Irish media and driverless vehicles

Duckjob

https://www.rte.ie/news/2020/0910/1164494-children-hurt-bus-crash/

Incident is from UK, but does anyone else find it insane how somebody can write an article about such an event completely airbrushing out the actions of the driver, and even the existence of a driver barely gets a mention (only to note that he wasn't hurt ) ?

In cases where for example 2 vehicles or a vehicle and a bike are involved, I understand the argument they want to be careful not to imply blame. That's not the case here though. It's a single vehicle vs stationary infrastructure. Surely it's not factually inaccurate, nor would it be assigning blame to just say "the driver hit the railway bridge" ?

Children were left "distressed, screaming and crying" after their double-decker school bus collided with a railway bridge, shearing off the roof.

Three pupils were taken to hospital with "serious but not life-threatening" injuries and 12 others suffered minor injuries in the accident in Winchester, England this morning.

Inspector Andy Tester, from the local roads policing unit, said a further 57 children on the bus and the driver were unhurt.

All of the youngsters on board the Stagecoach-operated bus were aged between 11 and 16.

Insp Tester told the PA news agency: "When officers and other emergency services arrived they found a number of people coming out of the bus and it was clear the bus had collided with the bridge.



"So we have got everyone off the bridge and assessed all of their injuries.

"The children were very, very distressed, they had obviously been in a very traumatic incident. A number of them were injured, it was a very difficult scene to deal with."

Robert, a 15-year-old student at Henry Beaufort School, was on the bus when the accident happened.

The pupil, who did not want to disclose his surname, told PA: "I was on the lower deck. I was on my phone when it actually happened, we went under the tunnel and I heard a crash.

"It took a little while to realise what was happening... part of the roof fell down to the side of the bus that I was on.

"I waited for the people on the top deck to get off, and at that point I saw some of the bad injuries people had. I think everyone was in shock."



He added: "When we got off the bus, everyone sat down on the grassy bank outside, people started to panic and phone parents, some people started to cry.

"It took like an hour maybe while everyone was sorted until we started to leave."

L1011

One of the two references there is a direct quote.

The issue with saying the driver did it is that in the very occasional case of mechanical failure, you'll be sued

Car99

I'll guess what happened , driver normally drives single deck bus on her route but today she had a double decker and forgot about it.

Duckjob

L1011 wrote: »

One of the two references there is a direct quote.

The issue with saying the driver did it is that in the very occasional case of mechanical failure, you'll be sued

Say I'm driving my car, my brakes fail and I hit a wall, it still would be a fact that I, the driver, hit the wall in my car. I would of course tell people the reason: that my brakes failed, and the veracity of that claim could be verified or discredited later on through examination of my car.

If the driver claimed some sort of mechanical failure, surely that claim could and should be reported as part of the article (factually correct that the claim was made). Any other claims by eye-witnesses can also be reported.

It seems to me that the media in general give too much "auto-cover" to people with driving responsibilities, many of which are perhaps not giving that responsibility the level of care and attention it demands and deserves.

Just to be clear, my point is on the media reporting of traffic incidents in general and has nothing to do with this specifically incident. I'm categorically not trying to imply that the driver in this case was guilty of any wrongdoing like phone use etc.

L1011

Irish defamation law would not give you cover in the manner you think it would.

Whatever the driver claims is not going to be known by a journo reporting at the time of the incident for starters.

Basically, if you said anything that "blamed" the driver and they somehow weren't deemed responsible (as exceptionally rare as that is), you'd be in for a world of pain

magicbastarder

i know the rationale behind what you're saying Duckjob, but saying 'children injured when a bus driver collided with a bridge' is a little weird, and 'children injured when a bus, being driven by a bus driver, collided with a bridge' is just clunky.

Car99

Car99 wrote: »

I'll guess what happened , driver normally drives single deck bus on her route but today she had a double decker and forgot about it.

I would be curious as to whom gave her a DD bus for this route?

Both should have been more aware!

MrMusician18

magicbastarder wrote: »

i know the rationale behind what you're saying Duckjob, but saying 'children injured when a bus driver collided with a bridge' is a little weird, and 'children injured when a bus, being driven by a bus driver, collided with a bridge' is just clunky.

This kind of thing has been going on for ages. Here say an underage driver is killed in a collision the reporting will go out of it's way to conceal that: either by not reporting it or obfuscating it (e.g a 15 y/o being described as in their 16th year).

Accidents involving alcohol as a contributing factor are not reported at the time - even as preliminary findings of an investigation.

Generally it seems that traffic accidents are reported as a series of unfortunate events that couldn't be helped rather than incidents that usually have an easily identifiable root cause.

Duckjob

magicbastarder wrote: »

i know the rationale behind what you're saying Duckjob, but saying 'children injured when a bus driver collided with a bridge' is a little weird, and 'children injured when a bus, being driven by a bus driver, collided with a bridge' is just clunky.

I probably shouldn't have highlighted those sentences because it's not even about them specifically. As you point out linguistically it doesn't flow naturally if you try to shoe-horn into them the actions of the driver.

I just find it bizarre how a serious traffic accident gets reported that could easily have resulted in multiple child deaths, and the driver is all but removed from the story. It reads almost as if the whole incident were an "Act of God".