I frequently listen to AM 680 in the mornings but invariably find myself becoming agitated by the Traffic News. It is not so much the constant reminder of just how badly people drive, or the level of congestion that no one [apart from Howard Stern] seems prepared to tackle. What gets me is the constant use of the word ‘accident' to refer to road crashes. Why? This has been much debate with me.The constant use of the word ‘accident', especially by journalists, to refer even to those crashes caused by the most blatant dangerous driving seems to me one reason why we all seem to be in denial of the realities of our ‘car culture'.
'Accident' has a number of connotations that a more neutral word such as ‘crash' does not. Common phrases include ‘Accidents happen'. This implies that they are inevitable and that there is nothing that can be done to avoid them, which when it comes to road deaths is just not true. Another common phrase people use is ‘It was just an accident' or even ‘I didn't mean it, it was just an accident'. The subtext to this phrase is, of course, ‘It was not my fault' or ‘I refuse to accept any responsibility for what has happened'. [A universal problem with road crashes where everyone feels someone else must be to blame]. In short, the overuse of the word ‘accident' seems to encourage the general view that no one is to blame for road deaths and injuries.
Some time ago, I emailed radio 680 about this and ‘Sally Traffic' [as to say] did me the courtesy of Emailing me back. I was told that the use of the word ‘accident' was not the CRTC’s policy but that they would never use ‘crash' as she believed the word is ‘sensationalist'. [And of course we mustn't be ‘sensationalist' about anything as mundane as road deaths must we...?]. It also continued to explain that some commercial stations do have a policy of not using the word ‘crash', especially in the mornings, as it is felt this is more likely to upset listeners about to start their day.
There are plenty of other example of ‘the culture of denial' being expressed in language. For example, another common phrase is ‘The car went out of control' when what is really meant is ‘The driver lost control of the car'. We also say such things as ‘The pedestrian was killed by the car', even when they have been run down on a pedestrian crossing and what we really mean is ‘The pedestrian was killed by the car driver'.
Strangely enough cyclists seem to have much less problem calling ‘a spade a spade' and the word ‘crash' is used in preference by most cycling enthusiasts when they describe racing cyclists ‘coming a box of tricks'. It even sounds a bit odd to say ‘the cyclist has had an accident on the descent'. Almost universally, commentators will just say, ‘The cyclist has crashed' without this been considered to be ‘sensationalist'. Then again cyclists are not living in denial of the realities of the ‘car culture'... The philosopher Wittgenstein said that ‘the limit of my language is the limit of my world'. Given this if we are to make people less accepting of road deaths do we need to challenge the comforting language that the upholders of the car culture use to put a less threatening spin on the harsh realities of road deaths [And by drivers to avoid having to accept individual responsibility]? Or is a simple word such as ‘crash' really ‘sensationalist'?
Collision seems to be a good word.
Teresa.
