Another one bites the dust

David Lloyd said:

What's the difference between 'in collision with a car' and 'run down
by a car'?

One is neutral as to cause and fault and one is specific as to fault.

Are you in a position to judge either way on the basis of the clip you
posted?

pk

David Lloyd said:

What's the difference between 'in collision with a car' and 'run down by a
car'?

Uh-oh, not again. <ignores thread>

--
Mike
Van Tuyl titanium Dura Ace 10
Fausto Coppi aluminium Ultegra 10
Raleigh Record Sprint mongrel

On 29/04/2007 21:10, David Lloyd said,

Quoted message said:

What's the difference between 'in collision with a car' and 'run down by a
car'?

The former implies the cyclist hit the car, and the other implies that
the car hit the cyclist.

Quoted message said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/coventry_warwickshire/6602913.stm

Without more detail, no-one reading the BBC report above can make a
judgement on what actually happened.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

in message <[email hidden]>, David Lloyd

(') said:

What's the difference between 'in collision with a car' and 'run down by
a car'?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/coventry_warwickshire/6602913.stm

'The cyclist collided with the car' means the cyclist is to blame. 'The
cyclist was run down by the car' implies the inanimate metal box was to
blame. Obviously, the driver could not possibly be to blame.

In this case the BBC appear to have no evidence whatever that the cyclist
was to blame, but just assume it.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Anagram: I'm soon broke.

On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 15:59:08 -0500, mb <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

David Lloyd said:

What's the difference between 'in collision with a car' and 'run down by a
car'?

Uh-oh, not again. <ignores thread>

Some subtle new meaning of the word 'ignore'?

On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 08:46:54 +0100, Simon Brooke <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

in message <[email hidden]>, David Lloyd

(') said:

What's the difference between 'in collision with a car' and 'run down by
a car'?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/coventry_warwickshire/6602913.stm

'The cyclist collided with the car' means the cyclist is to blame. 'The
cyclist was run down by the car' implies the inanimate metal box was to
blame. Obviously, the driver could not possibly be to blame.

I made the 'mistake' of saying "... lorry hits cyclist ..." and someone
picked up on the fact that I'd refered to the person from one half of
the equation and the vehicle from the other.

Musing on why I had chosen to express it in that way I concluded that it
was because in a cyclist/cycle/driver/motor vehicle collision, you are
primarily interested in the *person* who got hurt.

So unlike most other forms of collisions: car-car, car-bus,
aircraft-aircraft, where you refer to the vehicles, where cyclists are
concerned, because of their evident vulnerability, you specifically
mention the cyclists.

After all, if you said a car collided with a cycle it could be taken to
mean that the cycle was unoccupied at the time.

I really don't think this particular form of expression means anyting
sinister at all.

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

Quoted message said:

in message <[email hidden]>, David Lloyd

(') said:

What's the difference between 'in collision with a car' and 'run down by
a car'?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/coventry_warwickshire/6602913.stm

'The cyclist collided with the car' means the cyclist is to blame. 'The
cyclist was run down by the car' implies the inanimate metal box was to
blame. Obviously, the driver could not possibly be to blame.

In this case the BBC appear to have no evidence whatever that the cyclist
was to blame, but just assume it.

Or it could be how it was relayed to them, either by police, witness, or
their monitoring service (local news/radio watchers)

My neutral wording would be along the lines of "A car and a cyclist
collided"

Niall

in message <[email hidden]>, Niall Wallace

(') said:

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

Quoted message said:

in message <[email hidden]>, David

Lloyd (') said:

What's the difference between 'in collision with a car' and 'run down
by a car'?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/coventry_warwickshire/6602913.stm

'The cyclist collided with the car' means the cyclist is to blame. 'The
cyclist was run down by the car' implies the inanimate metal box was to
blame. Obviously, the driver could not possibly be to blame.

In this case the BBC appear to have no evidence whatever that the
cyclist was to blame, but just assume it.

Or it could be how it was relayed to them, either by police, witness, or
their monitoring service (local news/radio watchers)

My neutral wording would be along the lines of "A car and a cyclist
collided"

No. Either 'a driver and a cyclist collided' or 'a car and a bicycle
collided'. Your wording absolves the driver of responsibility.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Human history becomes more and more a race between
;; education and catastrophe.
H.G. Wells, "The Outline of History"

Simon Brooke wrote on 01/05/2007 07:42 +0100:

Quoted message said:

No. Either 'a driver and a cyclist collided' or 'a car and a bicycle
collided'. Your wording absolves the driver of responsibility.

The former is incorrect unless the driver was on the outside of the car
and contacted the cyclist. In reality it was the car that collided with
the cyclist and/or his bicycle and I have no problem with it being
accurately described as that. The fact that the driver was in control
of the car does not alter which components were in collision.

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

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

Quoted message said:

Simon Brooke wrote on 01/05/2007 07:42 +0100:

Quoted message said:

No. Either 'a driver and a cyclist collided' or 'a car and a bicycle
collided'. Your wording absolves the driver of responsibility.

The former is incorrect unless the driver was on the outside of the car
and contacted the cyclist. In reality it was the car that collided with
the cyclist and/or his bicycle and I have no problem with it being
accurately described as that. The fact that the driver was in control of
the car does not alter which components were in collision.

The BBC report mentions a cyclist and a car.

There is no mention of a bicycle.
The existance of the car in the collision does not mean there was a driver
The existance of a cyclist doesn't mean there was a bicycle.

For all we know the cyclist could have just dismounted at speed, dropped the
bike on the road, missed their footing on landing, and rolled into a parked
car. I such a circumstance a Cyclist has collided with a car (as reported)!

It's unlikely though

Niall

On May 1, 3:54 pm, "Niall Wallace" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Simon Brooke wrote on 01/05/2007 07:42 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No. Either 'a driver and a cyclist collided' or 'a car and a bicycle
collided'. Your wording absolves the driver of responsibility.

Quoted message said:

The former is incorrect unless the driver was on the outside of the car
and contacted the cyclist. In reality it was the car that collided with
the cyclist and/or his bicycle and I have no problem with it being
accurately described as that. The fact that the driver was in control of
the car does not alter which components were in collision.

The BBC report mentions a cyclist and a car.

There is no mention of a bicycle.
The existance of the car in the collision does not mean there was a driver
The existance of a cyclist doesn't mean there was a bicycle.

For all we know the cyclist could have just dismounted at speed, dropped the
bike on the road, missed their footing on landing, and rolled into a parked
car. I such a circumstance a Cyclist has collided with a car (as reported)!

It's unlikely though

Niall

Around here, as soon as you're off the bike you're a pedestrian. So
it would have to be the Pedestrian who was formerly a Cyclist ...

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

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

Quoted message said:

On May 1, 3:54 pm, "Niall Wallace" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Simon Brooke wrote on 01/05/2007 07:42 +0100:

Quoted message said:

> No. Either 'a driver and a cyclist collided' or 'a car and a bicycle
> collided'. Your wording absolves the driver of responsibility.

Quoted message said:

The former is incorrect unless the driver was on the outside of the car
and contacted the cyclist. In reality it was the car that collided
with
the cyclist and/or his bicycle and I have no problem with it being
accurately described as that. The fact that the driver was in control
of
the car does not alter which components were in collision.

The BBC report mentions a cyclist and a car.

There is no mention of a bicycle.
The existance of the car in the collision does not mean there was a
driver
The existance of a cyclist doesn't mean there was a bicycle.

For all we know the cyclist could have just dismounted at speed, dropped
the
bike on the road, missed their footing on landing, and rolled into a
parked
car. I such a circumstance a Cyclist has collided with a car (as
reported)!

It's unlikely though

Niall

Around here, as soon as you're off the bike you're a pedestrian. So
it would have to be the Pedestrian who was formerly a Cyclist ...

Suppose, though what does that make an MTBer when they fall off? A Hiker?

On May 1, 7:02 pm, "Niall Wallace" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"John Kane" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On May 1, 3:54 pm, "Niall Wallace" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Simon Brooke wrote on 01/05/2007 07:42 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> No. Either 'a driver and a cyclist collided' or 'a car and a bicycle
>> collided'. Your wording absolves the driver of responsibility.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> The former is incorrect unless the driver was on the outside of the car
> and contacted the cyclist. In reality it was the car that collided
> with
> the cyclist and/or his bicycle and I have no problem with it being
> accurately described as that. The fact that the driver was in control
> of
> the car does not alter which components were in collision.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The BBC report mentions a cyclist and a car.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There is no mention of a bicycle.
The existance of the car in the collision does not mean there was a
driver
The existance of a cyclist doesn't mean there was a bicycle.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

For all we know the cyclist could have just dismounted at speed, dropped
the
bike on the road, missed their footing on landing, and rolled into a
parked
car. I such a circumstance a Cyclist has collided with a car (as
reported)!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's unlikely though

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Niall

Quoted message said:

Around here, as soon as you're off the bike you're a pedestrian. So
it would have to be the Pedestrian who was formerly a Cyclist ...

Suppose, though what does that make an MTBer when they fall off? A Hiker?

I don't think off-roaders are covered under the Highway Traffic Act,
thus they can be anything they want though in some parts of the
country I believe they are known as lunch [1]

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

[1] One of the reasons for the "Don't Feed the Bears" signs out west ?