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.
Maybe you have the same dictionary because mine is very similar.
It also includes a violent encounter of a moving body with a fixed object.
I would argue whether you could call a pedestrian a fixed object but even so, ISTM that the car is in collision with the tree/lamppost/pedestrian, not the other way around.
Tim.
-- God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
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).
I agree it's entirely logical as far as the law enforcment agency is concerned ( it makes their haul sound better), but a fake £20 note is worth £5 "on the street" and cocaine prices inflate by well over 1,000% between importer and street sale.
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote: 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
How about in keeping this thread relevant with the postman article as in:
a) The postman was in bed with his wife! b) His wife was in bed with the postman!
I don't know re-reading it I think their is a case for saying that a) makes it seem like the postman was the involved in the, err incident. b) Would imply that the wife was the randy old bugger. Although they are reversible I would tend to say that people would infer that the first mentioned was at fault.
I agree it's entirely logical as far as the law enforcment agency is concerned ( it makes their haul sound better), but a fake £20 note is worth £5 "on the street"
How do you know that? I presume this inside knowledge is in no way connected with your printing business? :-)
a) The postman was in bed with his wife! b) His wife was in bed with the postman!
I don't know re-reading it I think their is a case for saying that a) makes it seem like the postman was the involved in the, err incident. b) Would imply that the wife was the randy old bugger. Although they are reversible I would tend to say that people would infer that the first mentioned was at fault.
They were in bed together.
"A cyclist and a car were in a collision."
"A car and a cyclist were in a collision".
Changing the order here, for me at any rate, seems to have less effect on the implied meaning than with "a cyclist was in a collision with a car". I suspect the real reason for the rather clumsy wording that appears again and again is that lazy journalists simply echo the wording of the police press release. This I'm guessing is also the reason they often then go into great detail about the ensuing traffic chaos. It's much easier and quicker to quote the press release verbatim than to write a proper story.
I agree it's entirely logical as far as the law enforcment agency is concerned ( it makes their haul sound better), but a fake £20 note is worth £5 "on the street"
How do you know that?
A friend of a friend etc....
Quoted message said:
I presume this inside knowledge is in no way connected with your printing business? :-)
Not at all , but there was one incident about 25 years ago when the company I was working for printed a job the the local TA. The job consisted of 1/2 a £5 note ( the then bounty for joining the TA) and the slogan "Join your local TA" on the other half. We did quite a good job of it with good quality paper and the TA were going around dropping these on the street. We then got a visit from the Fraud Squad that confiscated the plates, negs and artwork. It turned out that people were sliding them across the bar in dark clubs/pubs etc... :-(
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote: 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
How about in keeping this thread relevant with the postman article as in:
a) The postman was in bed with his wife! b) His wife was in bed with the postman!
Oops re-reading it the second one is definitely worse! Perhaps it would be better phrased as,
a) The postman was in bed with Johns wife. b) Johns wife was in bed with the postman.
There that sounds better, this grammar malarky is well hard, innit.
Changing the order here, for me at any rate, seems to have less effect on the implied meaning than with "a cyclist was in a collision with a car". I suspect the real reason for the rather clumsy wording that appears again and again is that lazy journalists simply echo the wording of the police press release.
I've even hear it stated by someone from the Police side of things that the the reason they don't say "the car was in collision with a cyclist" is that this would imply that the motorist was at fault.
I've even hear it stated by someone from the Police side of things that the the reason they don't say "the car was in collision with a cyclist" is that this would imply that the motorist was at fault.
Oh, well, we wouldn't want that would we? After all, there's a one in five chance it might have been the cyclist's fault.
