• Zagorath@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    120
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    A friendly reminder that road safety advocates recommend against the use of the word “accident” to describe car crashes, because it downplays the fact that many crashes are preventable, either by better safe road design or by the drivers being more responsible with with 2 tonne machinery they are operating.

        • Zagorath@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’ve actually never seen the movie. I just know that it’s a widespread view among people who focus on road safety.

          Most news articles I can find dealing with this issue, like this one seem to focus mostly on the idea that one driver may be mostly at fault. Which is true and definitely part of the equation, but personally I’m even more focused on the ways in which the road design itself may have been a contributing factor. When you have high speed roads that also have a large number of driveways and side streets (i.e., a “stroad”), higher numbers of crashes are inevitable, and can be avoided by better design. Same with when you create bike lanes with no separation, or separated but giving cars high speed ways to turn across them at intersections. The design of that street is a significant contributing factor, and calling crashes an “accident” lets the designers and the politicians who signed off on it off the hook.

          • gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            calling crashes an “accident” lets the designers and the politicians who signed off on it off the hook.

            No, it doesn’t. Accidents are just things that weren’t intended to happen

            If calling something an accident let people off the hook for their responsibility in the situation then people wouldn’t go to jail for car accudents

            • Zagorath@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              It’s not about the dictionary definition of the term. It’s about the subconscious effect your choice of language has on how people think about things. When you call something an accident it gives people the signal that there was nothing that could have been done, and so nothing does get done. There’s no pressure on politicians and engineers in most of the anglosphere to do any of the things that would actually improve road safety. Indeed, a lot of the time when they do try to make our roads safer, you see fearmongering and NIMBY opposition against the idea.

              Changing the language is one small step in helping to make our roads safer by making it clearer that making them safer is something we need to be concentrating on.

              • gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                You are clearly mixing up the phrase “an act of God” with “accident”

                The former implies nothing could be done and is said after accidents, but the latter is what we’re discussing and it does not imply that at all

                An insanely popular saying is that “regulations are written in blood” after all

                • Zagorath@aussie.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Go back and reread the comment that you just replied to. Because nothing at here is even remotely related to it.

    • Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      If it isn’t intentional then isn’t it by definition an accident?

      If I break my leg while mountainbiking it seems a bit unreasonable to claim that it wasn’t an accident because mountainbiking is an extreme sport and this could’ve been avoided if I was knitting instead.

      • 9488fcea02a9@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        27
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m speeding through a school zone at 60km/h… I didnt INTEND to kill anyone, but i didnt see the crosswalk and mowed down a bunch of pedestrians.

        This is not an accident. Entirely preventable. Intent doesnt matter

        The vast majority of car collisions are entirely avoidable.

        • ngdev@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s still an accident. Just look up the definition. I’d wager to say most accidents are entirely preventable as well, but that’s not what determines whether something was an accident