[ad_1]
As any dedicated reader of the live blog will know, language matters.
Believe me, I’ve scrolled through enough of our readers’ comments to know that you’ll pick up on any mistake, major or minor (I won’t mention my excellent colleague Dan’s “segway” mishap a few weeks back… sorry, Dan).
But one area where the importance of language can never be underestimated concerns the reporting of road traffic collisions.
Last year, a new set of guidelines for reporting RTCs, co-ordinated by journalist and road.cc contributor Laura Laker working alongside the Active Travel Academy at the University of Westminster, were launched to ensure that the press can play a role in making the streets safer for everyone including vulnerable road users.
The Road Collision Reporting Guidelines encourage the media, among other things, to avoid using the word “accident” before the full facts of the case are known – “crash” or “collision” not carrying the same association with chance – and to acknowledge the role of motorists, eradicating headlines such as “car crashes into tree”.
> “Language matters” – Road collision reporting guidelines launched
Unfortunately, the guidelines seem to have been lost in the post on the way to Brighton and Hove News.
On Friday evening, the local news site reported that “a cyclist was seriously injured in after [sic] an accident with a van outside a primary school this afternoon”.
UPDATE: A cyclist was seriously injured in after an accident with a van outside a primary school this afternoonhttps://t.co/pD6M3dUylj
— Brighton & Hove News (@bhcitynews) June 10, 2022
That tweet – which seemed to be an attempt to tick off the entirety of the ‘no’ column in the RTC guidelines – somehow managed to make it through the weekend unscathed.
Yesterday, however, a number of cyclists began to question the potentially misleading headline, which appeared to insinuate that the cyclist accidentally, out of nothing, collided with a stationary – or autonomous – van…
Sorry to hear this. Thanks for report. The word “accident” seems to ascribe unavoidable status to a crash/collision and needs replacing. We also need to avoid autonomous van syndrome (until there are such things!) There’s a driver there somewhere.
Elm Grove is traffic dominated.— Becky Reynolds (@Bexonabike) June 13, 2022
You have no idea if the driver was on drugs, unlicensed, speeding. Let the police do their job. Don’t declare these collisions “accidents” while the investigation is ongoing.
— R C D Mitchum (@PaulCra33107260) June 13, 2022
Reading the article it sounds like the cyclist rode into a stationary van? Was there not a driver involved? Did the van move all by itself? For consistency you should probably maintain the mystery that after a bike and van collided a person was injured and a van driver??
— Michael Smith (@Smithmichaelw) June 14, 2022
Collision, by using the word “accident” you are absolving whoever is responsible for blame.
This is covered by guidelines, I expected better from a professional.
So disappointing.
— Richard Cooley🚴🇮🇪🇬🇧🇫🇷🇪🇺😷 (@crackling_rose) June 14, 2022
Language matters. You report “accident” it legitimises and normalises reckless and dangerous driving. 5 people per day die on our roads because road crime is accepted as an accident. Block me if you like. Then I’ll know you’ve read this content.
— Emilysgonebiking (@EmilySimcock) June 13, 2022
Maybe make a stand against road violence and use local reporting to call for safer streets. Rather than suggesting in the headline that a cyclist just crashed into a driverless van.
— Esther Miller (@EstherOnwheels) June 13, 2022
> Petition to amend road traffic legislation to refer to ‘collisions’ and not ‘accidents’
In a since-deleted tweet, Brighton and Hove News’ editor, Jo Wadsworth, responded to a rather polite query about language by condemning cyclists who she said criticise the reporting of local news outlets “every time we post a story, even if we use your approved language”, and that her site will not adhere to the Road Collision Reporting Guidelines.
Since it’s been deleted, for posterity & context.. pic.twitter.com/8acofZPNuf
— Safe Roads, No Cars. (@saferoadsnocars) June 14, 2022
Wadsworth, it seems, then changed her Twitter bio to read “RTA language policing = instant ban”, before going on a blocking rampage, which one user who had criticised the report described as a “badge of honour”:
and so would accident be. Don’t language police me please
— Jo Wadsworth (@BrightonNewsJo) June 10, 2022
I am not interested in having this tedious debate any more. Carry on = instant block
— Jo Wadsworth (@BrightonNewsJo) June 10, 2022
Very happy to block you too Chris, if the snark continues
— Jo Wadsworth (@BrightonNewsJo) June 13, 2022
Badge of honour… pic.twitter.com/yJ6WshI4tM
— Mounsey. (@rosemeyer1939) June 13, 2022
People ask a journalist to use the right words, she blocks them:https://t.co/7gv3Y6xQRw
— R C D Mitchum (@PaulCra33107260) June 13, 2022
@BrightonNewsJo would you like to block me too as I’m about to ask that you stop claiming inanimate objects are the cause of incidents such as these. https://t.co/YrxfGCOY6I
— Dawn Rahman (@velopostgrad) June 13, 2022
Though tbh your response made me think. Would you block @AndyCoxDCS Detective Chief Superintendent, Head of crime and intelligence in Lincolnshire, if he said the same thing to you? https://t.co/u5AcnnohGa
— Abigail Dombey (@AbigailDombey) June 13, 2022
Lol blocked straight away – incredible
— Charlotte Baker (@charlie_baker23) June 13, 2022
We have contacted Jo Wadsworth about her views on the Road Collision Reporting Guidelines and why she decided to implement such a heavy-handed response to critics on Twitter, and will of course keep you up to speed with any developments, accidental or otherwise…
[ad_2]
Source link
