MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
From the front page:
Good idea, but I can't see the tabloids following any of it as they thrive on controversy and 'scum bag cyclist delays important car driver on way to work by being run over whilst not paying road tax' appeals much more to their demographic.
It all sounds reasonable, but 'hit by driver' can also mean getting punched after a road rage incident. The central feature of the story is a large chunk of metal colliding with something more squishy.
It all sounds reasonable, but ‘hit by driver’ can also mean getting punched after a road rage incident.
You mean 'selfish cyclist hurts driver's hand by putting face in front of fist whilst not paying road tax'.
I was thinking along those lines @martinhutch. Replacing "car" with "driver" loses information - was it a van, car or bus? I think this is a bit more than pedantry, and possibly taking the need for brevity a bit too far.
Personally I dont think it makes any difference to my perception of a report either way. But I am open to being persuaded that it does for some people, though it would be nice to see the evidence for it.
Ironically, sloppy language of the type the guidelines seek to address is evident in the RCRG website. Just to say "produced in collaboration with" sidelines the issue of agency - who was involved in the collision, who actually produced (in the sense of had final editorial control of) the guidelines. It is clear that actually the guidelines are produced by the Active Travel Academy in collaboration with loads of other people.
Similarly the guidelines website is coy about who is behind it. No legal person responsible for the site is listed under "Contact". You need to do a Google search (or have read the STW article) to know that the Active Travel Academy (which is mentioned) is part of the University of Westminster, or to click on the little bird, which takes you to the twitter feed which is clearly associated with the University and gives the name of the Director. Surely if you want something to be taken seriously you need to be more up-front about who you are and your credentials for being taken seriously?
It all sounds reasonable, but ‘hit by driver’ can also mean getting punched after a road rage incident. The central feature of the story is a large chunk of metal colliding with something more squishy.
Yeah, some of their examples don't sound right - 'A driver hit a woman who was crossing the road' sounds like someone got out of their car and punched someone. Perhaps that's an example of my own subconscious bias from having read these stories over the years. I'd have thought calling someone a 'car driver' (rather than just 'driver') emphasises the fact that the car was involved.
Whatever, I certainly support the idea behind these proposals.
Did I miss the bit about how they are going to enforce this or is it just another pointless exercise?
It's guidelines, there's no real method for enforcing them. They have the right intention but will most likely make sod-all difference.
Did I miss the bit about how they are going to enforce this or is it just another pointless exercise?
Erm, neither.
Most media have been using "collision" rather than "accident" for years now, but it's still useful to remind editors why - along with the other ideas here.
It all sounds reasonable, but ‘hit by driver’ can also mean getting punched after a road rage incident.
This is a valid point, but I think readers will get used to the change and editors can just say "attacked" or "punched" by driver if it's actually fisticuffs.
I think we should perhaps also try to move from using 'cyclist' to 'person riding a bicycle' when reporting collisions etc, as the term 'cyclist' whilst accurate and correct, brings with it a level of dehumanisation, which isn't helpful in reminding readers that the squishy thing that got squished was supposed to be making the kids tea tonight.
Hmmm. If we are talking about misleading headlines..
To me 'Guidelines being issued' implies an authoratitive body issuing advice to entities it has a form of control over. Whereas this seems to be a campaigning group pushing an agenda.
As a matter of fact I do think there is an inherent bias in reporting, but these 'guidelines' really aren't going to change anything.
I think we should perhaps also try to move from using ‘cyclist’ to ‘person riding a bicycle’
I quite like that idea for a different reason, say cyclist and Joe Public thinks lycra and serious cyclist, more often or not the cyclist in the collision is in reality just a person a bike which can be quite different from a regular cyclist. To class someone who cycles regularly, obeys the rules and does bother to have a road worthy and legal bike, as some oik wheelieing down the pavement sans helmet seems a tad unfair.
I think we should perhaps also try to move from using ‘cyclist’ to ‘person riding a bicycle’ when reporting collisions etc, as the term ‘cyclist’ whilst accurate and correct, brings with it a level of dehumanisation
I'd probably agree with this, though I'd accept mixing both terms of reference in one article - which is handy from the writer's POV anyway.
these ‘guidelines’ really aren’t going to change anything.
As quite an experienced former news reporter & editor, I'd predict that this could have a bit of an effect. People are commenting above "tabloids will just carry on hating cyclists", but the big majority of journalists don't work for the tabloids and do actually care about getting things right.
I can't see that this really addresses the problems we see as "people on bikes".
First example: Two people have been injured after a collion/crash whatever.. if that's all that is known it shouldn't be reported until more facts have been established. It's hardly ever a pedestrian "in a collision" and far more often a pedestrian has been run over.
2nd last one... "A driver hit a female pedestrian who was crossing the road WITH HIS CAR."
Still, it's some progress I suppose.
People are commenting above “tabloids will just carry on hating cyclists”, but the big majority of journalists don’t work for the tabloids and do actually care about getting things right.
Except that I don't see how this is anything but a self appointed group attempting to push its views. I appreciate what they are trying to do, but reading their website there just seems to be a lot of PR fluff. Who asked them to carry out this work & why should anybody take notice of it? They say they have 'consulted', but what form did this consultation really take? I don't get any sense that this gives the guidelines any meaningful sense of authority or credibility. The STW massive could produce guidelines, but who is goimg to pay attention to them?
2nd last one… “A driver hit a female pedestrian who was crossing the road WITH HIS CAR.”
He was crossing the road with his car?
but the big majority of journalists don’t work for the tabloids and do actually care about getting things right.
However, the few working for the Mail / Sun / Express have millions of readers so have far more influence than the rest of them put together.
The guidelines aren't great, are they? The third example specifically refers to a BMW/BMW driver, but none of the others reference a specific car make. Thus continuing the portrayal of BMW drivers as selfish, thoughtless, inconsiderate drivers...
So in its own examples of not perpetuating stereotypes, it perpetuates a stereotype.
However, the few working for the Mail / Sun / Express have millions of readers so have far more influence than the rest of them put together.
Got any figures for that?
Thus continuing the portrayal of BMW drivers as selfish, thoughtless, inconsiderate drivers…
I agree, very outdated. But I think most people realise that arsehole BMW drivers moved on to Audis for a bit before getting Range Rovers.
keithb
Full Member
The guidelines aren’t great, are they? The third example specifically refers to a BMW/BMW driver, but none of the others reference a specific car make
Audis are quite righty mentioned as well 😉
I’d predict that this could have a bit of an effect.
It would barely register in most of the local newsrooms I've worked in. They will always go for Horror Smash over Traffic Collision. I suppose you might get a bit more lawyerly language further down the piece, but I can't see all that many of them going to the effort to squeeze those into headlines or copy.
Obviously, subs might have become more sensitive souls over the past couple of decades...
A driver hit a female pedestrian who was crossing the road WITH HIS CAR.
She shouldn't have tried to run off with his car, should she? Had it coming. 🙂
I suppose 'A driver collided with a pedestrian' is better for sense, just about, but the need to shoehorn 'with his car' everywhere would get old pretty quickly.
As for 'person on bicycle' because 'cyclist' is dehumanising, obviously the same applies to all these drivers. So a 'person driving a car collided with a person on a bicycle'.
Did he pick up his car and swimg it, baseball bat style, at the lady crossing the road?
Potato potato tjey both end up the same
However, the few working for the Mail / Sun / Express have millions of readers so have far more influence than the rest of them put together.
Got any figures for that?
Do you really need some to understand the point they were trying to make?
I think this story sums up why language is important and needs to be better.
It sounds more like a storyboard for the next cars movie...
http://e.cornwalllive.com/interface/external_view_email.php?RC~49osTd8OI/Q=
And anyway, Daily Mail sells approximately a million per day. Sun approximately the same. Express, thankfully is less at just over 300,000 per day.
Here's a table of regional print daily and weekly circulations.