This feathered analogy is about accuracy – the most important aspect of what journalists and writers do – and how we all use language today. 

As our understanding of certain words changes and the world evolves, so too does the way they are used in the media. But the latest one has left me in a spin. The University of Westminster’s Active Travel Academy has produced draft guidance for journalists reporting on crashes involving cyclists – but whatever you do, please don’t call them cyclists!

There guidance focuses on four main areas: impartiality, discrimination, accuracy and reporting on crime.

The first change is to stop using the term “road traffic accident” and replace it with collision or crash. The thinking is that it rarely is a genuine accident and the media should not be making judgements about the cause. This was drummed into me years ago as a trainee reporter and I totally agree with. I am surprised that this needs reiterating, but the academy must see it creeping into more and more reports today.

 

Where the academy and I disagree is when it comes to calling our duck a duck.

It urges journalists to “avoid using negative generalisations of road users, and must not use dehumanising language or that which may incite violence or hatred against a road user in comment and news coverage”. Fair enough.

I get that the academy wants to add the human element into it – something every journalist should do anyway. As it points out, cars don’t speed, flip or crash into anything on their own. They are driven and there is usually a human factor behind what happened.

But it goes on to say don’t call someone riding a bike a cyclist because it stereotypes them and makes them the target of resentment and anger from – dare I use another stereotype – drivers.

Come on. If I read an article about a cyclist being involved in a crash at a busy junction, it wouldn’t make me think they deserved it, let alone jump in my car and look to take out every cyclist I see, as the report suggests: “Dehumanising cyclists is associated with increased antisocial behaviour and aggression towards them, such as deliberately driving a vehicle at, or throwing something at them.”

Just as you have good and bad drivers, cyclists – or people who ride bikes – fall into the same categories. Not all of them behave in certain ways, nor do all drivers go out of their way to harass, intimidate and injure those on two wheels. It’s not like the word paedophile, which can have no positive connotations.

The third issue relates to the use – or not – of PPE, such as helmets and hi-vis clothing. Saying a cyclist wasn’t wearing PPE suggests they were in the wrong in some way. This goes back to the point about offering comment and even attributing blame, especially just after a collision, when the facts are unclear. Again, I am in complete agreement.

The final point urges publishers not to portray offences such as speeding as acceptable, or show those who break the law as victims. The rules of the road are there for all to see. If you break them and get caught, you only have yourself to blame. Being caught speeding isn’t the police making up their quota for the month, or the Treasury shooting fish in a barrel.

Suggestions to change and improve certain terminology should be welcomed by the media. After all, they could help avoid conflict arising from the wording of news reports.

One of the most significant changes has been the way suicides are reported, not only in the removal of detail, but not using judgemental language. This has involved charities such as The Samaritans and other bodies who righty want to take the stigma out of suicide for both the victim and those affected by it.

Discussions such as this will help those involved in crashes, as well as those reporting on them. I have submitted my observations to the academy’s consultation and will see what happens. Should they put the brakes on plans to ban the word cyclist, you’ll know why!

#cyclist #reporting #collisions