Just look at the speed that the RV was going! The driver was given a $500 ticket for almost killing 30 cyclists. Insane that they’re even allowed to drive after that.

  • MondayToFriday@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    A lot of cycling activists seem to think that “accident” implies no-fault, inaction, and helplessness, and that forcing journalists to reword their articles will somehow make things better. That’s a flawed approach.

    Journalists aren’t in the business of assigning blame in their coverage. Unless one a court or an official investigator has made a ruling, doing so would open them up to libel lawsuits. Advocating for more vivid wording is pointless. That’s not how journalism works, nor is it how linguistics works.

    Commercial aviation is now the safest form of transportation by far, having made tremendous improvements over the years thanks to implementing recommendations from accident investigations like the one I cited. The same can be done for cycling. Believing that language change is a prerequisite to improvements in safety is a harmful mindset. It would be better to redirect that energy where it belongs: getting the lawmakers and infrastructure planners to take action to reduce the accident rate.

    • jerkface@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The word “collision” is available, and is often used. I’m not interested in whether or not using less biased language relates to safety, that is not the only concern.