Read on Twitter
THREAD: Steven & I have had long & good natured discussions about this point, & in terms of language defining a problem (the responsibility of motorists & vulnerability of cyclists) it’s an interesting & valid one to make, & one I’d like to open up to proper debate 1/2 https://twitter.com/st3v3ns1/status/1297087729050820608
He’s convinced me the way we write about cars & crashes has to change.
Media writes of being ‘hit by a car’ when the car didn’t drive itself, & excluding the motorist detaches them from direct responsibility.
2/n
Media writes of being ‘hit by a car’ when the car didn’t drive itself, & excluding the motorist detaches them from direct responsibility.
2/n
I now try to include the fact the car was being driven, or at least had a driver at the wheel, every time I write about something happening to vehicles.
So ingrained is our language style that it often looks weird, & few of my colleagues do the same.
3/n
So ingrained is our language style that it often looks weird, & few of my colleagues do the same.
3/n
In this tweet & in the story I made sure it didn’t read that the cyclist was hit by a car that might have been driving itself, or with no mention of the driver.
eg The cyclist was involved in a collision with a car ‘being driven’ down the road.
4/n
eg The cyclist was involved in a collision with a car ‘being driven’ down the road.
4/n
But Steven doesn’t think this goes far enough & he may well have a point.
So the Q is: is a cyclist (or pedestrian) hit by a motorist when it’s their car which physically comes into contact with them?
Interested to know others thoughts.
Esp @Paulwiltshire & other media lecturers.
So the Q is: is a cyclist (or pedestrian) hit by a motorist when it’s their car which physically comes into contact with them?
Interested to know others thoughts.
Esp @Paulwiltshire & other media lecturers.
We need to change the way language subconsciously shapes the narrative on this.
Editors & media lecturers shape the next gen of reporters & we need to work out a way of doing this that is a) right, b) doesn’t seem weird to our readers & c) is still clear.
Editors & media lecturers shape the next gen of reporters & we need to work out a way of doing this that is a) right, b) doesn’t seem weird to our readers & c) is still clear.
More Qs: does ‘hit by a motorist’ imply or read like they got out of their car & punched the cyclist?
If they did & used a walking stick, would we say ‘hit by a walking stick’?
If not, why do we say ‘hit by a car’ then?
Over to you all....
If they did & used a walking stick, would we say ‘hit by a walking stick’?
If not, why do we say ‘hit by a car’ then?
Over to you all....
ps
Official police language changed a while ago (& is now adopted by media) to say ‘involved in a collision with’ two things (car & lorry, bus & pedestrian etc) as it doesn’t imply blame.
But is a cyclist ‘involved in a collision with a car’? Or with a motorist driving a car?
Official police language changed a while ago (& is now adopted by media) to say ‘involved in a collision with’ two things (car & lorry, bus & pedestrian etc) as it doesn’t imply blame.
But is a cyclist ‘involved in a collision with a car’? Or with a motorist driving a car?
