- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Richmond Park crash (via Twitter Royal Parks Police)“Language matters” – Road collision reporting guidelines launched
Guidelines for reporting road traffic collisions, aimed at the UK media, have been officially launched today, with supporters highlighting that by following the guidance, the press can play a role in making the streets safer for everyone including vulnerable road users.
The Road Collision Reporting Guidelines were co-ordinated by journalist and road.cc contributor Laura Laker working alongside the Active Travel Academy at the University of Westminster, with their launch coming during UN Global Road Safety Week 2021.
They encourage media, among other things, to avoid using the word “accident” – “crash” or “collision” not carrying the same association with chance – and to acknowledge the role of motorists, with many outlets for instance continuing to carry headlines such as “car crashes into tree.”
The full guidelines can be found here, and below is a summary of the 10 key points:
- At all times be accurate, say what you know and, importantly, what you don’t know.
- Avoid use of the word ‘accident’ until the facts of a collision are known.
- If you’re talking about a driver, say a driver, not their vehicle.
- Consider the impact on friends and relatives of publishing collision details.
- Treat publication of photos with caution, including user generated footage or imagery.
- Be mindful if reporting on traffic delays not to overshadow the greater harm, of loss of life or serious injury, which could trivialise road death.
- Journalists should consider whether language used negatively generalises a person or their behaviour as part of a ‘group’.
- Coverage of perceived risks on the roads should be based in fact and in context.
- Avoid portraying law-breaking or highway code contravention as acceptable, or perpetrators as victims.
- Road safety professionals can help provide context, expertise, and advice on broader issues around road safety.
The final version of the guidelines has been developed following a consultation process to which nearly 200 responses were received, including from the media, police and legal profession, road safety organisations and the general public, with 72 per cent agreeing with the guidelines’ principles and a further 21 per cent backing their aims. The full consultation report can be found here.
Professor Rachel Aldred, Director, Active Travel Academy, commented: “The Active Travel Academy is delighted to have developed these guidelines which are based on research and expert input.
“We know much good road collision reporting already exists and we hope that the guidelines will help spread this good practice.
“The research tells us that language matters, as it helps shape how we see and treat others. So for instance referring to drivers rather than only their vehicles helps remind us that behind every vehicle – be it a car, an HGV, a cycle or a motorcycle – is a person making decisions that affect the safety of others.”
The guidelines are intended to sit alongside existing ones for reporting on issues including suicide, domestic abuse and refugees, and are supported by leading road user and road safety organisations including the AA, British Cycling, Cycling UK, RoadPeace and Transport for London.
Victoria Lebrec of road crash victim charity RoadPeace said: “I was run over in 2014 and my left leg was amputated as a result of the collision. I narrowly survived. A headline at the time read: ‘A cyclist who was nearly killed and lost her leg after she was hit by a skip lorry has hugged and forgiven the driver who was fined £750 for his role in the accident.’
“It reads as though the skip lorry is to blame for the crash. And why am I forgiving someone if it was an accident? And what would the role of the driver be, given it was an accident? What’s he even being fined for?”
Sarah Mitchell, chief executive of Cycling UK added: “The biggest barrier to more people cycling is the perception that riding on our roads is dangerous.
“Adjusting the way we report road traffic collisions as outlined in these new guidelines could go a long way to addressing these concerns, while also, it is to be hoped, making our roads safer for their most vulnerable users.”
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- Hirsute 0 sec ago
She repeatedly says she will scrap ULEZ on day 1 despite being told many, many times that it is not statutorily possible to do this....
- wycombewheeler 29 min 21 sec ago
No, say it ain't so
- Miller 30 min 10 sec ago
No, not that pleasant. Still plenty of cyclists there though.
- 11waterloo 52 min 26 sec ago
I think that is the correct decision. It would put too much emphasis on predicting the break if there were effectively 3 intermediate sprints. The...
- chrisonabike 54 min 52 sec ago
Is that like "pygmy blue whale" - or one of these?
- Hirsute 1 hour 14 min ago
Nine out of ten councils do not plan to increase parking bay sizes...
- galibiervelo 2 hours 11 min ago
Had my feathertail for two winters and love it. Just one on the back to keep club mates clean of my spray
- john_smith 2 hours 19 min ago
Could you explain what you're getting at? The website you refenced isn't very helpful. "Different vehicles are assigned different values, according...
- Hirsute 2 hours 21 min ago
You also get stung for spotting too early. I did try one and mud on the road was not considered a hazard.
Add new comment
29 comments
A journalist once vociferously argued with me that the language chosen (including the use of "car" instead of "driver" whenever possible) was in accordance with legal advice and training they received - that by choosing such language, they were effectively immune from suit by the driver.
"Cyclist", however, appears fair game.
I'm not a media lawyer, but this sounded like bollocks to me.
Yes, quite.
" a man sustained serious injuries today when involved in an accident with a steel toe-capped boot. The boot departed the scene without leaving any details, but it is thought that the occupant was unharmed. The police approached the owner of the boot who has refused to disclose the identity of who was wearing the boot at the time. The police have stated that as a result they are unable to continue in their enquiries due to lack of evidence"
seems entirely consistent - remove any suggestion of human agency from the report, then no-one can sue you for implicating their actions; "the car was doing 60mph when it failed to negotiate the bend and left the road..." etc.
Probably not. Journalists are allowed to report facts.
These are not contradictory positions. I'm pretty sure legal people would have given such advice, and for those reasons.
Any advice that suggests that "the car was being driven at 60mph" is more likely to encourage legal action than "the car was travelling at 60mph" is ludicrous advice - No journalist reports that someone suffered serious injuries in an accident with a pair of boots, they report a serious assault by a man [of this discription], without any fear of legal action. In any case, we are speculating that this advice even took place.
It is more likely that through (bad) habit people talk about "cars" when they mean "drivers" and "cyclists" when they mean "people on bikes". This language, unconsidered as it may be, introduces bias and victim-blaming into the way the story is presented - something which of course is to be avoided by the conscientious journalist.
Crash, accident, collision - you decide
https://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/19311115.elderly-driver-crashes-whil...
(it appears they got away with it !)
Crash, accident, collision - you decide
https://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/19311115.elderly-driver-crashes-whilst-driving-wrong-way-a12/
At least Essex Police can't use the 'victim didn't swerve or brake, so it wasn't an offence' dodge, as they did with a recent close pass on a cyclist.
It is Suffolk police in this instance.
The EADT werent much on details but "The car – described by police as small and white" line did make me smile abit given thats how people have been saying they want these reports to read on car descriptions in future, thankfully no one was seriously hurt https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/traffic/a12-east-bergholt-wrong-way-crash-79...
though how the hell you end up on the A12 driving south the wrong way there I dont know
The only I thing I can think of is here https://goo.gl/maps/6reXjfJ2w3MGHvmF6
then it is only a short distance to the B1068 (with a really minor dead end in between) but how you get that far without further incidents is beyond me.
This one, definitely. How often are road incidents reported as "Someone died; but don't worry, everything is fine because the traffic is moving again"
Yeah, but The Things That Sometimes Happen On the Roadways And Involve Human Powered Vehicles And Motor Vehicles And Occasionally Lamp-posts And Squirrels Guidelines wouldn't fit on the page...
The main reason that accident should not be used is that it has the tendency to absolve all (particularly the driver) from blame, usually before the facts are understood. An accident is an unforeseeable random occurrence that couldn't be mitigated for. The vast majority of collisions don't match this description.
Crash/collision are perfectly factual and neutral terms, and should be used
As for accident being more cyclist-friendly, we could go even further and put a blanket ban on all collision reporting I suppose....
Not sure what asteroids and dinosaurs have to do with this.....
Nigel shares a lot of DNA with dinosaurs?
Now now...
All three words could describe the same event, but only if it was, in fact, accidental.
If I get so frustrated with your inability to understant this that I wait outside your house until you come out, and run you over with my car, I will crash into you. You and my car will have had a collision. In no sense, however, has an "accident" occurred. Note: I don't ever get that frustrated.
The most egregious example I remember was an article a few years back where a driver reached out the window of a van, grabbed hold of a female cyclist, held onto her as the van accelerated, then released her, crashing her into a parked car. The next sentence in the article started with "after the accident..."
Look at when the drunk driver went off the road and killed and injured several off duty Police on a bike ride. That was also reported as an accident which I think we all commented on at the time.
The word accident is used to describe an incident that no one wanted to happen.
Clearly the cyclist did not want it to happen.
The driver did not want it to happen, it's very inconvenient and costly, but using the word accident is the first step in removing his responsibility.
Excellent guidelines, all we need now is for the gutter press to follow them. From the language I used, you might be able to detect my scepticism that they will.
As someone sitting in hospital after a collision on Friday I know how even my own description of events need care. These guidelines are helpful, let's hope they are.noticed and used....or like the highway code, lauded but ignored.
Good luck with your recovery Global, and I hope you are getting out of hospital soon.
There is a reason why road traffic police do not use the A word. For them it is a collision, crash or incident.
cheers ktache, back home last night after 4 days. could have been at lot worse when having a collision at 23mph...i was lucky aka my bike handling experience meant i took a glancing blow instead of a head on collision into the side of the car. In either case the driver pulled out of the side road without due care an attention to me and my bike arriving along the main carriageway. a few weeks of recovery ahead
Regarding point number three, totally agree with this. When headlines say 'vehicle involved in collision' you'd think the driver was just along for the ride.
Also too many journalists focus on the make and model of car, as if that matters. It was the driver making the decisions, not the vehicle. Until self-driving vehicles become a familiar sight, that is, then headline writers will have good reason to say 'car hits cyclist'.
I'm living in hope that when the day comes that self-driving cars are legal on UK roads then we will gradually get to the point where the roads actually become safer for all of us. I would like to think that once the car is making all the decisions, then the headline 'car hits cyclist' will not be needed again. Perhaps I am being a little naive...
I think normally the Police give details like make and model as they want to hear from people who might have seen bad behaviour from said car just prior to the incident or jog the memory of other potential witnesses.
Every time I see this headline, I just assumed that the collision involved KITT and David Hassellhoff