The twisted language of the motor-journo: safety is optional #car #language

I've just about done this to death, but here's another example of language twisted to suit a purpose. In this example a "journalist" has decided that "safety" is a bolt-on thing, an option; a box that when ticked, renders you "safe":

Sadly, though, safety is still an option on the most basic Mazda3.

Now no-one believes that, surely, but then again... words have power. Standard car - unsafe. With fresh bright new safety options fitted, safe. What a magical world we live in.

What the journo means is that additional passive safety features that may prove usefully protective in a range of crash situations are an optional extra, at additional cost. In the journo's view it should not be by choice, rather we should be compelled to have the maximum array of explosive air bags around us at all times. Heaven help bike riders, then. They just lose skin.

Now I do agree cars should be rendered as 'safe' as possible, including by the wearing of helmets and multi-point harnesses. But that's (sadly) not an option - and is often illegal (don't ask why). Cars should also be agile, smaller, and less powerful; and I also think that we (as drivers) should remain focused, aware and law-abiding on the roads, but that's apparently less useful than a set of explosive devices.

I'll do my best to avoid writing about this for a while.