randya

Go to the original BikePortland article to get the full set of links embedded in Elly's excellent editorial.

Our ‘accidental’ car culture
Posted by Elly Blue on June 15th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
https://bikeportland.org/2007/06/15/o...l-car-culture/

What does the word accident mean?

A mistake, but not just any mistake — not an action, but an outcome both unintended and unavoidable, something no reasonable person could have predicted or prepared for. The word is commonly used to describe bad things happening to good people from natural causes — the proverbial banana peel, a sudden strike of lightning, a verbal misunderstanding, a small child’s lack of control — and car crashes.

One of these things is not like the others.

It’s no secret that an automobile is a dangerous plaything, and an even more dangerous weapon.

News headlines hit us with a daily barrage of death and destruction wrought by car crashes. The New York City-based Streetsblog has a “Weekly Carnage” feature that keeps a running tally of the devastating impact of cars (so far in NYC, car crashes have claimed 289 lives). Everyone knows someone who has been in a serious crash.

It is inaccurate to the point of delusion to speak of these constant life-changing and life-ending events as unavoidable, unpredictable acts of God, or worse yet, “accidents”.

But the word is automatic. As this astonishing snippet from a story in the New York Times shows, automobile violence is seen as such a natural part of life, that even the most malevolent, purposeful acts can be classed as accidents.

It is extremely clear that the recent death of Timothy O’Donnell was no accident — it was caused by the negligence (if not recklessness) of the speeding driver who failed to yield to his group. Yet the Beaverton Valley Times, in an otherwise sympathetic piece, repeatedly described the crash as an accident.

Even in cases when individual blame is less clear, it is neither accurate nor productive to class car crashes as accidents. All the conditions leading to a crash — the social acceptability of driving while drunk or on the phone, the normalcy of speeding and road rage, the design of cars that limits drivers’ ability to see pedestrians, cyclists, and smaller cars, the fact that you simply don’t need to be a very good driver to get or keep a license — all are causative.

We have a culture of car use which has been predominant for hardly more than 50 years — yet we see automobile transportation as such a natural part of our social landscape that we don’t see — or worse, that we see and don’t give weight to — the dangers inherent to our reliance on it.

We need to take a long, hard look at our culture of driving. Why is it so easy to get — and keep — a driver license? Why is learning to drive the most important rite of passage for our teens? Why is it a cultural imperative to go as fast and as far as we can, as often as we can? Why have we built our communities around driving, stranding those who cannot, should not, or just don’t want to drive a car? Why are our laws and cities built around promoting and supporting this culture of driving, to the detriment of all other options?

Passing the Vulnerable Roadway Users bill will be a start towards shifting our thinking. But it’s only a start. We can reinvent our relationships with each other in the streets and other public spaces, but only through vision, intention, and commitment.

What are you going to do?

aMull

Great read.

alanfleisig

Couldn't agree more.

99% of car-related incidents are no accident at all.

Someone clever needs to come up with new language. "Collision" is a term often used in motor vehicle law, rather than "accident." Maybe that would be a starting point.

sgtsmile

Old news. Even old news on the A&S forum.

However, it is dead right: car crashes are not accidents.

Calling them "collisions" has been done by the best driving school in Canada for over 12 years now. The A word is never to be uttered. ;p

As well, the cbc in Toronto rarely if ever uses the A word anymore. And they don't use it for the reason that car crashes are avoidable, and not accidents.

Blue Order

Unfortunately, she's wrong on almost every point. "Accident" is used to describe incidents that weren't intentional. "Acts of God" are natural occurrences over which we have no control. "Negligence" isn't the same thing as "recklessness." Even a reckless act that leads to injury is an accident because the injury wasn't intended.

bac

Excellent!

... Brad

sgtsmile

An action that is unintended is, umm, unintentional.

I for one don't give a rat's ass about what the dictionary says about what "accident" means. The implication of the word accident by common usage is that an accident is unavoidable. This nicely absolves blame from a person involved in an "accident" when something unfortunate happens. I for one have a hard time absolving blame from a person involved in a car crash since in virtually all circumstances, crashes are avoidable. Even those for which there is "no escape", there is escape if a person chooses to change the way they drive.

Blue Order

A. In the middle of a storm, your neighbor's tree falls and crashes into your home. Act of God.

B. In the middle of a storm, your neighbor's tree falls and crashes into your home; your neighbor knew the tree was weakened by insects and posed a danger, but took no action. Negligence.

C. Your neighbor is cutting his tree down, but doesn't take appropriate precautions, and it lands on your home. Negligence.

D. Your neighbor is cutting his tree down, and you say "be careful, if you don't cut from the other side, it will fall on my house"! Your neighbor says, "that's your problem, not mine," and keeps cutting. Predicatbly, the tree crashes into your home. Gross negligence (recklessness).

E. Your neighbor says "I'll teach that bike-riding so-and-so a lesson," and cuts his tree down with the intent that it crashes into your home. And it does crash into your home. Intentional act.





Unfortunately, Elly Blue bandies these terms about without regard for what they actually mean.

Blue Order

That's where you're wrong. Accident doesn't mean "unavoidable," it means "unintentional."

No, the person is still held accountable, for the unintended results of their actions.

They are not absolved of blame. Punishment for an unintentional act-- an accident-- is not as stiff as it is for an intentional act. And that's the way it should be.

aMull

"Accidents" wouldn't happen if people knew how to drive. So yes they are avoidable.

sgtsmile

That's ok Pete, I find you equally amusing.

I know what I refer to, you don't (know what I am refering to.)

I have explained what I am talking about before here, and have spent years teaching it to others professionally, and cannot be bothered to explain it again. I cannot be bothered typing out 25 hours of classes to win points in a meaningless internet debate. Some people have tried using the driving system I (and many many others) taught and have found it to work very very well. Some people don't want to change the way they think, and find some of the more unconventional methods we taught to be "awkward" or threw strawman arguments in opposition. Those people chose to not reduce their risk of crashes and chose not to take ownership for what can be done to reduce crashes.

sgtsmile

Some things are silly yes, but the bit you quoted me in parenthesis here is what I am driving at (pun meant).

If someone is, for example, rear ended in traffic, they will often say that they could do nothing about it. In most cases, they are right, because they set themselves up to get slammed. The crash is avoidable if a person chooses to a) leave room to get out of the way (it can be done - but it involves a major rethink in spacial awareness in traffic and a major rethink in how to approach a traffic light), and b) pays attention to what is behind them instead of staring off into space. Being aware of what is around you coupled with keeping more space than most are willing to keep will take a person a loooong way to avoiding virtually all crashes.

That is not silly. It is smart.

sgtsmile

uhuh,

Well, one thing that can be done is this: when you stop, in the situation you gave me there, the trick is to leave about 3 to 4 car lengths between you and the car in front. No one is obstructed since no one is moving and in the situation above, no one is behind the car until the dually arrives. Now, here comes the hypathetical dually. As it gets closer, slowly move forward. The driver moving slowly will notice that the dually is big, and shift lane position to use a side mirror to tell if someone is coming up fast behind the dually. About 2 to 3 car lengths need to be left. The dually driver will tend to match the speed of the car creeping forward (I have done this many many thousands of times, and drivers match the speed of the creeping car - most drivers have no desire to ram the car infront). The prime focus when stopped in traffic is the mirror with checks to escape routes. By shifting position in the lane (easy to do) and monitoring the mirrors, someone coming up fast behind the dually will be noticable and then the driver can bail. Sucks to be the dually driver, but they could have left some room too. Supposing that no one hits the dually, the driver with 2 to 3 lengths between them and the stopped car moves up a bit for each subsequent car but never leaves less than one full length. The cars behind the driver with space tend to move forward as well.

Driving, even when stopped in traffic, should not be a passive activity.

sgtsmile

And now we back up and I quote me.


"(in) virtually all circumstances, crashes are avoidable."



hmmmmm, English lesson time: virtually all circumstances DOES NOT equal every single one. It means most. A large amount of most. It does not mean, as you claim, eliminate. The driving system I taught does eliminate virtually all (as in most, a large amount of most) crashes IF it is used properly. It does not work miracles. The rear end crash avoidance technique I gave one example of above works and works well. We could stack the deck and come up with a way that would fail it (congratulations, you will a prize for doing so) but that does not excuse someone from doing what they can and, to use the silly word you love, "eliminate" a particular risk. (notice I said particular, not all... just to clarify ...)

sgtsmile

well, if this is happening in the left lane, shift right in lane (to better see behind in your own lane and the next one), and if it is happening in the right lane, shift left (for the same reason). If there are turn lanes, do your best to position yourself so that someone cannot do the lane change you describe. Not always possible, granted, but at least part of it is answered ...

sgtsmile

Perhaps,

What I was referring to by the "no escape" crash is those kinds of crashes - rear enders, and those where the car comes seemingly out of nowhere - that many people who do not devote a lot of time thinking about this kind of thing refer to as "no escape" crashes when, in fact, people CAN escape from them with a considerable rethink of how they drive.

randya

actually I think serge and sgtsmile are coming at this from completely different perspectives, and the current tone of this thread is all wrong. please help me here.

CommuterRun

My position, for years, has been accidents are a circumstance over which no one has any control. Among vehicles they are extremely rare.

Crashes, on the other hand, are caused by one or more operators acting negligently, wrecklessly, incompetently, and/or selfishly and impatiently.

The vast majority of crashes are avoidable.

All drivers involved in a crash should be subject to immediate and mandatory drug and alcohol testing. Any crash that result in a death should carry an automatic vehicular manslaughter charge for the driver(s) determined to be at fault.

littlewaywelt

They're accidents. I agree w/ Blue Order. Stupidity, inattention or a host of other factors cause them. IMO, the writer is off base. The legal system's and insurance industry's definitions seem to make sense.

In the end it doesn't matter what they are called. The result is the same.

fuerein

Random related question directed toward those who are arguing that the term accident is appropriate when it was unintentional. If a driver is not licensed or is driving on a suspended license or for whatever reason the driver should not legally be driving, whould the incident still be termed an accident? I don't really have an opinion, just wondering because while the final event (the collision) was unintentional, the actions that led to it (driving illegally) were completely intentional. Thus I could see the argument going either way.

Keith99

A licenced driver still intends to drive. Little difference when it comes to intent and common usage of language. It is still an accident. On a legal footing things are a bit different, See Blue Orders early post.

Bikepacker67

That's patently untrue.
Referring to something avoidable as an accident, conveniently absolves the guilty party.

littlewaywelt

Due respect, that's rediculous. An accident does not absolve guilt in the legal system.

It's very easy for something that's avoidable to become an accident.

With regard to the end result being the same, I was refering to a person being injured.

I can see a bike barrelling down the street at me and misinterpret his signal somewhere between a L hand up for right or L point L for left. I turn right he turns left, we crash. The collision could have been avoided. The lack of intent, makes it an accident. The fact that it was an accident does not absolve my possible guilt in interpretting his hand/arm signal incorrectly.

kokomo61

I've taken some classes at Summit Point Raceway, and one of the first things an instructor will tell you is -

"If a meteor falls from the sky and crushes your car, it's an accident. Everything else is driver error."

Bikepacker67

I don't care that legalese is used to bastardize the language, but if something is avoidable, it isn't an accident. It's poor choices, it's inattentiveness, it's impatience, it's speed... et al. But it's NOT AN ACCIDENT.

Now, that is not to say that there aren't ANY accidents. Just not nearly the number that we've come to "accept".