Mistakes the media make when reporting crashes

[treadly&me]

Evan Manvel, executive director of the Bicycle Transportation Alliance, has published his top ten list of things the media get wrong when they report crashes involving cyclists and pedestrians. Here's a summary:

1. Failure to include speeds in the report.
2. Failure to mention distracted or sleepy driving.
3. Mentioning whether the cyclist was in a bike lane, when she/he has a right to not be in one.
4. Mentioning that the cyclist wasn't in a bike lane, when there was no bike lane on the road.
5. Noting that the pedestrian wasn't in a crosswalk, when she/he was in an unmarked crosswalk.
6. Noting the pedestrian was over the legal limit for alcohol use.
7. Calling crashes "accidents" instead of "crashes".
8. Repeating driver claims that the driver "didn't see the pedestrian/cyclist," or that the pedestrian/cyclist "darted" out.
9. Talking about people's choice of clothes.
10. Including information about helmet use unnecessarily.

Today's thought exercise: how does what gets included in, excluded from, and implied by a report influence the average reader's perception of events?

Further discussion around this topic can be found at:

• BikePortland with some excellent follow-up on relations with the media
• 'sconnyboy on calling a crash a crash, and a related op-ed at madison.com
• Wheels of Justice

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Fri, 22 Sep 2006 11:29:29 +1000
treadly&amp me <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> - Failure to include speeds in the report.

Which is probably not known for sure at the time the report is
written. If there's no camera involved then it's police having to
work it out from witnesses and skidmarks.

> - Failure to mention distracted or sleepy driving.

Which probably not known for sure at the time and is a matter for the
coroner some weeks later.

> - Mentioning whether the cyclist was in a bike lane, when she/he has
> a right to not be in one.

Well.. mentioning they weren't in the nearby lane I think is probably
wrong, yes.

> - Mentioning that the cyclist wasn't in a bike lane, when there was
> no bike lane on the road.

This only follows if they are in the habit of doing the previous one I
think.

> - Noting that the pedestrian wasn't in a crosswalk, when she/he was
> in an unmarked crosswalk.

No such thing really. A "crosswalk" is a marked item. else they are
crossing the road.

This is the same as a bike lane I suppose, in that whether it's saying
"get back in your box" or "both sides need to be careful in this
situation" depends a lot on whose ox is being gored.

> - Noting the pedestrian was over the legal limit for alcohol use.

Hmm.. why is this not germane?

> - Calling crashes "accidents" instead of "crashes".

Yeah, hate that!

> - Repeating driver claims that the driver "didn't see the
> pedestrian/cyclist," or that the pedestrian/cyclist "darted" out.

If the ped *does* say the driver wasn't taking notice, would that get
reported? And is the driver *always* in the wrong?

> - Talking about people's choice of clothes.

As in "wearing black"? gets into the personal responsibility area
doesn't it.

> - Including information about helmet use unnecessarily.

When is it necessary?

>
>
> Today's thought exercise: how does what gets included in, excluded
> from, and implied by a report influence the average reader's perception
> of events?

Heh. You can see that every time there's a magistrate's report here.

Or even a fatality report, in that some posters will turn *anything*
into an attack on cycling.

Zebee

 

[Tamyka Bell]

Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>
> In aus.bicycle on Fri, 22 Sep 2006 11:29:29 +1000
> treadly&amp me <[email protected]> wrote:
<snip>
> > - Noting the pedestrian was over the legal limit for alcohol use.
>
> Hmm.. why is this not germane?
<snip>

Is there a blood alcohol content limit for being a
pedestrian?

Tam

 

[Lisa]

Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> In aus.bicycle on Fri, 22 Sep 2006 11:29:29 +1000
> treadly&amp me <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > - Failure to include speeds in the report.
>
> Which is probably not known for sure at the time the report is
> written. If there's no camera involved then i don't play with my

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Fri, 22 Sep 2006 11:56:46 +1000
Tamyka Bell <[email protected]> wrote:
> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>>
>> In aus.bicycle on Fri, 22 Sep 2006 11:29:29 +1000
>> treadly&amp me <[email protected]> wrote:
><snip>
>> > - Noting the pedestrian was over the legal limit for alcohol use.
>>
>> Hmm.. why is this not germane?
><snip>
>
> Is there a blood alcohol content limit for being a
> pedestrian?
>

I believe it is an offence to be drunk and disorderly. I don't know
if 'disorderly" includes wandering onto a road while singing old
Chisel songs, but probably....

Zebee

 

[EuanB]

Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>
> In aus.bicycle on Fri, 22 Sep 2006 11:29:29 +1000
> treadly&amp me <[email protected]> wrote:
<snip>
> > - Noting the pedestrian was over the legal limit for alcohol use.
>
> Hmm.. why is this not germane?
<snip>

Is there a blood alcohol content limit for being a
pedestrian?

There isn't, however 40% of pedestrian fatalaties are over .05 and 40% of that 40% are over .15.

 

[treadly&me]

Whoa! Brakes on for a sec folks. I didn't quote the whole entry here, I only summarised the main points, so I've probably misrepresented them.

It would be a good idea to flip over and have a look at the full article before commenting further. I think some of the responses made here are already addressed in what Evan says.

Sorry 'bout that.

 

[treadly&me]

There isn't, however 40% of pedestrian fatalaties are over .05 and 40% of that 40% are over .15.

Evan's point is:

There’s no legal alcohol limit for walking. Focus on the behavior (swerving into traffic) if there was unpredictable behavior, instead of implying a law that doesn’t exist.

And I think that's the same with the not using a pedestrian crossing and not riding in a (non-existent) bike lane issues: it's about the implications that follow from reporting things that may not be relevant.

 

[davel]

Tamyka Bell wrote:
> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>>
>> In aus.bicycle on Fri, 22 Sep 2006 11:29:29 +1000
>> treadly&amp me <[email protected]> wrote:
> <snip>
>> > - Noting the pedestrian was over the legal limit for alcohol use.
>>
>> Hmm.. why is this not germane?
> <snip>
>
> Is there a blood alcohol content limit for being a
> pedestrian?

Heh. I was wondering about that too.

--
davel

 

[treadly&me]

> Today's thought exercise: how does what gets included in, excluded
> from, and implied by a report influence the average reader's perception
> of events?

Heh. You can see that every time there's a magistrate's report here.

Or even a fatality report, in that some posters will turn *anything*
into an attack on cycling.

Zebee

I think the response at BikePortland goes a long way towards addressing that.

 

[EuanB]

Evan's point is:



And I think that's the same with the not using a pedestrian crossing and not riding in a (non-existent) bike lane issues: it's about the implications that follow from reporting things that may not be relevant.

My point is that just because a behaviours isn't legislated does not make it safe.

For example, in this state it's legal for a cyclist to undertake a moving vehicle on the wrong side if it is not turning left AND inidcating left. From that, it's not illegal for me to undertake a moving vehicle across a junction, however it would certainly be unwise.

 

[Peter Signorini]

"Zebee Johnstone" wrote:

> Tamyka Bell wrote:
>>
>> Is there a blood alcohol content limit for being a
>> pedestrian?
>>
>
> I believe it is an offence to be drunk and disorderly. I don't know
> if 'disorderly" includes wandering onto a road while singing old
> Chisel songs, but probably....

Thus the concern should be about behaviour, not the condition of a
pedestrian's blood.

--
Cheers
Peter

~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*)

 

[cfsmtb]

Thus the concern should be about behaviour, not the condition of a
pedestrian's blood.

Touché.

 

[scotty72]

In aus.bicycle on Fri, 22 Sep 2006 11:56:46 +1000
Tamyka Bell <[email protected]> wrote:
> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>>
>> In aus.bicycle on Fri, 22 Sep 2006 11:29:29 +1000
>> treadly&amp me <[email protected]> wrote:
><snip>
>> > - Noting the pedestrian was over the legal limit for alcohol use.
>>
>> Hmm.. why is this not germane?
><snip>
>
> Is there a blood alcohol content limit for being a
> pedestrian?
>

I believe it is an offence to be drunk and disorderly. I don't know
if 'disorderly" includes wandering onto a road while singing old
Chisel songs, but probably....

Zebee

Whoa! You are being mightily presumptuous. If the guy is 0.06 (etc) then, that is unlikely to be disorderly. Remember, the charge would equate to Drunk AND Disorderly. So, if the ped was running around making a **** of himself, abusing puppies and kicking over bins then, and only then, you may have a point. Just walking down the street singing bad karoke songs is not illegal (yet) and therefore completely irrelevant. In fact, we should be praising the guys for having the sense to not drive.

Comes back to the notion that drivers should alway expect the unexpected. Just because the sign says 60k, doesn't mean you're obliged to do 60.

Scotty

 

[scotty72]

In general, words in a report are alway there for a reason. Journos will always try to shape the readers opinions.

The mere inclusion of a totally irrelevant detail is most often designed to plant a thought in the readers' minds.

Eg.

If I say that:

Sally was struck by a vehicle as it was reversing in a car park.

Watch what a seemlingly innocent unnecessary detail can do.

Sally was struck by a vehicle being driven by an elderly driver as it was reversing in a car park.

Now, there is no evidence that the age was relevant at all. No evidence of dementure, failing eyesight, parkinsons, poor reflexes etc. However, don't tell me that most readers wouldn't make an assumption that the silly old bugger must have driven over poor Sally.

Equally

Sally, on her way home from the pub, was struck by a vehicle as it was reversing in a car park.

Suddenly, despite any evidence at all, we think - Sally must have been blotto - and probably deserved it. Sally may have been the bar-tender and not touched a drink all night. Sally may have just gone to collect her daughter, a cleaner, from the pub. But most readers will make assumption when that detail is omitted.

This language is crafted and designed specifically to position us to accept certain facts, without us even realising it.

Scotty

Evan Manvel, executive director of the Bicycle Transportation Alliance, has published his top ten list of things the media get wrong when they report crashes involving cyclists and pedestrians. Here's a summary:

1. Failure to include speeds in the report.
2. Failure to mention distracted or sleepy driving.
3. Mentioning whether the cyclist was in a bike lane, when she/he has a right to not be in one.
4. Mentioning that the cyclist wasn't in a bike lane, when there was no bike lane on the road.
5. Noting that the pedestrian wasn't in a crosswalk, when she/he was in an unmarked crosswalk.
6. Noting the pedestrian was over the legal limit for alcohol use.
7. Calling crashes "accidents" instead of "crashes".
8. Repeating driver claims that the driver "didn't see the pedestrian/cyclist," or that the pedestrian/cyclist "darted" out.
9. Talking about people's choice of clothes.
10. Including information about helmet use unnecessarily.

Today's thought exercise: how does what gets included in, excluded from, and implied by a report influence the average reader's perception of events?

Further discussion around this topic can be found at:

• BikePortland with some excellent follow-up on relations with the media
• 'sconnyboy on calling a crash a crash, and a related op-ed at madison.com
• Wheels of Justice

 

[DaveB]

scotty72 wrote:
>> I believe it is an offence to be drunk and disorderly. I don't know
>> if 'disorderly" includes wandering onto a road while singing old
>> Chisel songs, but probably....
>>
>> ZebeeWhoa! You are being mightily presumptuous. If the guy is 0.06 (etc)
> then, that is unlikely to be disorderly. Remember, the charge would
> equate to Drunk AND Disorderly. So, if the ped was running around
> making a **** of himself, abusing puppies and kicking over bins then,
> and only then, you may have a point. Just walking down the street
> singing bad karoke songs is not illegal (yet) and therefore completely
> irrelevant. In fact, we should be praising the guys for having the
> sense to not drive.
>
> Comes back to the notion that drivers should alway expect the
> unexpected. Just because the sign says 60k, doesn't mean you're obliged
> to do 60.
>

Maybe not drunk, but surely walking down the street singing chisel songs
has got to be considered disorderly. Besides, who walks down the
street singing chisel songs sober??

DaveB

 

[Stuart Lamble]

On 2006-09-22, scotty72 <[email protected]> wrote:
> Comes back to the notion that drivers should alway expect the
> unexpected. Just because the sign says 60k, doesn't mean you're obliged
> to do 60.

Excellent point. Tell that to the guy hanging right off my rear bumper
when I'm doing 60 kph in a 60 zone. Then consider what he's likely to do
if I'm doing less than 60 ...

--
My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@" to "usenet".

 

[scotty72]

On 2006-09-22, scotty72 <[email protected]> wrote:
> Comes back to the notion that drivers should alway expect the
> unexpected. Just because the sign says 60k, doesn't mean you're obliged
> to do 60.

Excellent point. Tell that to the guy hanging right off my rear bumper
when I'm doing 60 kph in a 60 zone. Then consider what he's likely to do
if I'm doing less than 60 ...

--
My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@" to "usenet".

He is likely to flash his lights, beep his horn and probably make a twit of himself.

So what? My reaction is, slow down another 5. He'll either go around or try to beat you up the side streets. I couldn't care less what the dude behind thinks. The more he carries on, the slower I go (as it is more dangerous).

I've never heard of anyone ramming a slow driver in front of them.

Scotty

 

[flyingdutch]

can't believe that a cyclist being struck by a car, reported as "cyclist colided with car" didnt make that list.
OR
"traffic was delayed for (X)hours inconveniencing fat bastards everywhere"
wasn't up ther either

 

[Tamyka Bell]

scotty72 wrote:
>
> Stuart Lamble Wrote:
> > On 2006-09-22, scotty72 <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> > > Comes back to the notion that drivers should alway expect the
> > > unexpected. Just because the sign says 60k, doesn't mean you're
> > obliged
> > > to do 60.
> >
> > Excellent point. Tell that to the guy hanging right off my rear bumper
> > when I'm doing 60 kph in a 60 zone. Then consider what he's likely to
> > do
> > if I'm doing less than 60 ...
> >
> > --
> > My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me,
> > and
> > the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@" to "usenet".He is likely to flash his lights, beep his horn and probably make a twit
> of himself.
>
> So what? My reaction is, slow down another 5. He'll either go around or
> try to beat you up the side streets. I couldn't care less what the dude
> behind thinks. The more he carries on, the slower I go (as it is more
> dangerous).
>
> I've never heard of anyone ramming a slow driver in front of them.
>
> Scotty

Hey, that's what I do! I insist upon a safe stopping
distance for the speed I travel at. I encourage other
drivers to do the same thing. If the driver behind me closes
the stopping distance to 1m, I slow down accordingly.
Someone whizzed past Steven and I the other evening and we
laughed and laughed as the driver in front had the same
reaction and slowed down to about 30km/h. Hurrah!

Tam