This is entirely speculation on my part.

News articles on automobile collisions usually come from the initial police investigation reports. At least in the USA, such reports capture the bare minimum of details that the police are required to collect, such as the age of the motorists and victims involved, rough property damage estimates, and the vehicles involved.

Although it's true that different jurisdictions might require this information in different formats, certain fields are mandatory to report to the national agency on highway safety, in order to identify trends that point to a class-wide issue. For example, without adequate data, it would be hard to correlate a rare condition where a particular model of car malfunctions on the highway, making it much harder to start a recall of said automobile.

As a result, what the police collect first will guarantee that they meet their reporting obligation. And since that report forms the basis of what journalists then -- IMO, lazily -- copy into an article and editors slap a clickbait title on it, that's what ends up being the de facto format for such news articles.

In the USA, this results in the absurd situation where even in an article about malicious collisions by a motorist into a bicyclist, the article will dutifully report that the motorist was wearing a seat belt and the bicyclist was wearing a helmet... As if somehow either seat belts or helmets would have changed the outcome of an assault.