It’s No 'Accident:' Advocates Want to Speak of Car 'Crashes' Instead(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
It’s No 'Accident:' Advocates Want to Speak of Car 'Crashes' Instead
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/23/science/its-no-accident-advocates-want-to-speak-of-car-crashes-instead.html?_r=2
144 comments
Surprised noone mentioned Vision Zero.
Vision Zero is a multi-national road traffic safety project that aims to achieve a highway system with no fatalities or serious injuries in road traffic. It started in Sweden and was approved by their parliament in October 1997 [1]
In every situation a person might fail - the road system should not. [2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_Zero [2] http://www.visionzeroinitiative.com/
Vision Zero is a multi-national road traffic safety project that aims to achieve a highway system with no fatalities or serious injuries in road traffic. It started in Sweden and was approved by their parliament in October 1997 [1]
In every situation a person might fail - the road system should not. [2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_Zero [2] http://www.visionzeroinitiative.com/
This literally reminds me of a quote from Hot Fuzz. Alas I cannot find it on YouTube.
I had the same reaction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puK5CwThaq4
Definitely. I know it was played for comedic value, but when I heard that the first time I thought, "Oh, right, that's how it should be."
Do any Brits know if this was taken from common practice in the UK?
Do any Brits know if this was taken from common practice in the UK?
The language 'accident' doesn't mean nobody is at fault - it just means that the crash wasn't intentional.
Since most of the time someone isn't slamming into somebody on purpose this argument to say crash instead always struck me as wrong in addition to being frivolous. If you're going to be pedantic, at least be correct.
Since most of the time someone isn't slamming into somebody on purpose this argument to say crash instead always struck me as wrong in addition to being frivolous. If you're going to be pedantic, at least be correct.
The problem is that our language has evolved in a direction that “accident” implies both “no intention” and “no fault”.
An idiot behind a wheel could be snapchatting their face into a piece of toast, slam into someone, kill them, and have it not be intentional. When the authorities or the media call it an accident — which is true — their voice lets the driver off the hook.
“Crash” is both literally true _and_ leaves room for investigators to find fault.
An idiot behind a wheel could be snapchatting their face into a piece of toast, slam into someone, kill them, and have it not be intentional. When the authorities or the media call it an accident — which is true — their voice lets the driver off the hook.
“Crash” is both literally true _and_ leaves room for investigators to find fault.
Many jurisdictions have criminal penalties depending on severity of recklessness. For example, in California in collisions that resulted in death of someone other than the driver responsible can result in charges all the way to vehicular homoside/murder for repeat DUI offenders. Lesser charges are available to fit less degrees of wrecklessness. Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_homicide
While driving in LA, I see a lot of people doing stupid things in cars, but I don't personally think turning to public shaming is the answer (mostly because I don't think it'll work - person is already reckless and doesn't think what he/she is doing is wrong). Human element is deeply flawed, so augmenting this element with safety tech is a better answer. With the current sensor tech, there really is no reason a car should be able to rearend another car! Volvo, Audi and Infinit already sell models that have been tested at low to moderate speeds to be able either prevent a crash or reduce it to a small tap: http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/ratings-info/front-crash-pr...
Such tech ought to be required by law to be standard. No excuse that it's still isn't.
While driving in LA, I see a lot of people doing stupid things in cars, but I don't personally think turning to public shaming is the answer (mostly because I don't think it'll work - person is already reckless and doesn't think what he/she is doing is wrong). Human element is deeply flawed, so augmenting this element with safety tech is a better answer. With the current sensor tech, there really is no reason a car should be able to rearend another car! Volvo, Audi and Infinit already sell models that have been tested at low to moderate speeds to be able either prevent a crash or reduce it to a small tap: http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/ratings-info/front-crash-pr...
Such tech ought to be required by law to be standard. No excuse that it's still isn't.
Shaming is ineffective. But suspension of the driving privilege should be a more widely-used tool, as should automated traffic enforcement— especially with regards to speeds in urban areas.
From personal experience, the automated enforcement is tricky - speed cameras are common in Moscow suburbs. The owner of the vehicle is cited under current regs, which is annoying but since there is no point system like in US, it's not as big of a problem. Imagine if your license could be suspended if someone from your household drove your car?
You need ways to positively ID the driver, but that creates other privacy problems...
You need ways to positively ID the driver, but that creates other privacy problems...
in Austria most speed cameras take a picture of the car from the front, so you can see who drove the car. (Fun fact: the cameras taking pictures from the front were added because the German police refused to enforce speeding tickets on Austrian highways if the driver could not be identified)
How do they match the driver? Does it use driver license photos or some other database to match these?
If you don't speed much, they don't. The owner of the registration (license plate) gets an "anonymous ticket" and as long as you pay, they don't bother identifying the driver.
If you don't pay, or if you drive significantly faster than allowed, the police starts an investigation to determine the driver, which starts by sending a form letter to the owner of the registration, asking them who drove the car. As far as I know it's a manual process, and I'm not sure the photo is actually used; the photo is mainly just proof in case people claim it wasn't them.
If you don't pay, or if you drive significantly faster than allowed, the police starts an investigation to determine the driver, which starts by sending a form letter to the owner of the registration, asking them who drove the car. As far as I know it's a manual process, and I'm not sure the photo is actually used; the photo is mainly just proof in case people claim it wasn't them.
You can try to save people from themselves, but it's never quite as effective as you expect.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_47utWAoupo
Imagine the ridiculous driving when people "know their car will stop before a crash anyway". Yeah, more people will be saved overall... but there will be a lot of "funny" results too.
Personally, I'd rather have strict penalties than being forced to do the equivalent of trading a linux laptop for an iPad Pro just so I can't hurt myself or anyone else. (I drive a stick shift of course, and can turn off traction control :)
Imagine the ridiculous driving when people "know their car will stop before a crash anyway". Yeah, more people will be saved overall... but there will be a lot of "funny" results too.
Personally, I'd rather have strict penalties than being forced to do the equivalent of trading a linux laptop for an iPad Pro just so I can't hurt myself or anyone else. (I drive a stick shift of course, and can turn off traction control :)
I've driven stick for 10 years and absolutely share your concerns, but the fun to drive and control can coexist.
Being able to turn off stuff for off-road use makes sense, but I'd rather have a choice, whereas right now my choice is extremely limited - XC90, Q7 or QX60... Nothing remotely fun.
Being able to turn off stuff for off-road use makes sense, but I'd rather have a choice, whereas right now my choice is extremely limited - XC90, Q7 or QX60... Nothing remotely fun.
But is the problem with the word or with culture? If it's the latter, you can't fix it by changing the word, you'll just get on the euphemism mill and in a few years, crash will have become neutral, and you need a new word.
Maybe it would be more effective to change the reporting culture around unpacking the cause a bit. If there's culpable behaviour involved in the accident, make sure to mention that?
Maybe it would be more effective to change the reporting culture around unpacking the cause a bit. If there's culpable behaviour involved in the accident, make sure to mention that?
accidents are accidental.
Billy goes downtown to meet some friends. Billy gets drunk. Billy gets in his car to drive home, hits and kills somebody. Billy wasn't trying to murder him, it was an accident.
When it's an accident, everyone shrugs and says sorry and goes on with life. When it's a crash, you stop figure out why it happened.
When it's an accident, everyone shrugs and says sorry and goes on with life. When it's a crash, you stop figure out why it happened.
Which English-speaking country does Billy live in? I can't think of a single country where you can kill someone through drunk driving and get away with it, but I'm not an international law expert, so maybe I'm missing something.
...Or maybe you just made a straw-man argument.
...Or maybe you just made a straw-man argument.
Depends on your definition of "gets away with it", but it's very common to see these cases get away with a slap on the wrists. Sentences are usually a lot harder with alcohol involved though.
In that case we have a problem with the law or the court. We should change what matters, instead of quibbling with word choices.
Rapists also frequently get away with a slap on the wrist. However, (hopefully) no one will suggest that the word "rape" means nobody's at fault.
Rapists also frequently get away with a slap on the wrist. However, (hopefully) no one will suggest that the word "rape" means nobody's at fault.
>When it's an accident, everyone shrugs and says sorry and goes on with life.
based on what? Accidents do occur due to negligence, which can be criminal.
based on what? Accidents do occur due to negligence, which can be criminal.
Accident tends to imply that the cause was beyond expectation, that the event was exceptional. If you are at a construction site and a chain breaks and a beam falls on you, despite the best efforts of engineers to design the chain to hoist that load and the best practices of the foundry to forge the chain, that is an accident. If you mow down a toddler in Manhattan because you were drunk and driving 60MPH through a neighborhood that is not an accident.
> If you are at a construction site and a chain breaks and a beam falls on you, despite the best efforts of engineers to design the chain to hoist that load and the best practices of the foundry to forge the chain, that is an accident.
I wouldn't count that as an accident. Walking under any suspended load is extremely dangerous and would be counted as a reportable incident on many work sites. Failing to prevent persons from walking under said load with appropriate barriers and warnings is a further issue.
(moving to the US and walking past a construction site on a daily basis scares the hell out of me. Truly the Wild West.)
I wouldn't count that as an accident. Walking under any suspended load is extremely dangerous and would be counted as a reportable incident on many work sites. Failing to prevent persons from walking under said load with appropriate barriers and warnings is a further issue.
(moving to the US and walking past a construction site on a daily basis scares the hell out of me. Truly the Wild West.)
In my experience, insurance people & cops have used "collision". "Crash" sounds too hyperbolic to me and "accident" implies (to insurance people anyway, I suppose) that no one was at fault, which is not always true.
The word 'accident' is used by many even to describe hit-and-runs that may have been intentional:
http://nypost.com/2016/07/02/cyclist-killed-in-hit-and-run/
"The language 'accident' doesn't mean nobody is at fault - it just means that the crash wasn't intentional."
That's a fallacious argument.
If a drunk driver gets behind the wheel, they are not intending to crash, but they probably will, and they chose to get drunk and then drive their car - none of that was an 'accident'.
'Crash' describes the situation better without implying cause or intent.
That's a fallacious argument.
If a drunk driver gets behind the wheel, they are not intending to crash, but they probably will, and they chose to get drunk and then drive their car - none of that was an 'accident'.
'Crash' describes the situation better without implying cause or intent.
I'm a biker and have few sympathies for cars, but we have legal words to describe these situations.
From Black's law dictionary:
Negligence: "The omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do. or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do."
Reckless: "to be careless and indifferent to the welfare of other people."
Reckless Driving: "term that is applied to a person driving a vehicle in a manner that can cause an accident"
These word games that are so popular these days are driving me crazy. I get that eventually, a neutral definition becomes colored with typical use, and that rotating the term can cause political action (until it too becomes tainted), but jesus christ, isn't it possible to dispassionately convince people of a policy position? Sorry, it's late and I'm ranting. One day I'll be a better marketeer.
From Black's law dictionary:
Negligence: "The omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do. or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do."
Reckless: "to be careless and indifferent to the welfare of other people."
Reckless Driving: "term that is applied to a person driving a vehicle in a manner that can cause an accident"
These word games that are so popular these days are driving me crazy. I get that eventually, a neutral definition becomes colored with typical use, and that rotating the term can cause political action (until it too becomes tainted), but jesus christ, isn't it possible to dispassionately convince people of a policy position? Sorry, it's late and I'm ranting. One day I'll be a better marketeer.
At risk of being pedantic, aren't crashes just a subset of all possible vehicular accidents? So why don't we call a crash a crash, as crash is a word that is not necessarily intertwined with intentionality. And phonetically, "crash" IMO more clearly conveys the violence of the accident.
(Debates like this remind me that the aphorism about the only two hard things in computer science is no joke)
(Debates like this remind me that the aphorism about the only two hard things in computer science is no joke)
Crashes cannot be a subset of all vehicular accidents because not all crashes are accidents.
I would actually argue that if someone gets into an "vehicular incident" while texting/snapchatting, said incident would indeed be intentional. The person intentionally opted out of paying attention to the road and are therefore at fault. You can't just accidentally start texting on your phone; picking up your phone while driving is very much an intentional action.
Traffic safety is no accident.
Please stop trying to police language.
If you seriously believe that the structure and way that language is expressed doesn't have real world implications, and you are a programmer, hacker, or in IT in an capacity, may I suggest that maybe you take a little time off and think about the world for a while?
Definitely. It's an even weirder thing to grumble about here, in that the language change is the means to an end: saving lives.
If somebody were getting all riled up about tomayto versus tomahto), I'd say that a complaint about policing language was reasonable; that really is purely a language thing. But generally when I hear it somebody is actually opposed to a substantive change but won't come right out and say it.
That always seems weird to me. You'd think somebody so excited about being able to say what they want would, y'know, say what they want.
If somebody were getting all riled up about tomayto versus tomahto), I'd say that a complaint about policing language was reasonable; that really is purely a language thing. But generally when I hear it somebody is actually opposed to a substantive change but won't come right out and say it.
That always seems weird to me. You'd think somebody so excited about being able to say what they want would, y'know, say what they want.
A great deal of evil has been done in the name of saving lives and souls. Your good intentions do not excuse the long history of thought policing leading to injustice and misery.
A great deal of evil has been done in the name of pretty much anything good, but that doesn't mean that any of those things is bad.
If you believe that this particular request leads to injustice and misery, feel free to make a case for it. But as far as I can see, this is asking people to think of something in a more useful way.
If you believe that this particular request leads to injustice and misery, feel free to make a case for it. But as far as I can see, this is asking people to think of something in a more useful way.
Your comment is a non-sequitur. "Please don't police X" does not imply that "X has no real world implications".
No doubt folks will want to start calling fatalities involving self driving cars as 'second degree robotic homicide' too.
Crash would do in that circumstance too. Whether it is homicide will require some investigation. Whether the robot or it's creator is culpable is a whole other ethical problem we may need to face in the future
Ever have a good conversation with a passenger and miss your turn? You were distracted.
Where I live, there are distracted driving laws and you can be fined for holding or looking at a cell-phone while driving, but having the hardware for taking hands-free phone-calls is perfectly fine. I don't have that kind of hardware in my car. I don't answer my phone while driving, although I do pull over and answer it if I'm expecting an important call.
I don't even listen to the wrong kind of music when driving. I love everything from classical to death metal, but I've observed I drive more aggressively when listening to certain genres, so I avoid them in the car. I find that the right kind of music allows me to avoid day-dreaming and keep my attention where it needs to be.
I've never been in an accident and I've avoided a fair few that would have been the fault of other drivers, but all of this is anecdotal evidence. However, I subscribe to the 1 in 10000 rule. Say you are camping and pitch your tent near a large but relatively short-lived species of tree. The odds of that tree falling on you while you sleep are, perhaps, as high as 1 in 10000. If you camp by such a tree once in your life, that's nothing to be concerned about. If you do it once a year, it's still pretty safe. If you happen to live out of your tent and are near such trees year-round, odds are you'll be crushed by a tree before anything else kills you. In that case, you might want to choose your campsites more carefully.
Examine what you do in your daily routine and look for the things that have a 1 in 10000 chance of killing you but don't really confer any benefits. If you're doing it daily, you really need better odds or a better payoff. I'll happily strap my feet to a board and huck myself off of icy cliffs, but that's because I (perhaps illogically) feel it's worth it, plus I don't do it every day.
Where I live, there are distracted driving laws and you can be fined for holding or looking at a cell-phone while driving, but having the hardware for taking hands-free phone-calls is perfectly fine. I don't have that kind of hardware in my car. I don't answer my phone while driving, although I do pull over and answer it if I'm expecting an important call.
I don't even listen to the wrong kind of music when driving. I love everything from classical to death metal, but I've observed I drive more aggressively when listening to certain genres, so I avoid them in the car. I find that the right kind of music allows me to avoid day-dreaming and keep my attention where it needs to be.
I've never been in an accident and I've avoided a fair few that would have been the fault of other drivers, but all of this is anecdotal evidence. However, I subscribe to the 1 in 10000 rule. Say you are camping and pitch your tent near a large but relatively short-lived species of tree. The odds of that tree falling on you while you sleep are, perhaps, as high as 1 in 10000. If you camp by such a tree once in your life, that's nothing to be concerned about. If you do it once a year, it's still pretty safe. If you happen to live out of your tent and are near such trees year-round, odds are you'll be crushed by a tree before anything else kills you. In that case, you might want to choose your campsites more carefully.
Examine what you do in your daily routine and look for the things that have a 1 in 10000 chance of killing you but don't really confer any benefits. If you're doing it daily, you really need better odds or a better payoff. I'll happily strap my feet to a board and huck myself off of icy cliffs, but that's because I (perhaps illogically) feel it's worth it, plus I don't do it every day.
Anxiety contributes to heart disease which is the most likely cause of death. Anxiety also causes a great deal of suffering for many people. I think your advice about driving is correct, because car accidents are a common cause of death. But most of the things you can decide to have a neurosis about are not such a big risk.
One nice thing about the 10000 rule is that it can help you with irrational fears. e.g. Bears. They're only scary until you look at how astronomically improbable it is to be killed by one. When you look at the benefits of hiking, backpacking, etc., it really is a no-brainer to ignore your fear of bears. Sure, learn how to avoid encounters and how to manage them if it makes you feel better. Heck, buy bear spray if you feel you need to. Just don't avoid the wilderness because of bears!
I think he was suggesting you evaluate the risk of things, not that you should believe everything is risky.
If I had a daughter (which I do) who was conceived while using birth control (which she was), I would not refer to her as an "accident". While technically correct, the word carries too much unintended meaning in the ears of the listener.
And, keeping more on topic, we say "plane crash" not "plane accident" in common speech, and the same makes sense with cars. With airplane crashes, you'll often have the detail given as "controlled flight into terrain". I suggest for autonomous cars that we say "controlled drive into obstacle".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_flight_into_terrain
"Accidents where the aircraft is out of control at the time of impact, because of mechanical failure or pilot error, are not considered CFIT (they are known as uncontrolled flight into terrain), nor are accidents resulting from the deliberate action of the person at the controls, such as acts of terrorism or suicide by pilot."
Note that Wikipedia does use the word "accident" - because they are being technically correct.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_flight_into_terrain
"Accidents where the aircraft is out of control at the time of impact, because of mechanical failure or pilot error, are not considered CFIT (they are known as uncontrolled flight into terrain), nor are accidents resulting from the deliberate action of the person at the controls, such as acts of terrorism or suicide by pilot."
Note that Wikipedia does use the word "accident" - because they are being technically correct.
"Controlled flight into terrain" is a category of accident. Other categories include "loss of control", "engine failure", "midair collision", "takeoff accident", and "landing accident".
For highway accidents, the NTSB uses such terms as "roadway departure", "collision with stopped vehicles", "collision of two school buses with subsequent rollover", "motor coach run-off-road and overturn", and "multivehicle work zone crash". All are referred to as "accidents". The NTSB uses the term "accident" even for 9/11.
The Tesla investigation hasn't shown up in the NTSB database yet. But it will.
For highway accidents, the NTSB uses such terms as "roadway departure", "collision with stopped vehicles", "collision of two school buses with subsequent rollover", "motor coach run-off-road and overturn", and "multivehicle work zone crash". All are referred to as "accidents". The NTSB uses the term "accident" even for 9/11.
The Tesla investigation hasn't shown up in the NTSB database yet. But it will.
The NTSB categorize an "accident" as causing substantial damage or injury. For this reason, when an airliner hits turbulence causing injury to passengers or crew, its technically an accident even though it isn't a "crash"
But calling her a "crash" seems worse.
[deleted]
I teach my daughter that there is no such thing as an accident. The word "accident" is one of those words that we as a family refuse to use. Instead we examine the reasons why certain things happen. There is always a root cause that points to premeditated intent or negligence. Understanding this is crucial to having a good grasp of how the world works. Intentionally denying oneself such understanding is voluntary ignorance on a scale that's difficult to imagine and impossible to justify.
Surprised this is new/current; in drivers ed in the 80s, our instructor told us "they're collisions, not accidents." Thought this was a common thing for driving instructors to say.
Airline accidents are still called accidents, but it doesn't stop investigating each and every one to determine the cause and possible corrective action.
http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/data/pages/aviation_stats...
http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/data/pages/aviation_stats...
The reason those are investigated is because the airline business has taken all reasonable precautions to prevent them. In that case it is fine to use the word "accident" to describe an event that occurred despite the monumental efforts of the industry.
In the case of cars it doesn't make sense because nobody is putting any kind of organized effort into reducing the mechanized carnage. If car wrecks ever become so rare that we thoroughly investigate each and every one of them, then we can start assuming they are all accidents.
In the case of cars it doesn't make sense because nobody is putting any kind of organized effort into reducing the mechanized carnage. If car wrecks ever become so rare that we thoroughly investigate each and every one of them, then we can start assuming they are all accidents.
Aviation "accident" statistics include deliberate acts of destruction.
Also, once the cause is determined, it becomes an almost inevitable progression of events, not some heisenberg quantum accidental effect.
Also, once the cause is determined, it becomes an almost inevitable progression of events, not some heisenberg quantum accidental effect.
"Accident" is the NTSB term for incidents which result in significant damage or injury.
The NTSB will typically investigate incidents involving transport category aircraft (airliners) with considerable attention, but incidents in GA aircraft are not typically investigated or receive minimal attention for report purposes.
The NTSB will typically investigate incidents involving transport category aircraft (airliners) with considerable attention, but incidents in GA aircraft are not typically investigated or receive minimal attention for report purposes.
Aviation has its own set of bureaucratic language, but if I remember correctly they are occurrence, incident, and accident, in that order of severity. Crashes are a subset of accidents in which there is an actual collision; if e.g. a plane sitting idle in the airport suddenly bursts into flames[1], that's an accident but not a crash.
[1] http://avherald.com/h?article=44078aa7/0000
[1] http://avherald.com/h?article=44078aa7/0000
On AvHerald[0], The terminology is slightly different than NTSB terminology with regard to "crash":
Incident marks any safety relevant event out of the ordinary during flight.
Accident marks an incident, that has caused injuries or death to humans or caused significant damage.
Crash marks an accident, that is potentially catastrophic (has the potential to kill everybody on board of an airplane).
[0] http://avherald.com/h?faq=&opt=0
Incident marks any safety relevant event out of the ordinary during flight.
Accident marks an incident, that has caused injuries or death to humans or caused significant damage.
Crash marks an accident, that is potentially catastrophic (has the potential to kill everybody on board of an airplane).
[0] http://avherald.com/h?faq=&opt=0
I'm a supporter of a large transportation advocacy group that strongly believes in this shift in terminology. I believe in it personally, too.
Anyone who spends some time observing the news in New York - a city with a fairly low (relative) car ownership rate - would immediately notice how even the most shocking, violent, absurd automobile collisions are not just referred to as "accidents" but referred to as distinct forces of nature apart from their drivers. It's always the machine that did the colliding, the maiming and the killing... there is never any agency or responsibility given to the driver. (It's as if these cars just decided themselves to jump the curb, or race into oncoming traffic!) Flip it to a bicyclist or motorcyclist who caused a collision, and you'll see the language very precisely target the user, not the device.
Sometimes a collision IS just an accident. But not all collisions are accidents.
It's really important that policy and public perception change to dismiss the exceptions in behavior and risk-taking that we assign to most drivers who aren't drunk. If a driver is caught clearly speeding, turning through occupied crosswalks, or coming out of an assigned lane in an uncontrolled fashion, and if the result is (almost predictably) a collision, it must be stated that the driver chose to violate traffic laws & take harmful risks, which is no accident at all. The converse of this is that a driver who doesn't take these risks may get into accidental collisions, but they won't be of the sort where the car ends upside down very far from the roadway in a 25mph speed limit area.
Anyone who spends some time observing the news in New York - a city with a fairly low (relative) car ownership rate - would immediately notice how even the most shocking, violent, absurd automobile collisions are not just referred to as "accidents" but referred to as distinct forces of nature apart from their drivers. It's always the machine that did the colliding, the maiming and the killing... there is never any agency or responsibility given to the driver. (It's as if these cars just decided themselves to jump the curb, or race into oncoming traffic!) Flip it to a bicyclist or motorcyclist who caused a collision, and you'll see the language very precisely target the user, not the device.
Sometimes a collision IS just an accident. But not all collisions are accidents.
It's really important that policy and public perception change to dismiss the exceptions in behavior and risk-taking that we assign to most drivers who aren't drunk. If a driver is caught clearly speeding, turning through occupied crosswalks, or coming out of an assigned lane in an uncontrolled fashion, and if the result is (almost predictably) a collision, it must be stated that the driver chose to violate traffic laws & take harmful risks, which is no accident at all. The converse of this is that a driver who doesn't take these risks may get into accidental collisions, but they won't be of the sort where the car ends upside down very far from the roadway in a 25mph speed limit area.
I feel like the U.S. is shifting too much to a blame culture.
For every bad or unfortunate incident, we call for blame and jail time and sometimes even public shaming.
And then we turn around and wonder why so many behaviors are criminalized and why so many people are in jail.
Yes, reckless driving shouldn't be ignored, but the article is arguing that accidents almost never happen, and that almost all accidents should lead to some sort of charges.
For every bad or unfortunate incident, we call for blame and jail time and sometimes even public shaming.
And then we turn around and wonder why so many behaviors are criminalized and why so many people are in jail.
Yes, reckless driving shouldn't be ignored, but the article is arguing that accidents almost never happen, and that almost all accidents should lead to some sort of charges.
Blame and jail time are essentially never applied, even in egregious cases, at least in New York City. Families have to fight for DAs to charge even unlicensed drivers that end up on the sidewalk:
http://abc7ny.com/news/exclusive-family-outraged-after-drive...
Beyond that, a lifetime driving ban is nearly impossible to impose in this country even though it would be an appropriate punishment for repeat dangerous drivers. Driving, despite being a privilege, is often treated as a right. A man who ran down and killed a little girl holding hands with her grandma in the crosswalk with the light (the police initially blamed the child on the word of the driver, and the DA dismissed the crash as an 'accident') only ended up with a driving ban due to a civil suit: http://www.streetsblog.org/2015/10/29/civil-suit-compels-man...
We clearly shouldn't blame, and especially shouldn't jail, people for every crash— but the current driving and policing culture in this country is profoundly far from that standard. Redesigning roadways so safe behavior is the default is a far better first step, but an abusive driver can figure out ways to make the best-designed piece of infrastructure dangerous.
Beyond that, a lifetime driving ban is nearly impossible to impose in this country even though it would be an appropriate punishment for repeat dangerous drivers. Driving, despite being a privilege, is often treated as a right. A man who ran down and killed a little girl holding hands with her grandma in the crosswalk with the light (the police initially blamed the child on the word of the driver, and the DA dismissed the crash as an 'accident') only ended up with a driving ban due to a civil suit: http://www.streetsblog.org/2015/10/29/civil-suit-compels-man...
We clearly shouldn't blame, and especially shouldn't jail, people for every crash— but the current driving and policing culture in this country is profoundly far from that standard. Redesigning roadways so safe behavior is the default is a far better first step, but an abusive driver can figure out ways to make the best-designed piece of infrastructure dangerous.
Is it "blame culture" when some jerk falls asleep behind the wheel, unintentionally kill a pedestrian, and is let off the hook because he wasn't attempting murder?
Is it "blame culture" when someone hits-and-runs a cyclist, posts on Facebook that he hit some dumb-ass guy on a bicycle, that cyclist winds up dead, but hey, he wasn't actually( trying to kill him, and gets off the hook with a $350 traffic fine?
This shit happens EVERY WEEK in New York City. Our cops would rather pretend like they're on The Wire or 24 hunting down drug lords and terrarists than doing basic traffic enforcement. They use terminology like "accidents" because a cabbie paralyzing or murdering a child is difficult to prosecute.
Semantics count. When we say "call it a crash, not an accident," all we're saying is, "figure out whether the person driving the car is culpable before you let him off the hook."
Is it "blame culture" when someone hits-and-runs a cyclist, posts on Facebook that he hit some dumb-ass guy on a bicycle, that cyclist winds up dead, but hey, he wasn't actually( trying to kill him, and gets off the hook with a $350 traffic fine?
This shit happens EVERY WEEK in New York City. Our cops would rather pretend like they're on The Wire or 24 hunting down drug lords and terrarists than doing basic traffic enforcement. They use terminology like "accidents" because a cabbie paralyzing or murdering a child is difficult to prosecute.
Semantics count. When we say "call it a crash, not an accident," all we're saying is, "figure out whether the person driving the car is culpable before you let him off the hook."
A non-blame culture way to look at it would be to ask why people fall asleep at the wheel and try to prevent it from happening. Can we make cars and roads that promote alertness? Can cars detect sleeping drivers and wake them up? Can they detect tired drivers and refuse to start?
Why are people driving despite being sleepy in the first place? Are they working two jobs to make ends meet?
I am not opposed to blame culture per se, I think problems should be solved at the most logical level. Sometimes a systematic solution is the easiest, and sometimes removing jerks is the easiest.
I am not opposed to blame culture per se, I think problems should be solved at the most logical level. Sometimes a systematic solution is the easiest, and sometimes removing jerks is the easiest.
The correct systematic solution would be to outlaw a transportation system that fills our streets with lethal machinery. It's crazy that cars were ever legalized in the first place; it's one of the biggest mistakes our species ever made, and it's long past time to fix it.
In the meantime, we can at least get rid of the laws and customs that make it legal to kill people when your weapon is a car rather than a knife or gun.
In the meantime, we can at least get rid of the laws and customs that make it legal to kill people when your weapon is a car rather than a knife or gun.
Sounds like "pointing out a failure to meet one's responsibilities" is just blame in your book. Am I right?
> They use terminology like "accidents" because [...] murdering a child is difficult to prosecute.
> murder (n) : the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another
Apparently, you are also into redefining words in a way that suits you. What next, they're having a war on pedestrians ? We're letting drivers commit genocide ?
> murder (n) : the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another
Apparently, you are also into redefining words in a way that suits you. What next, they're having a war on pedestrians ? We're letting drivers commit genocide ?
Depending on the circumstances, second-degree murder (not manslaughter) might be the appropriate charge in the case the commenter raised.
For (much) more, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_(United_States_law)#Deg...
But we're just hopping on a particular word choice. The larger point is that a fine is not the right punishment.
For (much) more, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_(United_States_law)#Deg...
But we're just hopping on a particular word choice. The larger point is that a fine is not the right punishment.
When you consider the alignment of cultural, personal, and regulatory forces against pedestrian safety, the former would not be inaccurate.
> Is it "blame culture" when some jerk
Right there.
Right there.
> the article is arguing that accidents almost never happen
The article is citing a specific statistic claiming that 94% of crashes are the result of some sort of risky behavior. If that's the case then those people fail to appreciate the gravity of their behavior and maybe our society, for everyone's sake, should make more of an effort to impress that upon them.
Choosing to use an accurate and neutral term like "crash" as opposed to an implicitly exonerating term like "accident" seems like a pretty modest step in that direction.
The article is citing a specific statistic claiming that 94% of crashes are the result of some sort of risky behavior. If that's the case then those people fail to appreciate the gravity of their behavior and maybe our society, for everyone's sake, should make more of an effort to impress that upon them.
Choosing to use an accurate and neutral term like "crash" as opposed to an implicitly exonerating term like "accident" seems like a pretty modest step in that direction.
The actual statistic[1] says that the critical reason for the crash is attributed to the driver in 94% of cases. That does not tell you the percent of cases where the driver is doing anything riskier than "being human".
If you can find a source that talks directly about risky behavior, it would be appreciated.
[1] https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/...
If you can find a source that talks directly about risky behavior, it would be appreciated.
[1] https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/...
What does risky behavior mean? Is splitting lanes risky behavior? Is simply looking before crossing an intersection risky behavior (by cars, by bicycles), is taking out a bike in pouring rain risky? Is it the person doing doughnuts, the person doing sideshows, the person talking while driving, the two motorcyclists riding side by side? The person changing lanes without signaling? The Sunday stunters who rev their bikes down the freeways?
I think, beside the Sunday church drivers, very few people would be classified "safe" driver or rider.
I think, beside the Sunday church drivers, very few people would be classified "safe" driver or rider.
I'm intrigued by the gap between manslaughter where a car is not involved and manslaughter where it is.
The penalties involved for driving recklessly and killing someone with a car seem very light to me, even as many other kinds of criminal sentences seem disproportionately harsh.
Ending someone's life with carelessness should not forgive the result.
The penalties involved for driving recklessly and killing someone with a car seem very light to me, even as many other kinds of criminal sentences seem disproportionately harsh.
Ending someone's life with carelessness should not forgive the result.
Well, a small car has about 20x the mass of the average human, is much harder, and feels slow when driven at a speed that only the best athletes can reach. It also has uses recognized by society. With any other instrument not intended for killing, i.e. anything but a knife or a gun, it is generally hard work to kill someone. That is how I would explain the gap: non-vehicular homicide suggests malicious intent either by the instrument or the effort.
But I am no legislator.
But I am no legislator.
I was going to say that I think it is the car culture. But the NYC have fewer cars, so maybe that is to simplistic. But then a lot of people I meet talk about driver behaviour in NYC being reckless. Different cities/locations have different driving behaviour. It is possible to change it, but it takes a long and dedicated effort.
Why Sweden has so few road deaths http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/02/ec...
Why Sweden has so few road deaths http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/02/ec...
I think the blame game is part of it.
OTOH, I think we play the blame game is because people refuse to take responsibility.
And one other contributing bit is the entitlement(/victimized) game.
Honestly though, both the blame and the entitlement games are poisonous because they provde an easy vehicle for anger and offloading responsibility.
FWIW I support the shift in semantics (from accident to crash), because of two things : 1) driving brings a calculated risk, and 2) safety when driving suffers from the tradegy of the commons (I think that's the term) - it's easy to relatively ok (safe for yourself) to drive like a maniac when everyone else is driving ok.
I think using the term accidents hides those dynamics more.
Edit: I'd like to note that I think that this a useful mental model to have, not necessarily the correct model. And there's definitely more nuance than I expressed. Also, I'm not sold on the criminalization part - I do think that a terminology shift might help.
OTOH, I think we play the blame game is because people refuse to take responsibility.
And one other contributing bit is the entitlement(/victimized) game.
Honestly though, both the blame and the entitlement games are poisonous because they provde an easy vehicle for anger and offloading responsibility.
FWIW I support the shift in semantics (from accident to crash), because of two things : 1) driving brings a calculated risk, and 2) safety when driving suffers from the tradegy of the commons (I think that's the term) - it's easy to relatively ok (safe for yourself) to drive like a maniac when everyone else is driving ok.
I think using the term accidents hides those dynamics more.
Edit: I'd like to note that I think that this a useful mental model to have, not necessarily the correct model. And there's definitely more nuance than I expressed. Also, I'm not sold on the criminalization part - I do think that a terminology shift might help.
I have no problem criminalizing the kind of reckless driving that the GP comment mentions in its last sentence.
Where I live, it is generally true that many drivers are occasionally reckless, endangering lives in obvious ways, and this recklessness is winked at by our present driving culture. It's an error.
Where I live, it is generally true that many drivers are occasionally reckless, endangering lives in obvious ways, and this recklessness is winked at by our present driving culture. It's an error.
Well, is using accident all the time that much better? The truth is somewhere between 100% accidents and 100% at fault. There's no clear win to either side of the spectrum.
I'll pay you $20 to use the cross walks in Chicago.
> you'll see the language very precisely target the user, not the device
Not to mention, all other users of that device, as in "bloody cyclists, always going through red lights and riding on the pavement" etc. Even more weirdly, blaming cyclists for motor traffic congestion and pollution, as if cars don't do those things all on their own. (Both these memes rely on "bicycles hold up the traffic," with the second adding "which causes the cars to be less efficient and produce more pollution.")
Not to mention, all other users of that device, as in "bloody cyclists, always going through red lights and riding on the pavement" etc. Even more weirdly, blaming cyclists for motor traffic congestion and pollution, as if cars don't do those things all on their own. (Both these memes rely on "bicycles hold up the traffic," with the second adding "which causes the cars to be less efficient and produce more pollution.")
How the fuck (sorry for language) does a bicycle hold up traffic. I have not seen a lane so tight, that a car and a bicycle can not occupy it at the same time and pass each other.
Narrow road, with no shoulder for them to get out into, and a long stream of oncoming traffic in the other lane? There are a lot of places where you come up behind a cyclist, and it's kind of an "oh fuck, am I going to be able to get around before I get squeezed? Hopefully this asshole semi coming at me doesn't swerve over the yellow line, and the cyclist stays on their line..."
I grew up commuting to school by bike in Evanston, IL. There was one place like this on my commute that sounded like this.
I got forced off the road once, learned my lesson, and now I take the lane in similar situations. You are far safer with an angry driver behind you who knows you are there, and wants to kill you figuratively but not literally.
Cars incentivize drivers to take risks with other people's lives, but drivers will almost never kill deliberately if you make the choice black and white for them.
I got forced off the road once, learned my lesson, and now I take the lane in similar situations. You are far safer with an angry driver behind you who knows you are there, and wants to kill you figuratively but not literally.
Cars incentivize drivers to take risks with other people's lives, but drivers will almost never kill deliberately if you make the choice black and white for them.
It's basically just blaming the outgroup.
Emergency services workers used to do training called "EVAP" - Emergency Vehicle Accident Prevention. In some ways it served as an exemption from requiring a CDL for driving, say, a fire engine.
This training was changed a while ago, and is now called "EVIP" - Emergency Vehicle _Incident_ Prevention.
This training was changed a while ago, and is now called "EVIP" - Emergency Vehicle _Incident_ Prevention.
Is there some evidence that changing the terminology this way has an effect -- say an increase in prosecutions or safer driving habits? I was surprised to come to the end of the article without anything about this one way or the other.
Brian, I'm glad you took a minute to post on here. I'm launching a beta within the State of California for a grassroots advocacy startup that aims to help trade associations and advocacy groups with their work. If you happen to have interest in chatting with me about it feel free to email me hn(at)strapr(dot)com and we can find time to connect.
two days ago I hit a pothole hard and a tire deflated. what a crash :(
I'm very in favor of this effort. The language we use has a way of reinforcing our cultural values, sometimes in ways that aren't immediately obvious.
Perhaps we accept car crashes as a generalized, unspecific life hazard because our lives require us to drive constantly? It's simply too mentally burdensome to do something all of the time and also frame it as a life-threatening activity. I don't know the research on this kind of carefulness fatigue, but I strongly suspect that the more people do something dangerous, the more they consider the associated hazards to be outside their control.
So what I'm wondering is whether this kind of blame allocation really helps anyone. It's not that dissimilar to the conversation that crops here every once in a while about who should take personal responsibility when a critical security flaw is found in some widely used piece of software. We don't typically say "whelp, that's dangerous, you'd better focus really hard all of the time!" because we know that doesn't really work. Instead we say "how can we add tooling and processes to make these inevitable mistakes less likely?" Or even better, "how can we avoid doing these mistake-prone things altogether?"
Obviously, we do that with cars too, but we could do a whole lot more things that strike me, off-the-cuff, as much more likely to have an impact on reducing accidents (that's the point, right? We're not just trying shift the blame back to the drivers for some abstract sense of justice, are we?). For example:
1. More walkable
2. Add public transportation
3. Reduce speed limits
4. Autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicles
5. Congestion taxes
I'm sure the impact of these different things on traffic fatalities have been studied and I'd be curious of the results. But I'd have to be convinced that "no, no, we just need people to think of their driving as their responsibility" is top-priority option.
So what I'm wondering is whether this kind of blame allocation really helps anyone. It's not that dissimilar to the conversation that crops here every once in a while about who should take personal responsibility when a critical security flaw is found in some widely used piece of software. We don't typically say "whelp, that's dangerous, you'd better focus really hard all of the time!" because we know that doesn't really work. Instead we say "how can we add tooling and processes to make these inevitable mistakes less likely?" Or even better, "how can we avoid doing these mistake-prone things altogether?"
Obviously, we do that with cars too, but we could do a whole lot more things that strike me, off-the-cuff, as much more likely to have an impact on reducing accidents (that's the point, right? We're not just trying shift the blame back to the drivers for some abstract sense of justice, are we?). For example:
1. More walkable
2. Add public transportation
3. Reduce speed limits
4. Autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicles
5. Congestion taxes
I'm sure the impact of these different things on traffic fatalities have been studied and I'd be curious of the results. But I'd have to be convinced that "no, no, we just need people to think of their driving as their responsibility" is top-priority option.
How much effort/investment has gone into trying to prevent car crashes vs. how much effort has gone into trying to cushion and protect victims of crashes, isolating them from the dangerous activity they are undertaking? Seat belts, crumple zones, air bags. It's as if the auto industry has all thrown up their hands and accepted that car crashes can't possibly be avoided and instead focused effort on bubble wrapping and padding everything.
If anything, what they're doing is making drivers LESS cautious and less aware that they're driving a 2000 pound killing machine down the road. Automatic transmission, power steering, drive-by-wire, comfy seats, sound deadening everywhere, vibration deadening everything, bluetooth, DVD LCD, climate control, cruise control, you name it. Abstraction on top of abstraction, distraction on top of distraction, to the point where you as a driver are so far removed from the act of driving that you become complacent. Driving a modern car is like sitting in your living room, and that's NOT a good thing.
The safest I've ever behaved as a driver was behind the wheel of a 1980's manual-everything, metal dashboard deathmobile sports car. When you pulled out on the road in that thing, and it started shaking at speed, it was in-your-face obvious that you were taking your life into your own hands, and I guarantee my behavior changed due to it. We could use a little more of that these days and a little less air conditioning.
If anything, what they're doing is making drivers LESS cautious and less aware that they're driving a 2000 pound killing machine down the road. Automatic transmission, power steering, drive-by-wire, comfy seats, sound deadening everywhere, vibration deadening everything, bluetooth, DVD LCD, climate control, cruise control, you name it. Abstraction on top of abstraction, distraction on top of distraction, to the point where you as a driver are so far removed from the act of driving that you become complacent. Driving a modern car is like sitting in your living room, and that's NOT a good thing.
The safest I've ever behaved as a driver was behind the wheel of a 1980's manual-everything, metal dashboard deathmobile sports car. When you pulled out on the road in that thing, and it started shaking at speed, it was in-your-face obvious that you were taking your life into your own hands, and I guarantee my behavior changed due to it. We could use a little more of that these days and a little less air conditioning.
I think there's pretty good evidence those safety features have helped a lot! People were almost twice as likely to die in a car accident in the 1980s than today [1]. I'm not an auto crash expert -- and I admit that safer roads and better traffic enforcement could be a portion of this -- but I'm pretty sure the lion's share of those gains are simply more crash-tolerant cars.
> and I guarantee my behavior changed due to it
But did your behavior change enough to make up for how much more dangerous it was? Would the median driver's in the same situation?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_i...
> and I guarantee my behavior changed due to it
But did your behavior change enough to make up for how much more dangerous it was? Would the median driver's in the same situation?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_i...
Im hoping this attitude becomes more common.
I live in LA, and in my daily commute I encounter the aftermath of a collision on a weekly basis.
How much of this could be prevented if more people could walk or take public transport to their job, to the store, to the bar.
Unfortunately culture, (IMO) the auto + oil industry, and the lasting nature of auto infrastructure all push this outcome farther from reach.
The proliferation of autonomous vehicles will be an incredible development, but in some ways is a technological bandaid over the underlying social/cultural/political problem.
I agree that we should be looking to prevent traffic collisions, not just shift the blame. But I can see a shift in terminology helping with that. If we talk about an "accident" that carries a sense of it being unpreventable. Whet we talk about a "crash" it's more natural to start asking what caused it and what we can do to stop it happening again.
What's interesting to me is that this topic has never come up in the nordic countries, and I know for certain that in Denmark, Norway, Iceland, and Sweden the words that are used for this all translate directly to 'accident'
I can't help but wonder if this was a phrase that was borrowed and then translated, but regardless, I think we need to re-think our choice of words as well.
I can't help but wonder if this was a phrase that was borrowed and then translated, but regardless, I think we need to re-think our choice of words as well.
I strongly suspect the next frontier of driving safety is sleep.
We already have inclinations that insufficient sleep produces a mental state analogous to intoxication. However, we don't seem to recognize that someone going home after a 24-hour hospital shift, or an on-call worker who caught a production issue last night, or a new parent, or just one or the majority of adults who don't have healthy sleep patterns, is making a dangerously irresponsible gamble with other people's lives in exactly the same way as someone who downed a couple of beers.
We already have inclinations that insufficient sleep produces a mental state analogous to intoxication. However, we don't seem to recognize that someone going home after a 24-hour hospital shift, or an on-call worker who caught a production issue last night, or a new parent, or just one or the majority of adults who don't have healthy sleep patterns, is making a dangerously irresponsible gamble with other people's lives in exactly the same way as someone who downed a couple of beers.
If you look at some back-of-envelope stats over a lifetime of driving, your probability of getting killed out there is probably bigger than you expect: Let's say 50 years, 80M active drivers in US/ year, 40k fatalities/ year, the probability of going every year without dying on the road --> (1-(40k/80M))^50 --> puts your chance of death close to 3%. Lots of assumptions clearly glossed over, but would you sign up for something where there's, quite possibly, a 3% chance you get killed? Or a 12% chance of a life-altering injury (assuming 5x frequency of fatality)? It would be better if our civilization, one era, designed itself to do away with driving altogether.
Where is that 80M number coming from? In 2010 there were 214M people with drivers licenses in the United States[1]. The NHTSA provides stats around this actually, the number of fatalities per 100,000 licensed drives around ~23[2]. So every year out of all the licensed drivers in the United States, .02% die. Or over a 50 year period, about a .9% chance of dying...
1. http://www.statista.com/topics/1197/car-drivers/
2. http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx
1. http://www.statista.com/topics/1197/car-drivers/
2. http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx
would you sign up for something where there's, quite possibly, a 3% chance you get killed? Or a 12% chance of a life-altering injury (assuming 5x frequency of fatality)?
Yes. Absolutely. Nothing is zero risk. And just because you can quantify the risk doesn't mean I won't still do something. The chance of my death is 100%. While I'm not going to tightrope walk across sky-scrapers, I'm not gonna sit at home eating funyuns in front of the TV forever either.
Humans are really really bad at assessing risk. Perceived risk and actual risk are wildly different. And even when risk is assessed, we're doubly bad at dealing with the risk. We react differently based on the source of that risk (terrorism against an industrial system and an accident that takes it offline could have the same impact on operations).
And we have less that zero ability to determine acceptable levels of risk. One day a 5% chance of X might seem like a lucky world to live in. Add in two months of media scaremongering and suddenly 5% is unacceptable. Politicians start a "War on X" and PSAs start rolling telling you not to engage in behaviors that might cause X. They'll use the phrase "don't be a statistic" as if you're any less quantified in the 95% than the 5%.
It would be silly to suggest there isn't a baseline level of risk we have to be comfortable with as part of life. Take the murder rate for example. We could get it down to near-zero. But the intrusive policing and restrictive policy necessary might mean it's a net negative to society.
Yes. Absolutely. Nothing is zero risk. And just because you can quantify the risk doesn't mean I won't still do something. The chance of my death is 100%. While I'm not going to tightrope walk across sky-scrapers, I'm not gonna sit at home eating funyuns in front of the TV forever either.
Humans are really really bad at assessing risk. Perceived risk and actual risk are wildly different. And even when risk is assessed, we're doubly bad at dealing with the risk. We react differently based on the source of that risk (terrorism against an industrial system and an accident that takes it offline could have the same impact on operations).
And we have less that zero ability to determine acceptable levels of risk. One day a 5% chance of X might seem like a lucky world to live in. Add in two months of media scaremongering and suddenly 5% is unacceptable. Politicians start a "War on X" and PSAs start rolling telling you not to engage in behaviors that might cause X. They'll use the phrase "don't be a statistic" as if you're any less quantified in the 95% than the 5%.
It would be silly to suggest there isn't a baseline level of risk we have to be comfortable with as part of life. Take the murder rate for example. We could get it down to near-zero. But the intrusive policing and restrictive policy necessary might mean it's a net negative to society.
Note that fatalities can include both drivers and passengers. I'm also not sure where you got 80M active drivers from, I know there are around 200M licensed drivers but couldn't find any stats on active drivers.
On a yearly basis, since 2000, in the US, supposedly there have been anywhere from 1.5 to 1.08 fatalities per 100 million miles traveled by vehicle. That seems like a much more solid number to calculate your odds based on, but I don't know how to offhand.
On a yearly basis, since 2000, in the US, supposedly there have been anywhere from 1.5 to 1.08 fatalities per 100 million miles traveled by vehicle. That seems like a much more solid number to calculate your odds based on, but I don't know how to offhand.
Ok, let's use that 1E-8 fatalities per vehicle miles driven. If you commute 50 miles a day 250 days a year for 50 years, we get a total of 1E-8 x 50 x 250 x 50 = 0.006 fatalities, or a 0.6% probability of death.
Incidentally, your odds of being killed in a collision with a vehicle are much higher while walking, cycling, or motorcycling than while driving, so it might be worth considering the fact that drivers are displacing risk from themselves and on to other road users.
Where did you get the 80 million active drivers number?
A delicious media campaign to promulgate and evangelize that we should acquiesce to cars that tell us where to go by driving themselves.
Exactly so. The above is clearly a PR campaign.
In firearms safety education, we pretty much replaced "accidental discharge" with "negligent discharge" for the same reasons; I think it's been effective.
> Roadway fatalities are soaring at a rate not seen in 50 years, resulting from crashes, collisions and other incidents caused by drivers.
The whole premise of the article seems wrong. According to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths... [1] the rate of traffic fatalities has declined markedly in the last years. It has declined per inhabitants, it has declined per vehicle miles traveled, and it has even declined absolutely! In the last 10 years, it went from 42000 deaths per year to 32000 deaths per year. This is an incredible success! Driving in the U.S. remains significantly more dangerous than in other first world countries (compare Europe, or even Germany, where there is no speedlimit on most sections of the Autobahn). But the gap is fortunately closing.
It would be fascinating to read about how the increased safety was achieved.
[1] The wikipedia article does not contain information on the year 2015. The NYT article uses the increase from 2014-2015 as basis for the claim that roadway fatalities are soaring.
The whole premise of the article seems wrong. According to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths... [1] the rate of traffic fatalities has declined markedly in the last years. It has declined per inhabitants, it has declined per vehicle miles traveled, and it has even declined absolutely! In the last 10 years, it went from 42000 deaths per year to 32000 deaths per year. This is an incredible success! Driving in the U.S. remains significantly more dangerous than in other first world countries (compare Europe, or even Germany, where there is no speedlimit on most sections of the Autobahn). But the gap is fortunately closing.
It would be fascinating to read about how the increased safety was achieved.
[1] The wikipedia article does not contain information on the year 2015. The NYT article uses the increase from 2014-2015 as basis for the claim that roadway fatalities are soaring.
In 2015 traffic fatalities shot up 8% vs the prior year. This is the most recent data we have. https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/...
Regarding your last point, the US is not catching up with the other countries, it is falling behind. In the last decade US fatalities have fallen by a few points but in Germany they fell by half.
Regarding your last point, the US is not catching up with the other countries, it is falling behind. In the last decade US fatalities have fallen by a few points but in Germany they fell by half.
My first guess would be that cars are simply safer than they've ever been. You're more likely to survive a crash.
Driving in the US is less safe because there's almost no barrier to getting a driver's license. Be at least 16 years old, pass a simple written test, a vision check, and a very basic road test, and you're good to go.
Driving in the US is less safe because there's almost no barrier to getting a driver's license. Be at least 16 years old, pass a simple written test, a vision check, and a very basic road test, and you're good to go.
It's legitimately absurd how easy it is to get a driver's license in the US. I got mine at 16.75 after doing a quick (as in, it took me <10 minutes) multiple choice "test" and a 20 minute drive around town.
Not having a driver's license is not a significant barrier to driving; it just makes it harder to get insurance and register a vehicle, and makes any traffic stop a big deal.
There's some amount of societal good done by having looser standards for a license to keep more vehicles registered and more drivers fiscally responsible[1].
[1] generally through insurance
There's some amount of societal good done by having looser standards for a license to keep more vehicles registered and more drivers fiscally responsible[1].
[1] generally through insurance
[deleted]
These folks are always doing research on car safety features, presumably trying to reduce insurance premiums being paid out: http://www.iihs.org/ You'll hear IIHS ratings in car commercials alongside the government's safety ratings.
What's interesting to me is that your source and the NYT are saying opposite things (???)
What's interesting to me is that your source and the NYT are saying opposite things (???)
I don't know who decided that accidents can't mean negligence, or how this movement claims in one breath that "accidents" was used to blame the victims in the early industrial age and in the next breath that "accidents" is used to excuse bad driving.
We can attack social problems without resorting to the euphemism treadmill.
We can attack social problems without resorting to the euphemism treadmill.
How is it in other languages? In German there is only "Unfall" for both crash and accident...
The Navy use the term "Mishap", usually in reference to aircraft incidents that result in damage or a total loss.
This isn't new. When I took driver's training decades ago they stressed the use of the word "collision" over "accident".
It didn't make sense then and it doesn't make sense now. If the collision isn't intentional it's an accident, no matter how crappy your driving is. Unless, of course, it's intentional, something that is bound to be a pretty rare occurrence.
It didn't make sense then and it doesn't make sense now. If the collision isn't intentional it's an accident, no matter how crappy your driving is. Unless, of course, it's intentional, something that is bound to be a pretty rare occurrence.
Well, it depends on how you define intent. Clearly you define intent as a conscious thought towards doing something. "I'm going to crash my car today. There's a nice-looking target. Steering wheel activate! <crash>"
Others wonder how accidental it really is that you crashed your car while composing an SMS novel on your phone. What did you think was going to happen when you mashed the gas pedal without looking in front of you?
Others wonder how accidental it really is that you crashed your car while composing an SMS novel on your phone. What did you think was going to happen when you mashed the gas pedal without looking in front of you?
It's still not intentional if you didn't, you know, intend to do it. Even if you're drunk off your ass, texting, and trying to change your shoes at the same time. It's still an accident if the goal was to get down the road in one piece.
That's not the same thing as saying we shouldn't prosecute drunk or reckless drivers.
That's not the same thing as saying we shouldn't prosecute drunk or reckless drivers.
> “When you use the word ‘accident,’ it’s like, ‘God made it happen,’ ...
I do not agree; this is just a bullshit word semantics game, a game which ends as soon as we crack open an authoritative dictionary.
"Accident" has a nuance of referring to a chance event, but that clearly doesn't apply in the context of an auto wreck; only a moron would insist that "accident" in "car accident" is being used with the same nuance as "cosmic accident".
The sense of "accident" used in "car accident" unmistakably refers to the lack of intent (in a situation where human intent could conceivably exist).
It has no sense whatsoever of absolving anyone of responsibility.
If someone does something by "accident", that in no way precludes the root cause being that they are a klutz, moron or reckless goon who could have prevented that from happening.
It's a perfectly good word that we can keep using, thank you very much.
I do not agree; this is just a bullshit word semantics game, a game which ends as soon as we crack open an authoritative dictionary.
"Accident" has a nuance of referring to a chance event, but that clearly doesn't apply in the context of an auto wreck; only a moron would insist that "accident" in "car accident" is being used with the same nuance as "cosmic accident".
The sense of "accident" used in "car accident" unmistakably refers to the lack of intent (in a situation where human intent could conceivably exist).
It has no sense whatsoever of absolving anyone of responsibility.
If someone does something by "accident", that in no way precludes the root cause being that they are a klutz, moron or reckless goon who could have prevented that from happening.
It's a perfectly good word that we can keep using, thank you very much.
But "crash" is also a perfectly good word; what's wrong with using that word instead, especially since some people don't like the word "accident?"
Mainly what is wrong with it is that we're then caving in to a few people who don't like a word. "Crash" isn't a perfectly good word because negligent drivers can cause an accident without themselves crashing. That word is used anyway, and in practice it is no more or less informative than "accident".
> The sense of "accident" used in "car accident" unmistakably refers to the lack of intent (in a situation where human intent could conceivably exist).
In that case it's still flawed, because in most cases it fails to acknowledge the presence of gross negligence, which is often the case.
In that case it's still flawed, because in most cases it fails to acknowledge the presence of gross negligence, which is often the case.
"Car crash" also doesn't specifically speak to gross negligence, only to some physical circumstances. Furthermore, cars aren't airplanes. In many crashes, two or more are involved, which is rare for airplanes. An accident is not always deemed to be the fault of the driver who crashed. Brazenly running through a traffic control which calls for stopping is gross negligence. A driver who does that might cause a crash, yet completely avoid it. That vehicle is involved in the accident though it wasn't in a crash.
Fault and negligence are for the insurance adjustors, police and courts to decide; it is not helpful in any way to start using some synonym of "accident" that has connotations of gross negligence as a general term for all accidents.
Fault and negligence are for the insurance adjustors, police and courts to decide; it is not helpful in any way to start using some synonym of "accident" that has connotations of gross negligence as a general term for all accidents.
I really dislike this trend on putting high importance on specific words usage as a means of confronting an issue. This is hardly low hanging fruit category yet it's given so much attention on social media. The primary reasons that I believe this is wrongheaded:
a) People understand the context of the word. This whole campaign is predicated on people not being able to understand context when words are used, which is denying a basic common sense human attribute.
Virginia Department of Transportation is right:
> The officials at the Virginia Department of Transportation that they stop using “accident,” he received a note saying that drivers are familiar and comfortable with the word. Virginia officials also wrote that drivers might not consider a minor incident to be a “crash,” and so the change could be confusing
b) As the above quote also points out, that by obsessing over specific meanings of words then words that currently have multiple degrees of meaning depending on context are then recategorized to just mean one specific thing. Then you potentially lose something as a result and have to find even more words to fill the void. So we have to spend even more time obsessing over which words we use, when everyone already understood what was meant in the first place.
c) It's almost always the case that time would be better spent on so many other things. It's just easier to sit at home and complain at peoples use of language then it is to teach people to be better drivers.
It feels good to tell someone they have been doing x wrong. It makes good headlines because it's something we all can relate to. It's surprising. It's a simple thing to add to a checklist of things to regulate/control in organizations. This is why I think it's such a popular strategy that people take. Sadly it's not a very useful one.
a) People understand the context of the word. This whole campaign is predicated on people not being able to understand context when words are used, which is denying a basic common sense human attribute.
Virginia Department of Transportation is right:
> The officials at the Virginia Department of Transportation that they stop using “accident,” he received a note saying that drivers are familiar and comfortable with the word. Virginia officials also wrote that drivers might not consider a minor incident to be a “crash,” and so the change could be confusing
b) As the above quote also points out, that by obsessing over specific meanings of words then words that currently have multiple degrees of meaning depending on context are then recategorized to just mean one specific thing. Then you potentially lose something as a result and have to find even more words to fill the void. So we have to spend even more time obsessing over which words we use, when everyone already understood what was meant in the first place.
c) It's almost always the case that time would be better spent on so many other things. It's just easier to sit at home and complain at peoples use of language then it is to teach people to be better drivers.
It feels good to tell someone they have been doing x wrong. It makes good headlines because it's something we all can relate to. It's surprising. It's a simple thing to add to a checklist of things to regulate/control in organizations. This is why I think it's such a popular strategy that people take. Sadly it's not a very useful one.
> denying a basic common sense human attribute
Unfortunately, this kind of thing can end up in court where "common sense" has even less meaning than usual. "Your honour, the police have already categorised this as an accident, so clearly there is no case to answer." This has happened in court in the UK, which is why the police here talk of RTCs (road traffic collisions) rather than RTAs (accidents). "Collision" also applies to any kind of "accident", more so than "crash".
Unfortunately, this kind of thing can end up in court where "common sense" has even less meaning than usual. "Your honour, the police have already categorised this as an accident, so clearly there is no case to answer." This has happened in court in the UK, which is why the police here talk of RTCs (road traffic collisions) rather than RTAs (accidents). "Collision" also applies to any kind of "accident", more so than "crash".
Either different words have different meanings, or they don't.
If the meaning of a word is delivered primarily by its context, then there should be little objection to a straight replacement of "accident" with "crash"--since the context would be unchanged.
If the meaning of a word is carried by the word itself, then you have to consider what accident means to most people: something that just happens, unavoidably, despite everyone's best intentions to avert it. But that does not actually describe the vast majority of car crashes. Most car crashes actually could have been averted.
> The officials at the Virginia Department of Transportation that they stop using “accident,” he received a note saying that drivers are familiar and comfortable with the word.
Yes, of course they are. That's the problem. People are too familiar and comfortable with the concept of cars crashing and causing injuries and death.
The whole point of changing the way we talk about things is to change the way people think about things--their expectations.
> It's just easier to sit at home and complain at peoples use of language then it is to teach people to be better drivers.
There's no reason to choose, here. Both can happen.
If the meaning of a word is delivered primarily by its context, then there should be little objection to a straight replacement of "accident" with "crash"--since the context would be unchanged.
If the meaning of a word is carried by the word itself, then you have to consider what accident means to most people: something that just happens, unavoidably, despite everyone's best intentions to avert it. But that does not actually describe the vast majority of car crashes. Most car crashes actually could have been averted.
> The officials at the Virginia Department of Transportation that they stop using “accident,” he received a note saying that drivers are familiar and comfortable with the word.
Yes, of course they are. That's the problem. People are too familiar and comfortable with the concept of cars crashing and causing injuries and death.
The whole point of changing the way we talk about things is to change the way people think about things--their expectations.
> It's just easier to sit at home and complain at peoples use of language then it is to teach people to be better drivers.
There's no reason to choose, here. Both can happen.
I think it's precisely the fact that people are "familiar and comfortable" with frequent preventable deaths that's the issue here.
I agree that words are not important, actions are. At the same time I hope this is a step along the path towards holding drivers responsible for deaths they cause.
I agree that words are not important, actions are. At the same time I hope this is a step along the path towards holding drivers responsible for deaths they cause.
> Mr. Larason counters that accident is simply the wrong word. “I’m betting it’s one of the most commonly used words that is used inappropriately,” he said.
Right behind 'inappropriate'.
Right behind 'inappropriate'.
I dislike both terms. I prefer the term collision. It is more consistent with physics.
One approach to reducing vehicle collisions that wasnt mentioned much in the discussion so far are road rules and design.
It is unrealistic to expect perfect responses from human drivers, or even compliance with rules. Also, human attention is severely limited (there are only so many things a human can keep track of, especially for extended periods of time). In other countries(e.g. Europe, which as mentioned further down had a more severe drop in traffic fatalities), traffic rules are often very different. For example, right turning on a red light (which can lead to collosions, hit pedestrians, Etc.) and the rather confusing right of way situation (there is no general rule for right of way, stop signs are in the order in which people arrive -- which is hard to figure out for people. Right before left or yield signage doesn't require looking at every other lane, but allows the situation to be resolved statically). There are also cleverer incentives, such as dynamically times traffic lights that give you a 'green wave' if you're going the speed limit -- so people are conditioned to drive at normal speeds. Many traffic lights here even in well off cities seem to be completely unsynchronized(or they all turn green at the same time) training drivers to speed through.
Similarly, being originally from Germany (which has no speed limits in large parts of the highway network, and higher speed limits in other places), passing on the right (which means you have to be aware of twice as many lanes which could cut into yours) and the focus on enforcing speed limits and not following distance seems odd. 60 vs 70 or perhaps even 80 isn't going to make that much difference when avoiding a crash, but having half a second vs two or three seconds to react is substantial. I have heard many anecdotes of people getting expensive speeding tickets for going 80, not one for tailgating.
At the end of the day, there will be collisions, and there will also always be a human factor in them, however no matter how draconian we make the penalties or how much we shift blame (or even not assign it), people will still drive, and we should spend some time thinking about how to make realistic driving conditions safe.
It is unrealistic to expect perfect responses from human drivers, or even compliance with rules. Also, human attention is severely limited (there are only so many things a human can keep track of, especially for extended periods of time). In other countries(e.g. Europe, which as mentioned further down had a more severe drop in traffic fatalities), traffic rules are often very different. For example, right turning on a red light (which can lead to collosions, hit pedestrians, Etc.) and the rather confusing right of way situation (there is no general rule for right of way, stop signs are in the order in which people arrive -- which is hard to figure out for people. Right before left or yield signage doesn't require looking at every other lane, but allows the situation to be resolved statically). There are also cleverer incentives, such as dynamically times traffic lights that give you a 'green wave' if you're going the speed limit -- so people are conditioned to drive at normal speeds. Many traffic lights here even in well off cities seem to be completely unsynchronized(or they all turn green at the same time) training drivers to speed through.
Similarly, being originally from Germany (which has no speed limits in large parts of the highway network, and higher speed limits in other places), passing on the right (which means you have to be aware of twice as many lanes which could cut into yours) and the focus on enforcing speed limits and not following distance seems odd. 60 vs 70 or perhaps even 80 isn't going to make that much difference when avoiding a crash, but having half a second vs two or three seconds to react is substantial. I have heard many anecdotes of people getting expensive speeding tickets for going 80, not one for tailgating.
At the end of the day, there will be collisions, and there will also always be a human factor in them, however no matter how draconian we make the penalties or how much we shift blame (or even not assign it), people will still drive, and we should spend some time thinking about how to make realistic driving conditions safe.
The speed limit focus is based on the consequences of crashes - while it doesn't do anything significant (AFAIK) in regards to chances of an accident, there is a significant link between accident speed and rate of deaths and severe injuries.
A car driving at 70 has twice as much kinetic energy than at 50; and modern cars are quite good at protecting people up until they can't - many of fatal crashes would be just property damage if the impact happened, say, 20 km/h slower; while tailgating accidents don't kill much people at all.
A car driving at 70 has twice as much kinetic energy than at 50; and modern cars are quite good at protecting people up until they can't - many of fatal crashes would be just property damage if the impact happened, say, 20 km/h slower; while tailgating accidents don't kill much people at all.
[deleted]
I first thought about this issue when I watched Hot Fuzz https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puK5CwThaq4
The word "accident" is really indicative of the culture. Words shape how we think about things. As someone who's lived and cycled in both the US and Western Europe, I can say that the level of personal responsibility W. European drivers seemed to feel for not killing me was much higher. US drivers will zip past me at high speeds with a foot of clearance. It makes you feel like they think hitting you would be similar running over a squirrel. Of course most drivers who hit cyclists feel absolutely distraught after it happens--they're not monsters. But it baffles me how many Americans seemed surprised that could happen until it does.
Now that cars are generally considered a bad idea (at least in the cities) we are probably going to have to go a lot further than just changing a term (but we should still do that). We are going to have to change our entire culture. It will be very difficult. Eventually the law will catch up with culture and driving will be harder than it used to be. Then there will likely be a lot less of it done and traffic will no longer be the most dangerous thing in our lives.