Language Matters: The Importance of “Collision” versus “Accident” in Road Safety

Abstract: Road traffic injuries and deaths are a serious public health issue with many direct and indirect costs. The language we use to describe these incidents matters because it reflects who is responsible and how they can be prevented. In particular, the language of “accident” versus “collision” or “crash” is central because an accident implies no one is at fault and that the incident could not have been prevented. Alternatively, “collision” or “crash” identifies the incident and leaves space for the idea that such incidents could have been prevented. This shift in language is necessary to reduce road traffic injury and death. 

Bios

Emily McCullogh, Ph.D.: Emily is a postdoctoral researcher at York University in the Faculty of Health and current editor of the CARSP Safety Network Newsletter. Her research areas include sport sociology and philosophical ethics, particularly in the context of coach-athlete relationships, as well as road safety, injury prevention, and the built environment. She is currently part of a pan-Canadian research team dedicated to reducing road-related injuries and deaths, as well as promoting active and sustainable transportation. Her ongoing work focuses on accessibility, equity, and the built environment, as well as system-based approaches to safe and sustainable mobility in Canada.

Clinton Marquardt: Clinton is one of Canada’s few Sleep & Fatigue Specialists with a safety investigation background.  His work focuses on translating the latest science into practical, implementable solutions that reduce the risk of fatigue and improve safety in the transportation industry.  Clinton has authored works for globally recognized books such The Handbook of Fatigue Management in Transportation and the Transportation Safety Board of Canada’s Guide to Investigating Sleep-Related Fatigue.  He is also the only Sleep & Fatigue Specialist qualified by the Superior Court as an expert witness.  Clinton shares his expertise through training programs and consulting services to support the quest for excellence in the safety, health, and productivity of the 24/7 workforce.

Introduction

Language and concepts are important. Depending on how they are used across different contexts, meanings shift, which has implications for how people behave and respond. While this topic is arguably relevant across all settings, the following article will examine the importance of concepts and language in the context of road safety; specifically, the term “accident” versus “collision” or “crash.” It is important to recognize that road safety is a significant public health matter (Public Health Ontario, 2025), with road traffic incidents ranked as the third highest cause of injury in Canada resulting in significant direct costs, such as direct expenses to the health care system, and indirect societal costs, such as loss of productivity in the workforce (Parachute, 2021). Thus, it is pivotal that efforts to prevent road traffic injuries view these events as preventable and not simply resulting from random and unpredictable conditions. 

Defining Terms

The United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Management (UNDRR) defines a road traffic injury accident as “involving at least one road vehicle in motion on a public road or private road to which the public has right of access, resulting in at least one injured or killed person” (UNDRR, 2025, para. 1). For the UNDRR, this definition includes collisions between road vehicles, road vehicles and pedestrians, road vehicles and animals or fixed obstacles, and road and rail vehicles. Alternatively, in Ontario’s Motor Vehicle Collision Report Manual (Government of Ontario, 2011), a collision is defined as “the contact resulting from the motion of a motor vehicle or streetcar and its load, that produces property damage, injury, or death” (p. 2). 

With the UNDRR’s broad use of “accident,” the terms “collision” and “crash” are considered accidents. This can be problematic when looking for solutions to prevent future crashes because “accident” implies a lack of fault and that the people involved were not responsible in any way (e.g., not respecting road signage) for causing the collision. In other words, “accident confounds, often erroneously, what happened with the lack of intentionality or legal responsibility of the driver” (Stewart & Lord, 2002, p. 334), sending the message that “the event is the result of chance and therefore not preventable” (Knechel, 2015, p. 321).  However, as emphasized in more recent strategies for road safety, such as the Safe System Approach, collisions are indeed preventable by making changes to the system of roads, as well as driver behaviour. 

Crash vs Accident: An Ongoing Debate

The terminology debate between “accident” and “crash/collision” is not new (Knechel, 2015). Researchers and health care professionals have used the term motor vehicle accident (MVA) since the 1960s (Stewart & Lord, 2002), a term that has likely persisted because of its use in clinical nomenclature (Jablonski, 1998), and its inclusion in reporting and documentation practices among health care professionals (Zuckerman & Estes, 2025). In addition, according to Stewart and Lord (2002), “MVA may have seen continued use because clinicians and researchers have assumed that most vehicular crashes were indeed random events, unintentional, or truly accidental in their origin” (p. 333). However, in recent years, scholars and clinicians (e.g., Knechel, 2015; Stewart & Lord, 2002) have advocated for a shift to the language to motor vehicle collisions (MVCs).

Advocates for this change in language claim that MVA does not adequately describe crash situations because most vehicular crashes result from preventable actions. In other words, “most transportation incidents are not accidents. Most incidents were the result of the driver purposely doing something else besides focusing on their driving and the driving environment” (Safety Driven, 2026, para. 3). This debate has been addressed in the context of clinical medicine as well, where it was argued that the term “accident” ought to be replaced with “injury” (Doege, 1978) because the term accident “suggests it is a random act, attributable to chance, and lacks fault” (Knechel, 2015, p. 322). Significant changes in this realm include the banning of the term “accident” in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) in 2001, except for its use in the title of an article (Davis & Pless, 2001). 

In the context of road safety organization such as Parachute, Canada’s national charity dedicated to injury prevention, also advocate for a change in language claiming that “how we talk about collisions and injury on our roadways shapes our attitudes” (Teahen, 2021, p. 2). For example, in 2018 Parachute launched a national awareness campaign This Was Not An Accident, aligning with its Vision Zero initiatives. Organizations such as the British Columbia Automobile Association (BCAA) has also shifted their language away from ‘accident,’ recognizing that injuries are not random: they are predictable and preventable (BCAA, 2019). Further there has also been a shift in the vocabularies of professionals working with victims of vehicular collisions because the language of MVA is potentially problematic for those struggling with trauma or loss resulting from a crash. In other words, “the use of crash can be more validating and meaningful than accident for crash survivors or persons who are mourning the loss of a friend or family member in a crash” (Stewart & Lord, 2002, p. 334). 

Practical Implications: The Safe System Approach

This shift in language is reflected in the concepts and definitions used in the Safe System Approach. Thus far, it may seem like the intent is to assign the totality of blame on the drivers of motor vehicles; however, this only part of the story. Changing language to acknowledge that the road traffic event can be prevented is pivotal, but a significant body of research and literature shows that the design of the road transport system also plays a part. This acknowledgment has been most clearly actioned in the Safe System Approach, which recognizes the interdependence of safe road infrastructure, safe vehicles, and safe road users (Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators [CCMTA], 2026). 

The Safe System Approach is foundational to Vision Zero, which aims to eliminate deaths and serious injuries caused by road traffic collisions (Kristianssen et al., 2018) and views road safety as a social contract between system designers and road users (Belin, 2023). This contract implies that “if road users behave within system limits, system designers guarantee that they will not be killed or permanently injured” (Elvik, 2023, p. 2). This is not an opportunity to blame the design of the roads for all injuries and deaths; alternatively, we must look more critically at the road users (and their actions) that contravene this contract. For example, speeding is a significant cause of road traffic injury and death (Elvik, 2005). Thus, lowering vehicle speeds is highly correlated with a reduction in collisions and injury severity (Parachute, 2026). In addition, impaired driving and fatigue are also significant factors causing road traffic collisions, which are the direct result of road users’ decisions (Parachute, 2026). The following excerpt from Safety Driven (2026) captures this issue clearly: “If you purposely decide to speed because you’re running late, that’s a choice you’ve made. If you crash because of the speeding, that’s no accident. It’s a collision. The crash was a direct result of a decision you made” (para. 5).

Conclusion

Road traffic crashes and collisions are preventable. While there have been significant shifts in language at the policy and program levels (e.g., Safe System Approach), the use of the term “accident” persists amongst road users to describe a crash or collision. We recognize that the language of “accident” can be therapeutic for folks involved in the crash or collision directly because it deflects blame away from them, which may reduce the psychological stress. However, if we take seriously the goal of improving safety seriously, we must change our language as well and, as road users, reflect on what we can do to prevent tragic crashes and collisions. 

References

Belin, M.-Å. (2023). Vision Zero in Sweden: Streaming through problems, politics, and 

policies. In K. E. Björnberg, S. O. Hansson, M.-Å. Belin, & C. Tingvall (Eds.), The Vision Zero Handbook: Theory, Technology and Management for a Zero Casualty Policy (pp. 267–294). Springer Nature.

British Columbia Automobile Association. (2019). Still calling it an “accident”? Seriously? https://www.preventable.ca/media/Changing-the-Discourse-2019-FINAL-web.pdf 

Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators. (2026). Canada’s Road Safety 

Strategy: 2035 and Beyond. https://roadsafetystrategy.ca/en/strategy 

Davis, R. M., & Pless, B. (2001). BMJ bans “accidents”: Accidents are not unpredictable. 

BMJ, 322(7298), 1320–1321. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.322.7298.1320

Doege, T. C. (1978). An Injury Is No Accident. New England Journal of Medicine, 298(9), 

509–510. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM197803022980911

Elvik, R. (2005). Speed and Road Safety: Synthesis of Evidence from Evaluation Studies. 

Transportation Research Record, 1908(1), 59–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198105190800108

Elvik, R. (2023). What would a road safety policy fully consistent with safe system 

principles mean for road safety? Accident Analysis & Prevention, 193, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2023.107336

Government of Ontario. (2011). Motor Vehicle Collision Report (MVCR) Manual. 

https://intra.stage.ecollision.mto.gov.on.ca/eCollision/pdf/MVCRGuide.pdf 

Jablonski, S. (1998). Dictionary of medical acronyms and abbreviations. Hanley & Belfus.

Knechel, N. (2015). When a Crash Is Really an Accident: A Concept Analysis. Journal of 

Trauma Nursing, 22(6), 321–329. https://doi.org/10.1097/JTN.0000000000000167

Kristianssen, A.-C., Andersson, R., Belin, M.-Å., & Nilsen, P. (2018). Swedish Vision Zero 

policies for safety – A comparative policy content analysis. Safety Science, 103, 260–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.11.005

Parachute. (2021). Cost of Injury in Canada. 

https://parachute.ca/en/professional-resource/cost-of-injury-in-canada/ 

Parachute. (2026). Road Safety. https://parachute.ca/en/injury-topic/road-safety/ 

Public Health Ontario. (2025). Road Safety. 

https://www.publichealthontario.ca/en/Diseases-and-Conditions/Injuries/Road-Safety 

Safety Driven. (2026). Accident or Collision? Trucking Safety Council of BC. 

https://safetydriven.ca/resource/accident-or-collision/ 

Stewart, A. E., & Lord, J. H. (2002). Motor vehicle Crash versus Accident: A change in 

terminology is necessary. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 15(4), 333–335. 

https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016260130224

Teahen, K. (2021). Change the language, change perceptions: How we talk about road collisions. Parachute. 

https://parachute.ca/wp- content/uploads/2021/12/CP-style-change-UA.pdf 

UNDRR. (2025). Road Traffic Accident. 

https://www.undrr.org/understanding-disaster-risk/terminology/hips/tl0405 

Zuckerman, E. L., & Estes, B. W. (2025). Clinician’s Thesaurus (9th ed.). Guilford 

Publications.