Why is it that

Albert-Fish said:

In almost every news report on Teletext or Ceefax involving a cyclist or buiker the report reads
something like a motrocyclist / cyclist was in collision with a car / truck... suggesting the
former hit the latter

Seems a bit of a paranoid interpretation to me.

I doesn't suggest any particular way round to my mind. "Collision with" can just as easily mean the
cyclist got hit by a car, and that's often what I think of first.

~PB

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

Quoted message said:

Albert-Fish said:

In almost every news report on Teletext or Ceefax involving a cyclist or buiker the report reads
something like a motrocyclist / cyclist was in collision with a car / truck... suggesting the
former hit the latter

Seems a bit of a paranoid interpretation to me.

I doesn't suggest any particular way round to my mind. "Collision with" can just as easily mean
the cyclist got hit by a car, and that's often what I think of first.

Totally, it's like anything a motor vehicle hits that is not another motor vehicle is an obstacle.
The local rag here always says something like: Miraculous Escape for Couple in Fatal Crash "...the
occupants of the car, which was in collision with a pedestrian, survived unhurt after being cut free
from the wreckage in an hour-long operation"

Quoted message said:

I doesn't suggest any particular way round to my mind. "Collision with" can just as easily mean
the cyclist got hit by a car, and that's often what I think of first.

There are nuances in the differences. Compare:

a cyclist was in collision with a car

a car was in collision with a cyclist

a driver was in collision with a bicycle

Jeremy Parker

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I doesn't suggest any particular way round to my mind. "Collision with" can just as easily mean
the cyclist got hit by a car, and that's often what I think of first.

There are nuances in the differences. Compare:

a cyclist was in collision with a car

a car was in collision with a cyclist

a driver was in collision with a bicycle

A story in tonights local paper states "Two cyclists broke a teenagers jaw in an unprovoked
attack........" rather than "Two thugs......", after all what had their mode of transport to do with
their act?

Pete

Quoted message said:

There are nuances in the differences. Compare:

a cyclist was in collision with a car

a car was in collision with a cyclist

A dog was in collision with a satellite

Quoted message said:

a driver was in collision with a bicycle

= a pedestrian was in collision with a bicycle.

~PB

Peter B said:

A story in tonights local paper states "Two cyclists broke a teenagers jaw in an unprovoked
attack........" rather than "Two thugs......", after all what had their mode of transport to do
with their act?

Nothing, of course, but in this case the mode of transport *would* be relevant to the story, as it
may help in finding witnesses. I hope the bikes and the thugs were described, otherwise there really
wouldn't be much point in mentioning the bikes at all. If the thugs had driven off after the
assault, I'd expect the car to have been described in the story.

--
Danny Colyer (remove safety to reply) ( juggler.netdannyOpen ↗ ) Recumbent cycle page:
speedy5.freeserve.co.ukrecumbentsOpen ↗ "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." -
Thomas Paine

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There are nuances in the differences. Compare:

a cyclist was in collision with a car

a car was in collision with a cyclist

A dog was in collision with a satellite

a dog was *in* a satellite, laika

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

a driver was in collision with a bicycle

= a pedestrian was in collision with a bicycle.

and the cyclist was to blame :-(

Albert

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I doesn't suggest any particular way round to my mind. "Collision with" can just as easily mean
the cyclist got hit by a car, and that's often what I think of first.

There are nuances in the differences. Compare:

a cyclist was in collision with a car

a car was in collision with a cyclist

a driver was in collision with a bicycle

Jeremy Parker

thank you. I didn't think I was 'paranoid'

if I was the teletext copy writer I would construct the sentence thus:

a cyclist and a vehicle were involved in a collision at the junction of ..

two cars were involved in ..

a pedestrian and a blue car were involved in

that just states the participants and the facts and doesn't seem as perjorative as the usual method
of reporting incedents.

and I would never use the word accident..

Albert

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

Quoted message said:

Peter B said:

A story in tonights local paper states "Two cyclists broke a teenagers jaw in an unprovoked
attack........" rather than "Two thugs......", after all what had their mode of transport to do
with their act?

Nothing, of course, but in this case the mode of transport *would* be relevant to the story, as it
may help in finding witnesses. I hope the bikes and the thugs were described, otherwise there
really wouldn't be much point in mentioning the bikes at all. If the thugs had driven off after
the assault, I'd expect the car to have been described in the story.

No further mention of the bikes although the thugs were reasonably well described. In all fairness
I'm probably one of the few who attach any significance to the statement, perhaps because to me
the word "cyclist" conjures up images of people who enjoy cycling or just use them responsibly as
a utility.

Pete

Albert-Fish <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

if I was the teletext copy writer I would construct the sentence thus:

a cyclist and a vehicle were involved in a collision at the junction of ..

That would be two vehicles then.

--
Josh Towers

In "]news:[email hidden], Peter B <[email hidden]> typed:

Quoted message said:

A story in tonights local paper states "Two cyclists broke a teenagers jaw in an unprovoked
attack........" rather than "Two thugs......", after all what had their mode of transport to do
with their act?

It was the getaway vehicle.

I too would have preferred "Two thugs broke a teenagers jaw in an unprovoked attack and made off on
bicycles" - emphasising that they were *thugs* rather than *cyclists* - but as others have said,
mentioning their getaway vehicle may help the investigation.

In fact I think they should have gone further and given descriptions of the bikes; although its
possible the victim may not have had time to see these (they could have been left against a wall
further away from the main crime scene).

But to non cyclists - its often just " a bicycle". They might remember its frame colour, but may not
remember the make, whether it is an MTB, hybrid, tourer or road bike etc...

There *is* an issue of teenagers (and others) committing crimes on bikes; and those bikes are often
the ones stolen from (mostly) honest and decent cyclists like ourselves. So perhaps if all
cops,witnesses and journalists gave fuller descriptions of bikes used in crime (as opposed to
generally demonising young cyclists who "always ride on the pavement and rob/beat people up"😉 it
might help catch the scrotes.

Alex

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

Quoted message said:

Albert-Fish <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

if I was the teletext copy writer I would construct the sentence thus:

a cyclist and a vehicle were involved in a collision at the junction of ..

That would be two vehicles then.

no, that would be a fairer way of reporting the incedent if the need is there to idetifiy the
participants.

another example ?

a man died and his passenger was seriously injured when the rider lost control of his high powered
sports motorcycle.

that suggests to the non biker that the biker was speeding. why ? well it's a high powered sports
bike and the rider lost control.

in the above case the bike was going at less than 40 mph in a 60 and skidded on diesel that had
spilled from /another/ stupid truck drivers diesel tank after the fool forgot to replace the
filler cap.

a fact lost on the 'journalist' at teletext.

Albert

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There are nuances in the differences. Compare:

a cyclist was in collision with a car

With this, I still first think of a car hitting a cyclist - because that's the most likely scenario.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

a car was in collision with a cyclist

If this became common parlance, it would take on exactly the same nuance as the above.

Playing with words won't change attitudes towards cyclists.

~PB

"Albert-Fish" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Albert-Fish <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

if I was the teletext copy writer I would construct the sentence thus:

a cyclist and a vehicle were involved in a collision at the junction of ..

That would be two vehicles then.

no, that would be a fairer way of reporting the incedent if the need is there to idetifiy the
participants.

another example ?

a man died and his passenger was seriously injured when the rider lost control of his high powered
sports motorcycle.

that suggests to the non biker that the biker was speeding. why ? well it's a high powered sports
bike and the rider lost control.

in the above case the bike was going at less than 40 mph in a 60 and skidded on diesel that had
spilled from /another/ stupid truck drivers diesel tank after the fool forgot to replace the
filler cap.

a fact lost on the 'journalist' at teletext.

Albert

From personal experience when recounting my own near death experience it is remarkable how different
presentations of the same facts can provoke different reactions. When I started my tale with "one
day I was out on my motorbike..." I had immediately lost the sympathy of the audience (unless they
were bikers). Motorbikes are fast and dangerous and ridden recklessly I could hear them think. The
subsequent disclosure of the other party being a drunk driver would be ameliorated by the motorbike
detail, maybe he was just over the limit, there but for the grace of god etc. But when I started "I
was hit head-on by a drunk driver who was on my side of the road..." I was awash in sympathy. The
subsequent disclosure of the motorbike detail would illicit shocked expressions and painful winces
as they imagined how unprotected I would have been. Maybe the journalists need to be given first
hand experience of these sort of situations.

M

"Like a pig towing a cartload of sausages - I draw my own conclusions" Arch Drude

I tend to the opinion that the reporter is trying to generate sympathy for the cyclist. The story is
about a traffic incident involving a cyclist and by writing, "A cyclist was in collision with a
car......" the reporter is telling you straight away that this isn't a simple bump between two cars
but could potentially be much more serious.

How many people would read further if the article started, "A car was involved in a collision with a
........."?

Reporters generally write articles in such a way as to encourage you to read them.
--
Michael MacClancy

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

Quoted message said:

I tend to the opinion that the reporter is trying to generate sympathy for the cyclist. The story
is about a traffic incident involving a cyclist and by writing, "A cyclist was in collision with a
car......" the reporter is telling you straight away that this isn't a simple bump between two
cars but could potentially be much more serious.

How many people would read further if the article started, "A car was involved in a collision with
a ........."?

Reporters generally write articles in such a way as to encourage you to read them.
--
Michael MacClancy

Quoted message said:

I tend to the opinion that the reporter is trying to generate sympathy for the cyclist.

that's an angle I hadn't considered. but the reperter still starts the story with the cyclist as
direct object and the car as the indirect object

Quoted message said:

Reporters generally write articles in such a way as to encourage you to read them.

bad reporters tend to write in the way their predjuces predispose them to.

worse sub editors either share that bias (sun) or allow that bias to get through to the reader
through lack of dilligence, imo.

if I had my way all reports of collisions with unprotected people (cyclists, bikers pedestrian,
segways) would read something like:

a collision between a car/lorry/bus and a cyclist/biker/pedestrian resulted in the latter being
taken to hospital with serious injuries (if applicable)

Albert

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

Quoted message said:

Albert-Fish said:

In almost every news report on Teletext or Ceefax involving a cyclist or buiker the report reads
something like a motrocyclist / cyclist was in collision with a car / truck... suggesting the
former hit the latter

Seems a bit of a paranoid interpretation to me.

Not exactly paranoid to ask the question about why certain collisions are phrased one way, and other
types of collision another.

Quoted message said:

I doesn't suggest any particular way round to my mind. "Collision with" can just as easily mean
the cyclist got hit by a car, and that's often what I think of first.

I have to say I agree with the orginal poster "in collision with" to me means that the first
mentioned hit the second mentioned, and why is it different for cars hitting each other? Why not
"there was a collision between..........."

Cheers Rich

Quoted message said:

~PB

On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 23:56:49 -0000 someone who may be "Richard Burton"
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Why not "there was a collision between..........."

Because that would be even handed.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.