Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

National Highways to stop calling collisions 'accidents', as campaigners welcome "significant step" in recognising crashes are "not random events, but preventable incidents caused by human actions"

"For far too long, the term 'accident' has masked accountability and allowed society to dismiss the daily tragedy of road deaths and serious injuries as inevitable"...

National Highways has said it will stop describing collisions as 'accidents', the move welcomed by road safety organisations and campaigners who have made the case for a more accurate description of the preventable nature of road collisions.

The government-owned company responsible for operating, maintaining and improving motorways and major A-roads in England took the decision following campaigning and a consultation, long-time road.cc contributor Laura Laker today reporting the news in Fleet News having previously been part of the co-ordination of the Road Collision Reporting Guidelines, launched in 2021, to encourage the UK media to similarly avoid using the word 'accident' to describe collisions and to acknowledge the role of humans in reporting, rather than writing headlines such as "car crashes into tree".

National Highways has today confirmed it will phase out use of the word 'accident' from communications, although it is accepted this may take time to update signage to reflect the changes out on the road network.

"We are committed to changing our terminology in line with the government, policy and road safety and transport organisations — while also taking in road users views and prioritising safety," a spokesperson from the organisation told Laker.

"We will continue to explore the most cost-effective options for changing this language on our electronic roadside signs, which we hope to do once all regions use the same national system for setting signs and signals.

"We are already changing the language we use in all the documentation and literature produced across our company, while also encouraging our supply chain and other partners to align with us."

RoadPeace, the national charity for road crash victims, welcomed the news, CEO Kate Davidson calling it a "significant step forward in recognising that road crashes are not random events, but preventable incidents caused by human actions".

"For far too long, the term 'accident' has masked accountability and allowed society to dismiss the daily tragedy of road deaths and serious injuries as inevitable. Changing this language is essential in shifting attitudes and ensuring that we, as a society, take road danger seriously. We look forward to seeing this change reflected across all platforms, from publications to digital signage, as National Highways continues this important work."

James Hassall of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety added: "We are slowly moving away from using the term 'accident' to describe anything from a vehicle stopping on a road to a serious collision where people have been killed.

"It's important we get the language right and this filters though from the signs on our roads, to the police reports and then how the incident is reported by the press."

AA President Edmund King has also previously commented: "Most crashes are not 'accidents' but are avoidable, normally by drivers and other road users paying more attention. Describing every crash as an 'accident' in effect makes excuses for serious incidents."

In 2021, guidelines for reporting road traffic collisions, aimed at the UK media, were officially launched. The full guidelines can be found here, and below is a summary of the 10 key points:

1. At all times be accurate, say what you know and, importantly, what you don't know.
2. Avoid use of the word 'accident' until the facts of a collision are known.
3. If you're talking about a driver, say a driver, not their vehicle.
4. Consider the impact on friends and relatives of publishing collision details.
5. Treat publication of photos with caution, including user generated footage or imagery.
6. 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.
7. Journalists should consider whether language used negatively generalises a person or their behaviour as part of a 'group'.
8. Coverage of perceived risks on the roads should be based in fact and in context.
9. Avoid portraying law-breaking or Highway Code contravention as acceptable, or perpetrators as victims.
10. Road safety professionals can help provide context, expertise, and advice on broader issues around road safety.

However, a glance at media reporting of such incidents will quickly show that use of Reporting Guideline-friendly language has not been adopted universally, the BBC notably saying they "are guidelines, not rules" and often continuing to refer to road traffic collisions as an "accident".

In 2022, Radio 4 listener Toby Edwards complained to the BBC after an 11am news bulletin announced that "figures show that 39 people died after road accidents involving the police between 2021 and 2022".

Edwards asked the BBC's Complaints Team if the broadcaster was "sure that all of these collisions were indeed accidents", or whether "the term 'accident' was used mistakenly instead of saying 'crashes' or 'collisions'?"

In reply to the letter, the BBC's Complaints Team said:

 We note your concerns about our use of the world 'accident' in the news report. We were referencing data released by the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IPOC) that said: '39 people died after road incidents involving the police between 2021 and 2022'.

We've discussed your concerns with senior staff in BBC News and, although we take your point that 'collision' may have been a preferable word, our job is to write radio scripts that are relatable and understandable, and we try to use language that ordinary people use, not the language contained in reports and documents.

Traffic 'accident' is common parlance and we don't feel here its use materially altered the accuracy of the story. The Road Collision Reporting Guidelines are guidelines, not rules.

 As recently as September the BBC was faced with more criticism on the subject of appropriate language.

The BBC apologised for its use of the word 'accident' in a headline and story concerning the deaths of US ice hockey star Johnny Gaudreau and his brother Matthew, killed while cycling by a suspected drink driver who allegedly told police at the scene that he had consumed "five to six beers" before the fatal crash.

BBC describes crash as accident in original headline on Johnny Gadreau fatal collision with drink driver (alem Country Police,Columbus Blue Jackets)

Responding to a complaint from a reader, who described the vocabulary used in the article as "biased and incorrect", the broadcaster said that it was "sorry if you did not appreciate how we chose to cover this issue initially", noting that the headline had since been changed to clarify that the Gaudreau brothers had been killed in a "bike and car crash", while removing all references to an 'accident'.

Dan is the road.cc news editor and has spent the past four years writing stories and features, as well as (hopefully) keeping you entertained on the live blog. Having previously written about nearly every other sport under the sun for the Express, and the weird and wonderful world of non-league football for the Non-League Paper, Dan joined road.cc in 2020. Come the weekend you'll find him labouring up a hill, probably with a mouth full of jelly babies, or making a bonk-induced trip to a south of England petrol station... in search of more jelly babies.

Add new comment

7 comments

Avatar
mikewood | 28 sec ago
0 likes

Think we may need a new word/acronymn. How about

Entirely

Predictable

Outcome

Following

Utterly

Crap

Driving

EPOFUCD?

Avatar
cmedred | 1 hour ago
1 like

So what? Here in the U.S. "accident" was largely replaced by "collision'' years ago, but law enforcement, prosecutors and the media go on treating collisions just like accidents with the drivers of deadly vehicles almost never identified (unless they happen to be drugged/drunk) and pretty much any and all forms of bad driving, including running down and killing people in bike lanes, dismissed because the "driver stayed at the scene and cooperated with police."

https://sf.streetsblog.org/2021/09/27/update-no-charges-against-distract...

If there was a wannabe serial killer out there looking to get away with murdering someone in every one of the 50 U.S. states, a motor vehicle would be the ideal way to do it. Just keep moving from state to state, changing your MV and name with every move and staying at the scene of each "collision" and cooperating with police.

The investigations of the deaths of vulnerable road users are so universally shoddy that no one would ever put the pieces together. 

Avatar
mitsky | 3 hours ago
1 like

I look forward to the day that BBC's Tom Edwards and their Facebook admins admit they were wrong and apologise for blocking me for pointing out their use of incorrect language.
At no point was I abusive/trolling.

Avatar
JLasTSR | 4 hours ago
1 like

Are they not following everybody else by moving away from saying accident.

Should they be following? Shouldn't they be setting the example?

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to JLasTSR | 4 hours ago
2 likes

JLasTSR wrote:

Are they not following everybody else by moving away from saying accident. Should they be following? Shouldn't they be setting the example?

Indeed - it's strange that they've chosen to keep on using the loaded word when I would guess that their interests align with reducing RTCs. Better late than never, I guess.

Avatar
Cugel replied to JLasTSR | 3 hours ago
0 likes

There's a lot of euphemistic speech and writing practiced in our times, to hide us from various grizzly realities. "Passed away" for died; "accident" for killed or maimed (oneself or others) through carelessness or aggression. That hoary old example, "terminated with extreme prejudice" for killed viciously by a maddened soldier.

Personally I'd rather see plain speech describing the essentials of an event (such as "a named-driver killed a named cyclist by hitting them with a car/van/lorry" rather than "there was a fatal road accident") even if the core statement is also eventually qualified by something like, " ..... as a result of inept/aggresive driving" or "accidently because of unavoidable circumstances".

Such plain terminology doesn't hide the awfulness of a terrible truth; and doesn't trivialise the damage done.

But we moderns prefer to cover up unpalatable facts with sugary prose, especially sugary prose that absolves us of fault or responsibility.

Avatar
JLasTSR replied to Cugel | 3 hours ago
0 likes

I think we have done it for years enjoyed a cow sandwich recently?

Latest Comments