Talk:Car accident

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
B This page has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance assessment scale

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Car accident article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Discussions here have repeatedly involved the same arguments and views.

Please review the recent comments below, or in the archives. New views and ideas on the subject are welcome; however, if your beliefs reflect already existing contributions, please consider withholding them.
Archive
Archives
2004-2007.


Contents

[edit] This needs information on how road design can prevent or reduce the severity of accidents

I added a sentence and a photo, but more is definitely needed. --NE2 03:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

  • have tried to address both the above points - however it would benefit from the addition of some more data from countries other than the UK, which is where most of my detailed statistical info comes from. Ephebi (talk) 22:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
    • This would likely lead to redundant information in this and Road-traffic safety. While some overlap between the two articles is probably unavoidable, I suggest countermeasures belong in the safety article. Triskele Jim (talk) 16:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Major reworking

I've got stuck in and tried to address a lot of the issues mentioned above & tagged. I've tried to focus the article on accident types, causes, and citable statistics, leaving most of the safety responses & interventions to the article about road-traffic safety. The examples & figures I've cited have tended be more based on the US & UK experiences - perhaps not surprising, as there is already an easily accessible good body of knowledge there that goes back decades, but it would benefit from input from people who can add some global perspectives, particularly about statistics & legal issues. I've also tried to remove finger-pointing at particular vehicle models, partly because these characteristics tend to be shared by others, but also because they rapidly fall out of date. Ephebi (talk) 13:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Causes- Driver Inability

Like ignorant governments and road safety this article ignores the fact that low skill levels of drivers is a contributing factor to accidents.

A driver who has undertaken an advanced driving course will be less likely to be involved in a crash then a driver who has not taken this course.

This should be included into ways to reduce road accidents and both sides of the argument should be considered (ie advanced driver courses make better drivers vs advanced driver couses make overconfident dangerous drivers) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.49.228 (talk) 02:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

  • You are right - this would need to be dealt with carefully. Actuaries must think that ability (or something like that) has some relevance to accident likelihood, as UK drivers get a reduction in insurance after passing an IAM test (which assesses the roadcraft of an already experienced driver who is already keen enough to improve their skills.) On the one extreme, formula one drivers have excellent abilities on the track but this does not signify that they are "good" drivers on the public highway - if they behave the same way! The spins and momentary loss of control that are acceptable on the racetrack are not when they are on the highway. At the other extreme, very old drivers with slower reactions would be expected to be involved in more accidents, but this is not the case as they drive less and, apparently, more cautiously [1]. In the subsection "Driver behaviour" there is a cited article The Good, the Bad and the Talented that already identifies some of the problems you allude to in the context of young drivers, including: "the feeling of being confident in more and more challenging situations is experienced as evidence of driving ability, and that ‘proven’ ability reinforces the feelings of confidence. Confidence feeds itself and grows unchecked until something happens – a near-miss or an accident". A phenomenon which is compounded when most of us are poorly equipped to appreciate our own lack of talent (e.g. Unskilled and Unaware of It). Also some interesting research [here. Ephebi (talk) 19:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • have tried to incorporate this in the behaviour & policy sections, hopefully this still complements the road-traffic safety section. Ephebi (talk) 19:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article name and main definition

With new editors, and a new year, perhaps it is time to discuss the article name, and its main definition, again. The name, including the word "accident" certainly implies a POV. A more NPOV name would include the word "collision", "incident", or perhaps "crash". The word "car" has a very specific meaning, particularly in the UK - it means the same as the "automobile" does in North America, and excludes trucks, buses, and motorcycles. So what should it be? In the UK the type of incident discussed in the article may occur, without a motor vehicle being involved at all - between a bicycle and a pedestrian perhaps. That is why I am also questioning the main definition, which implies an automobile has to be involved. Any name which implies a type of motor vehicle is necessarily involved needs to be avoided. All these types of incident do occur on the road, so perhaps that should be in the name. I suggest renaming the article to Road traffic incident, or Road traffic collision, or Road traffic crash. Does anyone have any comments or suggestions? -- de Facto (talk). 20:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Simon Pegg's character in Hot Fuzz mentioned the fact that "official vocab guidelines state they're now called traffic collisions because accident implies no one is to blame". -- MacAddct  1984 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Any changes are going to be as subjective as any other or so full of jargon that its non-intuitive. The article already stresses many of the multifarious terms. This article has a long history of name changes & it already has many links pointing to it. It also notes the difference between accident versus collision, which is majored on at Road-traffic safety. However, if you explore the article & its references you will see that there are various interpretations put on the term accident etc, many of which are explicitly PoV. If you adhere to the likes of MADD then it can seem that every pedestrian collision with a car is attempted homicide, contrasting someone like Leeming or Smeed who viewed it as a temporary lapse of human judgement. Not wishing to question the authority of a film such as Hot Fuzz, but there are various official terms current used in the UK alone - but the official accident collection mechanism [2], collects "Road Accidents Statistics" for DfT & ONS by compiling data on "personal injury road accidents". PIA, KSI, etc are all very specific terms in the jargon, but the US, Oz, etc, have equivalent but slightly different terms. And that's before we get to the religious & philosophical viewpoints that are prevalent around parts of the world that treat collisions as fate. Ephebi (talk) 12:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Change - We use "crash" as our official term in Maryland, but "incident" would also qualify. The Hot Fuzz quote hits it right-on. It happens more often than you'd think. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 13:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Change - Whether they are accidents, collisions, incidents, or crashes, they certainly do not all involve cars. -- de Facto (talk). 13:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Ahh, good point. I'd recommend replacing car with vehicle or vehicular; and accident with crash or collision. I wouldn't particularly recommend incident, as that is a bit too vague and is generally applied to a wide range of situations; not just a crash/collision. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 19:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Change shouldn't use car, doesn't have to involve cars. Shouldn't use accident doesn't have to be an accident. "Road traffic collision" sounds OK. However a vehicle rolling from a tight corner or a vehicle driving of a cliff into a lake might be included in the broad definition and would not involve "collisions". Carlwev (talk) 03:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Change to "Road traffic collision". "Car accident" is a colloquialism, and not all road collisions are accidents, and not all involve cars. Cambrasa (talk) 23:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Car accident is by far the most common term and is applicable to the vast majority of collisions, since small private vehicles are the majority of vehicles on the road in most countries. Furthermore, they are accidental in the sense that most people do not intentionally collide with each other. They do not get out of bed saying, "I'm going to deliberately crash my car into another and kill someone today!" "Road traffic collision" appears to be a neologism invented by DeFacto and is probably unverifiable original research in violation of Wikipedia official policies. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. See WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR. --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
It was not invented by me, it is a term in common use by those who need to have a neutral point of view - see 'Google search for "road traffic collision"'. The point though is, that not all involve cars and not all are accidents. -- de Facto (talk). 09:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
A disproportionately large number of "accidents" are caused by drivers who engage in drunk or dangerous driving. Both are deliberate acts of gross negligence, and there is a least some degree of intent when a collision occurs. The main motivation for thrill-seekers is often that something might happen.
Secondly, "car accident" may be a common term, but it is a colloquial term, and we should use the scholarly term even if it is less common. For instance, Wikipedia has an article on Traffic congestion, even though the term "traffic jam" is more common.
Thirdly, the ratio cars:lorries in the UK roughly 10:1 according to Eurostat. The number of lorries on the road is not small enough to be ignored, especially since lorry accidents are more common on motorways. Cambrasa (talk) 22:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. In spite of the article's odd introductory remark, I find nothing "euphemistic" about the term "car accident", any more than I do "plane crash" or "train wreck". Nor do I agree that "accident" is POV or implies blamelessness; "He drove drunk and caused a terrible accident in which two innocent people died" sounds fine to my ears and leave plenty of room for culpability. As for the suggested alternatives, "incident" is far too vague (bag of potatoes falls off truck and causes slowdown), and neither "collision" nor "crash" always applies (lone car skids on wet road and flips, two cars have a minor fender-bender, etc.). — Mark Hayes
  • Change to Road traffic crash, Road vehicle crash or Motor vehicle crash. Crash is the term officially used in Australia (eg by police). The word accident does not cover deliberate acts. The word collision means, by definition, the exchange of momentum between moving objects, so does not cover a moving object hitting a stationary one if the stationary one that remains stationary. Incident does not necessarily imply a crash - it could even include road rage. --Athol Mullen (talk) 00:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Oh, and the word "car" really has to go. "Vehicle" more adequately covers the various types of vehicles on the road. --Athol Mullen (talk) 00:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Change As the article says, 93% of crashes involve driver error. Change to road vehicle crash. Make redirect as well.--155.144.40.31 (talk) 23:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archive

I have archived this really long talk page using the 'move page' procedure. Please note that the new "round in circles" tag specifically was posted as a reminder that long conversations about preferred terminology (car "accident" vs. car "crash" vs. a dozen other things) have been considered in the past. If you feel a strong need to re-consider that issue, please read all of the previous discussions in the archive. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] road-traffic safety vs car accident

Can we cut down & refocus the latest set of edits around Alternative approaches please? Its starting to encroach too much on the road traffic safety article. Some of the latest text would sit more comfortably there. (I don't have time for more than vandal patrol at the moment, otherwise I'd copy edit it myself.) Ephebi (talk) 17:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, most of the material in the Road Design section should be integrated into the Road-traffic safety article but I don't have the time right now either. --Wiley (talk) 05:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Acohol kills

Hello. Why did you remove my graphics "Alcohol kills"? Unecessary? Alcohol still kills people in the world, especially in driving, hence by car accident ... I thought it was objective. Hum, maybe it could go over there: Driving under the influence? — STAR TREK Man [Space, the final frontier...] 10:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Types of accident

I'm not sure this section is very helpful, (perhaps it doesn't help me). I think the heirachy needs a reference, and a clearer view of what, how or where different types of accidents occur is needed. I am doing a project on single vehicle rollovers and it is clear that on 2 lane bidirectional rural roads with speeds in excess of 80 km/h, SVRO's are a major form of accident. is anyone experienced in the field? Markjohndaley (talk) 06:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Car accident article

It would be useful if someone from the MOTs in New Zealand, Australia, the UK, and other right hand drive countries, could see if there are any data on accidents caused by left hand drive tourists getting muddled and ending up on the wrong side of the road.

I have visited the UK and New Zealand many times. Particularly in New Zealand, in the past year, there have been several cases of tourists forgetting which side of the road they are supposed to be on, and causing tragic incidents that could have been avoided if they remembered the simple rule that if your shoulder is not next to the middle of the road then you are on the wrong side. I think it's particularly accute in NZ as there aren't many motorways, it's mostly all two laners.

192.197.178.2 (talk) 14:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)