Citation

Benner L. Am. Assoc. Automot. Med. Q. J. 1979; 1(1).

Copyright

(Copyright © 1979, American Association for Automotive Medicine)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Practical difficulties arise during the investigation and reporting of most accidents. These difficulties include the determination of the scope of the phenomenon to investigate, the identification of the data required, documentation of the findings, development of recommendations based on the accident findings, and preparation of the deliverables at the end of the investigation. These difficulties reflect differences in the purposes for the investigations, which in turn reflect different perceptions of the accident phenomenon. They can lead to questionable data for accident research and other end uses.

Five underlying theories about the nature of the crash phenomenon are presented, and their implications for crash research discussed. The single event theory is based on the assumption that an accident consists of a single event that has a cause. The chain-of-events theory follows the premise that if a set of "unsafe conditions" set up a row of vulnerable dominos, an "unsafe act" would start them toppling. The determinant variable theory assumes that some common factors are present in accidents, and that they can be discerned from the right accident data. The branched events chain theory is based on the perception that events can flow in a chain-like sequence from a variety of origins in a system toward an accident event. The multilinear events sequences theory views the accident phenomenon as the transformation process by which a homeostatic activity is interrupted with accompanying unintended harm. The implications of these theories for accident researchers are discussed in terms of investigative, data, and methodology traps. Increased awareness of crash theories by accident researchers and investigators and increased dialogue between the two groups are advocated.