When you accidentally spill coffee on your trousers, that’s one thing, but if a driver’s speeding car slams into a bus stop, killing a child in the process, it’s clearly different…so why does the language we use rarely distinguish between the two? While one can be dismissed as an accident, the other deserves to be described more carefully – nothing less than collision or crash will do.
After all, words are powerful. It’s the reason we avoid the term ‘road safety’, preferring instead ‘road danger reduction’, which far more accurately defines the challenge at hand.
It’s a sentiment expressed perfectly on the T-shirts printed by Rovelo Creative: “Road Safety:We ask everyone outside the car to be safe so that drivers can be dangerous”. See below for you chance to win the T-shirt.
Accidents are unavoidable
When collisions occur on the railways, at sea or in the air, there are enquiries to determine their causes. Those responsible for piloting the planes, driving the trains or skippering the ships are suspended from duty pending the outcome and appropriate changes to systems, regulation or the law are implemented swiftly.
It’s not altogether clear why the same thing doesn’t happen following every road fatality in Britain, but until it does, let’s at least be mindful of the way we describe road danger.
Media outlets routinely use the term ‘accident’, even though it implies the collision wasn’t preventable (and press guidelines explain clearly why they should not). The term ‘crash’ does not imply the driver is always to blame, it simply acknowledges that the matter deserves serious investigation and remedial measures to try and prevent it happening again. It’s an approach that has allowed other European countries to introduce a Vision Zero – a serious attempt to prevent all deaths on the road.
The term ‘accident’ implies the collision wasn’t preventable
Britain is a long way off implementing its own Vision Zero, but choosing our words carefully when we describe road danger would be a meaningful first step.
Road danger reduction
The term ‘road safety’ is divisive when the real goal is road danger reduction.
It’s easy to confuse one for the other, so for an explanation of the difference, we will defer to the Road Danger Reduction Forum (RDRF) – a group we support.
Those who formed the RDRF were professionals working in local government as Road Safety Officers, highway and traffic engineers, officers working to promote sustainable transport, with support from councillors in a number of local authorities. The thrust behind setting out the Road Danger Reduction (RDR) agenda was – and continues to be – dissatisfaction with various elements of the official ‘road safety’ establishment, arguing that this is often very much part of the problem of danger on the road.
For example, the definition of a ‘safe road’ is based on the number of casualties and yet often there may be a decline in, for example, child pedestrian casualties not because the road environment for children has become safer, but simply because of a decline in children’s walking. Any apparent progress, as officially defined, may be precisely because of an increase in danger from motor traffic: one of the main reasons for parents prohibiting children from being independently mobile. Other ways in which conventional ‘road safety’ falls short are explained in detail at rdrf.org.uk
Win the Road Safety T-shirt
We have a unisex road safety T-shirt in medium to give away. Simply leave a comment at the bottom of the page and we’ll pick a message at random next week.
The ethical choice
The ETA was established in 1990 as an ethical provider of green, reliable travel services. Over 30 years on, we continue to offer cycle insurance , breakdown cover and mobility scooter insurance while putting concern for the environment at the heart of all we do.
The Good Shopping Guide judges us to be the UK’s most ethical provider.
Brian Ronald
I’d wear that t-shirt to the office.
Colin
All accidents are preventable!
Keith
“All accidents are preventable!”
That’s nonsense on its face, Colin – BY DEFINITION an “accident” is something that wasn’t foreseen or intended, and therefore beyond any realistic scope for prevention.
But by the same token, most car “accidents” shouldn’t be referred to as such – they’re driver screw-ups, not “accidents”.
Frank Lee
I like the sentiment but the point is unclear to my poor brain.
I suggest:
Think of others… BEFORE you crash into them.
Moragh Buchan
I’d wear that t-shirt while out & about on my bike.
John Fletcher
I wouldn’t wear it on my bike. It’s black, and until the culture changes, it would be deemed “unsafe”!
Keith
I would wear it everywhere, even in bed.
Donald Woodman
An excellent article
Paul Lovatt Smith
I agree with the sentiments but have you noticed the contradiction caused by the t shirt? It’s black. The most unsafe shade to wear for visibility.
John Williams
Not necessarily. Black is the most unsafe shade to wear at night, but there are plenty of conditions where black shows up very well. However, it’s also made from cotton, which is not a good material for cycling, or any other form of exercise which may cause perspiration.
Alastair S
Why do we see ‘The cyclists was hit by a vehicle’ when it so often is ‘A driver hit a cyclist’?
David Curran
Must say I am a little surprised this is not in a dayglow colour, to further appease the motorists.
Colin
stay safe people 😉
Keith
“Accident” DOES NOT imply “preventable” – it implies “unintentional”.
Julian
So true !! Why does it seem greater emphasis is placed on anyone not in a car that’s around cars to take more care rather than on vehicle drivers? It even happens in my work place which is very strong on H&S. Cars are allowed to drive on to site but cyclists have to walk with their bikes. It’s just easier I guess and less contentious to go for the minority rather than do the more difficult right thing. . . .
Kevin
Brilliant comment but design and material 2 out of 10 !!!
Mark B
I’ll wear it under my hi-viz!
John Darby
Until (if it does ever happen) the UK creates proper cycle infrastructure similar to the likes of the Netherlands, there is always going to be danger where cars and bikes share the same routes. I live in Oxford where there are huge numbers of cyclists on the city’s roads. Changes have been made to try and better accommodate us but it is all piecemeal and invariably doesn’t help to keep cyclists safe. We need radical change 💪🏼😃
Mags
The safest person on the road is the one inside a heavy metal box which can be used as a deadly weapon.
Fiona McLuckie
Cool T-shirt 😊
PhilipT
Love it! Will buy one if I don’t win.
Bazza
Black in mourning for common sense?
Stephen
I was hit and thrown 6 metres by a car earlier this year whilst riding along a cycle path!! I reported it to the police and local authority. I know they’re all busy, but nothing resulted from it and the driver is pain free and unpunished, unlike me…..! The road design will continue to allow cars to collide with other cyclists. 😢
Sam
I’d wear one, anyway.
Peter Clark
Some real debate in the comments this week. I just want a free T shirt please. Won’t cycle in it, I have other clobber for the bike ta but would sport it with pride nonetheless
John
I’d love it because it’s free
Les Gunbie
I’m a car driver, a cyclist and a pedestrian. I take the bus, the train – sometimes a ferry – and haven’t been on a plane since 2005. I’m so fed up with the polarisation …
Roger Thomas
The skewed approach to road safety in the UK is what causes the polarisation.
Phil
Don’t want one – it is not a joking matter
Anna Green
I absolutely agree with what the t-shirt expresses.
Philip Gregg
Nice T with a message.
Craig
It’s a strong message but I see some people here are not “getting the message” on this T-shirt. I wonder if the people who need to understand the message (i.e. those dangerous drivers!) would get it too…..?
Rod King
I don’t want a free T-shirt, but I do want roads where I am free to wear whatever colour of T-shirt I wish.
Fred
Completely agree – roads aren’t dangerous, cars are.
Sophie Scott
Human error is stated as being top of the list of causes of 95% of all RTCs, so it seems ultimately that drivers are the main problem.
Brian
Great message which will make car drivers think.
Gillian
I certainly agree that it seems unacceptable that there is not an investigation when a cyclist is hit by a car……
Rose
Cars don’t kill or maim people on foot or bicycle, people driving cars do.
Sarah
All road incidents should be investigated.
Steve
Interesting comments on this thread this week!
I love cycling and ride a lot. However, I ride out of passion, but my brain is telling me it’s not safe on our roads!
TD
99.9% of accidents can be prevented so these are incidents, crashes, fatalities but they are not accidents – they could all have been prevented if someone had taken more care, more time, concentrated more.
Great message.
Chris
It’s clear that any people have an inverted idea of safety. from time to time I cycle along the Thames towpath (a designated cycle route) and no cycling is permitted by the lock, except there are almost always motor vehicles parked there.
I don’t believe they were ‘beamed’ there.
Ema
Great message