Does language matter when discussing issues affecting use of roads?

[Ajax Bay]

View attachment 732307

Source (asking for a friend ( @Drago )) My derived figures were not too bad a stab than (provided 'cycle' means a person who 'can' cycle) as opposed to some other definition of 'cyclist'.
Can't help thinking this ignores all the under 17s who cycle, who occupy some of the light blue wedge.

 

[Boopop]

Maybe someone already posted this, but I couldn't see it - here's the guidelines: https://www.rc-rg.com/

I think road.cc follow them but I'm not sure many if any of the big news companies follows them. I think the fact that "accident" has two slightly different meanings is unfortunate.

Regardless of which of the two meanings people intend when referring to a crash as an accident, it's easy for the layperson to assume it's the latter meaning above, when the vast majority of the time, it's the former. The vast majority of crashes on the road happen either by poor road design, or negligent/dangerous driving.

 

[presta]

Source (asking for a friend ( @Drago )) My derived figures were not too bad a stab than (provided 'cycle' means a person who 'can' cycle) as opposed to some other definition of 'cyclist'.
Can't help thinking this ignores all the under 17s who cycle, who occupy some of the light blue wedge.

It's the CTC data, but I spent some time with a spreadsheet adjusting to make all the different data comparable on the same basis. Where figures were quoted for different age groups I scaled them assuming that cycle populations followed the same age distribution as the general population, using the distribution data on Wikipedia. The number of drivers came from the RAC or DoT, I forget which.

 

[matticus]

The vast majority of crashes on the road happen either by poor road design, or negligent/dangerous driving.

I disagree. They are almost always ONE OF SEVERAL CAUSES.
(and more than 90% are indeed accidents - which doesn't mean I want the press to use that language, when they have workable guidelines to avoid it).

 

[Dogtrousers]

Ah, the definition of "accident". We'll be on to "mistake" next. As in "I admit that mistakes were made*, but it's time to move on."

* I stole a large amount of money, bludgeoned several people to death and ran away laughing and shouting "you'll never catch me".

 

[mjr]

It is, isn't it. He systematically goes through the different ways of phrasing the story, and shows how the other alternatives are all either absurd, or potentially contempt of court.

Not really. It never explains why "potentially contempt of court" only applies to implicitly blaming the driver and not to implicitly exonerating them by removing them from the main activity while leaving the victim in the metaphorical firing line.

Through clever misdirection (what it dismisses as the police's phrasing isn't even the phrasing used in the example police press release), it ignores a whole category of obvious neutral formulations, such as "a collision between a bike and a car" and variations on it. It's very skillful writing, but still misdirection to justify an inexcusable sloppy practice. Yes, good reporting is difficult to make sound natural, but that's why journalism requires skill.

Rc-rg.com is the way to do it.

 

[matticus]

Ah, the definition of "accident". We'll be on to "mistake" next. As in "I admit that mistakes were made*, but it's time to move on."

* I stole a large amount of money, bludgeoned several people to death and ran away laughing and shouting "you'll never catch me".

Simple:
You may think - in hindsight - that it was a mistake* to do those things. But you didn't do them accidentally.

*Admittedly, this is clearly a massive understatement, and dt has deliberately used it in this way; but it's not incorrect english.

 

[matticus]

Maybe someone already posted this, but I couldn't see it - here's the guidelines: https://www.rc-rg.com/

I think road.cc follow them but I'm not sure many if any of the big news companies follows them. I think the fact that "accident" has two slightly different meanings is unfortunate.

View attachment 732320
Regardless of which of the two meanings people intend when referring to a crash as an accident, it's easy for the layperson to assume it's the latter meaning above, when the vast majority of the time, it's the former. The vast majority of crashes on the road happen either by poor road design, or negligent/dangerous driving.

Hang on a minute; these two are quite easy to tell apart; a pregnancy is not a terrible misfortune. It's something that happens with a degree of unpredictability (and most often is very welcome). This usage is just not relevant to road traffic collisions!!!

 

[Boopop]

I disagree. They are almost always ONE OF SEVERAL CAUSES.
(and more than 90% are indeed accidents - which doesn't mean I want the press to use that language, when they have workable guidelines to avoid it).

Fine, I didn't mean there's only ever one specific reason. What I did mean is that most are preventable with better driver education, enforcement, and road design. I believe in VisionZero.

Also, no need to shout at me, oof! 📢

 

[matticus]

Fine, I didn't mean there's only ever one specific reason. What I did mean is that most are preventable with better driver education, enforcement, and road design. I believe in VisionZero.

Also, no need to shout at me, oof! 📢

Forgive any apparent rudeness, but I do think it's VERY IMPORTANT to appreciate that almost all bad events have multiple causes, and usually more than one party is to blame.

 

[Boopop]

VERY IMPORTANT

Have you ever heard of bold, underline or italic? Heck, wikipedia even has a whole section on the subject. Weird that I pointed out it was rude yet you still decided to do it anyway.

to appreciate that almost all bad events have multiple causes, and usually more than one party is to blame.

That's nice. What matters to me is that people with the power to effect change regarding how our streetspace is designed and used agree with the principles of VisionZero and that they work towards that goal.

 

[matticus]

Have you ever heard of bold, underline or italic? Heck, wikipedia even has a whole section on the subject. Weird that I pointed out it was rude yet you still decided to do it anyway.

Blimey, keep it down can't you?

 

[Ming the Merciless]

A grammar accident waiting to happen.

 

[Boopop]

So much or my hope of getting some interesting comments on RCRG or vision zero, instead I get puerile replies and a patronising reaction. At least on social media people have the excuse of the platform encouraging users to go in that direction to increase profits. Anyway, clearly I'm not going to get what I was looking for here, so have a good day 🙋‍♂️

 

[matticus]

I was going to change my will to give all £8mill to the Vision zero campaign, but now
It's all going to the Good Netiquette group. I've seen the light!