Why "accident" isn't the right word to describe traffic collisions

October 30, 12:29 AMBicycle Transportation ExaminerAdam Voiland

Previous Next

1 comment Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Bicycle Transportation Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

Find a new word for accident.   (Credit: Visual Thesaurus)

Canadian researchers have published a must-read article for people interested in seeing improvements to the nation's bicycle infrastructure. The review article considers all of the credible research to date that's explored the relationship between various types of infrastructure and rider safety.

The topic is a critical one given that the number one factor that keeps Americans off their bikes is the perception that cycling is dangerous (ironic since this perception is likely as much myth as it is reality).  

Since the study contains such a wealth of interesting data, I'm spreading my coverage into a series of posts. Yesterday I wrote about a section of the study that discussed the excessive attention that helmets--and helmet laws--receive in comparison to basic bicycle infrastructure improvement.  Today, just a few words about the words we use to describe bicycle "accidents."

From the article: 

In the literature that examines traffic-related injuries and crashes (including many of the papers reviewed here) the word "accident" is frequently used, for example in the phrase "motor vehicle accident". However, it has been argued that the term "accident' implies that the event in question has happened entirely by chance, and is therefore unpredictable and unpreventable as opposed to being the result of modifiable risk factors. The editors of the British Medical Journal have even gone so far as to ban the use of the term. We have refrained from using the word "accident' in this review, instead using the more specific terms "incident", "injury", "crash", "collision" and "fall" as appropriate.

It's a subtle point, but language does matter. It shapes the way that we understand and react to the world. War Against Terror", for example, suggests something quite unlike the Obama administration's more bureaucratic "overseas contingency operations." "Climate change" means something quite different than "global warming". And "torture" seems nothing like "enhanced interrogation techniques". 

Referring to "accidents" incorrectly suggests that there's no way to prevent most of them. It's time we retire the term.

Note: I've stopped using the term "accident" on this blog, but I have tagged a number of previous stories with the term.  Retagging is a cumbersome process, so it will take some time to convert them.