I frequently listen to Radio 2 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 Ken Livingstone) seems prepared to tackle. What gets me is the
constant use of the word ‘accident' to refer to road crashes. Why?
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.
I rang radio 2 about this and ‘Sally Traffic' did me the courtesy of ringing me back. I was told
that the use of the word ‘accident' was not BBC policy but that she 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...). I have also read 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 magazines when they describe racing cyclists ‘coming a
box of tricks'. (Copyright David Duffield). It even sounds a bit odd to say ‘Ullrich has had an
accident on the descent' Almost universally magazines and commentators will just say ‘Ullrich 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'?
For another take on this topic read ‘Call it Slaughter' at
Any comments welcome.
Regards,
Howard Peel.
www.thebikezone.org.uk