I find reports of injuries or deaths of vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians and cyclists, anxiety-causing. As someone who both bikes and walks, such articles are one more reminder of the real dangers I face on our streets. I also know many others who walk and cycle so when I read articles about someone dying on our roads, I fear I may know the person who was killed.
Which is exactly what happened when I read the news release last April, that Orvie Bowman (no relation) had been hit and killed by a driver, while riding his bike. While I didn’t know Orvie well, I had spent the previous year volunteering on the Ray of Hope board with him. I knew he was a passionate volunteer, kind man, and had a young family whose lives were now forever changed because of this tragedy. Orvie’s spouse, Heather, said that, “Orvie was adventurous, fun-loving, competitive, bold, athletic, witty, gentle, compassionate, sensitive, hardworking and faithful.”
Nobody wants to hear of yet another death on our roads, but to see how these incidents are handled by police, media, and the courts, only adds to the tragedy.
Recently, this WR Record piece stated that the driver “simply was not paying full attention when the truck struck Bowman." I’m concerned about the use of the word ‘simply’ here in that it minimizes the situation. As well, the phrase “the truck struck Bowman” removes any reference to the driver, and the detached tone removes the driver’s responsibility. This Slate article reminds us that “media outlets consistently employ practices that traffic safety experts and advocates object to—writing headlines about pedestrian and cyclist fatalities in the passive voice and highlighting the vehicle instead of the driver.” The account shared in the WR Record article is no exception.
When reporters use language such as “A pedestrian was hit” they remove an agent altogether - it was just something that happened. However, research by Kelcie Ralph and her team, demonstrates that “readers who were provided with more context were less likely to blame the driver or pedestrian, and were more likely to blame ‘other factors’, like unsafe road design.” They were also less likely to support education-only campaigns and prefer approaches like lower speed limits and improved pedestrian infrastructure.
I may be feeling sensitive about this issue because I knew Orvie a bit from our volunteer work or because I’m a cyclist myself. But it's frightening to see how easily these deaths are dismissed. The WR Record article states, "This is at least the fourth time in less than two years that a motorist in a fatal accident near Elmira has avoided a jail sentence.” If we see continued collisions and deaths in one geographic area, it seems appropriate to investigate why that is.
Once again, media reports influence our understanding of this. Kelcie Ralph says that “Coverage almost always treats crashes as isolated incidents (which) likely contributes to the limited public outcry about pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities.” This Columbia Journalism Review article recommends that, “Reporters should ask questions like, Why did the victim cross the street where they did? What can be done to prevent a similar situation in the future?, or Why are so many cyclists getting struck at that intersection?”
Unfortunately, many reporters, who are often under-resourced and facing imminent deadlines, often rely solely on police reports of crashes. Slate reports, “Newspaper stories about traffic deaths are “usually single-sourced from police, with just the bare facts.” And ‘bare facts’ may be an optimistic view. The Columbia Journalism Review writes that, “Reports tend to reflect a survivor’s bias since, in crashes with fatal outcomes, the pedestrian or cyclist is not around to share their side of the story. Instead, the reports are usually based on a single eyewitness—the driver.” And Susan Chira (the editor in chief of the Marshall Project) reminds us in this Washington Post article, “‘Police said’ is not a shorthand for truth. You don’t give up your obligation to verify and corroborate just because the source wears a badge and a gun.”
The WR Record article reporting Orvie Bowman’s death, noted that the prosecutor said: “Mr. Bowman did nothing wrong here. He was a cyclist. He was entitled to his piece of the road and in fact he was being considerate to motorists by staying on the right side of the highway. It wouldn't have been viable for him to travel on the gravel.”
However, that was in response to this: "A motorist who passed Bowman before the accident told police Bowman was cycling “on the pavement as opposed to the gravel shoulder,” Schnell said. “He felt that Mr. Bowman should be further to the right as he felt uncomfortably close while passing him.” Blaming the victim in these road deaths is all too common.
The Columbia Journalism Review provides just a few examples of reporting that blames the victim: “She ran into traffic. He was wearing dark clothing. They didn’t use the crosswalk.” They note, “Even in cases when a helmet would not have prevented death, the absence of one is usually noted.”
The driver of the pickup who killed Orvie was driving 104 km/hour on an 80 km/hour road, having a hands-fee phone conversation, and the “truck had modifications, including tinted windows and oversized tires, contrary to regulations”. And yet prosecutor Benjamin Schnell stressed it was an accident “in the truest sense of the word.” Just because there was perhaps no intent for this driver to kill someone on our roads, does not mean it should be described as an ‘accident’.
While I'm not convinced that jail time is the best solution, the fact that so often drivers are not given any jail time at all, even when they kill someone with their vehicle, speaks to the value (or lack thereof) we have for those who are killed on our roads. We seem to value the people inside of vehicles, more than those outside of them.
I love cycling for many reasons and I’m fortunate to have a fairly protected commute to and from work. However, many people do not have access to safe walking and cycling infrastructure. As a community, we need to advocate for safer streets. One way to do that, is to recognize this kind of reporting and to actively push against these narratives in the media.
What other ways can we advocate for safer streets for our cities? Comment below.