Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Add new comment
11 comments
Alot of the media reports in the UK and almost always the case in local media thesedays are simply copy & pasted from press releases the police issue,which are themselves sourced from the actual police report of the incidents. which is why they are often filled with statements the police would consider an evidential fact that needed to be noted,rather than a considered representation as news.
Local media then fear changing those statements as they believe doing so could apportion blame to an involved party,this way they can simply say they reported what the police issued,even if it means the language they often resort to, car is alleged to have had cyclist crash into it,makes no sense.
It would be interesting if the researchers in the US had found the same issues in media filtering of police reports
And the rest of their copy is copy/pasted from Twitter, Facebook, and Mumsnet, I'm beginning to think...
Not reported as "pedestrian collides with bike"?
Also a criminal who uses a bike to get to/from a crime is a cyclist. like the cyclist who brandished a zombie knife when "just clipped by an innocent motorist".
You never hear that Lee Rigby whas murdered by two motorists.
Personally I found the "just clipped" to be extremely dangerous language.
The media reporting of cyclist/driver collisions is at least as biased as that elsewere, and probably more so. Exactly the same removal of the driver, with just a car, as if the things drove without a person controlling them.
Not mentioned in that report, but equally valid, is the helmet, and it is always implied that cyclists contributed to their injuries by not wearing one, or as the recent report of the coroner, overtly blamed for not wearing one. They very rarely mention that the fault was the driver's or that the collision wouldn't have happened if the driver had taken proper care. Neither that a helmet would have saved a pedestrian.
And we are all familiar with blaming of the cyclist in collisions with HGVs, when it is always the blind spot that the cyclist recklessly rode into, never the driver's fault.
Then there is the failure to wear hi-viz, also the cyclists' fault, not the driver's for not looking.
Totally agree, you never see headlines that say something like "cyclist killed by driver of a car without blindspot mirrors" but frequently see headlines stating the lack of safety equipment on the cyclists part.
Been watching an American series about air crashes, where they examine the causes in minute detail and issue recommendations to prevent further crashes from the same cause. We need a system like this for road collisions, as the police don't have the expertise, or resources to do it. Too often, the driver's explanation is accepted "sun in eyes" "they appeared from nowhere" etc without proper forensic examination of the evidence.
I'm sure the 2014 review is going to cover this.
The UK is at least as bad with regards the media reporting RTCs. Some of us have joked about autonomous vehicles hitting cyclists as the reporting almost never mentions the driver.
Erm? Where's the article about the US study?
It should be there now, apologies for keeping you hangin!
Got it! Thanks, Jack.