This axiom has two corollaries: the Inherent Risk Corollary and the Reckless Driver Corollary. The former states that in this world of unavoidable accidents, pedestrians and cyclists are senselessly putting themselves in harm’s way by traversing concrete and asphalt. If they get hit, it is a deserved consequence of their poor decision making. And the latter states that those rare instances when a driver is at fault, it is the result of that driver being a reckless and careless individual, a deviant member of society. All blame is attributed to the individuals involved. The road network and driving culture are given immunity.I would add that using the term “accident” to describe these incidents involving automobiles and pedestrians also contributes to the “Accident Axiom”. Words like, wreck, collision and crash provide a much better picture of what might have happened at the scene of a traffic collision. An accident, at least to me, implies something of less damage, something that can be undone possibly. i realize there is debate in the nuance of the word but continuing to use it in this context doesn’t help us find a solution to it. At best, it disguises it.
Agreed on all parts of the “Accident Axiom http://www.pps.org/blog/walking-is-not-a-crime-questioning-the-accident-axiom/, specifically on blaming the victim