Accidents are not preventable
Discussion
Got to disagree with you.
An accident occurs when two objects (ie car and lamp post) attempt to occupy the same space.
Remove either one from the equation, or remove whatever factor caused the accident (Mechanical failure, loss of control etc) and it wont happen.
All accidents have a cause, remove the cause and you remove the accident.
Some might not be practically preventable (ie freak mechanical failures can affect the most reliable and best maintained of vehicles) but most can.
An accident occurs when two objects (ie car and lamp post) attempt to occupy the same space.
Remove either one from the equation, or remove whatever factor caused the accident (Mechanical failure, loss of control etc) and it wont happen.
All accidents have a cause, remove the cause and you remove the accident.
Some might not be practically preventable (ie freak mechanical failures can affect the most reliable and best maintained of vehicles) but most can.
PetrolTed said: Not true. Accidents can be prevented by paying attention. I hear what you're saying about lapses in concentration etc, we all do it. That can explain minor shunts/rear ending and alike but shouldn't be any sort of excuse on the whole.
I think thats right. Perhaps what John might be saying is that all accidents are not preventable. At the end of the day once we've eliminated the vast majority of accidents through driver training, public education and so on - there will still be a few because simply being alive has risks associated with it.
To clarify the above:
Any individual Accident may very well be preventable.
All accidents are not preventable - law of diminishing returns...etc
Don said:
PetrolTed said: Not true. Accidents can be prevented by paying attention. I hear what you're saying about lapses in concentration etc, we all do it. That can explain minor shunts/rear ending and alike but shouldn't be any sort of excuse on the whole.
I think thats right. Perhaps what John might be saying is that all accidents are not preventable. At the end of the day once we've eliminated the vast majority of accidents through driver training, public education and so on - there will still be a few because simply being alive has risks associated with it.
To clarify the above:
Any individual Accident may very well be preventable.
All accidents are not preventable - law of diminishing returns...etc
If any individual accident can be prevented then in theory all accidents can be prevented.
Its neither practical nor likely, but that doesnt mean its not theoretically possible.
Save for a very very small percentage that are true "acts of god".
John, disagree with you to some extent, but I see what you mean.
Accidents have a number of causal and contributory factors, the former being the cause without which it would not occur, the latter merely making an incident more likely.
So, alcohol being a good example, is a very strong contributory factor. You don't crash every time you take a drink and drive, but if you do drink and drive youare at far more risk of an accident.
Causal factors are thinks like catastrophic mechanical failures, (which are rare but a good example) - when one of these occurs you are going to have an accident.
Its often quite difficult to separate the two as to some extent they are linked. Enough contributory factors distract the driver enough to make a mistake and you have a causal factor appear. Depending on your cognitive stop rule, you;'ll stop looking for a cause and pin the blame on something; usually the pilot for example in aviation accidents.
Where it starts getting difficult, is separating these basically predictable factors from the random element that you alluded to, which does exist. So, when I put my Saab into a ditch a while back, there were a number of things contributing. Speed was ok, but the suicide rabbit that darted out wasn't something I expected, but I knew there was a dip in the road that quite often fills with water and it was an icy night.
So, was the cause the rabbit, my reaction to it, the ice or maybe inattention due to getting to the good bit on the Blondie album?(which I wasn't but thats a distraction that might have occurred..)
Vast majority of accidents are linked to driver error. A lot of these we can start to address by driver training, I knew what I was doing so came to a relatively controlled stop. Technology can help too; ABS, traction control etc. I spent a long time trying to persuade various motor manufacturers to develop systems that would actually address the causes of accidents rather than to just shoehorn sexy technology into cars. Too much of it was, and is, manufactured 'cause we can'..
Accidents have a number of causal and contributory factors, the former being the cause without which it would not occur, the latter merely making an incident more likely.
So, alcohol being a good example, is a very strong contributory factor. You don't crash every time you take a drink and drive, but if you do drink and drive youare at far more risk of an accident.
Causal factors are thinks like catastrophic mechanical failures, (which are rare but a good example) - when one of these occurs you are going to have an accident.
Its often quite difficult to separate the two as to some extent they are linked. Enough contributory factors distract the driver enough to make a mistake and you have a causal factor appear. Depending on your cognitive stop rule, you;'ll stop looking for a cause and pin the blame on something; usually the pilot for example in aviation accidents.
Where it starts getting difficult, is separating these basically predictable factors from the random element that you alluded to, which does exist. So, when I put my Saab into a ditch a while back, there were a number of things contributing. Speed was ok, but the suicide rabbit that darted out wasn't something I expected, but I knew there was a dip in the road that quite often fills with water and it was an icy night.
So, was the cause the rabbit, my reaction to it, the ice or maybe inattention due to getting to the good bit on the Blondie album?(which I wasn't but thats a distraction that might have occurred..)
Vast majority of accidents are linked to driver error. A lot of these we can start to address by driver training, I knew what I was doing so came to a relatively controlled stop. Technology can help too; ABS, traction control etc. I spent a long time trying to persuade various motor manufacturers to develop systems that would actually address the causes of accidents rather than to just shoehorn sexy technology into cars. Too much of it was, and is, manufactured 'cause we can'..
Any car accident can be prevented. For example. You could have taken another route to your destination. If your not there then the accident cant happen. However, if someone hits your car when it parked, then theoretically you could still prevent it by parking in another space. Sounds stupid but its true.
TheLemming said: Its neither practical nor likely, but that doesnt mean its not theoretically possible.
Yes. That's right. I guess I'd add that the means involved in preventing all accidents may be worse than the accidents. (Not in any individual case - but as an effect spread over society as a whole).
To explain what I mean...to prevent all automotive accidents one could simple ban cars. Totally. Then there would be no further car accidents. The cost to society would be enormous - our economy would die, people would starve, terrible...but it could be done.
Cure worse than the disease etc ... ?
S2N said: Having got run over a few years ago I disagree....
....the BMW driving towards the roundabout at 35 mph whitout stopping could have avoided hitting me (was on a pushbike) but made a decision to go anyway....
...then got the arse sued out of her,....she wont do that again!
I would say that if this accident was preventable then it wasn't an accident, and that idea applies to all accidents. If accidents ARE preventable then they are NOT accidents, they are incidents
Obviously this discussion is going to revolve around various individuals' definitions of the word 'accident'.
Another way of looking at it, think back to the last time you knocked over a cup of coffee, or tripped over a cable on the floor of the garage, or even mistyped something. These were all accidents, why? because if you could have prevented them you would have, wouldn't you? Why would you willingly knock over a cup of coffee?
John
johnelliott said:
S2N said: Having got run over a few years ago I disagree....
....the BMW driving towards the roundabout at 35 mph whitout stopping could have avoided hitting me (was on a pushbike) but made a decision to go anyway....
...then got the arse sued out of her,....she wont do that again!
I would say that if this accident was preventable then it wasn't an accident, and that idea applies to all accidents. If accidents ARE preventable then they are NOT accidents, they are incidents
Obviously this discussion is going to revolve around various individuals' definitions of the word 'accident'.
Another way of looking at it, think back to the last time you knocked over a cup of coffee, or tripped over a cable on the floor of the garage, or even mistyped something. These were all accidents, why? because if you could have prevented them you would have, wouldn't you? Why would you willingly knock over a cup of coffee?
John
aha now I see where you are coming from John.
In your example your saying that they werent intentional, so as a result you couldnt have stopped it from happening as you did it by accident?
But, remove the cup of coffee and you cant knock it over. Even if it wasnt knocked over on purpose it could still have been prevented.
Great example. A few years ago I used to work for a company that banned completely eating and drinking at desks. The result of this was to prevent completely the accidental knocking over of drinks.
and a drop in productivity since people could no longer have a brew or eat lunch at their desk etc..
TheLemming said:Great example. A few years ago I used to work for a company that banned completely eating and drinking at desks. The result of this was to prevent completely the accidental knocking over of drinks.
another case of cure being worse than disease.
I think I see where John is coming from...
Looking at the dictionary definition...
ac·ci·dent ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ks-dnt, -dnt)
n.
1)
a) An unexpected and undesirable event, especially one resulting in damage or harm: car accidents on icy roads.
b) An unforeseen incident: A series of happy accidents led to his promotion.
c) An instance of involuntary urination or defecation in one's clothing.
2) Lack of intention; chance: ran into an old friend by accident.
3) Logic. A circumstance or attribute that is not essential to the nature of something.
[I love 1)c) above!]
The complication is that it's defined as both "unexpected" (which would mean that if it was preventable then it can't be classed as an accident), but the definition also has "undesirable" in it. However, the two are linked by an "and" and so both have to apply.
So, to take Ted's example of people not paying attention - the resultant crash is not "unexpected" part, as by not paying attention you should expect to have a crash - but the result is certainly undesirable. The fact though that it has to be both unexpected AND undesirable means, as per the definiton, that can't be an accident.
Now, I would imagine the undesirable part has been added over the years as people class event as "accidents" when they couldn't really be (the classic being an "accident waiting to happen" - if you are waiting for some damage to happen - how the hell can that be an accident?????) and so over popular use the definiton has been extended from just an unexpected event (which I would see as the most logical, pure definition) to add further clarification by having both unexpected and also the events being "not very nice".
So - if the accident in any way is expected to happen, it can't be an accident. Personally I think people use the word too much (like the person that did 90mph on icy roads then had an "accident" - no that person didn't - that person had a crash as a result of being a d**k head!)
Interesting postulation though!
J
Looking at the dictionary definition...
ac·ci·dent ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ks-dnt, -dnt)
n.
1)
a) An unexpected and undesirable event, especially one resulting in damage or harm: car accidents on icy roads.
b) An unforeseen incident: A series of happy accidents led to his promotion.
c) An instance of involuntary urination or defecation in one's clothing.
2) Lack of intention; chance: ran into an old friend by accident.
3) Logic. A circumstance or attribute that is not essential to the nature of something.
[I love 1)c) above!]
The complication is that it's defined as both "unexpected" (which would mean that if it was preventable then it can't be classed as an accident), but the definition also has "undesirable" in it. However, the two are linked by an "and" and so both have to apply.
So, to take Ted's example of people not paying attention - the resultant crash is not "unexpected" part, as by not paying attention you should expect to have a crash - but the result is certainly undesirable. The fact though that it has to be both unexpected AND undesirable means, as per the definiton, that can't be an accident.
Now, I would imagine the undesirable part has been added over the years as people class event as "accidents" when they couldn't really be (the classic being an "accident waiting to happen" - if you are waiting for some damage to happen - how the hell can that be an accident?????) and so over popular use the definiton has been extended from just an unexpected event (which I would see as the most logical, pure definition) to add further clarification by having both unexpected and also the events being "not very nice".
So - if the accident in any way is expected to happen, it can't be an accident. Personally I think people use the word too much (like the person that did 90mph on icy roads then had an "accident" - no that person didn't - that person had a crash as a result of being a d**k head!)
Interesting postulation though!
J
joust said:
Personally I think people use the word too much (like the person that did 90mph on icy roads then had an "accident" - no that person didn't - that person had a crash as a result of being a d**k head!)
Interesting postulation though!
J
I suspect the reason why people say accident rather than incident is because they refuse to admit to themselves that they could have f
ed up. It's easier to blame bad road conditions, the guy in front stopping without warning etc than to admit you caused the incident to happen by driving to fast or close to the vehicle in front. Steve.
>> Edited by Steve _T on Thursday 16th January 12:16
Bit of a long post recovered from my hard drive..
Accident/incident, largely semantics..
Driver referred to that wiped out at 90 on an icy road; thats natural justice IMHO, (or possibly natural selection but thats another thread..)
2.4.1 The nature of accidents and of the accident process.
Most dictionary definitions and many scientific approaches to accidents include some references both to the consequence of the incident and the chance nature of the event. For example, an accident may be defined as ‘an event that is without apparent cause, or is unexpected; an unfortunate event, especially one causing physical harm or damage’, (Concise Oxford Dictionary 1996). In scientific literature, similar definitions abound. Meister (1987) for example defined an accident, as ‘an unanticipated event which damages the system and/or the individual or affects the accomplishment of the system mission or the individual’s task’.
Suchman (1961) produced a list of indicators of the ‘accidental nature of an event’, the more of which are present the more likely the incident is to be called an accident. The indicators are:
• Low degree of expectedness.
• Low degree of avoidability.
• Low degree of intention.
A frequent characteristic of the majority of accident investigations, (notably those within the domain of aviation), is to find a single cause, or a small number of causative factors on which to assign blame. Thus the emphasis tends, especially within a legal framework, to assign blame to an individual or company often for the purposes of litigation.
Figure 2.1 A schematic overview of an accident sequence.
However, in almost all cases, an accident results, not from a single factor, such as a pilot making an error, but due to a multitude of factors, many of which are unrelated in their aetiology, (Figure 2.1). An illustrative example is the fire, started by Nero that destroyed the city of Rome in AD 64 (Dixon 1994). The devastation caused by this fire was greatly enhanced by several factors; the location of the original act of arson, the prolonged period of drought immediately prior to the fire and the strong winds blowing towards the centre of the city from the direction of the start of the fire. Had the fire been started in a different part of the city, or had there not been a water shortage caused by a prolonged drought, or had the prevailing winds not been blowing in the direction that they were, the devastation caused would have been considerably reduced.
Many authors have emphasised the multifactorial nature of accidents, even those advocating the theory of accident proneness, that in its original conception postulated that the main cause of accidents was a single, unwavering personal disposition, (Shaw and Sichel 1971).
A distinction may be drawn between factors that make the likelihood of an accident occurring higher, and those that actually cause and accident. these are contributory and causal factors respectively. In Figure 2.1 a contributory factor is defined as an identified factor that when present significantly increases the probability of an accident, but does not in isolation cause it. An example of this would be a driver who is in excess of the legal limit of blood alcohol concentration. Whilst this driver is more likely to be involved in an accident, not every driver who drives with excess alcohol in their blood will crash, and thus this factor cannot be described as causal. A causal factor however, is defined as a failure of a critical piece of equipment or a human error without which an accident would not have occurred. Examples of such factors would be a sudden and catastrophic failure whilst driving at speed, such as a tyre blow-out on a motorway. It is highly likely that given this factor, an accident will occur and without this causal factor, an accident will not result. Causal factors are thus typically what would be regarded for legal purposes as being the cause of the accident. The danger release phase is the moment of the accident, i.e. the crash or explosion, and is distinct from the harm release phase, which is the phase during which harm to people and property occurs. Dependant on the nature of the systems involved, there may be some delay before the harm release phase occurs, and this phase itself may extend over a very short period of time or many years.
A summary of several dictionary definitions of 'accident' suggests that an accident is 'anything that happens; an unforeseen or unexpected event; a chance or a mishap'. To many, therefore, the term accident implies an act of fate, which is therefore devoid of any predictability. Figure 2.1 is illustrative of the nature of the fallibility of this and of using non technical terms in a technical argument. Accidents are not just ‘acts of chance’ but are probabilistic events whose causes may be determined and countermeasures prescribed accordingly. The basic definition of an accident used in the remainder of this thesis, is derived from that of Bentley (1998). The emphasis of this definition is that although an accident is unexpected and unintentional, they occur through the interaction of a series of contributory and causal factors. Additionally, an accident may result in a number of possible outcomes, including physical harm to an individual, damage to property, or a significant deviation from safe system operation.
For simplicity in the remainder of this thesis, the term Road Traffic Accident, (RTA), will be applied to accidents involving motorised transportation. RTAs are a subset of accidents that occur in the road traffic environment and are concerned with failures in the safe operation of motorised transportation. These failures may result in physical harm to either the operator of the transportation system, (the driver), harm to other road users, or may result in damage to either the vehicles concerned or to other property. In addition, RTAs may result in neither harm to individuals or property, but may result only in significant departures from safe system use, (for example in the case of a vehicle running off the roadway but not colliding with any roadway or roadside objects). The focus of this thesis is on RTAs involving cars, and as such this term will only be used when at least one of the vehicles involved is a car.
It should be remembered that the use of accident does not imply that an RTA is a random, unpredictable event, but one that occurs though the interaction of a number of causative and causal factors that may be deduced and thereby effective accident prevention measures designed.
Accident/incident, largely semantics..
Driver referred to that wiped out at 90 on an icy road; thats natural justice IMHO, (or possibly natural selection but thats another thread..)
2.4.1 The nature of accidents and of the accident process.
Most dictionary definitions and many scientific approaches to accidents include some references both to the consequence of the incident and the chance nature of the event. For example, an accident may be defined as ‘an event that is without apparent cause, or is unexpected; an unfortunate event, especially one causing physical harm or damage’, (Concise Oxford Dictionary 1996). In scientific literature, similar definitions abound. Meister (1987) for example defined an accident, as ‘an unanticipated event which damages the system and/or the individual or affects the accomplishment of the system mission or the individual’s task’.
Suchman (1961) produced a list of indicators of the ‘accidental nature of an event’, the more of which are present the more likely the incident is to be called an accident. The indicators are:
• Low degree of expectedness.
• Low degree of avoidability.
• Low degree of intention.
A frequent characteristic of the majority of accident investigations, (notably those within the domain of aviation), is to find a single cause, or a small number of causative factors on which to assign blame. Thus the emphasis tends, especially within a legal framework, to assign blame to an individual or company often for the purposes of litigation.
Figure 2.1 A schematic overview of an accident sequence.
However, in almost all cases, an accident results, not from a single factor, such as a pilot making an error, but due to a multitude of factors, many of which are unrelated in their aetiology, (Figure 2.1). An illustrative example is the fire, started by Nero that destroyed the city of Rome in AD 64 (Dixon 1994). The devastation caused by this fire was greatly enhanced by several factors; the location of the original act of arson, the prolonged period of drought immediately prior to the fire and the strong winds blowing towards the centre of the city from the direction of the start of the fire. Had the fire been started in a different part of the city, or had there not been a water shortage caused by a prolonged drought, or had the prevailing winds not been blowing in the direction that they were, the devastation caused would have been considerably reduced.
Many authors have emphasised the multifactorial nature of accidents, even those advocating the theory of accident proneness, that in its original conception postulated that the main cause of accidents was a single, unwavering personal disposition, (Shaw and Sichel 1971).
A distinction may be drawn between factors that make the likelihood of an accident occurring higher, and those that actually cause and accident. these are contributory and causal factors respectively. In Figure 2.1 a contributory factor is defined as an identified factor that when present significantly increases the probability of an accident, but does not in isolation cause it. An example of this would be a driver who is in excess of the legal limit of blood alcohol concentration. Whilst this driver is more likely to be involved in an accident, not every driver who drives with excess alcohol in their blood will crash, and thus this factor cannot be described as causal. A causal factor however, is defined as a failure of a critical piece of equipment or a human error without which an accident would not have occurred. Examples of such factors would be a sudden and catastrophic failure whilst driving at speed, such as a tyre blow-out on a motorway. It is highly likely that given this factor, an accident will occur and without this causal factor, an accident will not result. Causal factors are thus typically what would be regarded for legal purposes as being the cause of the accident. The danger release phase is the moment of the accident, i.e. the crash or explosion, and is distinct from the harm release phase, which is the phase during which harm to people and property occurs. Dependant on the nature of the systems involved, there may be some delay before the harm release phase occurs, and this phase itself may extend over a very short period of time or many years.
A summary of several dictionary definitions of 'accident' suggests that an accident is 'anything that happens; an unforeseen or unexpected event; a chance or a mishap'. To many, therefore, the term accident implies an act of fate, which is therefore devoid of any predictability. Figure 2.1 is illustrative of the nature of the fallibility of this and of using non technical terms in a technical argument. Accidents are not just ‘acts of chance’ but are probabilistic events whose causes may be determined and countermeasures prescribed accordingly. The basic definition of an accident used in the remainder of this thesis, is derived from that of Bentley (1998). The emphasis of this definition is that although an accident is unexpected and unintentional, they occur through the interaction of a series of contributory and causal factors. Additionally, an accident may result in a number of possible outcomes, including physical harm to an individual, damage to property, or a significant deviation from safe system operation.
For simplicity in the remainder of this thesis, the term Road Traffic Accident, (RTA), will be applied to accidents involving motorised transportation. RTAs are a subset of accidents that occur in the road traffic environment and are concerned with failures in the safe operation of motorised transportation. These failures may result in physical harm to either the operator of the transportation system, (the driver), harm to other road users, or may result in damage to either the vehicles concerned or to other property. In addition, RTAs may result in neither harm to individuals or property, but may result only in significant departures from safe system use, (for example in the case of a vehicle running off the roadway but not colliding with any roadway or roadside objects). The focus of this thesis is on RTAs involving cars, and as such this term will only be used when at least one of the vehicles involved is a car.
It should be remembered that the use of accident does not imply that an RTA is a random, unpredictable event, but one that occurs though the interaction of a number of causative and causal factors that may be deduced and thereby effective accident prevention measures designed.
Psychobert said:
It should be remembered that the use of accident does not imply that an RTA is a random, unpredictable event, but one that occurs though the interaction of a number of causative and causal factors that may be deduced and thereby effective accident prevention measures designed.
The most important, in fact the only, 'measure' that will prevent accidents is hindsight. What is needed is to arrive at the scene of the accident, be it a car around a tree or a spilled cup of coffee, move backwards in time until a short while before the event is due to happen, remove one of the causative factors and then allow time to go forward again, and, just like the magic I am describing, no accident!
There has been plenty of time since the dawn of the mechanised transport age to 'design effective preventative measures'. If that were possible, why hasn't it been done?
I for one will continue to try to avoid putting myself at risk, but the problem is that each accidents happens when one isn't consciously trying to avoid it. Take the coffee cup example, easy enough to steer your hand around it when you are being actively careful, but cups still get knocked over from time to time
John
Forums | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff