he crashed into another car

[EngLearner]

John was driving happily down the road. He had to stop at an intersection, but the brakes on his car failed and he crashed into a car that had the right of way. Bob, John's friend, has arrived at the crash site. Peter calls Bob and asks him: "How are you, Bob?" Bob replies to Peter with the following:

I'm fine, but the brakes on John's car failed, and he crashed into another car. I'm now at the crash site. A lot of police have arrived, and an ambulance has taken the other driver to the hospital.

I think in this case "failed" should definitely be in the simple past, but I'm not sure about "crashed": I think in British English it would be correct either way (i.e. either as "crashed" or "has crashed"). In American English, I think people would use the simple past "crashed." Does that make sense?

 

[emsr2d2]

The simple past for those two verbs is certainly correct for me. The present perfect isn't wrong but it's less likely. Note that we're more likely to say "... but John's brakes failed" - we don't usually specify that we're talking about the brakes on a car. Also "the crash site" might be used by law enforcement or journalists but it's not a standard term for the rest of us.

 

[jutfrank]

The past simple is ideal for cases like this, where you're narrating a sequence of dramatic events.

 

[EngLearner]

If Bob doesn't say the words "the brakes on John's car failed", then I think the present perfect "has crashed" would be preferable as the consequences of the crash are still felt at the time of speaking:

I'm fine, but John has crashed into a car. I'm now at the crash site. A lot of police have arrived, and an ambulance has taken the other driver to the hospital.

I think the phrase "the brakes on John's car failed" provides a reference point which attracts the simple past "he crashed into another car" rather than the present perfect "he has crashed into another car." Without that phrase, the present perfect seems a better choice.

Would you agree with that?

 

[emsr2d2]

If Bob doesn't say the words "the brakes on John's car failed", then I think the present perfect "has crashed" would be preferable as the consequences of the crash are still felt at the time of speaking:

I'm fine, but John has crashed into a car. I'm now at the crash site. A lot of police have arrived, and an ambulance has taken the other driver to the hospital.

I think the phrase "the brakes on John's car failed" provides a reference point which attracts the simple past "he crashed into another car" rather than the present perfect "he has crashed into another car." Without that phrase, the present perfect seems a better choice.

Would you agree with that?

I agree that the present perfect works there. However, the piece is still overly formal and worded unnaturally. Here's what I'd write:

I'm fine but John's had a car accident. I'm there now. There's loads of police and the other driver's been taken to hospital [by ambulance].

 

[tedmc]

The present/past perfect tense is used to distinguish the sequence of events. In this case, there is no need for that. The car crashed after the brakes failed.