A new open access journal article by Dr David Fevyer from Westminster’s Active Travel Academy and Professor Rachel Aldred, Professor of Transport at the University of Westminster, has examined how fatal road collisions are reported in newspaper articles.
The article, entitled ‘Rogue drivers, typical cyclists, and tragic pedestrians: a critical discourse analysis of media reporting of fatal road traffic collisions’, analysed how collisions involving cyclists, pedestrians, and car drivers were reported in a sample of stories in the Evening Standard between 2012 and 2019.
Three different types of collision were examined in the article: where a cyclist dies in collision with a car or van; where a pedestrian dies in a collision with a car or van, and where a pedestrian dies in collision with a bicycle. Using a critical discourse analysis method to examine how these articles portrayed the collisions and those involved in them, the researchers identified distinct discourses around each road user.
Consistent with previous research, this analysis highlighted that car drivers were often given low prominence in reporting, with their involvement in the collision often referred to indirectly through references to their cars, such as ‘A man in his 30s died last night after being hit by a car’. However, Dr Fevyer and Professor Aldred also found that drivers were depicted differently when they were associated with some form of exceptional behaviour such as failing to stop. For example, ‘Police were today hunting a suspected hit-and-run driver after a cyclist was killed’. These ‘rogue drivers’ were given higher prominence and referred to as directly involved in the story.
By contrast, the researchers found that cyclists were always referred to directly and prominently in the articles - for instance ‘The 72-year-old man was struck by the cyclist’, irrespective of either their behaviour or whether they were the victims or surviving party in the collision. The researchers suggest that these reporting patterns tend to erase driver agency in all but exceptional cases, whilst also portraying cyclist involvement in collisions as more typical.
The research also found that whilst the articles examined often reported cyclist deaths with references to other recent cyclist deaths, these references did not draw reader attention to other common factors between such collisions, such as infrastructure. Instead, cycling itself was the only linking factor, which implied that cyclist deaths were part of a pattern of collisions typified by the involvement of cyclists. Pedestrian fatalities meanwhile were framed as individual tragedies without reference to the wider frequency of such incidents or their causes. This was despite pedestrian fatalities being more numerous than those of cyclists
These findings are important in light of recent research conducted elsewhere, which has suggested links between how cyclist and pedestrian deaths are framed, and how readers interpret blame and the need for action to prevent future such deaths. By framing pedestrian deaths as isolated tragedies and cyclist deaths as typical outcomes of cycling, current reporting patterns direct attention away from the sources of danger for both types of user.
Talking about the article, Dr David Fevyer said: “These findings contribute to an emerging area of research concerned with how media reporting shapes public understanding and discussion around road safety. The differences we identified between the portrayal of different road users highlights some of the ways in which inequalities between them are reinforced. This area of research can help to inform improvements in reporting practices and ultimately lead to better public understanding of how road danger can be addressed.”
Read the full article in the Mobilities journal.
Related articles
