4 ms·

The guidelines you link to are produced by the Active Travel Academy, a body with an explicit goal of reducing car use. The Orwellian tactic of first controllin

The guidelines you link to are produced by the Active Travel Academy, a body with an explicit goal of reducing car use. The Orwellian tactic of first controlling the language has been well learned.

ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
It's curious that you should think that, when the aim of the language is to reduce bias and put the reporting on a neutral basis. In terms of Orwellian control of language, you'd be better off looking at the behaviour of the automotive industry of the 1930s: https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7551873/jaywalking-history https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7551873/jaywalking-history It's also notable just how much the media industries are influenced by car manufacturers due to their high advertising spend (e.g. "stop publishing articles about active travel or we'll stop our advertising"). Reducing car use is an entirely logical goal as getting people to walk for short journeys can drastically improve the health of a nation as well as improving the air quality and drastically reducing congestion - it literally helps everyone (except for those involved with selling/fixing cars).
- rcxdude 3y ago
  One man's neutral is another's bias. I don't think you get to claim that your preferred choice of words intended to guide the thinking about something is fundamentally more neutral than any other: it just reflects your point of view better (whether this point of view is more accurate or useful is a seperate question entirely). Put another way: arguing about the terms and the implications of using one kind of language or another over an issue is effectively equivilent to just arguing about the actual issue, just abstracted, usually in a not very useful way.
  - ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
    There's most definitely words which carry connotations with them. However, I cannot think of any particular connotation that comes with "collision" and thus I believe it to be entirely neutral. Can you think of any bias that comes with using "collision"? What specific part of the guidelines do you think are biased or misleading? The main thrust of the guidelines is to improve accurate reporting. Also, they aim to have consistent reporting so that the type of language used for different road users should be the same. I don't really see how asking for consistency is the same as being biased.

The guidelines you link to are produced by the Active Travel Academy, a body with an explicit goal of reducing car use. The Orwellian tactic of first controlling the language has been well learned.

ndsipa_pomu 3y ago

It's curious that you should think that, when the aim of the language is to reduce bias and put the reporting on a neutral basis. In terms of Orwellian control of language, you'd be better off looking at the behaviour of the automotive industry of the 1930s: https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7551873/jaywalking-history https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7551873/jaywalking-history It's also notable just how much the media industries are influenced by car manufacturers due to their high advertising spend (e.g. "stop publishing articles about active travel or we'll stop our advertising"). Reducing car use is an entirely logical goal as getting people to walk for short journeys can drastically improve the health of a nation as well as improving the air quality and drastically reducing congestion - it literally helps everyone (except for those involved with selling/fixing cars).

rcxdude 3y ago
One man's neutral is another's bias. I don't think you get to claim that your preferred choice of words intended to guide the thinking about something is fundamentally more neutral than any other: it just reflects your point of view better (whether this point of view is more accurate or useful is a seperate question entirely). Put another way: arguing about the terms and the implications of using one kind of language or another over an issue is effectively equivilent to just arguing about the actual issue, just abstracted, usually in a not very useful way.
- ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
  There's most definitely words which carry connotations with them. However, I cannot think of any particular connotation that comes with "collision" and thus I believe it to be entirely neutral. Can you think of any bias that comes with using "collision"? What specific part of the guidelines do you think are biased or misleading? The main thrust of the guidelines is to improve accurate reporting. Also, they aim to have consistent reporting so that the type of language used for different road users should be the same. I don't really see how asking for consistency is the same as being biased.