It seems that cyclists, when they "collide" with cars, no longer "die", they just "get hurt". Perhaps the journalists have been taking lessons from the weather forecasters.
from the Cambridge Evening News, Wednesday: Cyclist hurt in death crash
A cyclist has died after colliding with a car. The incident happened in Gilbert Road, Cambridge, at 8.55pm last night and involved a male cyclist and a black Ford Mondeo. The cyclist was taken to Addenbrooke’s hospital but died from his injuries.The 48 year old Mondeo driver from Cambridge and his two passengers were not injured. Police have appealed for witnesses – Pc Chris Breeze 0845 456 4564 The fatal collision comes five days after cyclist Isabelle Bouhon, 36, a Belgian research scientist who lived in Cambridge, was killed in a collision with a lorry outside Addenbrooke’s –
-- Tony
"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't" Anon
Nice to know that the occupants of the car were ok eh?
Also, why do we get told what the car was, twice, and not what the bike was? Is that more important?
That's a good example of an inhuman focus in the article. Especially as the car gets a name and the cyclist doesn't. (Although of course there may be good reasons for it.)
Nice to know that the occupants of the car were ok eh?
Also, why do we get told what the car was, twice, and not what the bike was? Is that more important?
It also says "Police have appealed for witnesses". Most witnesses are more likely to know what a black Mondeo looks like than to have noticed a specific bike make.
Also, why do we get told what the car was, twice, and not what the bike was? Is that more important?
That's a good example of an inhuman focus in the article. Especially as the car gets a name and the cyclist doesn't. (Although of course there may be good reasons for it.)
More likely, it's an example of a dimwitted school leaver being allowed to write a newspaper article.
Also, why do we get told what the car was, twice, and not what the bike was? Is that more important?
That's a good example of an inhuman focus in the article. Especially as the car gets a name and the cyclist doesn't. (Although of course there may be good reasons for it.)
More likely, it's an example of a dimwitted school leaver being allowed to write a newspaper article.
Well, I didn't express it too well, but the reason the dimwitted school leaver (and many much more educated and bright journalists have the knack of appearing to only be dimwitted school leavers) seemed to take an inhuman focus to the article very much looks like empathising with the driver more than the cyclist. -- Ambrose
Nice to know that the occupants of the car were ok eh?
Also, why do we get told what the car was, twice, and not what the bike was? Is that more important?
I thought that as well. But to put a brighter light on it, the article does make a call for witnesses - so I would imagine the journalist put the make of car in to try to jog someone's memory.
It seems that cyclists, when they "collide" with cars, no longer "die", they just "get hurt". Perhaps the journalists have been taking lessons from the weather forecasters.
"The 48 year old Mondeo driver from Cambridge and his two passengers were not injured."
No s**t Sherlock! Why do local newspaper hacks always feel the need to put this line in? Now if it was "Bike ploughs into MPV killing family of seven - rider uninjured" then it might be sufficiently novel to deserve the newsprint.
Also, why do we get told what the car was, twice, and not what the bike was? Is that more important?
I thought that as well. But to put a brighter light on it, the article does make a call for witnesses - so I would imagine the journalist put the make of car in to try to jog someone's memory.
Having said that, the CEN have just got around to writing up an accident which wrote off two parked cars and seriously damaged a house, and got the make of one of the cars wrong. (The house and one of the cars belongs to friends of mine.) This will not surprise anyone familiar with the paper.
Since it was a drunk speeding driver (90mph in a 30mph limit), I use "accident" in the newspaper report sense, not in the "not reasonably forseeable by anyone" sense.
It seems that cyclists, when they "collide" with cars, no longer "die", they just "get hurt". Perhaps the journalists have been taking lessons from the weather forecasters.
"The 48 year old Mondeo driver from Cambridge and his two passengers were not injured."
No s**t Sherlock! Why do local newspaper hacks always feel the need to put this line in? Now if it was "Bike ploughs into MPV killing family of seven - rider uninjured" then it might be sufficiently novel to deserve the newsprint.
Thanks, I now feel the need to 'kill' seven crash test dummies in an MPV using a bike. Anyone got any ideas on how I'd do so.
Reminds me of the headlines that didn't appear on 2nd September 1997: Floozy, playboy and drunk chauffeur die in crash: no-one wearing their seatbelts. -- Ambrose
Reminds me of the headlines that didn't appear on 2nd September 1997: Floozy, playboy and drunk chauffeur die in crash: no-one wearing their seatbelts.
No, they *were* wearing them but MI5 undid them after the crash as well as injecting Henri Paul with alcohol and concealing all signs that Diana was pregnant with an Arab baby. If you believe the increasingly barking Daily Express, anyway!
Reminds me of the headlines that didn't appear on 2nd September 1997: Floozy, playboy and drunk chauffeur die in crash: no-one wearing their seatbelts.
No, they *were* wearing them but MI5 undid them after the crash as well as injecting Henri Paul with alcohol and concealing all signs that Diana was pregnant with an Arab baby. If you believe the increasingly barking Daily Express, anyway!
YAMike CorleyAICMFP...
-- Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/> If you are choking on an ice cube, simply pour a jug of boiling water down your throat and presto! The blockage is almost instantly removed.
Reminds me of the headlines that didn't appear on 2nd September 1997: Floozy, playboy and drunk chauffeur die in crash: no-one wearing their seatbelts.
No, they *were* wearing them but MI5 undid them after the crash as well as injecting Henri Paul with alcohol and concealing all signs that Diana was pregnant with an Arab baby. If you believe the increasingly barking Daily Express, anyway!
I saw that at the newspaper stand yesterday and felt my post had been strangely prescient.
