Bad reporting of 'accident' yet again!

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
Psamathe
Posts: 17616
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: Bad reporting of 'accident' yet again!

Post by Psamathe »

Which reminds me of the French rule where any accident on public roads and the driver(s) must be breathalysed (but I don't know the definition as to an "accident" for the rule).

Le Mans 24 hr race 1999 and
PeterDumbreckTakesOff.gif
PeterDumbreckTakesOff.gif (35.39 KiB) Viewed 1109 times
and according to legend 1st person on the scene was a gendarme who was determined to try and breathalise the driver as the accident happened on the Mulsane Straight which is a public road and accident=breathalyse driver.

Fortunately the driver (Peter Dumbreck) escaped uninjured and the "fault" was an aerodynamic design flaw.

I was not there so maybe the story is urban myth?

Ian
Edit: Added the image after posting to wrong thread, cut and paste which didn't take the image ... Ooooops.
Last edited by Psamathe on 14 May 2021, 12:36pm, edited 2 times in total.
Jdsk
Posts: 24478
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Bad reporting of 'accident' yet again!

Post by Jdsk »

xerxes
Posts: 142
Joined: 10 May 2013, 7:22pm

Re: Bad reporting of 'accident' yet again!

Post by xerxes »

fastpedaller wrote: 13 May 2021, 6:57pm
I was outraged last week when they reported 'Cyclist riding a triathlon time trial bike collides with car' which started a lot of victim blaming talk on disqus.
Perhaps a fairer description would be "Cyclist riding a triathlon time trial bike collides with car designed for travelling at 100+mph on German autobahns".
fastpedaller
Posts: 3433
Joined: 10 Jul 2014, 1:12pm
Location: Norfolk

Re: Bad reporting of 'accident' yet again!

Post by fastpedaller »

xerxes wrote: 15 May 2021, 4:11pm
fastpedaller wrote: 13 May 2021, 6:57pm
I was outraged last week when they reported 'Cyclist riding a triathlon time trial bike collides with car' which started a lot of victim blaming talk on disqus.
Perhaps a fairer description would be "Cyclist riding a triathlon time trial bike collides with car designed for travelling at 100+mph on German autobahns".
"In a collision with" would be impartial.
One person on Disqus was adamant the victim was at fault 'because he was racing'. I made the point that he wasn't racing (it is not a time trial or other racing course, and the EDP forgot to mention the car was capable of 110MPH. He thought that mentioning the car's potential speed wouldn't have been appropriate :roll:
Tragic. both the outcome, and the victim-blaming, in part prompted by the so-called Newspaper.
thirdcrank
Posts: 36764
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Bad reporting of 'accident' yet again!

Post by thirdcrank »

I think if you check back, there have been objections to "in collision with."
Jdsk
Posts: 24478
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Bad reporting of 'accident' yet again!

Post by Jdsk »

thirdcrank wrote: 16 May 2021, 7:29am I think if you check back, there have been objections to "in collision with."
I didn't know that, but A in a collision with B is probably more likely to be interpreted as A having played a more active rôle in causation.

Jonathan
Jdsk
Posts: 24478
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Bad reporting of 'accident' yet again!

Post by Jdsk »

fastpedaller wrote: 13 May 2021, 6:57pmI was outraged last week when they reported 'Cyclist riding a triathlon time trial bike collides with car' which started a lot of victim blaming talk on disqus. Tragic, and the victim had subsequently died. Despite my complaints to EDP about their biased reporting, and their assurances that they will only report impartially, they continue to do it.
I can find two stories about that:

https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/traffic/po ... on-7945030

which has:

"The man's triathlon time trial cycle was heading toward North Walsham when it was involved in a collision with a black Ford Kuga at around 3pm."

I'm not comfortable with that... why is the type of bike relevant, and what image does it produce in the reader's mind?

And:

https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/safety-rev ... nt-7974870

"Mr Hornby, who was in his 50s, was heading towards North Walsham in a triathlon time trial cycle ride when a collision with a black Ford Kuga happened at around 3pm."

If it's true that's different.

Jonathan
Mike Sales
Posts: 7860
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: Bad reporting of 'accident' yet again!

Post by Mike Sales »

Jdsk wrote: 16 May 2021, 9:32am
thirdcrank wrote: 16 May 2021, 7:29am I think if you check back, there have been objections to "in collision with."
I didn't know that, but A in a collision with B is probably more likely to be interpreted as A having played a more active rôle in causation.

Jonathan
I like to check whether these statements imply a direction of causation by reversing them in this fashion.
Is ""the car collided with the wall " the same as "the wall collided with the car" ?
Is "the car was in collision with the wall" the same as "the wall was in collision with the car"?
It's the same the whole world over
It's the poor what gets the blame
It's the rich what gets the pleasure
Isn't it a blooming shame?
Jdsk
Posts: 24478
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Bad reporting of 'accident' yet again!

Post by Jdsk »

Exactly. It's very similar to the Orwell test.

Jonathan
thirdcrank
Posts: 36764
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Bad reporting of 'accident' yet again!

Post by thirdcrank »

I sometimes think the big issue on here is the type of vehicle involved.
fastpedaller
Posts: 3433
Joined: 10 Jul 2014, 1:12pm
Location: Norfolk

Re: Bad reporting of 'accident' yet again!

Post by fastpedaller »

Jdsk wrote: 16 May 2021, 9:32am
thirdcrank wrote: 16 May 2021, 7:29am I think if you check back, there have been objections to "in collision with."
I didn't know that, but A in a collision with B is probably more likely to be interpreted as A having played a more active rôle in causation.

Jonathan
I think that is true. Perhaps the "cycle and motorcar were involved in a collision" should be the 'standard format'?
Certainly in this tragic case, there was no need to mention the type of cycle involved, and was a focus of the victim-blaming comments which some individuals posted on Disqus
Jdsk
Posts: 24478
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Bad reporting of 'accident' yet again!

Post by Jdsk »

fastpedaller wrote: 16 May 2021, 12:42pmPerhaps the "cycle and motorcar were involved in a collision" should be the 'standard format'?
A and B then verb definitely feels better. There could still be some greater emphasis on A's action because it comes first.

And involved in a collision is different from collided... possibly less implication of causation?

Jonathan
Oldjohnw
Posts: 7764
Joined: 16 Oct 2018, 4:23am
Location: South Warwickshire

Re: Bad reporting of 'accident' yet again!

Post by Oldjohnw »

In Youth Offending Institutions dinner queues were often the location of fights. In the queue someone would accidentally knock someone. The recipient of the knock would claim “He deliberately bumped me” or even “...thumped me”. Rapid escalation took place.

Seems it is the same in the urban jungle..
John
thirdcrank
Posts: 36764
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Bad reporting of 'accident' yet again!

Post by thirdcrank »

As local media have fewer reporters, they depend more on social media.

When the police investigated more crashes they issued more press releases in the form of an appeal for witnesses. Around here and probably elsewhere, we had what used to be called the Press Office - which surely dates them and me - who dealt with the media between something like 0800 and 2200. Outside those hours it was the job of the duty officer at Farce Control - a role I had for several years long ago. One of the main requirements in an appeal for witnesses is that nothing should be included which might influence what a potential witness might say.

More recently, the police have also used social media, encouraged to do so by central government. I remember one news item - possibly posted on here - when a special had tweeted or twittered something that hit the national news IIRC.

Times change.
awavey
Posts: 297
Joined: 25 Jul 2016, 12:04am

Re: Bad reporting of 'accident' yet again!

Post by awavey »

Jdsk wrote: 16 May 2021, 9:37am
fastpedaller wrote: 13 May 2021, 6:57pmI was outraged last week when they reported 'Cyclist riding a triathlon time trial bike collides with car' which started a lot of victim blaming talk on disqus. Tragic, and the victim had subsequently died. Despite my complaints to EDP about their biased reporting, and their assurances that they will only report impartially, they continue to do it.
I can find two stories about that:

https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/traffic/po ... on-7945030

which has:

"The man's triathlon time trial cycle was heading toward North Walsham when it was involved in a collision with a black Ford Kuga at around 3pm."

I'm not comfortable with that... why is the type of bike relevant, and what image does it produce in the reader's mind?

And:

https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/safety-rev ... nt-7974870

"Mr Hornby, who was in his 50s, was heading towards North Walsham in a triathlon time trial cycle ride when a collision with a black Ford Kuga happened at around 3pm."

If it's true that's different.

Jonathan
theyve corrected it "A previous version of this story said Mr Hornby was riding in a triathlon time trial cycle ride. However, it should have said he was riding a triathlon time trial bicycle."
Post Reply