Risks, roads and rail

On Friday's late evening news, the Cumbrian train crash was featured throughout the programme, even though it was very obvious that hard facts were scarce.

Three different people, from three different locations, broadcast live repeating the same information, which was that there had been a train crash in Cumbria, emergency services were at the scene, and casualties were feared. In the absence of fresh facts, information which was quite obvious was repeated over and again. I guess it's the price we pay for expecting instant news.

By the 8am bulletin the following morning, the situation had become clearer with 1 person dead and 5 seriously injured. No doubt extensive coverage will continue over the next few days.

Terrible though the event will have been for all concerned, it does highlight the different approach to the reporting of public and private transport deaths and injuries.

First there is the language. Almost universally, plane and train incidents are referred to as "crashes", while motorists have "accidents", no matter what the extenuating circumstances.

Then there are the numbers. Over an average weekend, some 20 or more people are killed and approaching 200 seriously injured on Britain's roads, without this justifying more than a mention on regional news, let alone national.

The importance is to get this all in proportion. How many people are terrified of dying in a plane crash, without realising that statistically they are much more likely to be killed driving to the airport?

It's not our reaction to public transport crashes that should be weakened, but our seeming immunity to the price of life and limb on Britain's roads. And still it is performance and speed that is highlighted in car adverts, above safety and economy.