Comments:State-run bus crashes in Cuba en route to Havana, killing seven

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. Please remain on topic and avoid offensive or inflammatory comments where possible. Try thought-provoking, insightful, or controversial. Civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Use the "Start a new discussion" button just below to start a new discussion. If the button isn't there, wait a few seconds and click this link: Refresh.

It has been found by me that the usage of English language for describing the incident is found to be below average. The quality of presentation needs improvement

I see nothing whatever problematic about the article's English usage. What about it do you disapprove of?

The bus overturned in wet conditions; the bus driver told reporters he lost control, with some local press claiming he was attempting to pass another vehicle. The front-left section of the vehicle was heavily damaged in the rollover. At least one seat was pictured lying beside the wreck. According to reports, of the 40 passengers, 22 were Cuban.

Foreign nationals were from France, Mexico, the Netherlands, Canada, and the United Kingdom. Four of the deceased were from overseas; they were two Argentinians, one from France, and a fourth from Germany.

The crash took place on a bendy road at around 15:00 local time. Cuban roads suffer a large number of accidents; 2018 saw 11,187 recorded accidents leading to 750 deaths and 7,999 injuries. Sky News said Thursday's accident was the fourth major bus crash in a month. In addition to the deaths, 33 were reported hopitalised with five seriously injured.

The following corrections can be done: The bus overturned under wet conditions and while the bus driver told reporters that he had lost control, the local press claimed that he was attempting to overtake another vehicle. At least one seat was found damaged lying beside the wreck The crash took place on a road-bend. A large number of accidents werefound to occur on Cuban roads and there were 11187 accidents during 2018 leading to 750 deaths and 7999 persons getting injured. In addition to the deaths, 33 were reported hospitalised with five seriously injured.

My views:

Nothing is wrong with the article content as it stands. There are multiple ways to say and not everyone is going to stick to your recommendations. "Avoid unnecessary words" is what one should try to achieve. But they should also avoid BS, so well wrapping this with a word of notice for peers: DFTT.

To critique your suggested revision. It both tends to analyze the situation (which is contrary to our neutrality policy), and changes the facts presented in some ways that aren't verifiably accurate. For example: You say "and while the bus driver told reporters that he had lost control, the local press claimed that he was attempting to overtake another vehicle"; but that ties together the facts with connective words that tell the reader how to interpret the relationships between the facts, whereas we strive to report the facts without analysis so that readers are free to choose their own informed opinions. You say "At least one seat was found damaged lying beside the wreck"; but this suggests that the seat ended up where it was as part of the accident, and we pointedly didn't report that because, from our study of the sources, we weren't sure whether the seat was separated from the bus during the accident or removed during rescue efforts.

These are not changes to English usage; these are changes to facts, away from what it known to be true:

"The bus overturned under wet conditions and while the bus driver told reporters that he had lost control, the local press claimed that he was attempting to overtake another vehicle." Not only does this, as PiZ mentions, imply interpretation, it also falsely implies mutual exclusivity. Which is absurd if one follows it through to its logical end point: that if the bus rolled during an overtake, that would mean it was in control. Clearly, the true position is these could both be true: The bus driver could have lost control and it could have happened on an overtake.

"At least one seat was found damaged lying beside the wreck." As PiZ remarks, there is nothing in the sources that says any such thing. Emergency services can and do cut away seats in road accidents to extricate the injured, sometimes including the fatally injured.

"The crash took place on a road-bend." Also not verified in the sources. The road is bendy; that doesn't mean the accident was at one of those bends.

"A large number of accidents werefound^[sic] to occur on Cuban roads and there were 11187 accidents during 2018 leading to 750 deaths and 7999 persons getting injured." Quite apart from the ill-advised removal of the comma from large numbers, this wording suggests the count was a surprise. The sources don't suggest this was unknown at any stage during the accumulation of accidents through the year.

Sky News said Thursday's accident was the fourth major bus crash in a month. I see no valid reason to remove the context of this being one of a string of serious bus accidents in a short timeframe, and I note you give none beyond it being a "correction" of "English language". It is no such thing; it is wholesale removal of an important detail to understanding the broader picture. This is the sort of information that will only grow in value as it recedes into our archive, which, as the name suggests, is available (to everyone, always) as a research resource in the years and decades to come.

It seems to me the quality of your reading comprehension is what needs improvement. Fortunately, you've come to a good place to achieve that.

Thank you for your explanation. It is my observation and the best part of any blogger is to accept criticism from others. Among millions of readers I came forward to suggest my opinion by spending some time. Anyhow thank you once again for your patient replying

And thank you for your gracious response. :)

the picture looks more like a coach than any bus that I've seen unless they only use coaches in Cuba instead of globally standardised high floor and low floor buses? - e.g. Alexander Dennis Enviro 200 or General Motors (GM) Fishbowl.....?

I think we're quite safe calling it a bus. The terminology of "coach" as distinct from "bus" isn't a general-English thing, and I'm not even finding an evident footprint for regional use of "coach" in a way that excludes "bus". The relevant en.wikt definition of bus is

1. (automotive) A motor vehicle for transporting large numbers of people along roads.

and of coach,

4. (Britain, Australia) A single-decked long-distance, or privately hired, bus.

There's an en.wp article w:coach (bus), which starts

A coach (also motor coach) is a type of bus used for conveying passengers. In contrast to transit buses that typically are used within a single metropolitan region, coaches are used for longer-distance bus service.

I doubt the common currency of that coach-versus-transite-bus terminology, as it sounds industry-internal, but even if one were to take it as gospel it would still make a coach a kind of bus, just not a transit bus.

The National Transportation Safety Board of the United States deems bus to be an appropriate noun for a motorcoach. It being North America, I'd deem that a good source as to how English is used, and where. Are you the same as the user who tried, and failed, to try and change facts, below?