As police prepare their festive anti-drink and drug driving operations, new analysis reveals that forces have largely phased out the word ‘accident’.
Research, conducted by the author of the UK’s Road Collision Reporting Guidelines, and funded by the Foundation for Integrated Transport, analysed 227 press releases from 45 police forces across England, Wales and Northern Ireland, as well as using Freedom of Information requests.
It found use of ‘accident’ is now the exception, rather than the rule – appearing just eight times, generally as apparent ‘slips of the tongue’ in quotes from officers.
The guidelines also highlight the importance of referring to the drivers, rather than their vehicles, when describing collisions.
More than two thirds (70%) of police news stories still refer to vehicles as participants in crashes, while almost a quarter (22%) describe vehicles as ‘acting’ in those collisions.
Some of the more extreme examples outlined in the report describe vehicles ‘attempting to drive the wrong way’, ‘intentionally swerving’ or even ‘acting suspiciously’. Typical examples include ‘a collision involving a pedestrian and a Mercedes’.
Research shows this focuses audience attention, and blame, towards those injured in a collision, by as much as 30%. Simply adding the terms ‘being driven’, or ‘driver’ to a sentence can create a more balanced public understanding of collisions, the report says.
Ahead of Operation Limit’s launch on 1 December, Jo Shiner, the National Police Chiefs Council’s (NPCC) roads policing lead, praised forces for improving their use of language concerning road collisions.
A new handbook, published to coincide with the research, aims to help continue those improvements.
Jo Shiner said: “A key pillar in the NPCC Roads Policing Strategy is about ‘Changing Minds’.
“Language matters if we are to change minds and inform the public of the truly devastating consequences death and injury has on our roads every day.
“It is also important to ensure anyone with information that can help a police investigation can come forward with confidence and therefore how we describe a collision, and all of the elements involved in it, is vital to securing that public support.”
In total 49 of 227 police press releases analysed, 22% included wider collision statistics relating to a sentencing outcome or operation. This added context ‘helps audiences understand collisions are not isolated incidents, but part of predictable and preventable trends that contribute to road danger’, such as speeding, distracted driving and drink and drug driving.
The research grouped police press releases into four main categories: collision news, sentencing news, operations and initiatives, and tributes. Collision news reports tended to feature the most ‘active vehicle’ language, and lacked context on wider collision trends. While understandable in the immediate aftermath of a collision, forces can improve accuracy and clarity within time, resource and legal constraints, and the new handbook features some examples of more balanced wording to use in communications.
It also suggests ways to quickly add general context about wider collision trends using publicly-available data.
The Road Collision Reporting Guidelines were published in 2021 following a public consultation. The Guidelines have the support of the NPCC and individual forces across the UK.
However, Freedom of Information requests, conducted as part of this research, revealed just five police forces have formally adopted the Guidelines (Greater Manchester, Gwent, Northamptonshire, South Yorkshire and Warwickshire), and just one is using them in practice.
The report also seeks to celebrate and share good practice in public communications. South Yorkshire added context by highlighting the link between a lack of insurance and other criminal behaviour, while Surrey underlined the significant role speeding and dangerous driving play in the ‘Fatal 5’ – the five most common contributory factors to fatal collisions.
Avon and Somerset pointed out that a third of collisions, including 12 deaths on its roads within a year, involved drink or drugs. This context can change by 100% audiences’ understanding of how road crashes happen and what the solutions are.
Warwickshire Police adopted the Guidelines in 2020 and have tried to integrate them in-house and with external partners. The partnership is also looking to replace assets like the SLOW ACCIDENT signs used at the roadside.
Dan Quin, chief fire officer for Surrey Fire and Rescue Service (SFRS) and National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC) lead for road safety and road rescue, said: “This important research highlights how the language we use around road collisions can have a profound impact on public perception and safety.
“As emergency services, our choice of language plays a vital role in shaping public understanding of road collisions and their causes. By adopting more precise terminology, we help highlight the responsibility of drivers and raise awareness about the dangers on our roads.
“At Surrey Fire and Rescue Service and through the NFCC, we are committed to improving safety by ensuring our communications reflect the serious and preventable nature of these incidents. Clear and accurate reporting is essential to changing mindsets and ultimately saving lives.”
Laura Laker, journalist, authored the Guidelines and conducted the research, with funding from the Foundation from Integrated Transport.
She said: “Media descriptions of road collisions, particularly those involving pedestrians or cyclists, tend to be unbalanced, describing a victim first, and the person behind the wheel of a vehicle later, and sometimes not at all.
“Pedestrian casualties are depicted as isolated tragedies, cycling casualties as typical, while erasing the presence of drivers in collisions. News outlets commonly copy their use of language from police press releases verbatim.
“In more than a year working on this project I’ve met with blue light service staff committed to best practice, as well as services who still have further to go. Our emergency services are under a number of pressures and I’m grateful to all who engaged with me.
“It is encouraging to see an almost total absence of the word ‘accident’ in their communications – apart from what appear to be slips of the tongue when officers provide quotes – but this research shows there is room for improvement.”
Paul: my point exactly. A car cannot lose control of itself – the driver loses control of the car! Collision reporting should highlight the actions of the driver(s), not where the out of control vehicle ends up and or what it hit.
Hugh Jones, South Wirral
--2
Hugh : I suppose that the driver might have lost control of the vehicle – but only after doing some incredibly bad driving beforehand.
Paul Luton, Teddington
--1
While there may be some interesting points in the guidelines, the idea that the term accident should be replaced by some other term is nonsense. At best, it appears to be based on a misunderstanding of the English language. More likely, however, is that it represents a return to the culture of blame about which we have been warned by such as Ben Webster (The Times, May 12, 2007). Brake, allegedly a road safety charity, seems to think that people are so stupid that they think accidents are unavoidable. It seems to have overlooked the existence of a Royal Society long dedicated to the Prevention of Accidents. Perhaps the worst failure of those involved bullying us into their line of thinking is that not one of them has had the wit to ensure that the change they are insisting on will do no harm. But it will, as any authority on the matter will tell you. Those police forces who have NOT “signed up” to the “media guidelines” are those who should be commended.
Fraser Andrew, STIRLING
--4
For my time in Road Safety I tried to convince those who could make a change to do so, but to no avail.
I showed why it was called an accident, which was the wrong word then as it is now.
I received a long winded reply from the BBC as to why all traffic reports used the wrong word. The same from Highways England or whatever name they had back then.
They would use the word o
Incident but not for a collision. Still insisting on the wrong word.
I was heckled at conference in Chester for correcting a speaker.
Ii have been out of RS now for 10 years but once it’s in your blood. It remains. This article makes me a happy retired (early) Road Safety Officer.
Stuart HOWARTH, Wigan
0
“The guidelines also highlight the importance of referring to the drivers, rather than their vehicles, when describing collisions.” e.g. a typical press report of a collision which I’ve seen more than once “…the car which he was in, left the road and crashed” as if the car had mischievously taken control and the driver was a hapless victim.
Hugh Jones, South Wirral
+5