Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This report summarizes scientific literature relevant to the controversy regarding use of the word, “accident” in the injury prevention arena. The author has contributed to, and followed this issue for decades. She summarizes eleven studies conducted in seven countries, from 1979 to 2012. They found that a majority of respondents (Range: 56-89%) perceived injury-producing events to be preventable, despite the fact that the word “accident” was used in their assessments. Two studies interchanged the words “accident” and “injury,” but found that substitution yielded no difference in respondents’ perceptions of preventability. The author concludes that safety advocate concerns about the word “accident” are based more upon conviction than evidence. She raises potential harms that might be brought about by continuing this debate, and proposes an alternative communication effort that may have more potential to reduce the devastating toll of injuries in our world.

Keywords

accident injury prevention advocacy evidence

“Thousands of dedicated people around the world share the goal of reducing injury deaths and disability.”

Background

In 1996 I was a graduate student who sought evidence to support or refute accepted dogma in my field. Was the word “accident” contributing to the relative lack of attention and investment that injury prevention experienced? Numerous Federal agencies charged with protecting public safety, the founding parents of modern injury control and most of my mentors felt it was. One of the earliest texts in the field of modern injury control stated that injuries were “taken for granted” because of the “erroneous belief that they result from unpreventable ‘accidents’.”¹ According to the first head of the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, “The magnitude of the automotive injury problem…remains as great as it is largely because of the perpetuation of a societal ethic that automotive injuries are “accidents.”²

Most often, however, such concerns were not accompanied by references to scientific literature. That might have been due to the fact that most of them, while world class professionals, were not trained in the social or behavioral sciences. So, they were comfortable with conclusions based upon intuition in that realm, while they would almost certainly have avoided making medical or engineering recommendations in the absence of data.

I had been a psychology major as an undergraduate, and recalled that random hazards, which are perceived as unpreventable, generally do garner public alarm and societal attention.³ So, as a small subpart of my doctoral thesis research, I included four questions in my national telephone survey that were designed to explore how the public interprets the word, “accident.” Note that I had not been the first to explore this question, so this report will include the studies which I am aware of that explored beliefs associated with the word “accident,” specifically those which relate to the prevention of injuries.

Galea and Woolf have characterized the preventability of injuries as, precisely the reason that injury researchers avoid the term “accidents.”⁴ Safety advocates’ interest in this topic is understandable. Preventability beliefs have been linked to individual safety behaviors, as well as to public support for safety legislation.⁵ And it has been shown that policy makers are more likely to vote for such legislation when they perceive that it is popular with their constituents.

Published Reports

These articles were identified in part through a PubMed search of the terms, “Accident,” “Accident and Injury,” “Accident and Word and Injury.” That yielded 116 results, eight of which were selected as potentially relevant to this update. The author has also collected discussions of this topic over decades, including studies which examined beliefs about the preventability of injuries. Google searches were also conducted, to obtain examples of how this debate has played out in civil society.

Table 1 features studies which explored beliefs about whether accidents are preventable.

Table 1.

Summary of Survey Results: How Preventable Are Accidents Perceived to Be?

Authors	Year	Sample	Item wording and results
Blank et al⁶	2009	1450 Brazilian students (of medicine, law, education, or communication)	When asked, “when you hear the word accident, do you usually think that what happened could been prevented?” 85% said Yes.
Chiappone and Kroes⁷	1979	66 men from the Appalachian area of West Virginia (half of whom were coal miners)	84% of the miners and 85% of the non-miners felt that “accidents are caused, they do not just happen.”
Colver et al⁸	1982	80 mothers of young children living in a disadvantaged urban setting, in the UK	Asked, “do you think children's accidents are mostly just bad luck or mostly could be prevented?” 89% replied “mostly could be prevented.”
Eichelberger et al⁹	1990	404 US parents of children < 13	87% of the parents agreed with the statement, “most accidents [injuries] are avoidable,” regardless of which word was inserted into the question they were asked.
Evans¹⁰	2001	89 community health workers in the UK	Two versions of their questionnaires were prepared, which only differed by whether they used “accident” or “injury.” Subject’s ratings of Agreement/Disagreement with numerous statements, including the following, did not differ significantly on a visual Analogue Scale regardless of which terminology was used. “Many deaths due to accidents/unintentional injuries could be prevented.” “However hard you try, you can’t prevent all accident/unintentional injuries.”
Girasek¹¹	1999	943 US adults	When asked, “when you hear the word accident, do you usually think that what happened could have been prevented, or not?” 83% endorsed, “it could have been prevented.”
Girasek⁵	2001	943 US adults	When asked (after a preface saying to consider the top five types of fatal injuries, not just car accidents), “how preventable do you think that fatal accidents are? If 0% means no fatal accidents are preventable, and 100% means that all fatal accidents are preventable, what number from zero to 100 would you choose?” the mean of all responses selected was 56%. A similar question was then asked for deaths due to specific types of injury events, and mean responses ranged from 53% (for falls) to 70% (for accidental poisonings).
Hu et al¹²	1996	1516 Canadian parents	82% of the parents in Toronto and 91% of those in Barrie agreed with the statement that “most accidents are avoidable, parents can prevent most accidental injuries involving children.”
Roberts et al¹³	1995	209 low income parents in Scotland	61% disagreed with the statement, “There’s nothing you can do to stop accidents. They just happen.”
Tan et al¹⁴	2012	279 public health practitioners in China	When queried about the preventability of twelve types of injuries, most respondents thought that they were “mostly preventable, with the exception of those due to “natural environmental disasters.”
Ytterstad¹⁵	2003	1437 adults from two Norwegian cities	89% of respondents in Harstad, and 86% of those in Trondheim disagreed with the statement, “traffic accidents are inevitable.”

^aRounded to nearest whole number.

Table 2 summarizes studies that focused on the perceived preventability of injuries. While that second body of work may seem tangential to the topic of this article, it is in fact revealing to contrast responses yielded by questions that used alternative wording (i.e., “injuries” vs “accidents”).

Table 2.

Summary of Survey Results: How Preventable Are Injuries Perceived to Be?

Authors	Year	Sample	How question was worded
Gyedu et al¹⁶	2021	357 caregivers of children from rural communities in Ghana	Most caregivers believed household child injuries occurred due to lack of supervision (85%) or unsafe environment (75%); only 2% believed it occurred because of fate.
Hooper et al¹⁷	2003	400 adults in New Zealand	84% agreed with the statement, “most injuries are preventable.”
Mulligan-Smith et al¹⁸	1998	412 “parents/caretakers” waiting in the Emergency department of a South Florida hospital	46% of respondents endorsed the statement, “most injuries can be prevented.” 40% reported that “some injuries can be prevented,” and 15% said “injuries just happen.”
Peterson et al¹⁹	1990	Parents of 198 8-17 year old children living in the mid-western US	Subjects were asked, “to what extent is this type of injury [12 were listed] a product of fate or caused by aspects of the child’s behavior and the situation can be changed?” Responses ranged from 6.6 to 7.8, on a scale in which 5 was defined as “some accidents can be prevented, about half cannot,” and 10 was defined as “all accidents can be prevented by safer behavior and situations.”
Schilling et al²⁰	2020	452 parents of toddlers, attending university-affiliated primary care clinics in the US	96% agreed with the statement, “I can do things to keep my child from becoming injured.”
Vincenten et al²¹	2005	2088 parents of children aged five and younger in 14 EU member states	77% of parents agreed that most injuries involving children could be avoided. Only one in ten disagreed.

Also discussed are several studies which focused on the media’s use of accident. Goddard and colleagues²² randomly assigned 999 US adults to read one of three versions of text that described the death of a pedestrian resulting from a traffic crash. In one of the three versions, they referred to the “fatal crash” as a “fatal accident.” The investigators then asked questions to ascertain the readers’ assessments of blame, appropriate punishment, and preferred solutions. The authors did find significant differences in the views expressed by respondents. For the sake of this paper’s focus, unfortunately, they had simultaneously introduced other differences in their descriptions, which prevent us from isolating the impact of substituting “accident” for “crash.” For example, in the text which used “accident,” they described a pedestrian wearing dark clothing (at night) being struck by a car. In the second version (which used crash instead of “accident”), they said the driver struck the pedestrian with his car, and there was no mention of the victim’s clothing. In their third framing, the word “crash” was again used, the driver was described as striking the pedestrian with his car, no clothing is mentioned and environmental context was provided (i.e., that that stretch of road separated a bus stop from a store, it experienced high traffic speeds, had a lack of streetlights and a history of similar incidents in the past). They called that framing “thematic.” That third framing was associated with more support for changes to public policy, as the authors had hypothesized. When comparing the two versions of the story which did not include contextual details, they found no difference in policy support between participants who had read the narrative that used “accident” and the version that used “crash”.

Woodcock and Sharma²³ conducted a content analysis of actual print media coverage incorporating the word “accident” over 12 days in Canada. Based upon the fact that 74% of applicable stories mentioned an investigation, they concluded “extreme concerns that accident is equated with unpreventable in the general public discourse…” were not supported. They go on to state, “as such, substitution of another term could cause confusion with little benefit.” Smith et al²⁴ found that when the modifier, “freak” was inserted in front of the word “accident” in print media coverage, less than 10% of stories included clear prevention messages. It is worth noting, however, that another study of how the media covers bicycle and pedestrian collisions (which used the word “accident” in only 2% of sentences) also found that stories contained a low percentage (15%) of safety recommendations.²⁵

Discussion

These findings demonstrate quite consistently—across decades and continents—that a majority of people believe that most injuries are preventable. And that their perceptions of preventability do not change based upon whether the words “accident” or “injury” are used.

In light of this evidence, one might surmise that this controversy has gone away. Unfortunately, that is not the case. The BMJ still bans the word “accident,” as does the National Highway Traffic Administration. (Interested readers are referred to the BMJ to review the spirited debate that was sparked by its decision to ban “accident.”)²⁶ It is perhaps ironic that the BMJ journal Injury Prevention selected my article on the interpretation of “accident” for special recognition because it was deemed to have “transcended typical academic impact.”^27,28

According to BikePortland (https://bikeportland.org/2023/02/28/bill-would-replace-accident-with-crash-in-oregon-laws-370838) the “Crash not Accident Movement” has grown considerably in recent years. They laud a bill under consideration in the Oregon Legislature that would modify more than 100 state laws so that all references to “vehicle accident” are replaced with “vehicle crash.” Nevada has apparently already passed similar legislation, and more than 28 state departments of transportation are now avoiding use of the word “accident” when referring to traffic crashes (https://www.planetizen.com/node/86483/why-national-highway-traffic-safety-administration-doesnt-use-accidents).

Myriad safety advocacy groups, particularly those representing vulnerable road users, have embraced this issue. Road peace, a British charity of road crash victims has, for example, called upon the media to stop using the word “accident” (https://www.roadpeace.org/get-involved/crash-not-accident/). There is a similar movement underway in the United States (https://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/12/11/its-time-for-the-ap-to-nix-the-term-accident-to-describe-car-collisions/).

Another advocate for the “crash not accident” movement is the Portland Bureau of Transportation’s Safe Routes to School program. Their main problems with “accident” are that they perceive it to imply inevitability, and that it absolves anyone from responsibility. A common theme raised by many who oppose the word “accident” seems to be their desire to place blame. The AP stylebook, in fact, advises journalists to utilize “crash” or “collision” in place of accident, when “negligence is claimed or proven.” (https://twitter.com/APStylebook/status/1070020835711336451)

In my own work, I had the opportunity to discuss this controversy with a father who had lost a child to unintentional injury. He described the slogan “Safekids are no accident” as “tough” on him. “It’s telling me that, you know, you weren’t keeping your kids safe. That’s what it’s saying” (unpublished data). A Canadian study that explored how best to communicate safety information to the mothers of young children recommended against using the phrase, “injuries are not accidents.”²⁹ The authors reported that such messages are interpreted as “blaming” parents, and evoke defensiveness which “undermines their credibility.” The interpretation of “accident” that was most widely endorsed (by 96% of respondents) in one of the studies cited earlier, was “not done on purpose.”¹¹

The Maryland Highway Safety Office’s “Crashes Are No Accident” webpage also states that “the word accident suggests that an incident was unavoidable.” They seem to limit their attribution of fault, however, “to human error” https://zerodeathsmd.gov/how-you-can-help/crashes-are-no-accident/. That characterization flies in the face of the modern Vision Zero movement which acknowledges the inevitability of human error, but goes on to emphasize the responsibility of those who design and enforce the transportation system.³⁰ Professor Geetam Tiwari, Professor of the Indian Institute of Technology, describes a Safe Systems approach as having “three core tenets; ‘that we recognize human frailty, that we accept that people will always make mistakes, and that our systems must be ready to absorb these mistakes.’”³¹

More lives would likely be saved if a systems approach to injury prevention was communicated to the public, rather than three-word slogans like “Crash not accident.” In the absence of a longterm, nuanced campaign to shift the lens through which the public and policy makers view safety, they are likely to persist in their thinking that it rests on teaching individuals how to behave. As a stand-alone strategy, that has not driven dramatic reductions in injury death and disability.³² Within the realm of road safety, modern roads, crashworthy/crash avoidant vehicles and data-driven laws, however, are demonstrably effective.³³

Persistent attempts to engineer the word “accident” out of common usage represent a missed opportunity. Instead of focusing on semantics, we should unpack what modern injury prevention looks like for the public. Injury control professionals may have moved beyond telling people to “be careful,” but we have not brought the wider society along for our enlightenment. Quoting a recent commentary in JAMA International Medicine, “A yawning gulf exists between academic understanding and public appreciation of what is needed to solve these problems.” “Deaths from drugs, firearms, and other injuries,” the authors continue, “are all too easily labeled as ‘behavioral’, as if they represent personal choices that could easily be unmade, solving the problem.”⁴

A longterm campaign is needed to communicate our evidence base, and some of the modern concepts that underlie it. A content analysis of media coverage of traffic accidents in the United States revealed that it was dominated by “episodic framing,” which promote individualistic rather than societal perceptions of where solutions lie.³⁴ A similar study in Ghana found little to no mention of road design or posted speed limits, potentially important protective factors that policy makers control.³⁵ The World Health Organization is to be applauded, for espousing a systems approach to injury prevention, and for training journalists to embrace that frame. It is in fact one strategy of WHO’s global action plan for road safety. They hope that such efforts will help shift society’s traffic safety focus beyond the “traditional” limits of individual behavior change.³⁶ To quote that organization’s Director-General, “We must work with all involved in designing and maintaining our roads, manufacturing our vehicles and administering our safety systems. So when crashes do occur, solutions are sought throughout the entire system.”³¹

Advocates should consider whether telegraphing “injuries are preventable”—with no further elaboration—might exacerbate our challenge. Public health problems that are perceived to be preventable by the individuals they inflict have been associated with less support for victims, less support for prevention programs, less support for regulation, and fewer research dollars.^3,37-40 The Evans study cited in Table 1 found few significant differences between the health visitors they surveyed, whether they were answering questions which incorporated “accident” or “injury” wording—with one exception. When asked to rank a list of public health problems, respondents exposed to “prevention of accidents” ranked it to be more important than those whose questionnaires read “prevention of injuries.”¹⁰

Thousands of dedicated people around the world share the goal of reducing injury deaths and disability. We would be further along if we shared our understanding of evidence-based safety approaches with the civil officials who are tasked with public safety, policy makers, safety advocates, and the general public. It seems appropriate for any such effort to begin with crafting messages which themselves are data-driven.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Disclaimer

This manuscript reflects the views of the author, who was not speaking on behalf of the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences or any branch of the U.S. government.

ORCID iD

Deborah C. Girasek

References

Baker

O’Neill

Ginsburg

. The Injury Fact Book. 2nd ed. New York, York: Oxford University Press; 1992.2

Rosenberg

Rodriguez

Chorba

. Childhood injuries: Where we are. Pediatrics. 1990;86:1084-1091.

Slovic

. Perception of risk. Science. 1987;236:280-285.

Galea

Woolf

. The persistent challenge of preventable death in the US. JAMA Intern Med. 2023;183:856-857. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2023.2518.

Girasek

. Public beliefs about the preventability of unintentional injury deaths. Accid Anal Prev. 2001;33:455-465.

Blank

Hohgraefe Neto

Grando

, et al. A Web-based survey on students’ conceptions of ‘accident’. Inf Health Soc Care. 2009;34(4):189-208.

Chiappone

Kroes

. Fatalism in coal miners. Psychol Rep. 1979;44:1175-1180.

Colver

Hutchinson

Judson

. Promoting children’s home safety. Br Med J. 1982;285:1177-1180.

Eichelberger

Gotschall

Feely

Harstad

Bowman

. Parental attitudes and knowledge of child safety. A national survey. Am J Dis Child. 1990;144:714-720.

10.

Evans

. Banning the “A word”: Where’s the evidence? Inj Prev. 2001;7:172-175.

11.

Girasek

. How members of the public interpret the word accident. Inj Prev. 1999;5:19-25.

12.

Wesson

Parkin

Rootman

. Pediatric injuries: Parental knowledge, attitudes and needs. Canadian J Pub Health = Revue Canadienne de Sante Publique. 1996;87(2):101-105.

13.

Roberts

Smith

Bryce

. Children at Risk? Safety as a Social Value. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press; 1995

14.

Tan

Zhang

Baker

, et al. How do public health practitioners in China perceive injury prevention? A survey Inj Prev 2014;20. doi:10.1136/injuryprev-2012-04072.

15.

Ytterstad

. The harstad injury prevention study. A decade of community-based traffic injury prevention with emphasis on children. Postal dissemination of local injury data can be effective. Int J Circumpolar Health. 2003;62:61-74.

16.

Gyedu

Boakye

Quansah

Donkor

Mock

. Unintentional falls among children in rural Ghana and associated factors: A cluster randomized, population-based household survey. Pan Afr Med J. 2021;38(401):401. doi:10.11604/pamj.2021.38.401.2831.

17.

Hooper

Coggan

Adams

. Injury prevention attitudes and awareness in New Zealand. Inj Prev. 2003;9:42-47.

18.

Mulligan-Smith

Puranik

Coffman

. Parental perception of injury prevention practices in a multicultural metropolitan area. Pediatr Emerg Care. 1998;14:10-14.

19.

Peterson

Farmer

Kashani

. Parental injury prevention endeavors: A function of health beliefs? Health Psychol. 1990;9:177-191.

20.

Schilling

Ritter

Skinner

, et al. Relationship between parental locus of control and childhood injury. J Prim Prev. 2020;41:547-565.

21.

Vincenten

Sector

Rogmans

Bouter

. Parents’ perceptions, attitudes and behaviours towards child safety: A study in 14 European countries. Int J Inj Control Saf Promot. 2005;12(3):183-189.

22.

Goddard

Ralph

Thigpen

Iacobucci

. Does news coverage of traffic crashes affect perceived blame and preferred solutions? Evidence from an experiment. Transp Res Interdiscip Perspect. 2019;3:100073.

23.

Woodcock

Eng

Sharma

. Does print media usage of the word “accident” indicate pessimism about prevention? Proceed Inter Soc Occupat Ergon Safety. 2002;5.

24.

Smith

Girasek

Baker

, et al. ‘It was a freak accident’: An analysis of the labelling of injury events in the US press. Inj Prev. 2012;18:38-43.

25.

Keliikoa

Thompson

Johnson

Cacal

Pirkle

Sentell

. Public health framing in local media coverage of crashes involving pedestrians or bicyclists in Hawai‘i, 2019: A content analysis. Transp Res Interdiscip Perspect. 2022;13:100525.

26.

Rapid responses from BMJ.COM. BMJ USA. 2001;1:372-374.

27.

Injury Prevention at 20 . Injury prevention at 20. Inj Prev. 2015;21:1.

28.

Blank

Xiang

. Will the final battle not be between good and evil, but rather injuriologists and accidentologists? Inj Prev. 2015;21(3):211-212.

29.

Morrongiello

BAZ

Zdzieborski

Lasenby-Lessard

. Video messsaging: What works to persuade mothers to supervise young children more closely in order to reduce injury risk? Social Science and Medicine 2009;68:1030-1037.

30.

World report on road traffic injury prevention. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2004.

31.

World Health Organization . Beyond Blaming People: Why Journalists Must Dig Deep into the Causes of Road Crashes. Workshop for Asian Journalists Aims to Strengthen Reporting on Road Safety. Geneva: World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/news/item/11-01-2023-beyond-blaming-people--why-journalists-must-dig-into-the-causes-of-road-crashes (2023).

32.

Williams

. Education and driver training. https://www.india-seminar.com/2013/648/648_allan_f_williams.htm https://www.india-seminar.com/2013/648/648_allan_f_williams.htm

33.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention CDC . Ten great public health achievements -- United States, 1900-1999. MMWR (Morb Mortal Wkly Rep). 1999;48(12):241-243.

34.

Rosales

Stallones

. Coverage of motor vehicle crashes with injuries in U.S. newspapers, 1999–2002. J Saf Res. 2008;39(5):477-482.

35.

Yankson

Browne

ENL

Tagbor

, et al. Reporting on road traffic injury: content analysis of injuries and prevention opportunities in ghanaian newspapers. Inj Prev. 2010;16(3):194-197

36.

Allsop

. The WHO trains journalists to cover car crashes better. Should the US government? Columbia Journalism Review. 2023;31:2023.

37.

Beggs

. Diverse Risks and Relative Worth of Government Safety Programs: An Experimental Survey. Report No 700. Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency, Economic Analysis Division; 1984.

38.

Chapple

Ziebland

McPherson

. Stigma, shame, and blame experienced by patients with lung cancer: Qualitative study. BMJ 2004;328(7454):1470.

39.

Kamath

Kircher

Benson

. Comparison of cancer burden and nonprofit organization funding reveals disparities in funding across cancer types. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2019;17(7):849-854.

40.

Mendeloff

Kaplan

. Are large differences in “lifesaving” costs justified? A psychometric study of the relative value placed on preventing deaths. Risk Anal. 1989;9:349-363.

Does Scientific Evidence Support a Ban on Using the Word “Accident”?

Abstract

Keywords

Background

Published Reports

Discussion

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

Disclaimer

ORCID iD

References