The interview in accident investigation Methodological pitfalls

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
The apparent randomness of traffic accidents effectively guarantees that traffic researchers will never witness more than a handful of collisions. Thus the nature of accidents demands a retrospective method of enquiry, and interviewing procedures have traditionally provided the primary tools in this regard. Potential pitfalls associated wilh the use ofinterview procedures in accident research have rarely been elucidated. It is suggested here that the use of interviews in accident investigation are problematic at both the technical and theoretical level. At the technical level demands for accuracy, reliability and consistency in accident reports may promote bias in the accounts offered by witnesses. At the theoretical level retrospective methods generally tend to lead the researcher to infer causal connections between accident antecedents and consequents whereas correlational associations would be more appropriate. Some factors contributing to this sort of erroneous inference are identified, It is shown that ‘prospective’ methods of accident enquiry, such as are incorporated in current traffic conflict techniques, may suffer from similar types of interpretational bias.

This publication has 4 references indexed in Scilit: