23 Responses to “Top Ten Things News Gets Wrong About Crash Reports”

1. Comments by: Jim Trost
   

   I must disagree on the helmet thing. I believe it is important that this be included in every bicycle crash article. We need every avenue possible to get the word out that EVERYONE should be wearing a helmet. So it wouldn't have made a difference in the Newport crash. It might have for the young boy that was hit in Vancouver and is struggling to recover from head injuries. He might have received only minor head injuries had he been wearing a helmet. The reminder is always valid, and I thank the media for their help. By the way, if you look at auto accidents, you will usually see a statement about seat belt use. That's important too. Thank you again, news media.

   Sep 18 2006 at 12:01 pm
2. Comments by: Jeremy
   

   The news media is interested primarily in helping viewers/readers identify blame by showcasing simple cause-and-effect. Plain and simple, in the eyes of media producers, every 'accident' in based around the concept of blame.

   I agree that helmets use is important, as is its advocation, however the news media often cite helmet use in a context that is not informational, but used instead to incite a simple-to-digest cause-and-effect.

   Let us not forget about the 'avid', helmet-wearing cyclist who was hit west of Portland just last week by a woman in a large SUV (reportedly she did not see him due to sun glare). He died from the 'accident' though all laws and safe 'rules-of-thumb' were being followed. The news had nothing to sensationalize because there wasn't any apparent 'miscue' from the cyclist, so the story fizzled.

   Helmets do not always equal a fatality-free crash. Reminders to wear them are valid, as long as they are used as reminders, and not tools to help middle Americans quickly make judgment.

   My two cents.

   Sep 18 2006 at 12:41 pm
3. Comments by: Jonathan Maus
   

   Evan,

   I am glad you published this. I have some thoughts on it as well that I just posted.

   Sep 18 2006 at 12:45 pm
4. Comments by: bob
   

   I think the color of the shirt the cyclist was wearing is an important piece of data. I think yellow is probably the best color for visibility. If someone was hit wearing yellow it says a lot: basically it indicates there may be negligence that goes above and beyond casual negligence.

   I also want to know if the person was hit on a long straight stretch of roadway. There is no excuse for it. A long straight stretch gives the car driver several seconds (at least) to see the cyclist. An accident in this situation indicates, again, abnormal negligence.

   If it is known whether the cyclist had flashing lights that were operating at the time of the accident is another important piece of data. Also, how many lights and what color were facing the car driver.

   The accident details such as direction of travel, etc are important. As are such things as "vehicle turned into cyclist due to poor visibility with sun in their eyes" which has caused two fatalities in Washington County recently. Now we know to assume that cars cannot see you if the sun is in their eyes so be cautious when approaching intersections where cars may cross your path with the sun in the drivers eyes.

   Sep 18 2006 at 12:55 pm
5. Comments by: Duane
   

   All valid points though I am a bit perplexed by the helmet issue. I crashed my recumbent trike (no other vehicles involved) last week and only received very minor scrapes and bruises (major humiliation though) and yet feel my greater health was preserved because I hit my head hard on the curb and feel my helmet saved me. The report that helmet use in the Netherlands is low is disturbing. My first thought is that they may be less aggressive riders than we are. My second is that the terrain is flatter thereby less dangerous for spills. Both factors were involved when I crashed. Just guesses though.

   Sep 18 2006 at 1:08 pm
6. Comments by: Evan Manvel, BTA
   

   Wow! A hot topic. Thanks for all your feedback.

   What I was saying was not that helmet use isn't important — but that reporting on helmet use is often a way of deflecting the reader from the larger causes of the crash. People who read stories about crashes are looking for who's at fault. To mention that a rider who died of chest injuries wasn't wearing a helmet confuses the reader and is irresponsible. Or, when a driver falls asleep, runs off the road in the opposite direction, hits a mailbox and kills a cyclist — what is the media doing talking about whether the cyclist was wearing a helmet?

   Similarly, it's important to be visible — but I don't think that the cyclist or pedestrian should be blamed for what they were wearing, which is what happens when those things are mentioned in reporting. If readers were more discriminate, it wouldn't be a problem, but they're skimming articles, and assigning blame as they go. Letting cyclists know that wearing bright clothes can improve safety is fine, but should be done outside of crash reports.

   We used to get news reports that mentioned that women who were raped were wearing short skirts — the implication was that they were "asking for it," or that they shared some blame. That was unacceptable then, and I would argue, it's unacceptable now to do the same for cyclists not wearing bright yellow clothes, or pedestrians wearing dark clothes at night. Road users need to use the road in a way that they can react to other people, regardless of clothing.

   Sep 18 2006 at 1:22 pm
7. Comments by: Tbird
   

   Having lived in PDX for the past few years, and now living in the Netherlands, I feel I should point out that the comments by Duane are accurate. Folks here don't ride as aggressively, and the terrain is flat as a pancake. Another factor is that there are not only bike lanes, but bike freeways, and strong pro-cyclist traffic laws throughout the entire country thereby making cycling inherently more safe than in the US. The sticker is that the percentage of people on a bike in the Netherlands is upwards of 50% of the total population ( thats something around 9-10 million people on bike every day in an area about the size of Clackamas, Washington and Multnomah Counties combined), far higher than anyplace in the US, including PDX, and yes no one wears a helmet. So, if we look at cyclists per capita and percentage of those wearng helmets in each nation then it is easy to see the positive effect of bike lanes and strong legislation. I agree the media in the US sees only sensationalism, and largely ignore actual contributing factors.

   For the record I am vehemently pro-helmet, but hey it's your brain, do with it what you will.

   Sep 18 2006 at 1:54 pm
8. Comments by: Chris H
   

   I wouldn't be so quick to let the news media types pass this off as simply careless reporting. I would argue that, instead, the news media are deliberately selling news stories to the American public that affirms the "rightness" of their life style. If I'm a motorist (as most Americans are primarily), I don't want to read a news story that portrays the motorist as the bad guy. Even if it's the truth. The alternative is having to consider the fact that my behavior might be endangering the lives of others. Cyclists have lost this popularity contest.

   Sep 18 2006 at 9:07 pm
9. Comments by: Ray
   

   My pet peeve is simply this, cyclists are dying. Mostly due to driver inattention or careless attitudes. At most they get a slap on the wrist and a minor charge, instead of vehicular manslaughter. Oregon needs to change it's laws. If the lady on West Union last week had run over a child because the sun was in her eyes it would've been a far different public reaction than just a mere cyclists.

   Sep 18 2006 at 10:20 pm
10. Comments by: Michael
    

    I've posted a lengthy screed about calling crashes "crashes" instead of "accidents." Getting the media here (Madison WI) to change their ways has been like nailing Jell-o to a tree, but it seems to finally be sinking in.

    As for the helmet thing, we had a fatality here about a year ago where the motorist was looking down his throat in his rearview mirror while traveling at 50 mph. For the record, the cyclist he struck from behind and killed was indeed wearing her helmet (as if that mattered.) He was charged with criminal negligence but got off when the jury hung itself (10 to convict, 2 to acquit.) See also this op-ed.

    Sep 19 2006 at 7:04 am
11. Comments by: Jen
    

    The simple truth is that automobiles can be deadly objects. Pedestrians cannot kill anyone by simply walking; cyclists cannot kill anyone by simply biking; drivers CAN kill people by simply driving. It happens all the time. Until ALL the blame is put SOLELY on the operator of the DEADLY vehicle, reports about crashes involving cyclists are never going to be accurate or fair. It's like throwing a 10-year-old into a ring with a sumo wrestler and blaming the child's loss of the match on anything besides the sumo wrestler being larger, heavier, and harder to control.

    Sep 19 2006 at 3:25 pm
12. Comments by: Chuck
    

    Motorists need to pay more attention, absolutely, and cyclists should not have to wear helmets or bright, reflective clothing to be safe (though I often do), and I hate it when the media focuses on the helmet (or the seatbelt, or whatever "safe crashing device") instead of the cause of the crash, but here's what burns me up about this particular article:

    "Zaytsev was riding his bike southbound in a northbound lane of Andresen Road when he rode into the side of a car pulling onto the road."

    Hello! if that is accurate, then THE CYCLIST WAS RIDING THE WRONG WAY - AGAINST TRAFFIC. That's among the MOST important pieces of information we have, and no one has mentioned it (other than the author of the article, who doesn't seem to recognize, or fails to acknowledge, its significance). The driver was driving with a suspended license, so he was probably a crappy driver, and might have ended up killing someone with his car anyway. But the cyclist here was not totally without fault (and it had nothing to do with a helmet or lack thereof).

    If a motorist had driven the wrong way on the freeway, there would be no question as to why the inevitable crash occurred.

    oh, and, by the way a bicyclist CAN kill someone just by bicycling, though admittedly it's much harder than using a car. My partner went to high school with a kid who killed a pedestrian because he was bicycling downhill on a sidewalk at twilight, and not paying enough attention. It was a small town, everyone knew both the woman that was killed and the kid that killed her, including my spouse; i.e. this CRASH was not an urban myth.
    –Though I agree with the gist of Jen's post, that the onus should be on the operator of the (much more) deadly vehicle.

    Sep 20 2006 at 11:53 am
13. Comments by: Charley
    

    Comparing auto visibility to bicyclist visibility is specious, at best. Autos always have lights. Autos are always in driveways or lanes. Autos are big and hard to miss and probably "mapped" on our synapsis because they're everywhere.

    Bikes have a small profile, come out of nowhere and disappear into nowhere, often don't have lights when they should, don't register any better than motorcycles on most folks consciousness and suffer greater damage when confronting autos. For the thinking individual, wearing bright colored clothing is a logical defense– at least in the real world, perhaps not in the theoretical world of blogs.

    Sep 20 2006 at 12:41 pm
14. Comments by: Duane
    

    Americans are addicted to cars. It's our situation. It's our challenge. My incidental proof is from an experience in rehab from a motorcycle crash. People occasionally asked that if it were possible, would I ever get back on a motorcycle. In all the time I was there, not once did I hear the according question in reference to a person who was injured in a car. My point is that changing the mindset of the car driving world is like getting an alcoholic to abstain from drinking whilst living in a tavern. It is our challenge and it will take more intelligence to overcome the problem than it did to get us into the mess.

    Sep 20 2006 at 8:16 pm
15. Comments by: Larry Buchholz
    

    On the subject of reporting, I was dismayed to read the following OPENING SENTENCE in the 9/19/06 Hillsboro Argus front-page article headlined "Bicyclist Dead After Collision": "A bicyclist died Friday after RUNNING INTO A CAR [emphasis added] at the intersection of Northwest West Union Road and Northwest Shute Road Friday night." The vehicle struck the cyclist (Michael Kalen), not the other way around, and the cyclist was apparently riding in a legal fashion. Even the use of the word "night" is misleading, as it was prior to sunset. The low angle of the sun was likely a factor, although drivers need to take this fully into account while driving rather than use it as an excuse. The remainder of the article is fairly neutral, though some might argue.

    Sep 21 2006 at 10:26 am
16. Comments by: Dean
    

    Regarding the Netherlands and helmets, the number one reason why the Dutch do not wear helmets is that drivers respect bicycists because most car drivers ride bikes. I have ridden in the Netherlands and it does feel strange to ride without a helmet when I would never dream of doing that in the San Francisco Bay Area (where I have been hit by a truck, a car, doored, and run off the road twice). But, the Dutch drive safely in their cars and use bicycles as transportation more than Americans do. I agree with Evan on his major points. The American press reflects a general bias in our culture against bicycles. Yet, I cannot remember any war we have participated in because of bicycles but I can think of at least two that are directly the result of oil/gasoline dependence.

    Sep 30 2006 at 3:27 pm
17. Comments by: John Ciraldo
    

    I do not see a problem with mentioning the cyclist's wearing or not wearing of a helmet. Its true that it pre-supposes guilt when they say he didn't, but doesn't it equally pre-suppose innocence if he does? The problem, as I see it, is not that the reporters comment on the status of the helmet, but that they do not report it. Many articles will say cyclist did not have a helmet, far fewer say cyclist DID have a helmet, an equally pertitent piece of information.

    Oct 02 2006 at 4:54 am
18. Comments by: Thomas
    

    As I have written previously on my blog (bikeblog.us), just because it's the driver of the car's fault the cyclist is dead doesn't make the cyclist any less dead. I'm suggesting we blame the cyclist, but I do think we need to take away every excuse the car driver might give. So wear helmets, ride on the correct side of the road, use lights/reflectors at night, wear light-colored clothing. And then, when there's another fatality, convict the automobile driver for the death of the cyclist.

    Oct 03 2006 at 5:28 am
19. Comments by: Thomas
    

    whoa, I left the NOT out of the sentence "I'm NOT suggesting we blame the cyclist…." Sorry about that.

    Oct 03 2006 at 5:30 am
20. Comments by: F0ul
    

    Very interesting debate!
    From a UK point of view, I would agree that the media do put too much emphasis on a quick judgement through the use of paticular phrases. Its easy, and to the vast majority who read the story, it gives an easy indicator to their response. They will feel a warm glow as they can accuratly state that the accident was obviously the fault of the (A) because of (B).

    Unfortunatly, the real world is not like that. It would seem to me that a lot of the fault of the media reporting is possibly on the heads of those who initially campaigned for helmet legistation. You told your politicians that with helmets, less people will die. They changed the laws are cyclists now wear helmets, yet they still die? Did the politicians miss something here?! And that is the crux of your problem.

    Both the politicians, the media and the average audience (who vote the politicians in) are too stupid to work this out for themselves - although in the media's case, it suits their agenda to have a stupid audience!

    So how are you going to get the message out that it isn't the helmets - its the nut behind the steering wheel that's to blame?

    That's your problem!

    Oct 18 2006 at 1:42 am
21. Comments by: JHop
    

    My lament is not so much about the reporting as about the sources available to the reporters. Here in Florida, police routinely decline to provide more than the most elementary details about a traffic crash until six weeks after it has happened. Ostensibly, this is to keep ambulance-chasing lawyers from tracking down the families involved and instigating lawsuits that otherwise might not be filed. I never knew a reporter yet who would wait six weeks to do follow-up, in any but the most spectacular cases. This withholding of information from the public is NOT in the public interest, in my view. If it has anything to do with ambulance-chasing, it must be to help the insurance industry.

    Oct 29 2006 at 1:32 pm
22. Comments by: Andrea
    

    Evan,
    Thank you! You wrote the list that I run through my mind with every article I read about crashes. Since my son was nearly killed on his way to the bus to school, as a freshman, and our lives changed forever, I read crash reports with rage and the sure knowledge that we are trained to accept the carnage so that business as usual is not disturbed.

    I am putting together a board to advocate for pedestian saefty and victim's advocacy. Those disabled and killed cannot be allowed to fade out of the public view. THe costs born by the innocent must always be in our minds. For the sake of human dignity and for the sake of the change we must facilitate.

    May I use your Top Ten List on the website I am putting together? With proper attribution of course.

    And any organizing suggestions? There is a small group of survivors and those who care about the issue that are coalescing here in Seattle. I want to keep the victim advocacy as a group independent of other ped/bike groups, but work as partners.

    Dec 11 2006 at 11:41 am
23. Comments by: Karen
    

    People should think more about safety. All the things are necessary to be taken into account: speed and wearing a helmet and everything mentioned above.

    Oct 09 2007 at 10:01 pm

Leave a Response

Name (required)

Email (will not be published) (required)

Website