In collision with...

Just zis Guy said:

Once again the vulnerable road user is "in collision with" the mobile death greenhouse which
killed them. Clearly only cars should be allowed on the roads.

I was taught at school that excessive use of the passive tense was bad grammar. Then I worked with
some 'melicans who had found a way to use it to their advantage. Instead of saying "I messed it up",
they would say "It was messed up". It became clear after a while that in such circumstances they
were the responsible party, thus removing a nuance of the english language from usability in their
presence. I think that with the EU law making any collision with a vulnerable road user the fault of
the motorist, this example is similar, and supports the idea that no cars should be allowed on roads
with vulnerable road users.

As a journalistic cliche, it probably has a limited lifespan, like others such as "drugs with a
street value of" and "balance of trade deficit".

--
Jim Price

jimprice.dsl.pipex.comjimprice.dsl.pipex.comOpen ↗

Conscientious objection is hard work in an economic war.

Just zis Guy said:

Once again the vulnerable road user is "in collision with" the mobile death greenhouse which
killed them. Clearly only cars should be allowed on the roads.

news.bbc.co.uk3105669.stmOpen ↗

I generally enjoy reading this NG (and your contributions) but I really don't see the point of
posts like this. All cars and all car users are bad/evil/etc? So ban all internal combustion
engined vehicles?

Thus spake Jim Price <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Once again the vulnerable road user is "in collision with" the mobile death greenhouse which
killed them. Clearly only cars should be allowed on the roads.

Quoted message said:

I was taught at school that excessive use of the passive tense was bad grammar.

Even Micro$oft Word does that...

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email hidden] Edgware.

"Tenex" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Just zis Guy said:

Once again the vulnerable road user is "in collision with" the mobile death greenhouse which
killed them. Clearly only cars should be allowed on the roads.

news.bbc.co.uk3105669.stmOpen ↗

I generally enjoy reading this NG (and your contributions) but I really don't see the point of
posts like this. All cars and all car users are bad/evil/etc? So ban all internal combustion
engined vehicles?

This was the M3 -- so actually one of the roads where cars -- or more accurately motorised vehicles
-- do reign supreme.

My problem with the article is the sloppy use of English. Surely the phrase that should have been
used was 'struck by', 'hit by' or even 'mown down by' -- all of which make clear that the car was
the active element in the tragedy and the woman the passive victim.

'In collision with' somehow implies both car and victim were equal participants -- a tonne + of
metal moving at speed and ~70 kg of woman essentially stationary are far from equal participants --
as the sad outcome testifies.

'In collision with' seems to be an increasingly stock phrase within the BBC's repertoire.

Car drivers are not, as a class, 'evil' -- and probably the majority of contributors to this NG are
drivers as well as cyclists. If I recall correctly Guy is also a driver.

Very few drivers intentionally run over pedestrians or cyclists -- but, inattention, excess speed,
insufficient control or plain stupidity do, sadly, mean that a significant number of pedestrians and
cyclists find themselves dead or injured after 'being in collision with' a car or lorry. Often there
will be contributory negligence on the part of the victim - but it is the driver who is in charge of
the deadly weapon and so has a large responsibility to keep it in control and safe.

T

PS -- many of Guy's posts contain a significant element of irony.

Jim Price said:

As a journalistic cliche, it probably has a limited lifespan, like others such as "drugs with a
street value of"

Have you noticed , when it's drugs they talk about the "street value" yet when it's counterfeit
money it's always the face value not the "street value".

--
Marc Stickers,decals,membership,cards, T shirts, signs etc for clubs and associations of all types.
jaceeprint.demon.co.ukjaceeprint.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

"Jim Price" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I think that with the EU law making any collision with a vulnerable road user the fault of the
motorist

Point of information: I read the proposed Directive and its primary function was to remove a
loophole whereby in some countries the driver's insurance does not cover pedestrians and cyclists
injured in a crash.

There was text in there explicitly to address the question of civil liability and "fault" where the
ped / cyclist was indeed at fault.

Of course, it was a typical tabloid cycle-bashing excuse - the fact that peds are far more
likely to be responsible for their own downfall than cyclists could not be allowed to interfere
with the story.

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
chapmancentral.comchapmancentral.comOpen ↗

"Tenex" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I really don't see the point of posts like this.

A week or so back there was a similar story about a postie on a bike "in collision with" a car.
Looking at the pictures, the car was on the wrong side of the road. It's like the word "accident:"
it obscures the fact that the car brought all the danger to the situation, that the car driver is
very often at fault, but the dead person is always "in collision with" the car, as if the car was
just sitting there minding its own business.

I don't have a problem with neutral terminology until the facts of the case are established, I do
have a problem with this pseudo-legalese weasel phrase which implies fault on the part of the person
who is statistically less likely to be to blame.

That's all it's about.

As for:

Quoted message said:

All cars and all car users are bad/evil/etc? So ban all internal combustion engined vehicles?

That is the Only Sane and Rational Response ;-)

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
chapmancentral.comchapmancentral.comOpen ↗

Helen Deborah Vecht said:

Thus spake Jim Price <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I was taught at school that excessive use of the passive tense was bad grammar.

Even Micro$oft Word does that...

Not when I went to school. 🙂

I'm now a convert to OpenOffice.

--
Jim Price

jimprice.dsl.pipex.comjimprice.dsl.pipex.comOpen ↗

Conscientious objection is hard work in an economic war.

Just zis Guy said:

A week or so back there was a similar story about a postie on a bike "in collision with" a car.

But if the issue is the language and reporting style - I still don't see the point of posting here.
Write and complain to the publisher - the BBC - it may (v. unlikely) be taken on board.

I agree with you that the report is defective but it's simply an example of

want it"😉.

Just zis Guy said:

"Jim Price" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I think that with the EU law making any collision with a vulnerable road user the fault of the
motorist

Point of information: I read the proposed Directive and its primary function was to remove a
loophole whereby in some countries the driver's insurance does not cover pedestrians and cyclists
injured in a crash.

There was text in there explicitly to address the question of civil liability and "fault" where
the ped / cyclist was indeed at fault.

Of course, it was a typical tabloid cycle-bashing excuse - the fact that peds are far more
likely to be responsible for their own downfall than cyclists could not be allowed to interfere
with the story.

Thanks for the information. And your sig. I think it also covered my post quite accurately. I was,
indeed, having my own rhetorical swipe at tabloid journalism and simultaneously taking the chance to
say something contrary to "Clearly only cars should be allowed on the roads".

--
Jim Price

jimprice.dsl.pipex.comjimprice.dsl.pipex.comOpen ↗

Conscientious objection is hard work in an economic war.

"Tenex" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

But if the issue is the language and reporting style - I still don't see

the

Quoted message said:

point of posting here. Write and complain to the publisher - the BBC - it may (v. unlikely) be
taken on board.

No, its about accuracy not style. (As I said to Beeb when I complained).

Dave Larrington said:

Yours in sport.

If you say something "in sport" it is very far indeed from saying it sincerely, truly, or
faithfully, yesno?

Tenex said:

I agree with you that the report is defective but it's simply an

Sir,

I wish to complain about the gratuitous use of the sadly well-known phrase

word "embellishing"? It's this sort of thing that gives Broadcasting Coporations a bad name and me
a headache.

Yours in sport.

Pettifogger Jarnoyce B.Sc. Professor of Applied Linguistics Leicester Institute of
Brick-Throwing Telford

Just zis Guy said:

I don't have a problem with neutral terminology until the facts of the case are established, I do
have a problem with this
pseudo-legalese weasel phrase which implies fault on the part of the person who is statistically
less likely to be to blame.

This is paranoia - thinking that the BBC and everyone is out to blame cyclists. It's rubbish.

"In collision with" does not imply fault. It's entirely neutral and reversible. It's natural to put
the victim first (literally) becuase that's who the audience is usually most interested in. "The
cyclist was in collision with a car" means "the cyclist most likely got hit by a car" in my mind
whenever I hear or read it.

~PB

Pete Biggs said:

Just zis Guy said:

I don't have a problem with neutral terminology until the facts of the case are established, I do
have a problem with this
pseudo-legalese weasel phrase which implies fault on the part of the person who is statistically
less likely to be to blame.

This is paranoia - thinking that the BBC and everyone is out to blame cyclists. It's rubbish.

"In collision with" does not imply fault. It's entirely neutral and reversible. It's natural to put
the victim first (literally) becuase that's who the audience is usually most interested in. "The
cyclist was in collision with a car" means "the cyclist most likely got hit by a car" in my mind
whenever I hear or read it.

~PB

That's because that's the way we, the cognizant, will understand it.

However, the majority of people will automatically read it left to right and assume that the "person
in collision with..." was moving at speed and at an angle sufficient to bring them into contact with
what would be an entirely innocent victim. Blame is placed against the first person. That is also
the intention in some cases.

Shifting of blame really gets up my nose - especially when the person they would like to blame is
dead. Look what happens most times a plane crashes and the cockpit crew are smeared all over the
place - "pilot error" is the cause, until some campaigner with a brain finds out that the plane
wasn't serviced and bits fell off/that model was defective under certain circumstances/etc.

"Some reckless heathen scumbag on a bike was in collision with ..." is how I feel some reports would
read if the reporters thought they wouldn't be hung from the nearest overpass. Yes, some peds &
cyclists do contribute to their own downfalls but, on the whole, I would rather see accurate
reporting than the crass reportage we get now.

"She was standing on the hard shoulder when she was in collision with a black Ford Escort" implies
that she did this deliberately. What was the Frod dribbler doing cruising up the hard shoulder? Were
they reading? Changing CDs? Charlie?

I always read "in collision with" as "two moving objects collided" and "was hit by" as "a non-moving
target got whacked". Maybe I'm wrong?

Gary

--------------------------------------------------
Reply to gary <at> data <dot> mildenhall <dot> com
--------------------------------------------------

Pete Biggs wrote in message ...

Quoted message said:

"In collision with" does not imply fault. It's entirely neutral and reversible.

Well I disagree there. If "A" was in collision with "B" then that implies "A" was the moving object
to my mind so a pedestrian isn't in collision with a with a vehicle if the pedestrian isn't moving
*significantly*.

When your [censored], you are in collision with a lamp-post. The lamp-post isn't in collision with you.
The same goes for the previous reference to the cyclist in collision with a car. It implies the
cyclist was moving significantly fast enough to collide with the car. It may on may not be true, but
it somehow implied the cyclist was at fault.

Steve said:

When your [censored], you are in collision with a lamp-post. The lamp-post isn't in collision
with you.

Yes it is. If lamp posts were important things which everybody cared about more than human beings
then I could imagine the BBC reporting: "the lamp post was in collision with a drunk". It does sound
funny now but I think that's because lamp posts are not important or interesting so we don't put
them first.

I didn't think "in collision with" meant precisely the same thing as "collided with". Surely the
whole idea of using the phrase is that it is neutral and reversible so the reporter doesn't have to
make a judgement and the report is just a bare statement of fact. Otherwise why not just directly
say "the cyclist colided with the car"? Implication is a vague concept open to individual
interpretation and I think far more is being read into the reporting than actually is meant.

Quoted message said:

The same goes for the previous reference to the cyclist in collision with a car. It implies the
cyclist was moving significantly fast enough to collide with the car. It may on may not be true,
but it somehow implied the cyclist was at fault.

It still doesn't to my mind (and I don't think it's just because I'm a cyclist myself because it's
the same with other victims as well). Maybe I've got a back-to-front mind!

~PB

(marc) said:

Jim Price said:

As a journalistic cliche, it probably has a limited lifespan, like others such as "drugs with a
street value of"

Have you noticed , when it's drugs they talk about the "street value" yet when it's counterfeit
money it's always the face value not the "street value".

This is entirely logical as counterfeit money has a face value and drugs don't (except back in the
sixties, I suppose, when people used to put a dose of LSD on a postage stamp).

--
Dave...

In message <[email hidden]>, Pete Biggs
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

I didn't think "in collision with" meant precisely the same thing as "collided with". Surely the
whole idea of using the phrase is that it is neutral and reversible so the reporter doesn't have to
make a judgement and the report is just a bare statement of fact. Otherwise why not just directly
say "the cyclist colided with the car"?

Having taken part in a similar discussion last week (about the postie who was in a collision with a
car) I've been drawn into this debate.

My dictionary defines 'collision' as 'a violent impact of moving objects'. The action of a car
hitting a pedestrian on a motorway can hardly be described as a collision.

Charitably one could argue that the BBC journalist made a clumsy error. A cynical analyst might
conclude that the journalist was trying to remove blame from the motorist when this is unnecessary.
--
Michael MacClancy