Journalism and cycling

Tombo2001

Interesting.....whose going to win out here.........facts or opinions.....

Muahahaha

Duckjob wrote: »

Yeah that would be my issue also, not so much the language used, but the one-sidedness of it.

As noted, they seem to go to the ends of the earth not to say anything that could imply blame on the part of the driver. At the same time, many times i've read phrases like "The cyclist, who was not wearing hi-vis when the collision occurred.." used. Why is it acceptable to cast aspersions on the victim in that way?

The one-sidedness of it is even more obvious if you consider that by the RSA stats 1 in 5 road deaths is due to the driver/passenger not wearing a seatbelt. You never hear the media reporting that "the driver was not wearing a seatbelt" despite it being responsible for around 30 deaths per year. But a cyclist not wearing a high vis (which isn't a legal requirement like a seat belt is) will always get reported. Why the bias?

Large bottle small glass wrote: »

I'm arguing a reasonable person could infer that the driver was at fault from reading that phrase.

I'd argue a person is being unreasonable if they infer the driver was to blame. Reasonable means you reasoned out all the possible scenarios in a logical manner and in this instance there are two main possible outcomes to the phrase "the driver lost control of the car". One is driver error, the other is mechanical failure. If you deduct that a driver losing control of his car can only be due to driver error then your logic and reason is flawed.

There is nothing wrong whatsoever about reporting that a driver lost control of the car. It doesn't mean anything other than a statement of fact and if people take inferences where there are none then they'll likely end up wrong. The details of that fact that the driver lost control is later found out in public for all to see at the coroners court where we get to find out why he lost control, was it driver error, mechanical failure, a deer or rabbit jumping onto the road and so on. A reasonable person would wait for the results of the coroners inquest to find out what happened, an unreasonable person would jump to conclusions in the way you are suggesting on here.

meeeeh

There is nothing wrong with phrase the driver lost control as there is nothing wrong with phrase the car lost control. Arguing about the phrase for I don't know how many pages just shows people are more worried about their agenda than poor kids who got hit.

jjpep

meeeeh wrote: »

There is nothing wrong with phrase the driver lost control as there is nothing wrong with phrase the car lost control. Arguing about the phrase for I don't know how many pages just shows people are more worried about their agenda than poor kids who got hit.

Because how things are reported is important. There is a thread already for people to express their sadness. It is actually possible (and more respectful) to talk about these things separately.

AndrewJRenko

meeeeh wrote: »

There is nothing wrong with phrase the driver lost control as there is nothing wrong with phrase the car lost control. Arguing about the phrase for I don't know how many pages just shows people are more worried about their agenda than poor kids who got hit.

The two things are directly connection. People get hit because of language likes this that seeks to minimise driver responsibility for their driving. The chances of more people getting hit in the future will reduce as drivers are forced to take actual responsibility for their driving through (amongst other things) challenging language like this.

meeeeh

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The two things are directly connection. People get hit because of language likes this that seeks to minimise driver responsibility for their driving. The chances of more people getting hit in the future will reduce as drivers are forced to take actual responsibility for their driving through (amongst other things) challenging language like this.

I don't know about you but I drive according to the rules of the road and not according to accident reports.

amcalester

meeeeh wrote: »

I don't know about you but I drive according to the rules of the road and not according to accident reports.

Most don’t.

Lumen

meeeeh wrote: »

I don't know about you but I drive according to the rules of the road

If that's true you are in a tiny minority.

Do you never break speed limits? Not even by 5kph? And never cross a solid white line, even to overtake a slow moving cyclist?

AndrewJRenko

meeeeh wrote: »

I don't know about you but I drive according to the rules of the road and not according to accident reports.

The language debate has nothing to do with your personal driving style.

flatface

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The language debate has nothing to do with your personal driving style.

There was an interesting link in the twitter replies on guidelines for media reporting on domestic abuse.
https://www.stylist.co.uk/life/level-up-campaign-change-reporting-domestic-homicides-violence-deaths-media-guidelines-women-killed-by-partners-2/230587/amp?__twitter_impression=true

It makes sense that we have guidelines for language to avoid journalistic biases of explaining away a crime because they identify with one side only.

meeeeh

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The language debate has nothing to do with your personal driving style.

Well if you think most people behave on the roads according to the news reports then I think accident reports are not the issue and there is deeper problem.

meeeeh

Lumen wrote: »

If that's true you are in a tiny minority.

Do you never break speed limits? Not even by 5kph? And never cross a solid white line, even to overtake a slow moving cyclist?

I'm not perfect driver, I make mistakes but not because of news reports.

Hurrache

The language de-personalises such incidents. It removes any human involvement or potential responsibility.

AndrewJRenko

meeeeh wrote: »

Well if you think most people behave on the roads according to the news reports then I think accident reports are not the issue and there is deeper problem.

There are many deeper problems for sure. That doesn't take away from the problematic nature of the language issue.

Your personal driving style isn't the issue. If you want to look at 'what most people do' on the road, you can start with the 60-82% of motorists that break speed limits in the RSA Speed Survey.

Fian

meeeeh wrote: »

There is nothing wrong with phrase the driver lost control as there is nothing wrong with phrase the car lost control. Arguing about the phrase for I don't know how many pages just shows people are more worried about their agenda than poor kids who got hit.

Cars cannot lose control. Cars are never in control - cars are controlled by drivers.

Drivers can lose control of cars but cars cannot lose control of themselves.

07Lapierre

Fian wrote: »

Cars cannot lose control. Cars are never in control - cars are controlled by drivers.

Drivers can lose control of cars but cars cannot lose control of themselves.

True.

But cars can go wrong. things can break, tyres can puncture/disintegrate etc. But, collisions are usually a combination of a lot of factors.

A collision could be the result of poor road conditions, combined with excess speed and an inexperienced driver.

A collision could be the result of excess speed, combined with a mechanical failure (e.g tyre blowout, which was caused days earlier by an impact with debris on the road, which damaged the tyre)

A collision could be the result of poor road junction layout, combined with excess speed and inexperienced drivers, impatient drivers etc.

Just 3 examples.. there are 100's more, but spot to common denominator?

blackwhite

Fian wrote: »

Cars cannot lose control. Cars are never in control - cars are controlled by drivers.

Drivers can lose control of cars but cars cannot lose control of themselves.

To be a little bit pedantic - newer cars with lane assist, adaptive cruise control, etc, can and do control themselves.
My Tiguan can even park itself (a feature I'm glad of now that herself as taken to driving it whenever I'm cycling to work )

magicbastarder

https://twitter.com/dublincycling/status/1120960579605282816

Tombo2001

Dublin Cycling has done a really good job here - but the reality is - and it is the reality - that the Indo frames every story in a way that appeals to its readership.

Its fairly obvious that a large portion of society likes to have something to blame/ rail against/ whinge about. So that can be travellers. That can be cyclists. That can be civil servants. That can be the HSE. Depending on what day it is. Its socially acceptable.

Its perfectly acceptable on boards.ie to have a thread going on for thousands of posts that is diatribe after diatribe against travellers.

Thats socially acceptable.

In many stories on the Indo, there is one of two angles:
- where can we fit a good looking girl into this....
- who can we blame for this

There was zero need for them to report that the children killed were travellers, but they did it anyway. In my view, there was a very clear inference in how the story was originally reported.

Tombo2001

07Lapierre wrote: »

True.

But cars can go wrong. things can break, tyres can puncture/disintegrate etc. But, collisions are usually a combination of a lot of factors.

A collision could be the result of poor road conditions, combined with excess speed and an inexperienced driver.

A collision could be the result of excess speed, combined with a mechanical failure (e.g tyre blowout, which was caused days earlier by an impact with debris on the road, which damaged the tyre)

A collision could be the result of poor road junction layout, combined with excess speed and inexperienced drivers, impatient drivers etc.

Just 3 examples.. there are 100's more, but spot to common denominator?

Nobody is saying you are wrong.

The question is - what changes this.

Tombo2001

magicbastarder wrote: »

https://twitter.com/dublincycling/status/1120960579605282816

In my view, ground zero for targetting how the media targets cyclists has to be the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland.

Since it said the Late Late Show had nothing to answer for over its piece on cyclists, really anything after that is fair game.

magicbastarder

and if anything, given the concerns about 'driver lost control', the phrasing used in one of the indo articles, 'struck by a motorcyclist' is bizarre. because that could mean that someone hopped off a motorbike and punched her.

amcalester

Tombo2001 wrote: »

In my view, ground zero for targetting how the media targets cyclists has to be the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland.

Since it said the Late Late Show had nothing to answer for over its piece on cyclists, really anything after that is fair game.

I think it stems from the Garda press office, here are the press releases from the 2 stories linked to in the DCC tweet.

Gardaí are currently at the scene of fatal road traffic collision between a car and two cyclists, a girl aged 9 and a boy aged 7. The collision occurred this morning, Sunday 21st April 2019 at approximately 11:55am on the R358 Ballinasloe to Ahascragh Road Co Galway.

Both children were taken to Portiuncula Hospital where the 9 year old girl was later pronounced dead. The 7 year old boy remains in a serious condition.

The road is currently closed for a forensic examination. Gardaí are appealing for anyone with information in relation to this incident to contact Ballinasloe Garda Station on 0909 631890.

Gardaí at Dundrum are appealing for witnesses and information following a serious collision in Balinteer on the 8/4/19.
At approximately 7.45pm a female pedestrian aged in her 70s was seriously injured when she was struck by a motorcycle on Ballinteer Avenue. It’s understood she had just alighted from a bus and was attempting to cross the road when the collision occurred.
She was taken by ambulance to St James’s Hospital and has since been transferred to Beaumont. (Her condition is understood to be critical.) The motorcyclist, a man in his 30s, was taken to St Vincent’s Hospital where he was treated for minor injuries.
The scene was examined by Garda forensic collision investigators and enquiries are ongoing.
Anyone with information is asked to contact Dundrum Garda Station 01-6665600 or the Garda Confidential Line 1800 666 111.

My bold, but you can see the different ways the Gardaí report the incident.

I wonder would they answer a question on why they report it this way?

blackwhite

amcalester wrote: »

I think it stems from the Garda press office, here are the press releases from the 2 stories linked to in the DCC tweet.





My bold, but you can see the different ways the Gardaí report the incident.

I wonder would they answer a question on why they report it this way?

Actually the Indo appear to have changed the description of the motorcycle/pedestrian collision from "she was struck by a motorcycle" to "struck by a motorcyclist"


Although that's a likely to be sloppy journalism as anything else.

07Lapierre

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Nobody is saying you are wrong.

The question is - what changes this.

1. Stricter Law enforcement of the ROTR.
2. Stiffer penalties for those found guilty
3. Higher fines for minor infringements

Tombo2001

07Lapierre wrote: »

1. Stricter Law enforcement of the ROTR.
2. Stiffer penalties for those found guilty
3. Higher fines for minor infringements

Found guilty of what?

Excess speed on a country road where the speed limit is 80k per hour, they are driving at 70k per hour, the only witnesses are other drivers and nobody has clocked the speed?

You cant prosecute that.....its not a solution.

07Lapierre

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Found guilty of what?

Excess speed on a country road where the speed limit is 80k per hour, they are driving at 70k per hour, the only witnesses are other drivers and nobody has clocked the speed?

You cant prosecute that.....its not a solution.

Reduce the speed limit (and enforce it) on country roads?

Tombo2001

07Lapierre wrote: »

Reduce the speed limit (and enforce it) on country roads?

(i) do you think its realistic for speed limits to be reduced?

In Ireland? Would the Healy Raes stand for it?

I dont think so.

(ii) again, how do you show someone is speeding....

do you have speed cameras every 100 yards?

Again - I am trying to distinguish between wishful thinking and something thats achievable.

No point in discussing ideal world scenarios that will never happen.

It would be a lot more realistic in my view to have a bike path on every road.

Donald Trump

Chuchote wrote: »

A cyclist (say 150kg of human on a 15kg bicycle) who goes through a red light is endangering only himself or herself (if that) in virtually all cases; usually s/he has checked that there's nothing coming. A car (say 2 tons) is a weaponised metal projectile, and going much faster. If it hits you, you're going to be badly hurt.

I know this is an old post (from page 1), but 150kg!

Jaysus. Wonder would they see any difference in spending a few grand to upgrade to a top-of-the-range carbon fibre frame?

Weepsie

Tombo2001 wrote: »

It would be a lot more realistic in my view to have a bike path on every road.

I doubt it would, without CPOing 1000s of kms of people land and pushing boundaries back a bit.

Average speed cameras would be ideal, traffic calming solutions etc.

More than anything we need to show just how unacceptable it is. People need to be hit hard with heavy fines and custodial sentences for behaviour that endangers the lives of others.

Go to Spain, France, Portugal among others and there's a world of difference in the attitude of drivers.