Talk:Traffic collision/Article title

Article name and main definition
With new editors, and a new year, perhaps it is time to discuss the article name, and its main definition, again. The name, including the word "accident" certainly implies a POV. A more NPOV name would include the word "collision", "incident", or perhaps "crash". The word "car" has a very specific meaning, particularly in the UK - it means the same as the "automobile" does in North America, and excludes trucks, buses, and motorcycles. So what should it be? In the UK the type of incident discussed in the article may occur, without a motor vehicle being involved at all - between a bicycle and a pedestrian perhaps. That is why I am also questioning the main definition, which implies an automobile has to be involved. Any name which implies a type of motor vehicle is necessarily involved needs to be avoided. All these types of incident do occur on the road, so perhaps that should be in the name. I suggest renaming the article to Road traffic incident, or Road traffic collision, or Road traffic crash. Does anyone have any comments or suggestions? -- de Facto (talk). 20:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Simon Pegg's character in Hot Fuzz mentioned the fact that "official vocab guidelines state they're now called traffic collisions because accident implies no one is to blame". -- MacAddct &#xF8FF; 1984 (talk &#149; contribs) 16:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Any changes are going to be as subjective as any other or so full of jargon that its non-intuitive. The article already stresses many of the multifarious terms. This article has a long history of name changes & it already has many links pointing to it. It also notes the difference between accident versus collision, which is majored on at Road-traffic safety. However, if you explore the article & its references you will see that there are various interpretations put on the term accident etc, many of which are explicitly PoV. If you adhere to the likes of MADD then it can seem that every pedestrian collision with a car is attempted homicide, contrasting someone like Leeming or Smeed who viewed it as a temporary lapse of human judgement. Not wishing to question the authority of a film such as Hot Fuzz, but there are various official terms current used in the UK alone - but the official accident collection mechanism  |STATS19, collects "Road Accidents Statistics" for DfT & ONS by compiling data on "personal injury road accidents". PIA, KSI, etc are all very specific terms in the jargon, but the US, Oz, etc, have equivalent but slightly different terms. And that's before we get to the religious & philosophical viewpoints that are prevalent around parts of the world that treat collisions as fate. Ephebi (talk) 12:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Change - We use "crash" as our official term in Maryland, but "incident" would also qualify. The Hot Fuzz quote hits it right-on. It happens more often than you'd think. -- Bossi  ( talk • gallery • contrib ) 13:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Change - Whether they are accidents, collisions, incidents, or crashes, they certainly do not all involve cars. -- de Facto (talk). 13:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ahh, good point. I'd recommend replacing car with vehicle or vehicular; and accident with crash or collision.  I wouldn't particularly recommend incident, as that is a bit too vague and is generally applied to a wide range of situations; not just a crash/collision. -- Bossi  ( talk • gallery • contrib ) 19:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Change shouldn't use car, doesn't have to involve cars. Shouldn't use accident doesn't have to be an accident. "Road traffic collision" sounds OK. However a vehicle rolling from a tight corner or a vehicle driving of a cliff into a lake might be included in the broad definition and would not involve "collisions". Carlwev (talk) 03:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Change to "Road traffic collision". "Car accident" is a colloquialism, and not all road collisions are accidents, and not all involve cars. Cambrasa (talk) 23:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Car accident is by far the most common term and is applicable to the vast majority of collisions, since small private vehicles are the majority of vehicles on the road in most countries.  Furthermore, they are accidental in the sense that most people do not intentionally collide with each other.  They do not get out of bed saying, "I'm going to deliberately crash my car into another and kill someone today!" "Road traffic collision" appears to be a neologism invented by DeFacto and is probably unverifiable original research in violation of Wikipedia official policies.  Wikipedia is not a soapbox.  See WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR. --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It was not invented by me, it is a term in common use by those who need to have a neutral point of view - see 'Google search for "road traffic collision"'. The point though is, that not all involve cars and not all are accidents. -- de Facto (talk). 09:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * A disproportionately large number of "accidents" are caused by drivers who engage in drunk or dangerous driving. Both are deliberate acts of gross negligence, and there is a least some degree of intent when a collision occurs. The main motivation for thrill-seekers is often that something might happen.


 * Secondly, "car accident" may be a common term, but it is a colloquial term, and we should use the scholarly term even if it is less common. For instance, Wikipedia has an article on Traffic congestion, even though the term "traffic jam" is more common.


 * Thirdly, the ratio cars:lorries in the UK roughly 10:1 according to Eurostat. The number of lorries on the road is not small enough to be ignored, especially since lorry accidents are more common on motorways. Cambrasa (talk) 22:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. In spite of the article's odd introductory remark, I find nothing "euphemistic" about the term "car accident", any more than I do "plane crash" or "train wreck". Nor do I agree that "accident" is POV or implies blamelessness; "He drove drunk and caused a terrible accident in which two innocent people died" sounds fine to my ears and leave plenty of room for culpability. As for the suggested alternatives, "incident" is far too vague (bag of potatoes falls off truck and causes slowdown), and neither "collision" nor "crash" always applies (lone car skids on wet road and flips, two cars have a minor fender-bender, etc.). &mdash; Mark Hayes


 * Change to Road traffic crash, Road vehicle crash or Motor vehicle crash. Crash is the term officially used in Australia (eg by police). The word accident does not cover deliberate acts.  The word collision means, by definition, the exchange of momentum between moving objects, so does not cover a moving object hitting a stationary one if the stationary one that remains stationary.  Incident does not necessarily imply a crash - it could even include road rage. --Athol Mullen (talk) 00:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)  Oh, and the word "car" really has to go.  "Vehicle" more adequately covers the various types of vehicles on the road. --Athol Mullen (talk) 00:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Change As the article says, 93% of crashes involve driver error. Change to road vehicle crash. Make redirect as well.--155.144.40.31 (talk) 23:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Articles name
Car accident is a poor name. In the medical world we call them Motor vehicle collisions. When a guy or girl has 10 or 20 beer get behind the wheel and hits someone at 140 km/hr this is not an accident a collision yes but not an accident. Doc James (talk) 05:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree that "car accident" is a poor name. In some places, it is common to purposely cause a rear-end crash so that payment can be had for pretend injuries. (neck pain, which is difficult to disprove) Running somebody off the road is not an accident. Ramming a police blockade is not an accident. Hitting an overpass support for suicide is not an accident. (your example is however an accident) Car crash is the appropriate name. 72.40.45.79 (talk) 08:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

-I wonder how you can reason that it is a genuine "accident" for somebody to crash a car after drinking 10-20 beers... Rudy Breteler (talk) 19:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Whether they are accidents, collisions, incidents, or crashes, they certainly do not all involve cars, or even necessarily motor vehicles at all. The name should certainly not specify a vehicle type.  How about something like Road traffic collision or Road traffic crash? -- de Facto (talk). 10:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * A name change has been discussed multiple times on these pages - see the archives. (DF above should know this as he has contributed to these earlier discussions.) No consensus has been established for a better name. Ephebi (talk) 22:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Last time we discussed it, between January and May, most people agreed that the name needed to be changed. What it should be changed to was never pursued through to consensus.  Perhaps it is time to discuss it again, and attempt to reach a consensus on a new name. -- de Facto (talk). 11:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Car crash would be a far better title. --John (talk) 19:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I strongly agree that the name must be changed. There is really no such think as a motor vehicle "accident."  Human error is almost always involved.  Whether it is because of driving while intoxicated, exceeding the speed limit, or failure to judge a situation correctly, somebody is always to blame.  A true "car accident" is one of the rarest things on the road.  Rudy Breteler (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree. The vast majority of car accidents are not truly intentional in the sense that the law considers intentional (see mens rea) or else they would all be charged as murder. It is very rare for someone to start a vehicle with specific intent in their head such as, "I am going to run over the first pedestrian I see and kill him" or "I will go on the freeway on the wrong side and kill the first driver I encounter."  The typical accident may involve grossly negligent or reckless behavior but is not intentional in the sense of being preconceived and planned.  Therefore, it is still an accident in that sense.  Furthermore, the "car accident" terminology is predominant in American English and Wikipedia policy is to use the most common name.  --Coolcaesar (talk) 22:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure it is an accident in the legal sense. The others have argued about the moral of the word. :) bkil (talk) 23:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Motor vehicle collision redirects here and is the perfect name. The argument to use the most common name "car accident" is compelling - but only if you also intend to have a separate article "truck accident", "bus accident" and so forth, and also some article about lunatics trying to run you over on purpose.  (Actually, that last redlink should redirect to something... ;) )  Really though... you ought to make the move already. Wnt (talk) 00:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Should we vote on this issue? I strongly support moving the page to Motor vehicle collision as this is the most neutral and widely accepted term in the english language.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)