Speaking about accidents: the ideology of auto safety

Abstract

Discourses about traffic accidents are limited by an ideology of automobility that has accompanied increased auto dependence and the hegemony of the automobile over social space. Risk analyses swing back and forth from targeting either human error or technical improvement. While both are important, the attribution of accident causation to systemic factors remains largely ignored. Even in targeting human error, focus is often restricted to causes that are manageable within the existing system, e.g. drunken driving. In reality, there are many human errors and impairments that are implicated in road accidents. Thus, what is significant is that because auto-centered transport depends upon the constant ‘sobriety’ of all traffic participants, impaired driving, walking and cycling are inevitable. Another salient feature of auto-centered transport systems neglected by safety experts is the dominance of ‘hard’ means of mobility. Many argue that larger and heavier vehicles are safer, but the question is for whom and in what traffic and social contexts. In auto-centered transport, some participants, e.g. children and cyclists, who use ‘soft’ means of mobility are particularly disadvantaged. Safety is also differentiated by status (e.g. social class) factors; for example, poorer persons drive poorer vehicles. The lack of attention to systemic factors in safety discourses is congruent with the general culture of individual automobility, which assumes the superiority of auto-centered transport over other, more diversified, structures of movement.