Reporting guidelines for road traffic collisions

[Mike Sales]

Guidelines for reporting RTCs have been published.

The Road Collision Reporting Guidelines were co-ordinated by journalist and road.cc contributor Laura Laker working alongside the Active Travel Academy at the University of Westminster, with their launch coming during UN Global Road Safety Week 2021.

They encourage media, among other things, to avoid using the word “accident” – “crash” or “collision” not carrying the same association with chance – and to acknowledge the role of motorists, with many outlets for instance continuing to carry headlines such as “car crashes into tree.”

Ten key points.

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

https://231ea4fd-cd4f-476d-b67e-838d6b3 ... e84fd3.pdf

[thirdcrank]

Is this recognised by IPSO or even IMPRESS?

[Jdsk]

Very interesting. Thanks for posting.

And connects to a recent discussion.

Jonathan

PS: How would they stand up as a code of conduct for this forum?

[Mike Sales]

And connects to a recent discussion.

Jonathan

I had that in mind when I posted.
A phrase I find particularly annoying is "the car went out of control." or "the driver lost control."
It seems to me to be an attempt to remove all of the driver's agency.
A car is not an autonomous item which needs restraining by the driver; it is entirely controlled by the pedals and steering wheel.

[fastpedaller]

That's interesting - thanks for posting. Is it ok to copy to journalists if one considers their reporting is poor?
FP

[Mike Sales]

That's interesting - thanks for posting. Is it ok to copy to journalists if one considers their reporting is poor?
FP

I wouldn't know, but if it is not I cannot see the point in it. You could try asking Laura Laker.

[Jdsk]

I've written about them to the Readers' Editor at the Guardian.

Jonathan

[thirdcrank]

.... and to acknowledge the role of motorists ...

Perhaps that should refer to the role of drivers.

[thirdcrank]

Avoid use of the word ‘accident’ until the facts of a collision are known. Most collisions are predictable and before an enquiry or court case the full facts are unlikely to be known. It is particularly important to avoid the word when someone has been charged with driving offences. Using ‘crash’ or ‘collision’ instead leaves the question of who or what is to blame open, pending further details.

There are already some people who believe that the word "accident" is completely taboo. The reality is that the word is used quite widely in the law. eg The occurrence of an "accident" is one of the conditions empowering the police to breathalyse a driver; ditto, the duty to stop, give details and report to the police; ditto the police power to examine vehicles; ditto dispenses with the requirement for a notice of intended prosecution. And that just off the top of my head.

[Jdsk]

Avoid use of the word ‘accident’ until the facts of a collision are known. Most collisions are predictable and before an enquiry or court case the full facts are unlikely to be known. It is particularly important to avoid the word when someone has been charged with driving offences. Using ‘crash’ or ‘collision’ instead leaves the question of who or what is to blame open, pending further details.

There are already some people who believe that the word "accident" is completely taboo. The reality is that the word is used quite widely in the law. eg The occurrence of an "accident" is one of the conditions empowering the police to breathalyse a driver; ditto, the duty to stop, give details and report to the police; ditto the police power to examine vehicles; ditto dispenses with the requirement for a notice of intended prosecution. And that just off the top of my head.

There's a reasonably strong movement not to use it for the department at the front of the hospital. "Emergency Department" and "ED" work fine. And many EDs participate in accident prevention programmes because many "accidents" are preventable.

Jonathan

[Jdsk]

Reply from the Guardian:

... thank you for sending us the suggested road collision reporting guidelines.

The Guardian does already have some house guidance in this area – though nothing as extensive or as specific as this – as well as some more general editorial practices.

I have passed the document on to some key editorial staff, as well as the committee members who create and maintain the Guardian's style guide.

I will let you know if I receive any specific feedback or queries, but be assured that the document will at least be read and digested.

Jonathan

[thirdcrank]

Road safety professionals can help provide context, expertise, and advice on broader issues around road safety. Journalists aren’t expected to be experts in all fields, and it is good practice if reporting on road collisions to maintain regular contact with those experts, who can provide context or viewpoints emergency services may not mention. See our list of journalist resources and contacts on page nine.

Spare us from road safety professionals. (I have seen the list of journalist resources but I don't think it claims to be an exhaustive list.)

=================================================================================
Not road traffic but I've just seen this:

Andrew Moll, the MAIB's chief inspector of marine accidents, said: "These rides can provide excitement, entertainment and fun, and for this reason they are popular.

"However, this dreadful accident saw nine people sustain very serious injuries and tragically cost the life of a young person. (My emphasis.)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-h ... e-57185836

[DaveReading]

Not road traffic but I've just seen this:

Andrew Moll, the MAIB's chief inspector of marine accidents, said: "These rides can provide excitement, entertainment and fun, and for this reason they are popular.

"However, this dreadful accident saw nine people sustain very serious injuries and tragically cost the life of a young person. (My emphasis.)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-h ... e-57185836

I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for the MAIB, or its aviation equivalent the AAIB, to stop using the word "accident".

[thirdcrank]

Reference to road safety professionals reminds me that these guidelines seem to avoid completely the elephant in the reporting collisions room. Clue: Something beginning with "H".

[Jdsk]

8. Coverage of perceived risks on the roads should be based in fact and in context. Larger, faster vehicles have a greater potential to cause injury and death, while those on horseback, on foot and cycles are more likely to be seriously injured in a collision - figures that are reflected in road casualty figures. Providing context, such as local or national collision trends is particularly powerful in helping readers understand the scale of a problem, and avoids portraying incidents as isolated, when this is often not the case. High visibility clothing and helmets don’t guarantee users safety, and mention of these elements has a powerful impact on readers, encouraging them to apportion blame before the full facts are known.