Food for thought and active participation

Road Collision Reporting Guidelines

This page includes the draft guidelines and associated commentary. There
are two levels of detail: first the overarching guidelines, and secondly
the subclauses explaining in more detail how the guidelines should be
applied.



We welcome thoughts on these guidelines as part of the consultation, so
please do share your feedback.

​

​

Part One. General Guidance - Our four overarching guidelines, and how
they adhere to journalistic principles



1. Impartiality: Publishers must not use the term accident when
describing road collisions – collision, or crash, are more accurate,
especially when the facts of the incident are not known

​

2. Discrimination: publishers must 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

​

3. Accuracy: Coverage of perceived risks on the roads should be above
all accurate, based in fact and context. Publishers should make mention
of human actors in a collision, and avoid reference to personal
protective equipment, such as hi-vis and helmets, except when
demonstrably relevant

​

4. Reporting on crime: Publishers must avoid portraying dangerous or
criminal behaviour on the roads, such as speeding, as acceptable, or
those caught breaking the law as victims

​

​

Part Two. Press Guidance - Detail on the four guidelines, including how
they should be applied

​

​

Guideline 1, Impartiality: Publishers must not use the term accident
when describing road collisions – collision, or crash, are more
accurate, especially when the facts of the incident are not known​

​

1.1 In the words of one roads policing chief “there are very few
accidents that are true accidents… all traffic collisions involve some
form of misjudgement, error or outright dangerous action by one or more
drivers in a collision�

​​

1.2 While in a news story reporting on a collision immediately after a
crash, journalists won’t know why a crash took place, using the word
‘accident’ suggests an unavoidable incident – which publishers equally
won’t know is true. Reporters must avoid speculation about the cause of
an incident, including calling it an accident

​

1.3 Publishers must at all times remember everyone who uses the road is
a human being – and should reflect this in sensitive reporting on road
collisions that portrays victims of road danger as, above all else,
people. None are ‘more worthy’ than others, regardless of status or job
title. In follow-up pieces involving a death or serious injury, it can
help humanise a tragedy by focusing on the last moments of a victim’s
journey, say, or talking to their relatives and friends about who they were

​

Guideline 2, Discrimination: Journalists should not use language that
generalises one person’s behaviour as shared by a group of road users or
suggest it is indicative of a perceived group’s character traits

​

2.1 Publishers must 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

​

2.2 Dehumanising a person can be defined as depicting them as less than
human, and is distinct from dislike or dissimilarity, “it predicts
aggressive behaviour and support for hostile policies independently of
negative attitudes�. Dehumanising cyclists is associated with increased
antisocial behaviour and aggression towards them, such as deliberately
driving a vehicle at, or throwing something at them. In turn, those who
feel dehumanised are more likely to feel hostile themselves, risking
further fuelling aggression on the roads. If in doubt, publishers should
consider how jarring, or morally and logically questionable it would
seem applying the same assumptions to other perceived groups. The term
‘cyclist’ alone can engender negative connotations, for example;
consider characterising someone on a cycle as a person, where possible

​

2.3 A representative group, or an individual, may bring a complaint
under this clause. Language that dehumanises is that which is intended
to, or is likely to, provoke hatred or to put a person or group in fear.
The disputed words, therefore, must be more than provocative, offensive,
hurtful or objectionable: this provision includes, but is not limited
to, speech that is likely to cause others to commit acts of violence
against members of the group or discriminate against them, for example
driving with less care, or greater aggression, towards a perceived group
of road users

​

2.4 Coverage, whether comment, features or news pieces, must not
encourage, joke, or make light of injury or danger to other road users,
particularly vulnerable road users, or suggest certain road users are an
annoyance, aren’t legitimate road users, or should have their lawful
activities otherwise curtailed. Research indicates violence on the roads
lies on the same continuum as everyday, normalised discrimination
tolerated by the public

​

Guideline 3, Accuracy: Coverage of perceived risks on the roads should
be above all accurate, based in fact and context. Publishers should make
mention of human actors in a collision, and avoid reference to personal
protective equipment, such as hi-vis and helmets, except when
demonstrably relevant

​

3.1 Publishers must, as early as possible in an article, make mention of
the presence of the human participants in a collision. If an action or
reaction is caused by a person, rather than a driverless vehicle or one
whose handbrake failed while parked on a hill, say, mention the presence
of a driver, even if their identity is unknown. Cars cannot flee the
scene of a collision, flip themselves over or speed without a driver

​

3.2 The reporting of risk impacts the public’s perception of that risk,
and overemphasising the risks of cycling and walking, say, or
underestimating the risk caused by poor driving may alter the public’s
behaviour in a way that negatively impacts theirs or others’ health

​

3.3 As with all areas of journalism, reserve scepticism for information,
such as statistics and reports, and put numbers and facts into context.
Statistics should be accurate and verified, and facts clearly explained
with important caveats and limitations explained. Using a range of
sources helps provide context so audiences can understand and judge
their importance. With road traffic collisions this might mean reference
to the scale of collisions nationwide or locally, collision hotspots,
road collision statistics, and those most likely to be injured. Where
claims from sources are wrong or misleading, they should be challenged



3.4 Except when demonstrably relevant, publishers should avoid reference
to personal protective equipment, such as hi-vis and helmets, and give
reasonable consideration to whether inclusion of such detail exaggerates
the benefits of such equipment, or amounts to victim blaming in their
absence. Helmets are not a legal requirement when cycling in most
countries, including the UK, mainly offer protection in low-speed
collisions and are not designed to protect against impacts with motor
vehicles. Although hi-vis or reflective gear can help make someone more
visible, evidence shows it does not make drivers more careful around the
wearer. Suggesting cyclists be made to wear a helmet, carry a
registration plate, or hold insurance should be avoided, as measures
that are more likely to put people off cycling than improve road safety



3.5 In collisions publishers must avoid use of passive voice, such as ‘a
pedestrian was hit’. Say instead ‘a driver/vehicle hit a pedestrian’.
People or objects don’t simply get hit by vehicles

​

3.6 Imagery has a powerful impact. Consider using an image of the
collision site, in normal circumstances, to give context. If there is no
pavement and no lighting, for example, it is easier to understand why a
pedestrian might be at risk walking in such a location at night, for
example. It is important this is done with sensitivity to the impact of
families of road crash victims

​

Guideline 4, Reporting on crime: Publishers must not portray dangerous
behaviour on the roads, such as speeding, as acceptable, or those caught
breaking the law as victims

​

4.1 Publishers should not suggest catching and penalising those who
speed is wrong or unjust, or perpetuate a view that speeding is socially
acceptable. Inappropriate speed is a factor in 24% of fatal collisions,
and the risk of causing injury increases 3% for every 1kph increase.
Drivers who break the law by speeding are more likely to engage in other
risk-taking behaviour, such as jumping red lights. This clause applies
to any other dangerous driving activity, including mobile phone use, and
to coverage of celebrities on the roads



4.2 Using language that downplays or minimises the seriousness of
offending is likely to have an adverse impact in encouraging the
acceptance of such law-breaking by society, including other drivers and
those involved in the criminal justice system. This can result in
offenders not being prosecuted, convicted and sentenced in a manner
appropriate to the risks they pose

​

4.3 When possible, publishers should follow cases through court.
Following sentencing outcomes for law-breaking drivers can highlight the
consequences of such actions, serving as a warning to other drivers, and
revealing any inadequacies in the justice system

​

4.4 When reporting on traffic collisions, and any resulting delays,
publishers should remember people are hurt in collisions. For example,
when delays are caused by accident investigation work, that means
someone has been killed, is likely to die, or has suffered life-changing
injuries, and a criminal investigation may be needed. Sensitive
reporting is necessary to convey the seriousness of the situation, which
is often an avoidable tragedy, and not merely an inconvenience to other
road users

​

4.5 It is good practice, when covering road safety or road collisions to
cultivate and utilise sources from road safety organisations. Their
expertise can inform journalists on elements of road safety, and give
context of the wider issues and trends locally and nationally.
Journalists aren’t expected to be experts in all fields, but publishers
have a responsibility to accuracy, which experts can help provide, and
inform constructive public discourse

​xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


This consultation is to gather views on the proposed Guidelines, to help
inform how they may affect interested people, bodies and industries, and
to receive suggestions for improvements.



We are keen to hear from as many people and organisations as possible.
Please fill in the below form with your responses, or email your
response to

​

The deadline for submissions is midnight on 8 November 2020. Our working
group will review all responses and launch the first Road Collision
Reporting Guidelines at the Active Travel Media Awards on 26 November
2020. We hope this will become the industry standard for reporting on
road safety.