Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

BBC “sorry” cyclist “did not appreciate” headline branding crash which saw drink driver kill ice hockey star and brother while cycling a “car accident”

The broadcaster has changed its description of the fatal collision to “bike and car crash”, after readers pointed out the original vocabulary used in the story was “biased and incorrect”

The BBC has apologised for its use of the word ‘accident’ in a headline and story concerning the deaths last week of US ice hockey star Johnny Gaudreau and his brother Matthew, killed while cycling by a suspected drink driver who allegedly told police at the scene that he had consumed “five to six beers” before the fatal crash.

Responding to a complaint from a reader, who described the vocabulary used in the article as “biased and incorrect”, the broadcaster said that it was “sorry if you did not appreciate how we chose to cover this issue initially”, noting that the headline had since been changed to clarify that the Gaudreau brothers had been killed in a “bike and car crash”, while removing all references to an ‘accident’.

The apology comes two years after the BBC defended its use of ‘accident’ when describing road traffic collisions, with the broadcaster telling one Radio 4 listener that “we try to use language that ordinary people use, not the language contained in reports and documents”.

The article at the centre of this latest complaint was published last Friday, when it emerged that professional ice hockey player Johnny Gaudreau, a 31-year-old father-of-two, winger for the Columbus Blue Jackets ,and one of the National Hockey League’s most popular and successful players, was killed the previous night while riding his bike with younger brother Matthew in Salem County, New Jersey.

Pennsville Auburn Road, New Jersey (Google Maps)

> Ice hockey star and brother killed while cycling by suspected drink driver who allegedly had “five to six beers” before fatally striking cyclists from behind as he tried to undertake another motorist

Local police said that 43-year-old motorist Sean Higgins was attempting to undertake another driver, who had moved into the middle of the road to pass the brothers, when he struck the cyclists from behind. They died at the scene from their injuries.

According to the police affidavit, the officer who arrived on the scene detected a “strong odour of alcohol”, while Higgins failed a field sobriety test and allegedly told him that he had consumed “five to six beers” before the collision.

The 43-year-old also allegedly told investigators that he thought the driver of the SUV was trying to stop him from passing, and that his alcohol consumption had contributed to his impatience and reckless driving.

But according to the opening paragraph of the BBC’s original news article on the fatal collision, Gaudreau and his brother were “killed in a car accident in New Jersey on Thursday night”, while the headline read: “NHL star Johnny Gaudreau and brother killed in car accident”.

BBC original headline on Johnny Gadreau fatal collision with drink driver (BBC)

The BBC’s original headline

The use of the term ‘accident’ prompted a number of complaints from readers, including one who forwarded their criticism – and the BBC’s response – to road.cc.

“The vocabulary is biased and incorrect. The reported incident was not an accident,” the reader told the BBC in the complaint seen by road.cc. “Under US law, if a fatality occurs during the execution of a criminal act, the culpability is on the felon.

“Please inform the public which activity out of drinking half a dozen beers, getting into the driver’s seat of a motor vehicle, or turning on the ignition was accidental, because the subsequent vehicular homicide would have easily been avoided given an omission of any of them.

“Please inform your editorial staff of the statistics around KSI (Killed or Seriously Injured) in collisions between vehicles and cyclists, vehicles and pedestrians, and then cyclists and pedestrians, before writing any more pieces around the death of individuals when a bicycle is involved, or when reporting on roads-related issues, as the bias towards motonormativity is astounding.”

> Is cycling treated fairly in the media? BBC AntiSocial goes cycling discussed with ‘the cyclist'

This negative feedback from cyclists prompted BBC News to this week alter the article’s headline to refer to a “bike and car crash” instead, while the opening paragraph’s use of ‘accident’ has been replaced by ‘crash’.

BBC modified headline on Johnny Gaudreay fatal collision

The current, modified headline

Responding to the above complaint, Linda Lewis, a senior journalist on the BBC’s news website and a broadcaster and former presenter of Radio 4’s PM programme, said: “I have looked carefully at the article and the information you sent us. I have also discussed it with the writers.

“We appreciate your concerns. Following feedback from readers, we did change the headline after publication to refer to a bike and car crash rather than an accident. We have now also changed the first sentence of the article as well to remove the word ‘accident’ and I am sorry that that was initially overlooked.

“In our article, we quoted New Jersey police as saying the brothers were ‘riding their bicycles on a rural road in Oldsman Township when a car struck them’.

“We also included a further comment from the police: ‘Mr Higgins is suspected of driving while under the influence of alcohol and currently is in the Salem County Correctional Facility, New Jersey Police said’. So the circumstances of what the police believe happened were made clear.”

She continued: “We are sorry if you did not appreciate how we chose to cover this issue initially, but I hope that the amendments we made will provide some reassurance that we handled the story correctly, in line with our Editorial Guidelines on accuracy, impartiality, fairness, and decency which underpin all BBC reporting.”

> “We try to use language that ordinary people use”: BBC defends use of “accident” to describe road traffic collisions

As noted above, this latest apology comes two years after Radio 4 listener Toby Edwards complained to the BBC after an 11am news bulletin on 28 September 2022 announced that “figures show that 39 people died after road accidents involving the police between 2021 and 2022”.

Edwards asked the BBC’s complaints team at the time if the broadcaster was “sure that all of these collisions were indeed accidents”, or whether “the term ‘accident’ was used mistakenly instead of saying ‘crashes’ or ‘collisions’?”

As Edwards noted in his letter to the BBC, the Media Guidelines for Reporting Road Collisions – coordinated by journalist and road.cc contributor Laura Laker alongside the Active Travel Academy at the University of Westminster, and launched in May 2021 – advises reporters to:

Avoid use of the word ‘accident’ until the facts of a collision are known. Most collisions are predictable and before an enquiry or court case the full facts are unlikely to be known. It is particularly important to avoid the word when someone has been charged with driving offences. Using ‘crash’ or ‘collision’ instead leaves the question of who or what is to blame open, pending further details.

At the time of the guidelines’ launch, Professor Rachel Aldred, the director of the Active Travel Academy, noted that “language matters, as it helps shape how we see and treat others”.

However, in a reply to Edward’s letter, the BBC’s complaints team said: “We note your concerns about our use of the world ‘accident’ in the news report. We were referencing data released by the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IPOC) that said: ’39 people died after road incidents involving the police between 2021 and 2022’.

“We’ve discussed your concerns with senior staff in BBC News and, although we take your point that ‘collision’ may have been a preferable word, our job is to write radio scripts that are relatable and understandable, and we try to use language that ordinary people use, not the language contained in reports and documents.

“‘Traffic accident’ is common parlance and we don’t feel here its use materially altered the accuracy of the story. The Road Collision Reporting Guidelines are guidelines, not rules.”

> “Language matters” – Road collision reporting guidelines launched 

Criticising the BBC’s response at the time, DCS Andy Cox, now at London’s Met Police, said: “‘Accident’ implies it was unavoidable, just one of those things, bad luck. Instead, many fatal ‘crashes’ occur because a driver made a choice to be dangerous or reckless, and to selfishly break the law.

“Words matter, and can help change an embedded mindset and save lives.”

After obtaining a PhD, lecturing, and hosting a history podcast at Queen’s University Belfast, Ryan joined road.cc in December 2021 and since then has kept the site’s readers and listeners informed and enthralled (well at least occasionally) on news, the live blog, and the road.cc Podcast. After boarding a wrong bus at the world championships and ruining a good pair of jeans at the cyclocross, he now serves as road.cc’s senior news writer. Before his foray into cycling journalism, he wallowed in the equally pitiless world of academia, where he wrote a book about Victorian politics and droned on about cycling and bikes to classes of bored students (while taking every chance he could get to talk about cycling in print or on the radio). He can be found riding his bike very slowly around the narrow, scenic country lanes of Co. Down.

Add new comment

17 comments

Avatar
Wandering Wheels | 3 months ago
3 likes

Whenever such articles come up, I'm always reminded of that scene in 'Hot Fuzz' where Sergeant Angel (Simon Pegg) tells Danny Butterman (Nick Frost) that Official Vocabulary no longer refers to car crashes as accidents: They are now called collisions.

Danny Butterman: Hey, why can't we say "accident," again?
Nicholas Angel: Because "accident" implies there's nobody to blame.

Avatar
hawkinspeter | 3 months ago
12 likes

I haven't heard back from my complaint to them about this yet though I did make it on Sunday, so maybe they haven't got to it yet.

I hate their non-apology of them not being sorry about their incorrect wording, but merely sorry that the complainers did not appreciate it.

Avatar
eburtthebike replied to hawkinspeter | 3 months ago
8 likes

hawkinspeter wrote:

I hate their non-apology of them not being sorry about their incorrect wording, but merely sorry that the complainers did not appreciate it.

The Matthew Paris defence.  Suggest decapitating cyclists and apologise that they haven't got a sense of humour.

Avatar
AidanR replied to hawkinspeter | 3 months ago
2 likes

I've heard back - basically the same email as reported here.

Sadly, the BBC don't seem to be learning the lesson - this article uses the word 'collision' but completely fails to mention that the taxi had a driver.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4glj83ll3go

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to AidanR | 3 months ago
0 likes

AidanR wrote:

I've heard back - basically the same email as reported here. Sadly, the BBC don't seem to be learning the lesson - this article uses the word 'collision' but completely fails to mention that the taxi had a driver. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4glj83ll3go

Still no response to my complaint though it was only made a week ago.

It's a step forwards if the BBC continue to use "collision" or "crash" rather than "accident". I'd be amazed if they stopped depersonalising the car drivers as that's something that almost all the news reports fail to do.

Avatar
mitsky | 3 months ago
4 likes

Now if only Tom Edwards (BBC correspondent), would unblock me on Twitter along with the BBC London Facebook page admins.
Or at least admit he is wrong about the way he, the BBC and most other news media write/talk about collisions involving drivers.
I didn't troll/abuse him. I just pointed out the errors in language and said to use the guidelines: http://rc-rg.com

Avatar
Clem Fandango | 3 months ago
13 likes

Hypothetically, if let's say Keely Hodgkinson, Harry Kane or Joe Root was killed whilst crossing the road in an incident involving a cyclist, do you think the headline would be along the lines of "Sports star killed in bike accident"?

No, me either.   

Avatar
OldRidgeback | 3 months ago
8 likes

It's poor journalism by the BBC. And worse still that the BBC tries to defend it. This was not an 'accident'. It was the result of one person making a very serious error of judgement and acting irresponsibly that ended the life of another. Surely a manslaughter charge wouldn't be inappropriate? 

Avatar
jaymack | 3 months ago
13 likes

"Drunk driver kills Hockey star and his brother..." c'mon BBC those ordinary words in every day use weren't difficult to type. 

Avatar
Wandering Wheels replied to jaymack | 3 months ago
0 likes

I suppose the editors may have thought that too tabloid a headline, despite it being factual.

Avatar
cmedred | 3 months ago
9 likes

Oh if only the BBC were true to its statement on the use of "language that ordinary people use."

Such language would say "the Gaudreau brothers were run down from behind by a driver trying to pass another vehicle on the wrong side of the road. Authorities allege the driver had been drinking. 

Avatar
eburtthebike | 3 months ago
5 likes

“The vocabulary BBC is biased and incorrect." 

FTFY

"...I hope that the amendments we made will provide some reassurance that we handled the story correctly, in line with our Editorial Guidelines on accuracy, impartiality, fairness, and decency which underpin all BBC reporting.”

Having complained to the BBC for something like thirty years about their coverage of cycle helmets, I can state without fear of contradiction that their Editorial Guidelines are a joke, and are completely and deliberately ignored.  For forty years they have published propaganda about helmets and complaints that they weren't accurate, impartial or fair, underpinned by volumes of evidence, were ignored.

I finally gave up complaining when I submitted a complaint that they were biased and my  search had found forty articles about helmets which were blatantly biased and only one which was accurate, which was dismissed by the executive board because a ratio of 40:1 wasn't enough.  So I dug a bit deeper, still only finding one accurate article but double the amount, 80, that weren't, which I then submitted: to be told that they were dismissing that complaint because they'd already dismissed the first.

Avatar
Cayo | 3 months ago
6 likes

I'm tempted to say, "Better late than never", but it shouldn't ever come to that in instances such as these. No report, official, media-related or private (e.g. social media) should ever use the term accident when describing an incident where blame is at all a possibility. 'Incident', 'collision' and 'crash' are perfectly easy words to understand and leave the blame aspect open where not yet officially confirmed.

In this case, whilst a court is yet to sit, the authorities have already announced the illegality of the driver's actions and quoted his (effective) admission of guilt regarding drink driving, and so in no way was there an 'accident'.

It's ridiculous we're still having to correct media corporations after all this time.

Avatar
ktache | 3 months ago
6 likes

Well done road.ccers for the first bit.

The second bit, why did the BBC choose to replace the IOPC's word used, incident with their accident?

Avatar
LeadenSkies replied to ktache | 3 months ago
14 likes

Why did they not use the term used by the local police and state bike struck by car? That is both factual and clearly indicates who was the active party in the collision and who was the passive party. Why does the BBC feel the need to feed motor-normativity? Both extremely poor journalism and huge bias in dealing with the complaint in my view.

Avatar
JMcL_Ireland replied to ktache | 3 months ago
4 likes

That struck me as odd as well.

Their whole "language ordinary people use" argument is just disingenuous in the first place. There was an awful lot of language that "ordinary people used" and that was commonplace on TV not all that long ago that is verbotten today.

Language has to and does evolve, like it or not, and it's beholden on an institution as influential as the BBC to promote this especially when when there are media guidelines in place for precisely that. Leave the rest to the Daily Heil, Torygraph and associated gutter press,

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to ktache | 3 months ago
4 likes

ktache wrote:

Well done road.ccers for the first bit.

The second bit, why did the BBC choose to replace the IOPC's word used, incident with their accident?

They have to follow their motonomrative, anti-cyclist agenda?

I don't see how they can justify replacing a neutral, accurate word with a loaded, inaccurate word.

Latest Comments