Crash versus accident

The idea that the word "crash" should be used when describing incident in which vehicles and pedestrians collide, instead of "accident," has popped up a few times here in comments and we've noticed it come up other (virtual) places locally. So you might find interesting this piece over at Nautilus by a cognitive scientist looking at the campaign to use crash instead of accident -- and how the campaign itself might undermine the push for the switch. [via TMN]

Comments

While the word “accident” is particularly problematic, changing that term to “collision” or “crash” isn’t the sole purpose of those of us who object to it. I believe that writers should consider the agency of the people involved throughout. So instead of “A pedestrian was killed in a car accident/crash/collision,” say, “A pedestrian was killed by a driver turning right on red” (or, better yet, “Mike Smith killed a pedestrian while turning right on red”).

Sarah - then in other cases you would need to report "pedestrian killed him/herself, damaging car in process"
And never mind due process. Constitution seem to be an annoying hindrance for many people anyway.

Not defending crazy drivers at all but could also read " a pedestrian who was on cell phone crossing outside of crosswalk and not looking in either direction"....could also apply.....

In addition to headlines that more appropriate describe the nature of the incident, so as to not unfairly bias the reader or downplay the fault, I think law enforcement needs to do a better job of cataloguing all of the incident details, so that these can be easily pulled and analyze by government entities (e.g. to improve safety for all modes of use) or good government groups (e.g. to encourage legislation or funding to improve safety for all). While some incidents are inherently ambiguous by nature (e.g. few witnesses, he said she said claims, etc), the more data we collect, the better to ferret out trends, especially as it pertains to fault. Often, when traffic incident data can be pulled, it is often full of “N/A’s” because the law enforcement entity involved doesn’t seek all the information. A standardized set of questions, uniformly and procedurally adhered to, should be the norm, not the exception.

Use of the word "crash" in incidents between a vehicle and a pedestrian feels wrong to me. Crash, to me, implies an accompanying loud noise.

How about just using "hit"?

In my experience 'crash' is used in the south, where we in the north use 'accident'.

Rich - some interesting data collection:
https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812124
Few snapshots:
Majority - 51% of accidents is when both driver and pedestrian are at 0.0BAC. (39% - one of them above 0.08, 6% - both above 0.08). 22% of killed pedestrian in 16-20 age group had BAC above 0.08..
NYC is well above national average for fatality rate per population, upstate is below average.
20% fatalities are in intersections, 69% - outside intersections on roads.
72% killed pedestrians happened in the dark. 20% hit-and-run accidents.

Sounds like best approach to reducing fatalities is enforcement against drunk driving AND drunk walking (although later is legal). Some places in the world seen success with mandatory reflective elements on clothing..

Yeah maybe we can store the data somewhere safe so it won't be tampered with.....if we could just find an available server.....now let's see where can we find one....

Just a quick reminder that operating a motor vehicle comes with the responsibility not to hit pedestrians, a fact which appears lost on many commenters in this thread.

So what "the data" says is don't drink and drive, don't speed , cross at cross walks, pay attention, sleep 8 hours per day, eat healthy, diversify your 401......we hold these truths to be self evident.....please NO more studies.....enforce the laws and teach common sense and respect other people's lives!

Maybe we should also start calling jay walking "Suicide attempting".

Yet again I'm disappointed in the victim blaming going on here...

JayK - please see Article 27 of NYS V&T law for information about pedestrians' rights and duties
Responsibility is on both sides.

Disappointed - except for the fact that driver with damaged vehicle, skyrocketing insurance and a huge stress is also a victim.

Mike - A person who has a "damaged vehicle, skyrocketing insurance rates and huge stress" cannot be a victim when they were the one who drove their vehicle into a person in the first place. Not to mention that person may end up losing their life, as compared to the dent in your car and your "stressful day".

Disappointed - so being injured or dead completely clears someone of wrongdoing?
And no, driving into a person is not an accurate description of vehicle-pedestrian accident.
And that is the problem - prejudice, which eventually leads to more injuries and casualties....

Mike, yes, everyone on the road has responsibilities, but there is a reason the Due Care clause applies to drives, and not other road users.

§ 1146. Drivers to exercise due care.
(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law to the contrary, every driver of a vehicle shall exercise due care to avoid colliding with any bicyclist, pedestrian, or domestic animal upon any roadway and shall give warning by sounding the horn when necessary. For the purposes of this section, the term "domestic animal" shall mean domesticated sheep, cattle, and goats which are under the supervision and control of a pedestrian.

Z. - sure, there is a need for some balance between jaywalking pedestrian being a fair game (which this paragraph addresses) and having a "right of way" being a meaningless provision (which seem to be a common case)
With increase of bipedal traffic, looks like existing balance is no longer good one. And my feeling is that balance is being pushed in the wrong direction

How can an increase in foot traffic be a move in the wrong direction? Everyone benefits from that.

JayK - I am saying that increase of foot traffic increases number of potential - and unfortunately real - accidents.
Problem I see is an attempt to blame one side instead of trying to resolve the issue by joint effort. There is just a simple thing to remember, though - whatever stickers they put on biology books, Darwin always wins..

As has been pointed out routinely, those "sides" aren't equal, and one side deserves more of the blame (though not as much as the design of the roads). One "side" is healthy for people, better for the environment and leads to more vibrant places. The other "side" has negative health effects, pollutes enormously and ruins places. We need much more of one "side" and MUCH less of the other.

By that logic we should just ban walking! Again Mike, you are missing the point just like a driver running a red light.

This isn't a two way street, pedestrians aren't harming drivers. What else can pedestrians do? Follow rules that are inconvenient, downright dangerous, and place our needs and safety second behind someone protected by a ton of metal? The current rules don't work, as evidenced by the 30,000+ deaths from crashes every year. Those deaths aren't caused by walking.

Hi there. Comments have been closed for this item. Still have something to say? Contact us.

The Scoop

For a decade All Over Albany was a place for interested and interesting people in New York's Capital Region. It was kind of like having a smart, savvy friend who could help you find out what's up. AOA stopped publishing at the end of 2018.

Recently on All Over Albany

Thank you!

When we started AOA a decade ago we had no idea what was going to happen. And it turned out better than we could have... (more)

Let's stay in touch

This all feels like the last day of camp or something. And we're going to miss you all so much. But we'd like to stay... (more)

A few things I think about this place

Working on AOA over the past decade has been a life-changing experience for me and it's shaped the way I think about so many things.... (more)

Albany tightened its rules for shoveling snowy sidewalks last winter -- so how'd that work out?

If winter ever gets its act together and drops more snow on us, there will be sidewalks to shovel. And shortly after that, Albany will... (more)

Tea with Jack McEneny

Last week we were fortunate enough to spend a few minutes with Jack McEneny -- former state Assemblyman, unofficial Albany historian, and genuinely nice guy.... (more)

Recent Comments

My three year old son absolutely loving riding the train around Huck Finn's (Hoffman's) Playland this summer.

Thank you!

...has 27 comments, most recently from Ashley

Let's stay in touch

...has 4 comments, most recently from mg

A look inside 2 Judson Street

...has 3 comments, most recently from Diane (Agans) Boyle

Everything changes: Alicia Lea

...has 2 comments, most recently from Chaz Boyark

A few things I think about this place

...has 13 comments, most recently from Katherine