Agency: a follow-up to Crash! On how we need to change how we talk about car crashes

Original link

A couple of weeks ago, I published a blog post on the language we typically use when we describe car crashes (Crash! On how we need to change how we talk about car crashes), describing how it removes the driver from the action. In short, we make it sound like cars are running people over on their own accord, with hapless drivers along for the ride.

The post began some interesting discussions, and one key misunderstanding arose which I’d like to address here. People said (paraphrasing many comments) “well, we can’t talk about the drivers because the court system hasn’t established fault yet”.

Of course we can. We can talk about agency without formally assigning fault. We do so all the time with all other kinds of accidents and crimes. Let’s look at a couple of examples from different sources:

1. It is reported that a TTC employee was operating a bus when it stopped to let passengers off. Two men approached the doors of the bus and one of them then fired the BB gun, striking the driver in the arm. A 14-year old and 16-year old were arrested.

Note here that it is not “a BB gun fired and struck the driver in the arm” but a person firing the BB gun who did the damage. Agency is assigned to “two men” — unnamed, in the sentence that describes the crime, but definitely human. The gun did not act alone.

2. A 22-year-old man is facing a number of charges after a 27-year-old man was sent to hospital Sunday night after a stabbing.

Again, nobody is accusing the knife of attacking the 27-year-old. Agency, rightly, is assigned to the 22-year-old man holding the knife. We can use the legal screen of leaving the potentially accused person unnamed, but we do not need to remove them entirely.

It ought to be the same with car crashes — from an injury prevention point of view, it is key. Crashes happen because people do things, not because cars do things. If we’re going to work on preventing crashes, we need to speak accurately when we describe them. It is very possible to keep the driver in the scene without assigning fault, just as we keep the people in the scene when we describe other accidents and crimes. You’ll recognize the formula from other news reports: “[A vaguely-described person] was driving a car when [something bad happened]. … Charged is Ms So-and-so, 56, of Some Street.” We’re not saying it was Ms So-and-So’s fault, precisely, but we are saying there was a driver, not just a car. Do you see the difference?