" with "car crash" in their vocabulary.[17] In 2022, the traffic management company INRIX announced that "accident" would be removed from their lexicon.[18] > The Maryland Department of Transportation's Highway Safety Office emphasizes that "crashes are no accident", saying that "Using the word accident suggests that an incident was unavoidable, but many roadway crashes can be attributed to human error."[19] The Michigan Department of Transportation states that "accident" should be dropped in favor of "crash", saying that "Traffic crashes are fixable problems, caused by inattentive drivers and driver behavior. They are NOT accidents."[16] In line with their Vision Zero commitments, the Portland Bureau of Transportation recommends using "crash" rather than "accident".[20]

DangitBobby 3y ago
Yes, propaganda happens. Doesn't make them not accidents.
- eesmith 3y ago
  Ah, you agree with the car industry propaganda push to use the term "accident" instead of, say, motor killing. https://www.vox.com/2015/7/20/8995151/crash-not-accident https://www.vox.com/2015/7/20/8995151/crash-not-accident "Crash" is a wider term. If someone deliberately drives into a building, that is not an accident. It is still a crash. Do you also say plane accident instead of plane crash?
  - DangitBobby 3y ago
    I'm confused what conversation you think we're having. Someone said that car crashes are "not accidents." That's fucking crazy, so I'm pushing back on it. They are clearly mostly accidents. Not liking cars, people who make cars, people who sell cars, and people who drive cars doesn't make them not accidents.
    - eesmith 3y ago
      This conversation has been going on since the 1990s. There are innumerable articles on the topic. I pointed you to some. Here's a couple more: BMJ bans “accidents” - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1120417/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1120417/ > For many years safety officials and public health authorities have discouraged use of the word “accident” when it refers to injuries or the events that produce them. An accident is often understood to be unpredictable—a chance occurrence or an “act of God”—and therefore unavoidable. However, most injuries and their precipitating events are predictable and preventable.1–3 That is why the BMJ has decided to ban the word accident. Motor Vehicle Crash Versus Accident: A Change in Terminology is Necessary - https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1023/A:1016260130224.pdf https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1023/A:101626013022... > We assert that motor vehicle crash should replace motor vehicle accident in the clinical and research lexicon of traumatologists. Crash encompasses a wider range of potential causes for vehicular crashes than does the term accident. A majority of fatal crashes are caused by intoxicated, speeding, distracted, or careless drivers and, therefore, are not accidents. Most importantly, characterizing crashes as accidents, when a driver was intoxicated or negligent, may impede the recovery of crash victims by preventing them from assigning blame and working through the emotions related to their trauma. When a crash is really an accident: A concept analysis - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4654670/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4654670/ > The debate over using the word accident has encouraged some groups to adopt the word crash, while other groups retain using accident. This article addresses the inconsistent and interchangeable use of the terms accident and crash. ... Although there is evidence that the use of the word accident should be maintained when the event could not have reasonably been prevented, the theoretical framework highlights this will likely perpetuate the conceptual confusion. The recommendation is to: 1) identify the mechanism of injury, 2) identify event as intentional vs. non-intentional, and 3) identify event as preventable vs. non-preventable. There is certainly disagreement, but to call it "fucking crazy" and attributing the viewpoint as limited to car haters suggests you haven't read any of the background, so are not participating in the conversation.

DangitBobby 3y ago

Yes, propaganda happens. Doesn't make them not accidents.

eesmith 3y ago
Ah, you agree with the car industry propaganda push to use the term "accident" instead of, say, motor killing. https://www.vox.com/2015/7/20/8995151/crash-not-accident https://www.vox.com/2015/7/20/8995151/crash-not-accident "Crash" is a wider term. If someone deliberately drives into a building, that is not an accident. It is still a crash. Do you also say plane accident instead of plane crash?
- DangitBobby 3y ago
  I'm confused what conversation you think we're having. Someone said that car crashes are "not accidents." That's fucking crazy, so I'm pushing back on it. They are clearly mostly accidents. Not liking cars, people who make cars, people who sell cars, and people who drive cars doesn't make them not accidents.
  - eesmith 3y ago
    This conversation has been going on since the 1990s. There are innumerable articles on the topic. I pointed you to some. Here's a couple more: BMJ bans “accidents” - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1120417/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1120417/ > For many years safety officials and public health authorities have discouraged use of the word “accident” when it refers to injuries or the events that produce them. An accident is often understood to be unpredictable—a chance occurrence or an “act of God”—and therefore unavoidable. However, most injuries and their precipitating events are predictable and preventable.1–3 That is why the BMJ has decided to ban the word accident. Motor Vehicle Crash Versus Accident: A Change in Terminology is Necessary - https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1023/A:1016260130224.pdf https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1023/A:101626013022... > We assert that motor vehicle crash should replace motor vehicle accident in the clinical and research lexicon of traumatologists. Crash encompasses a wider range of potential causes for vehicular crashes than does the term accident. A majority of fatal crashes are caused by intoxicated, speeding, distracted, or careless drivers and, therefore, are not accidents. Most importantly, characterizing crashes as accidents, when a driver was intoxicated or negligent, may impede the recovery of crash victims by preventing them from assigning blame and working through the emotions related to their trauma. When a crash is really an accident: A concept analysis - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4654670/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4654670/ > The debate over using the word accident has encouraged some groups to adopt the word crash, while other groups retain using accident. This article addresses the inconsistent and interchangeable use of the terms accident and crash. ... Although there is evidence that the use of the word accident should be maintained when the event could not have reasonably been prevented, the theoretical framework highlights this will likely perpetuate the conceptual confusion. The recommendation is to: 1) identify the mechanism of injury, 2) identify event as intentional vs. non-intentional, and 3) identify event as preventable vs. non-preventable. There is certainly disagreement, but to call it "fucking crazy" and attributing the viewpoint as limited to car haters suggests you haven't read any of the background, so are not participating in the conversation.