Top Ten Things News Gets Wrong About Crash Reports
Posted by: EvanSep 18 2006, 10:58 am
In today's Oregonian, I read that a vacationing cyclist was hit head-on by a sleepy driver in Newport. The newspaper story noted that the cyclist wasn't wearing a helmet. That probably wouldn't have made a difference in a head-on crash, yet is always included in bike crash reports. That's just one bee in my bonnet about crash reports.
Journalists are busy folks. TV, radio and newspapers are working with fewer staff, fewer resources, and on quicker deadlines than before. So I’ll cut them some slack.
But consider the following news account:
“Roman G. Zaytsev, 81, of Vancouver died Tuesday in a Vancouver hospital of chest injuries received four weeks earlier in a bicycle-car collision, according to the Clark County medical examiner's office. 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 near 25th Street. Zaytsev was not wearing a helmet. The driver of the car, Shaynne Goodwin, 29, of Vancouver was cited for driving while his license was suspended and for not having proof of insurance.�
The Oregonian, March 11, 2006
So, I thought, someone who dies of chest injuries is blamed for failing to wear a helmet (on his chest)?
Inquiries into the report received the response, “we get a lot of calls about the story if we don’t include certain information.� But that’s simply bad reporting – reporters should include what’s pertinent to the report, and exclude what’s not, period. And the reason readers want to know whether a chest-injury fatality was wearing a helmet is because the media has taught them that helmet use is what’s important.
Enough exposition. Time for my list of Top Ten Things the News Gets Wrong About Crash Reporting, which undoubtedly will evolve over time:
1. Failure to include speeds in the report. Vehicle speed is the top factor in a crash’s seriousness, and excessive speed is a leading cause of crashes. While speeds might not be available immediately, journalists should at least mention if cars were speeding or appeared to be speeding.
2. Failure to mention distracted or sleepy driving. Drowsiness and distractedness make drivers as crash-prone as intoxicating. While drunk driving is reported by the news, other risky actions such as cell phone use, eating, putting on make-up, driving while overly tired, etc. are rarely reported.
3. Mentioning whether the cyclist was in a bike lane, when she/he has a right to not be in one. Cyclists are allowed by law to be outside bike lanes for various reasons (turning, to avoid debris and hazards, to pass, etc.).
4. Mentioning that the cyclist wasn’t in a bike lane, when there was no bike lane on the road. Cyclists have the right to the road. Mentioning this implies they don’t.
5. Noting that the pedestrian wasn’t in a crosswalk, when she/he was in an unmarked crosswalk. All intersections are legal crosswalks unless marked otherwise. The lack of a “zebra stripe� or marked crosswalk doesn’t put blame on the pedestrian.
6. Noting the pedestrian was over the legal limit for alcohol use. There’s no legal alcohol limit for walking. Focus on the behavior (swerving into traffic) if there was unpredictable behavior, instead of implying a law that doesn’t exist.
7. Calling crashes “accidents� instead of “crashes.� The term “accident� absolves responsibility. “Crash� is a more neutral term.
8. Repeating driver claims that the driver “didn’t see the pedestrian/cyclist,� or that the pedestrian/cyclist “darted� out. These are a common factor – what it often means is that drivers aren’t paying enough attention to the road, and just noticed the cyclist or pedestrian at the last minute. Repeating the claim based on the driver’s perspective gives the driver credence she/he doesn’t deserve.
9. Talking about people’s choice of clothes. On a related note, pedestrians and cyclists shouldn’t be required to wear a certain color of clothes just to get around, and shouldn’t be blamed as victims if drivers hit them while wearing dark clothing. The color, reflectivity, or visibility of the car is virtually never reported.
10. Including information about helmet use unnecessarily. Bicycle helmets aren’t required by Oregon law for those 16 years or older, and including information about helmet use focuses on post-crash facts instead of focusing on the factors causing the crash. In the Netherlands, very few cyclists wear helmets and yet the fatality rate is one-fifth that of the U.S. And in many crashes – most crashes at 40 mph or more – helmets won’t save the life of the cyclist.
A final note: most of these news releases are just run directly from statements developed by the Sheriffs' Offices or Oregon State Police. Those offices need to shape up their acts, too.
What's your pet peeve about crash reporting?
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.
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.
Evan,
I am glad you published this. I have some thoughts on it as well that I just posted.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
whoa, I left the NOT out of the sentence "I'm NOT suggesting we blame the cyclist…." Sorry about that.
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!
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.
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.
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.