Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Media guidelines launched for reporting road collisions

Journalists urged to avoid word “accident” and use “crash” or “collision” instead, and acknowledge role of drivers

A set of guidelines on how media organisations should report on road traffic collisions is now open for consultation, including recommending that journalists avoid the word “accident” and use “crash” or “collision” instead, and acknowledge the role of drivers in such incidents.

The draft guidelines have been drawn up by the University of Westminster’s Active Travel Academy following input from representatives of national roads policing, legal, academic and media experts, the National Union of Journalists’ ethics council, RoadPeace and Cycling UK.

Supported by active travel and road safety organisations, the draft guidelines seek to establish a standard for broadcasters and publishers reporting on collisions.

All too often crashes are described as “accidents” involving “a car” rather than “a driver” and vulnerable road users sometimes portrayed as being somehow to blame, for instance when it is highlighted that a cyclist was not wearing a helmet.

Guidelines for the media already exist for reporting on issues such as suicide, refugees and children, but not for road traffic collisions despite 1,700 people being killed and thousands more sustaining life-changing injuries on Britain’s roads each year.

The misinterpretation or misrepresentation of such incidents in the press leads to confusion within public debate on the issue, with a knock-on effect on tackling road crime and improving road safety, says the Active Travel Academy.

“Research shows that how crashes are reported shapes how we think about and respond to them, sometimes in quite problematic ways,” explained Professor Rachel Aldred, director of the Active Travel Academy, “so it is crucial that journalists have guidance helping them with current best practice around road collision reporting, as exists for other issues such as suicide and domestic violence.”

The four main clauses of the guidelines are as follows:

1.1 Impartiality: Publishers must not use the term accident when describing road collisions – collision, or crash, are more accurate, especially when the facts of the incident are not known

1.2 Discrimination: publishers must avoid using negative generalisations of road users, and must not use dehumanising language or that which may incite violence or hatred against a road user in comment and news coverage

1.3 Accuracy: Coverage of perceived risks on the roads should be above all accurate, based in fact and context. Publishers should make mention of human actors in a collision, and avoid reference to personal protective equipment, such as hi-vis and helmets, except when demonstrably relevant

1.4 Reporting on crime: Publishers must avoid portraying dangerous or criminal behaviour on the roads, such as speeding, as acceptable, or those caught breaking the law as victims.

Chris Boardman, British Cycling policy advisor, commented: “Having worked for nearly two decades to get people riding bikes for health, leisure and utility journeys, I can say categorically, that reporting of cycling activity and particular incidents, has a huge influence on perception.

“For good or ill, words really do matter, they paint a picture and influence both how we feel about a topic and how seriously we take a crime.

“My British Cycling colleagues and I have been frustrated for years about how tragic occurrences are often painted as unavoidable accidents rather than the result of very avoidable criminal behaviour.

“So we very much welcome that this topic is at last being addressed and that guidelines are being crafted to ensure those who are truly responsible for road violence are the ones in the spotlight.”

The consultation, which can be found here, closes at midnight on Sunday 8 November. After responses have been assessed by a working group, the Road Collision Reporting Guidelines will be officially launched at the 2019 Active Travel Media Awards on 26 November 2020.

The barrister Martin Porter QC said: “Reporting Guidelines for journalism about road traffic crashes and criminal offences committed on our roads are long overdue and of vital importance. 

“Language matters. The language of journalists, with any accompanying prejudices and assumptions, are so easily imported into the attitudes of road users and into our criminal and civil justice systems.

He added: “It may seem harmless to speak of vehicles speeding, running lights or running people down, thereby implying no human responsibility, or of cyclists with broken arms and legs not wearing a helmet but the knock on effects contribute to increased danger on our roads and to failings throughout the justice system.

“Keeping these guidelines firmly in mind will be so valuable in raising the quality of journalism, debate and public attitudes when dealing with road danger and justice.”

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.

Add new comment

14 comments

Avatar
brooksby | 3 years ago
1 like

Another of those self-driving buses

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-54369013

Quote:

A bus has ploughed through a wall and crashed into a house in Leeds.

The single-decker hit the property on Smeaton Approach near Cross Gates at about 07:10 BST.

A resident of the house, who did not want to be named, said she was "woken up by a massive bang" as the bus hit.

The bus demolished the front wall of the property and badly damaged a garage but West Yorkshire Police said there were no injuries. It was later removed from the scene.

Avatar
wtjs replied to brooksby | 3 years ago
0 likes

Another of those self-driving buses

Well, the police should be able to absolve the bus driver from blame instantly, because no other road users were affected!

Avatar
Podc | 3 years ago
4 likes

Speaking to no one in particular... If you want to hold a cyclist responsible for a head injury after being involved in a collision whilst not wearing a helmet, then why not go the whole hog and just blame them for any injuries because they were riding a bike? After all if they had been driving a nice 'safe' car, or even better a lorry, then none of this would have happened.

Avatar
Titanus | 3 years ago
0 likes

Never really thought of things like this. To be honest I never really noticed such issues existed.

If I got this right then it's no longer acceptable to say "woman driver causes accident" and the correct terminology would be "female driver inolved in road traffic collison"?

Or if you want to be offensive you must say something like "another split-arse kisses asphalt". But I'm rambling off topic a bit. Truth be told I just take news articles as the sum of their individual words and don't jump to any political conclusion.

 

EDIT: Correct terminology had I spelled it all correctly. Which brings a question I asked before, why does my spellchecker not work on this site? It works on amazon reviews, emails and pornhub etc.

Avatar
Mungecrundle replied to Titanus | 3 years ago
4 likes

I think it is like a lot of everyday language use, you don't really notice or question until it is pointed out. Not to draw an equivalence, but consider how what was acceptable banter about women in the workplace has changed since the 1970s - see any sitcom of the time for references.

You probably won't need to look very far in your local press to find a story involving a car crash that would seem to have involved no human input. Cars are very rarely "driven into" things, they are nearly always written about as acting autonomously. They "leave the road", "collide with a tree" and when a cyclist or pedestrian is involved the wording is often along the lines of "pedestrian in collision with car" which sort of implies that the person is the active party doing something to the car.

The word "accident" should be reserved for pant wetting or tripping over the cat. Very few road traffic collisions do not involve driver fault at some level, whether that is to the point of criminality or not is another matter. However, describing a collision as an accident tends to reduce the idea of driver responsibility.

Avatar
Mungecrundle replied to Mungecrundle | 3 years ago
3 likes

Example from todays Cambridge News. Autonomous motorcycles are at it now.

At just after 4pm on Sunday, September 28, a red Yamaha motorcycle was travelling southbound on Clayhithe Road when it lost control and collided with a bronze Honda Civic and a green Volkswagen Polo on the opposite side of the road.

Avatar
Hirsute replied to Titanus | 3 years ago
0 likes

I think someone posted the source code for the site which switches off the spell checker, although you might get round it with a script blocker.

Avatar
eburtthebike | 3 years ago
2 likes

While this is an excellent idea, does anyone think that the rabidly anti-cyclist media will follow it?  They probably use the "don't" section as a guide when writing.

I wonder if the usual charity suspects e.g. Headway, will be included?  That's going to damage their utterly biased propaganda.

Avatar
Awavey | 3 years ago
4 likes

Other than on reporting cases that end up in court, my impression was most media reports on road collisions were simply copy & pasted direct from police press notices of these incidents,hence why they so often remove the driver as an active part of the report as the police wouldnt be able to state a driver had done anything,until their investigation had completed which would be after they first reported it.

So I'm not sure what the guidelines will fix as newspapers certainly arent going to spend any effort rewriting the police notices,that's how weve ended up here in the first place.

Avatar
kil0ran | 3 years ago
6 likes

Done.

I made a simple suggestion - all news stories regarding a road user fatality to be "Comments closed" or at the very least actively moderated. Should stop the inevitable victim-trolling.

I also specifically added that they should avoid reporting that a road is dangerous because that's simply impossible. It's the actions of the users that cause the danger, not the road itself.

Avatar
Titanus replied to kil0ran | 3 years ago
0 likes

kil0ran wrote:

Done.

I made a simple suggestion - all news stories regarding a road user fatality to be "Comments closed" or at the very least actively moderated. Should stop the inevitable victim-trolling.

I also specifically added that they should avoid reporting that a road is dangerous because that's simply impossible. It's the actions of the users that cause the danger, not the road itself.

Sink holes, pot holes? Roads themselves can be dangerous. A lot of things you think of as benign can be dangerous. Air for example, or eating certain fish or even your own bike......a pedal and MY BASTARD SHIN!

I can easily get around the "no comments" thing by creating a thread on the No Rules sub on reddit (or elsewhere with lax rules) and creating a link to the article. Then I could post practically anything short of pictures of corpses....probably even them too. Not something I will bother to try but the no comments thing isn't as effective a solution you imply.

Avatar
jollygoodvelo replied to kil0ran | 3 years ago
2 likes

kil0ran wrote:

I also specifically added that they should avoid reporting that a road is dangerous because that's simply impossible. It's the actions of the users that cause the danger, not the road itself.

Many years ago I had an interview for a job at my local council's 'Road Safety Partnership'. I remember one question was whether I thought a road could be inherently dangerous, to which I replied that it could if designed badly, e.g. poor sightlines, insufficient warning of hazards or conversely too much signage meaning drivers were looking at signs and not the road, but ultimately the responsibility for operating vehicles safely even on a 'dangerous' road remained with the driver.  Don't know what they were looking for but I didn't get the job  4

Avatar
peted76 | 3 years ago
12 likes

This seems like an immense step forward!!

If the guidelines are rewritten, we will be able to point out shoddy journalism based upon actual IRL journalistic guidelines! 

 

Avatar
EddyBerckx | 3 years ago
10 likes

Fingers crossed this gets some traction...can't help but think it'll be ignored for clickbait ££££

Latest Comments