During my travels, particularly by air, I frequently experience anxiety regarding the possibility of returning home. Passing through Iloilo Diversion Road where speed, wide roads, and intersections make a perfect trifecta of a disaster waiting to happen. It is unfortunate that road crashes, which are often erroneously labeled as “accidents,” remain a prevalent occurrence. Last week, we witnessed a series of severe and fatal road crash incidents. While public concern has grown, the term “accident” continues to be used, implying that these events were unintentional, unpredictable, and beyond human control.

Referring to a crash as an “accident” subtly absolves the individuals involved, particularly those who engage in reckless driving or contribute to poor road design, by framing the outcome as mere “bad luck.” The terms “crash” or “collision” are more accurate because they do not preempt responsibility or diminish human involvement. If speed was the cause, who caused the speed? If there was a loss of brakes or control, who could not properly check their vehicle before traveling? If the driver suddenly fell asleep, who did not make sure that their drivers have had enough rest? If the road is not intuitively designed and has resulted to multiple crashes, who designed it to be such? It is simple to call things an “accident” and then move on.

The use of “crash” eliminates the implicit apology embedded in “accident.” While it is common to hear statements such as “I didn’t intend it; it just happened” in interviews, this shift is crucial in cases of reckless driving, impaired driving, or traffic rule violations. If a collision results in injury, conviction, or even death, labeling it an “accident” can hinder accountability. Moreover, it can railroad legal liabilities or simply settled. “Crash” enables focus on the causes and consequences rather than offering premature justification.

Victims deserve a more accurate and empathetic expression of what transpired: a serious, avoidable, and preventable crash, not a destiny.

Survivors and families of crash victims should find the term “accident” dismissive, as it trivializes a tragic loss. Victims deserve a more accurate and empathetic expression of what transpired: a serious, avoidable, and preventable crash, not a destiny. This linguistic change demonstrates empathy rather than casual dismissal.

If we persist in labeling these as unpredictable “accidents,” society and policymakers are less inclined to seek solutions. In my experience, not enough individuals are courageous enough to address such a topic and heed the recommendations of experts. Some do not even see the urgency of the issue because it demands change. And change comes with a lot of costs.

However, if we acknowledge them as preventable crashes, we demand safer roads, stricter enforcement, improved vehicle design, and effective education. Language holds significance, not only in our emotional responses but also in our actions. The terminology employed influences public perception and determines whether we regard road fatalities as a health crisis demanding prevention. Road crashes are frequently preventable. Drivers and systems can and must be held accountable. The public should care and demand action, and we must treat the suffering of victims seriously. Policies are influenced by perception. Altering our language is the initial step toward a mindset that values prevention, responsibility, and respect. It is time for the media, law enforcement, governments, and ordinary citizens to cease using “accident,” “aksidente sa dalanon,” or “disgrasya sa dalan” and adopt “road crash,” “insidente sa dalan,” or “pagbunggo-anay sa dalan”.