In collision with...

[Jaded]

Erroneous comparison.

When an aircraft crashes, killing 300 there is a full blown enquiry, until the cause is found. If necessary there are fundamental changes made to:

aircraft structure
air traffic control systems
pilot training
and so on

When a car crashes, it's the bloody car's fault.

[Jaded]

Every two months, there is a planeload of people killed in car crashes.

The last time a planeload of people was killed in this country was a while ago. Lockerbie, 1988. Or Manchester, 1985. Or Staines, 1972.

There may be others, but these are what I remember.

[ElyDave]

Erroneous comparison.

When an aircraft crashes, killing 300 there is a full blown enquiry, until the cause is found. If necessary there are fundamental changes made to:

aircraft structure
air traffic control systems
pilot training
and so on

When a car crashes, it's the bloody car's fault.

I disagree, the only thing you have pointed out as different is after the fact. The question was about passive voice of reporting the event, not what happens afterwards.

I'll stop now as this risks POBI about how many planeloads of peds and cyclists it take before people sit up adn demand action.

[Jaded]

Agreed:

The after the fact, though, is affected by the passive effect; as the article says, look at the comments below newspaper articles. The comments are tweaked by the reporting and the reporting, in a feedback loop, is affected by the comments.

Part of the problem is that we all drive and therefore drivers can’t really be that wrong, can they?

[Diver300]

I thought that the police are particularly careful not to use the word "accident" as that might imply that it wasn't deliberate.

It could be a defence against a GBH or murder charge if there's a police statement somewhere using the word "accident", but it doesn't strike me as being so important in everyday speech.

[nicknack]

I thought this was going to be about the passive. "A grey Ford Colnago was in collision with..." And the transfer of autonomy and therefore responsibility from driver to driven. We very rarely often read "A 44 year old man drove rode his grey Ford Colnago into a house and broke his legs," we never read "A 44 year old man had his legs broken when his grey Ford Colnago left the road and collided with a house."

Apols for the alteration.
Except "Colnago" would probably be replaced by "bicycle".

[Mr Larrington]

Every two months, there is a planeload of people killed in car crashes.

The last time a planeload of people was killed in this country was a while ago. Lockerbie, 1988. Or Manchester, 1985. Or Staines, 1972.

There may be others, but these are what I remember.

Kegworth 1989.  Driver turned off the wrong engine.  Didn’t help that Boeing had Changed Things between different models of 737.  Where have we heard that one before?

[ian]

Agreed:

The after the fact, though, is affected by the passive effect; as the article says, look at the comments below newspaper articles. The comments are tweaked by the reporting and the reporting, in a feedback loop, is affected by the comments.

Part of the problem is that we all drive and therefore drivers can’t really be that wrong, can they?

That was my point, it's a deliberate linguistic process we adopt when talking or writing about driving. And it divorces us from the reality. A very small minority of vehicle crashes are caused by mechanical faults and even then they're often compounded by driver error. If a car breaks down it mostly stops, it doesn't fall from the sky.

And because drivers can't be responsible, they aren't responsible. Which is why you see drivers driving off, then faffing with their seatbelt, the radio etc. Simple, risky behaviour that will add the toll. Everything is telling them they're not responsible. Crashes are outside their control. It's not their behaviour. It's the roads that are dangerous. Cars overturn and crash. The drivers are mere victims of circumstance.

[andyoxon]

"Police said the car failed to stop.",  "a car that drove away without stopping"  BBC
"he crashed with a car in Wantage"  OM

No driver apparently.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-54227073

Very sad.

[ian]

That's a good (and sad) example.

Police said the car failed to stop.

No, the car didn't fail to stop, the driver did. Unless we genuinely believe there was a driver trapped in there, trying to make the car stop and failing.

[Mr Larrington]

That's a good (and sad) example.

Police said the car failed to stop.

No, the car didn't fail to stop, the driver did. Unless we genuinely believe there was a driver trapped in there, trying to make the car stop and failing.

It's not unknown.  Toyota/Lexus had a big problem with the loud pedal getting tangled up in floor mats and Fiat-Chrysler recalled almost 5 million vehicles with dicky cruise control in 2018.

[DuncanM]

The police use language that is a bit like that you would use in a science experiment, because it is about describing what happened without implying anything about why.
The car failed to stop is a factually correct statement. It is what has been observed. Unless the driver is flashing the Vs out of the window, then there remains some investigation needed as to why the car failed to stop.
Only once the investigation is completed can they then say for certain that the driver "didn't realise they hit anything/thought it unsafe to stop/ deliberately chose to drive away/was asleep on autopilot" or whatever other reasons might be provided. I don't think the police language is the problem - I think the reporting is a problem.

[Cudzoziemiec]

not really, there is event X
After event X, people report that it has happened.
After it is reported people try to understand why
i.e. car hits person. Driver failed to stop.
Brakes failed
MOT inspector found out his wife was having an affair and missed the corroded brakes 3 months earlier

All of these errors are system errors, the trick is understanding the system and identifying the error.
One of the reasons planes don't hit other planes is becasue of the system planes operate within.

The bit I've bolded is the bit that doesn't get said.

[Tim Hall]

Slight contrast to the usual on today's local news:

Surrey Police issued a statement, saying the driver left the road and collided with Somerset House, and was taken to hospital with serious injuries.

Strictly speaking I suppose the driver did leave the road, but was encased in a lorry when in happened.

[markcjagar]

Accident would suggest something neither party has control over, perhaps a patch of diesel on the road, causing a skid, or a rear-ending causing a car to move forward into the bike.

How did the diesel get there? Likely poor vehicle maintenance, which whilst not deliberate is also not an accident.

Incident is the appropriate word because whilst it doesn't imply blame it doesn't dismiss it either.

[ian]

The police use language that is a bit like that you would use in a science experiment, because it is about describing what happened without implying anything about why.
The car failed to stop is a factually correct statement. It is what has been observed. Unless the driver is flashing the Vs out of the window, then there remains some investigation needed as to why the car failed to stop.
Only once the investigation is completed can they then say for certain that the driver "didn't realise they hit anything/thought it unsafe to stop/ deliberately chose to drive away/was asleep on autopilot" or whatever other reasons might be provided. I don't think the police language is the problem - I think the reporting is a problem.

The driver failed to stop doesn't preclude the fact that the driver failed to stop because his brakes had failed.

[ElyDave]

Accident would suggest something neither party has control over, perhaps a patch of diesel on the road, causing a skid, or a rear-ending causing a car to move forward into the bike.

How did the diesel get there? Likely poor vehicle maintenance, which whilst not deliberate is also not an accident.

Incident is the appropriate word because whilst it doesn't imply blame it doesn't dismiss it either.

I agree. Industry also uses the terminology Incident, with the more mature organisations really looking to understand the underlying system cause, rather than "operator error", "failure to follow procedure"

in the diesel case, how about
- leaking road tanker
- leaking jerry can on a utility company's trailer
- drips down the side of a car after refuelling...

Only thing is, that's irrelevant as nobody will ever investigate it.

[Jaded]

If driving was treated like industry treats risky activities, it would be investigated.

[ian]

I suspect any industry that killed 1750 and injured well over 100,000 people would probably raise some kind of concern. Not to mention the pollution and indirect effects.

But if crash your car, if you've not hit anyone and the wheels still turn, you can drive off.

[Lightning Phil]

Deliberaccident or deliberadent

[cygnet]

I suspect any industry that killed 1750 and injured well over 100,000 people would probably raise some kind of concern. Not to mention the pollution and indirect effects.

But if crash your car, if you've not hit anyone and the wheels still turn, you can drive off.

You can still drive off even if you have hit someone. And not be traced.

[mattc]

The police use language that is a bit like that you would use in a science experiment, because it is about describing what happened without implying anything about why.
The car failed to stop is a factually correct statement. It is what has been observed. Unless the driver is flashing the Vs out of the window, then there remains some investigation needed as to why the car failed to stop.
Only once the investigation is completed can they then say for certain that the driver "didn't realise they hit anything/thought it unsafe to stop/ deliberately chose to drive away/was asleep on autopilot" or whatever other reasons might be provided. I don't think the police language is the problem - I think the reporting is a problem.

:like:

[sg37409]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-54676314

[Cudzoziemiec]

Most cars are not that athletic.

[Mr Larrington]

One did that in Larrington Towers Road a year or two back, again seemingly of its own volition.