Why is it that consideration of collisions on the roads is outside the field of medical ethics? Is this strange omission because they are seen as 'accidental', when by contrast euthanasia, suicide, infanticide and abortion are seen as 'intentional' and therefore worthy of investigation?
Admittedly, few drivers set out to kill anyone. Yet closer study reveals that most road crashes are not 'accidents' at all but are crimes, namely being dangerously inconsiderate of other road users, speeding, drink driving etc. Describing the results as 'accidents' effectively removes the moral dimension from driving. Often the victims themselves are blamed.
Britain's first motoring tragedy was called an 'accidental death' by a coroner and the offending driver was allowed free. In August 1896 Bridget Driscoll was killed by a speeding driver as she walked to a Catholic event at the Crystal Palace. Coroners still label dramas involving pedestrians as 'accidents' before these get to court.
The Home Office states that 'the unforeseen consequences of a road traffic accident, which may tragically result in death, may be disproportionate to the seriousness of the offence and the culpability of the offender' and that 'the court's duty is to sentence the offender for what he has done, careless driving, and not for the consequences, however tragic they may be'.
The victim currently does not have 'the last word'. Road safety pressure groups have suggested that new terms need introducing - such as 'road abusers' or even 'road pirates'. It has been found that in some cases drivers who have killed do not even appear in court, while in others the victim's name is never mentioned, thereby adding to the pain of the 'road-bereaved'.
Laws make no provision for including the manufacturer in traffic crimes. Furthermore, 'road safety', or more accurately 'road danger reduction', has nothing to say about vehicle design or construction. Instead, emphasis is always upon driver behaviour. Yet in recent years many dangerous items have been added to cars - blackened windows which reduce vision and are believed to increase the temptation to crime, 'bull bars' which kill about 70 people a year, and loud sound systems which distract other road users and which can harm the driver's hearing and health.
Many situations of today can, like the word 'accident', be traced to actual events. Thus Walter Arnold of East Peckham, Kent, the first Briton to make petrol engined cars, was also the first to be convicted of speeding. In January 1896 he went through Paddock Wood at 8mph instead of 2mph.
In November 1896 the speed limit in Britain was raised from 4mph to 14mph and was 'celebrated' with the first London to Brighton Rally, an event which also led to the first injury to a child by a speeding car. By 1903 motoring clubs helped raise the limit to 20mph. Speeding soon became commonplace and in 1905 Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was fined for going too fast.
Between 1896 and 1996 half a million people were killed on Britain's roads. This averages out at 5,000 per year, over 96 each week, or at least 13 every day. Even more disturbingly, Government statistics refer only to those who die within 30 days of a crash, others being labelled as 'seriously injured'.
Meanwhile, the UK Christian Handbook publishes statistics of births, abortions, deaths and cremations, yet disregards road deaths. The Christian churches, too, have little to say about the negative side of motorisation. Prayers sometimes appear in magazines and a few churches hold memorial services for the road dead, but otherwise there is indifference.
Elsewhere, Greece has long led Europe's league of traffic related fatalities. Every year, more than 2,000 die on Greek roads, over 38 a week. Ethiopia has the worst roads in the world, with about 175 road deaths per 10,000 vehicles. A car in a Developing World country is 20 times more likely to kill than a car in Europe.
Worldwide, every time your heart beats, yet another car rolls off the production line. Is it not time the car was subjected to thorough ethical scrutiny? It cannot be right that such a dominant aspect of modern life is completely ignored by medical ethicists. If you have any ideas, I should like to hear from you.
