Advocacy & Safety - The language of car crash reports

First, an example from the ABC (Australia) web site today:

'_Man killed after his car hit back of bus_

A 31-year-old Hughes man was killed when his car collided with a bus in Phillip in the ACT last night.

The bus had stopped on Launceston Street just before 7:30pm AEDT when the car ran into the back of it.'

I've noticed over the years that reports of car crashes always call them 'accidents' and they always say 'the car lost control'. (I could cite many examples.) They never call them 'crashes' and they never say 'the driver lost control'. Calling them 'accidents' implies that crashes are unavoidable and by saying 'the car' lost control rather than 'the driver' lost control, they are removing the responsibility from the driver and placing it ...where?

So why do they do this? Anyone got any insight into this usage? I'm trying to put my finger on it but can't quite figure it out.

cheers,
Anthony

I don't know. But there is a parallel with firearm accidents too.

Never do they say "then the moron pulled the trigger", it is usually "the gun just went off".

Perhaps it is a way to vilify the object instead of the person, because it is easier.

First, an example from the ABC (Australia) web site today:

'_Man killed after his car hit back of bus_

A 31-year-old Hughes man was killed when his car collided with a bus in Phillip in the ACT last night.

Calling them 'accidents' implies that crashes are unavoidable and by saying 'the car' lost control rather than 'the driver' lost control, they are removing the responsibility from the driver and placing it ...where?
Note, "he" did not collide with the bus, his car did. Somewhere in the process, the car took on a personality of its own and killed the driver.

It's really hard to be realistic when an "accident" happens. We feel so bad for the victim, we can't bear to affix blame to him/her. It's almost akin to speaking evil of the dead. "It could happen to anyone," we say.

I have altered my vocabulary. I call them, "crashes," not "accidents."

Ants, I too have noticed this and I have views on this issue throughout the entire forum. To my way of thinking, an accident is something that a person had absolutely no way of preventing caused by freakish conditions. Something that is the result of inattention/incompetence (as most "accidents" are) is not an accident in my view.

As to why they do it, I think it's just the media not wanting to say anything that might harm their newspaper sales. The Great Unwashed probably find "accident" an easier term to digest than "act of incompetence". After all, they've probably done the same sort of thing themselves in the past (even if the consequences were less on that occasion). Also, the media often likes to try to find other factors to blame (not just in car crash reporting either), and thus we have language such as "the car lost control" when describing an inanimate object that never actually had "control" in the first place!

How about if anyone said 'The fist just lost control and collided with the face.' Would that be considered an accident?

How about if anyone said 'The fist just lost control and collided with the face.' Would that be considered an accident?

" All of a sudden, Cale (Yarbrough) started hitting my fist with his nose"
-Bobby Allison

Thanks for those ideas guys. That's just the sort of things I was trying to get at.

I'd like to think that if we actually attributed responsibility for these things, then maybe people would gradually begin to take responsibility. Or would it just make everybody feel really bad and stop them from engaging in what is inherently risky (and socially and environmentally irresponsible) behaviour?

There was another 'car lost control' article in the Canberra Times today. A car in a 50km/h zone, doing something like 100km/h, hit a tree sideways and the driver died. Not pretty. It certainly appears that it was not the car itself at fault; but the language allows the readers to distance themselves from the incident and remain an extra step removed from imagining themselves in the scenario. But then I wonder why the newspapers report these things in the first place.

I shall continue to ponder this one, thanks again for the input.

Ants

Thanks for those ideas guys. That's just the sort of things I was trying to get at.

I'd like to think that if we actually attributed responsibility for these things, then maybe people would gradually begin to take responsibility. Or would it just make everybody feel really bad and stop them from engaging in what is inherently risky (and socially and environmentally irresponsible) behaviour?

Either or both of the above would be good enough for me. :D To be honest I think the former of those options is the more likely.