Every 20 minutes someone is killed or seriously injured on British roads. Much of the reporting around these incidents portrays collisions as unavoidable, obscures the presence of certain actors or omits crucial context as to why crashes happen and what we can do to prevent them.
A new set of guidelines have been produced in consultation with road safety, legal, media and policing organisations and individuals, to supplement professional codes of conduct and support the highest standards of reporting in broadcast, print and online.
Why does it matter?
If you accidentally spill coffee on your trousers, that’s one thing, but if a driver’s speeding car slams into a bus stop, killing a child in the process, it’s clearly different…so why does the language we use rarely distinguish between the two? While one can be dismissed as an accident, the other deserves to be described more carefully – nothing less than collision or crash will do.
After all, words are powerful. It’s the reason we avoid the term ‘road safety’, preferring instead ‘road danger reduction’, which far more accurately defines the challenge at hand.
When collisions occur on the railways, at sea or in the air, there are enquiries to determine their causes. Those responsible for piloting the planes, driving the trains or skippering the ships are suspended from duty pending the outcome and appropriate changes to systems, regulation or the law are implemented swiftly.
It’s not altogether clear why the same thing doesn’t happen following every road fatality in Britain, but until it does, let’s at least be mindful of the way we describe road danger.
When the media use the term ‘accident’, it implies the collision wasn’t preventable. The term ‘crash’ does not imply the driver is always to blame, it simply acknowledges that the matter deserves serious investigation and remedial measures to try and prevent it happening again. It’s an approach that has allowed other European countries to introduce a Vision Zero – a serious attempt to prevent all deaths on the road.
According to the new guidelines, journalists should also ascribe agency in their reporting by being clear it’s motorists doing any killing, not their motor vehicles.
Britain is a long way off implementing its own meaningful Vision Zero strategy, but choosing our words carefully when we describe road danger will be a meaningful first step.
An ethical company like no other
Not only are we ethical, we campaign for sustainable transport. Sometimes that means protesting until a school gets the zebra crossing they’ve been refused, or running 60 roadshows to encourage people out of their cars, or fixing bicycles for free. We’ve been campaigning for sustainable transport for over 30 years. We launched Green Transport Week and helped establish Car Free Day and Twenty’s Plenty to name just a few. Supporting this work is easy – you simply have to take out insurance with us. We provide home insurance, cycle insurance, and breakdown cover – all while putting concern for the environment at the heart of all we do.
Peter Barrett
As an older, experienced road user holding RoSPA Gold qualification and also as an ex DoT Driving Examiner, this is a point I’ve often considered needing to change. Language is important and the popular Press still needs to heed this. Road accidents are very rare, crashes unfortunately are not and the continuing use of the term ‘accident’ I believe, stems from a common culture in which people tend to seek to blame something or someone else. If you are involved in an incident, probably the best thing you can do is ask yourself… what could I have done to improve that situation ? Like many, I have seen hundreds of situations where simply more attentive driving / riding would have minimised a crash, or completely prevented it.
While I’m here, a thought which I have long considered perfectly valid. Any road user convicted of causing death by dangerous driving should have their driving licence revoked for life automatically. Minimum jail term 10 years, increased in line with the circumstances of the event as necessary by the presiding Judge. Over to you…
Frank
Mr. Barrett I think you should be the Minister for Road Safety!