Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: Identify car crash editorial anti-patterns using NLP

visionzeroreporting.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 213 posts

Re: Show HN: Identify car crash editorial anti-patterns using NLP

#21

Post by xraystyle »

> Show HN: Ensure all car crash articles are biased against the driver and vehicles generally using NLP

Seems like a better title for this.

In the analysis of the first article, under the "recommendations" about counterfactuals, it's literally telling you to remove relevant context about the incident, to ensure the readers can't possibly come to the "wrong" conclusion about who's responsible.

Distrust of news media is at an all-time high[1] and if people can't see how this sort of thing contributes, I really don't know what to say at this point.

1. https://news.gallup.com/poll/321116/americans-remain-distrus...

Re: Show HN: Identify car crash editorial anti-patterns using NLP

#22

Post by UncleEntity »

> "The vehicle fled the scene" VS "The driver fled the scene"

It is quite common for the driver to flee the scene while leaving behind the disabled vehicle.

…one of my old coworker’s vehicle was involved in an accident with a pedestrian who ran full speed in front of her while it was dark outside and the vehicle was traveling at the legal speed limit. Said vehicle was unable to stop in time which resulted in the speeding pedestrian striking the vehicle.

Re: Show HN: Identify car crash editorial anti-patterns using NLP

#23

Post by kazinator »

I don't think that "the cyclist was not wearing a helmet" or "impairment was not an issue" are examples of counterfactuals; the authors should crack open a dictionary look up what that word means in general use, and additionally how it is used in philosophy and science.

If you have word from the police that the driver was not found to have any alcohol or if the cyclist wasn't wearing a helmet, those are simply facts, not counterfactuals.

(An article about an accident should report all the hitherto known facts; then it can't be accused of having a bias with regard to cherry-picking the facts.)

There is a problem with "alcohol doesn't appear to be a factor" in that it lacks conclusiveness. Appear to whom? For what reasons, and why aren't they sure? The driver was able to touch their nose with their eyes closed, is that it? I think a reasonable rule should be to cull any probabilistic statements, or statements with hedge words introducing uncertainty: remove all such statements from third parties, and under no circumstances invent new probabilistic statements in the process of editorializing.

In fact, it's the use of the word accident that may have the counterfactual issue (and good point here). There is a supposition behind it which may be false. Maybe it wasn't an accident? You can't logically call a pedestrian hit an accident until other hypotheses have been ruled out, like the driver had a specific murder motive, or is crazy. It's also hard to call it an accident if the driver was blatantly reckless: acted contrary to the rules of the road which are intended to prevent such occurrences, and which the driver is legally obliged to follow as a matter of licensing. If a walking person falls into a fountain due to texting on their phone, it's difficult to swallow the word accident, since they were practically begging for something to happen by moving through an environment while choosing to block it out.

Re: Show HN: Identify car crash editorial anti-patterns using NLP

#24

Post by 6gvONxR4sf7o »

fermigier wrote: post #18

I like the general idea, and the use of NLP to implement it. But I am dubious about some of the principles behind it. - For example, I find it inaccurate to say "the driver hit the pedestrian", which to me suggests a collision between two people, not between a person and a vehicle. (Of course this does not apply to a phrase like "the vehicle fled the scene" - it is clear that it was the driver who fled the scene). Wh…

> the driver hit the pedestrian

It seems reasonable to me. Imagine you’re driving and you hit a deer. What do you say when you tell the story? “My car hit a deer this morning on my way to work!” or “I hit a deer this morning on my way to work!” Even my “Imagine you’re driving and you hit a deer” sentence reads weirdly in the non-person-based language.

If accuracy or confusion is still the issue “the assailant hit the victim” could be amended to “the assailant hit the victim with a baseball bat” to clarify.

Re: Show HN: Identify car crash editorial anti-patterns using NLP

#25

Post by advisedwang »

dymk wrote: post #9

This is neat, but something bugs me about the framing of the intended goal versus how you propose to get there. If the intent is to raise public awareness and to put pressure on leadership to make roads generally safer, why do almost all the corrections follow a pattern of shifting blame from the individual pedestrian onto the individual driver? Many of the suggested fixes are just their own form of counterfactual -…

I agree, the best outcome would be if news stories said things like

* "5 crashes have happened at this intersection so far this year"

* "The speed limit at the crash site was 35, above the standard arterial speed limit of 25"

* "The road at the bend had sharrow markings, which cycling advocates say are ineffective and inferior to marked or protected bike lines."

Re: Show HN: Identify car crash editorial anti-patterns using NLP

#26

Post by bluGill »

dymk wrote: post #9

This is neat, but something bugs me about the framing of the intended goal versus how you propose to get there. If the intent is to raise public awareness and to put pressure on leadership to make roads generally safer, why do almost all the corrections follow a pattern of shifting blame from the individual pedestrian onto the individual driver? Many of the suggested fixes are just their own form of counterfactual -…

One way to make roads safer is to make better drivers. There is a lot of training and continuing education that can be done to make better drivers. It is far too easy to drive, and once you get your license it is very hard to lose it even as your body degrades to the point you cannot see. People think of bad driving tickets (mostly speeding) as just a price you pay to drive. I've never heard of someone getting a tailgating ticket even though it is rare to see someone maintain their proper following distance in traffic.

Don't take the above as excusing bad road design.

Re: Show HN: Identify car crash editorial anti-patterns using NLP

#27

Post by tshaddox »

dymk wrote: post #9

This is neat, but something bugs me about the framing of the intended goal versus how you propose to get there. If the intent is to raise public awareness and to put pressure on leadership to make roads generally safer, why do almost all the corrections follow a pattern of shifting blame from the individual pedestrian onto the individual driver? Many of the suggested fixes are just their own form of counterfactual -…

Couldn’t part of the larger “why?” be that individual drivers are not sufficiently subject to liability for causing accidents with pedestrians, cyclists, etc.? If it is the case that it’s almost impossible for a driver to get in any trouble for causing such an accident (except in the most egregious cases of reckless driving) then it doesn’t make sense to avoid talking about that.

Re: Show HN: Identify car crash editorial anti-patterns using NLP

#28

Post by dml2135 »

rootusrootus wrote: post #8

I gather that the intent is not to make the reporting more neutral or accurate, but to change the framing in a direction that vision zero finds more appealing. E.g. in the first article we should view the woman as a vulnerable road user, bearing no responsibility for being struck by a vehicle even though video evidence shows that she fell into the street.

You're right that the intent is not to make the reporting more neutral, but you are missing the point -- the reporting is not neutral to begin with.

Take an example from the tool: - The SUV crashed into the woman. vs - The driver crashed into the woman.

It is not that one of these statements is "neutral" while the other one is biased. In both cases, the author is making a choice of emphasis.

What Vision Zero advocates is that the former's emphasis is the wrong one, and that ascribing more agency (not necessarily blame, but agency) to drivers is the right emphasis to take. But no one is saying that that the choice of words is not subjective either way.

Re: Show HN: Identify car crash editorial anti-patterns using NLP

#30

Post by JackFr »

whimsicalism wrote: post #20
rootusrootus wrote: post #8

I gather that the intent is not to make the reporting more neutral or accurate, but to change the framing in a direction that vision zero finds more appealing. E.g. in the first article we should view the woman as a vulnerable road user, bearing no responsibility for being struck by a vehicle even though video evidence shows that she fell into the street.

Yes, I do not think you bear responsibility if you collapse and someone strikes you with their car and then flees the scene.

Don’t be obtuse.

A person collapses into the street and is struck by oncoming traffic - no one is to blame. It is an accident.

Post reply on HN