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]
Hi there. Comments have been closed for this item. Still have something to say? Contact us.
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 redâ€).
... said Sarah on Jul 18, 2016 at 1:28 PM | link
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.
... said Mike on Jul 18, 2016 at 1:55 PM | link
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.....
... said BS on Jul 18, 2016 at 2:20 PM | link
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.
... said Rich on Jul 18, 2016 at 3:35 PM | link
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"?
... said chezjake on Jul 18, 2016 at 3:49 PM | link
In my experience 'crash' is used in the south, where we in the north use 'accident'.
... said mg on Jul 18, 2016 at 4:00 PM | link
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..
... said Mike on Jul 18, 2016 at 4:50 PM | link
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....
... said BS on Jul 18, 2016 at 5:37 PM | link
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.
... said JayK on Jul 18, 2016 at 9:13 PM | link
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!
... said BS on Jul 18, 2016 at 9:39 PM | link
Maybe we should also start calling jay walking "Suicide attempting".
... said Aaron on Jul 19, 2016 at 8:08 AM | link
Yet again I'm disappointed in the victim blaming going on here...
... said Disappointed on Jul 19, 2016 at 8:33 AM | link
JayK - please see Article 27 of NYS V&T law for information about pedestrians' rights and duties
Responsibility is on both sides.
... said Mike on Jul 19, 2016 at 12:00 PM | link
Disappointed - except for the fact that driver with damaged vehicle, skyrocketing insurance and a huge stress is also a victim.
... said Mike on Jul 19, 2016 at 12:09 PM | link
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".
... said Disappointed on Jul 20, 2016 at 8:46 AM | link
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....
... said Mike on Jul 20, 2016 at 1:50 PM | link
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.
... said Zed Fechten on Jul 21, 2016 at 10:17 AM | link
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
... said Mike on Jul 21, 2016 at 2:14 PM | link
How can an increase in foot traffic be a move in the wrong direction? Everyone benefits from that.
... said JayK on Jul 21, 2016 at 2:59 PM | link
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..
... said Mike on Jul 21, 2016 at 7:43 PM | link
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.
... said JayK on Jul 22, 2016 at 8:35 AM | link
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.
... said Disappointed on Jul 22, 2016 at 9:32 AM | link