Paperboy hit.

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by Tony Raven, Oct 16, 2004.

  1. Tony Raven

    Tony Raven Guest

    Paper-boy was badly injured just round the corner from us this week (we
    didn't hear anything even though it was a few hundred yards away and the
    local paper was the first we knew). I assume he was wearing a helmet as
    it almost certainly would have been commented on if he wasn't. It seems
    it made no beneficial difference which is perhaps no surprise here.

    Tony


    Paperboy fights for life after road smash
    Published on 12 October 2004

    A PAPERBOY is in a critical condition after his bike was in collision
    with a car.

    The youngster was out on his round in Melbourn on when the accident
    happened and he needed treatment at the scene for more than an hour.

    The boy from the village is believed to be 13 and a pupil at Melbourn
    Village College.

    He suffered serious head injuries and a broken leg in the collision with
    a silver Ford Escort at about 7.30am on Tuesday. The car driver was
    uninjured.

    The crash, at the junction of Water Lane and Chalkhill Barrow, was
    attended by the Magpas on-duty emergency medical team of Dr David Bevan
    and paramedic Del Fergusson.

    Dr Bevan said: "He was rendered unconscious at the scene by the accident.

    "Fortunately he was attended to almost immediately by a passing local GP
    who did very well."

    He said the GP was then joined by an ambulance crew and a paramedic in a
    rapid response vehicle, before the Magpas team was called.

    The emergency medical team anaesthetised the boy before he was taken to
    Addenbrooke's Hospital in Cambridge, arriving shortly before 9am.

    Dr Bevan said: "If this young man does well, there are a variety of
    things that will have contributed to that chain, such as the fact his
    airway was attended to quickly - it's impossible to underestimate the
    importance of that."

    The victim remains at Addenbrooke's, where his condition is described as
    "critical but stable".

    Road blocks were in place in Water Lane throughout the morning as police
    launched their investigation.

    One woman from nearby Greengage Rise, who did not wish to be named,
    said: "It was an accident waiting to happen. It's a dangerous junction."

    Another passer-by, who lives close to the scene, said: "There have been
    plenty of near-misses; it's a very dangerous and busy road."

    The scene was cleared at about noon.

    Anyone who witnessed the crash is asked to call Cambridgeshire police's
    road policing unit on (01480) 456111
     
    Tags:


  2. Pete Biggs

    Pete Biggs Guest

    Tony Raven wrote:
    > Paper-boy was badly injured just round the corner from us this week
    > (we didn't hear anything even though it was a few hundred yards away
    > and the local paper was the first we knew). I assume he was wearing
    > a helmet as it almost certainly would have been commented on if he
    > wasn't. It seems it made no beneficial difference which is perhaps
    > no surprise here.


    No one can possibly know if it made any beneficial difference.

    ~PB
     
  3. David Hansen

    David Hansen Guest

    On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 15:31:52 +0100 someone who may be Tony Raven
    <[email protected]> wrote this:-

    >Paperboy fights for life after road smash
    >Published on 12 October 2004
    >
    >A PAPERBOY is in a critical condition after his bike was in collision
    >with a car.


    Surprise, surprise. As usual the mass media have chosen to express
    an opinion that the crash was caused by the cyclist.



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


    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
    ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
     
  4. David Martin

    David Martin Guest

    On 17/10/04 12:07 am, in article [email protected],
    "David Hansen" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 15:31:52 +0100 someone who may be Tony Raven
    > <[email protected]> wrote this:-
    >
    >> Paperboy fights for life after road smash
    >> Published on 12 October 2004
    >>
    >> A PAPERBOY is in a critical condition after his bike was in collision
    >> with a car.

    >
    > Surprise, surprise. As usual the mass media have chosen to express
    > an opinion that the crash was caused by the cyclist.


    Where is the implication of fault? It was a neutral statement. It implied no
    cause and effect other than bike and car trying to share same space/time
    leads to pain for the cyclist.

    ...d
     
  5. David Hansen

    David Hansen Guest

    On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 00:28:27 +0100 someone who may be David Martin
    <[email protected]> wrote this:-

    >>> A PAPERBOY is in a critical condition after his bike was in collision
    >>> with a car.

    >>
    >> Surprise, surprise. As usual the mass media have chosen to express
    >> an opinion that the crash was caused by the cyclist.

    >
    >Where is the implication of fault? It was a neutral statement. It implied no
    >cause and effect other than bike and car trying to share same space/time
    >leads to pain for the cyclist.


    Incorrect. The statement implies that the action of colliding was an
    action undertaken by the bike. The car was just proceeding along
    when this action was carried out upon it. Try reversing the words
    bike and car, then see if it reads the same.

    I will ignore the usual confusion between the machine and the person
    operating it.


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


    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
    ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
     
  6. Marc

    Marc Guest

    On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 00:28:27 +0100, David Martin wrote:

    >>> Paperboy fights for life after road smash
    >>> Published on 12 October 2004
    >>>
    >>> A PAPERBOY is in a critical condition after his bike was in collision
    >>> with a car.

    >>
    >> Surprise, surprise. As usual the mass media have chosen to express
    >> an opinion that the crash was caused by the cyclist.

    >
    > Where is the implication of fault?


    "his bike was in collision
    with a car." which implies that bike hit car, not other way around.
     
  7. Marc wrote:

    > On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 00:28:27 +0100, David Martin wrote:
    >
    >>>> Paperboy fights for life after road smash
    >>>> Published on 12 October 2004
    >>>>
    >>>> A PAPERBOY is in a critical condition after his bike was in collision
    >>>> with a car.
    >>>
    >>> Surprise, surprise. As usual the mass media have chosen to express
    >>> an opinion that the crash was caused by the cyclist.

    >>
    >> Where is the implication of fault?

    >
    > "his bike was in collision
    > with a car." which implies that bike hit car, not other way around.


    No it doesn't. "his bike collided with a car" would imply that. "bike in
    collision with a car" means that there was a collision, and it involved
    a bike and a car.

    --
    Keith Willoughby http://flat222.org/keith/
    "Everything is broken"
     
  8. Simon D

    Simon D Guest

    "Keith Willoughby" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Marc wrote:
    >
    >> On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 00:28:27 +0100, David Martin wrote:
    >>
    >>>>> Paperboy fights for life after road smash
    >>>>> Published on 12 October 2004
    >>>>>
    >>>>> A PAPERBOY is in a critical condition after his bike was in collision
    >>>>> with a car.
    >>>>
    >>>> Surprise, surprise. As usual the mass media have chosen to express
    >>>> an opinion that the crash was caused by the cyclist.
    >>>
    >>> Where is the implication of fault?

    >>
    >> "his bike was in collision
    >> with a car." which implies that bike hit car, not other way around.

    >
    > No it doesn't. "his bike collided with a car" would imply that. "bike in
    > collision with a car" means that there was a collision, and it involved
    > a bike and a car.
    >
    > --


    "A wall collided with my car." If that makes sense, so does your argument!
    The verb relates to the wall (or the bike in the original statement), which
    *implies* that it's the wall / cyclist which / who's mainly *doing* the
    colliding.

    It would be easier to disregard this type of media statement, and to dismiss
    those who make accusations about them, if it were not for the fact that
    newspapers and TV are so incredibly consistent in applying verbs in this
    way; it seems to be practically every time.
     
  9. Call me Bob

    Call me Bob Guest

    On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 12:31:14 +0100, "Simon D" <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >"A wall collided with my car." If that makes sense, so does your argument!
    >The verb relates to the wall (or the bike in the original statement), which
    >*implies* that it's the wall / cyclist which / who's mainly *doing* the
    >colliding.
    >
    >It would be easier to disregard this type of media statement, and to dismiss
    >those who make accusations about them, if it were not for the fact that
    >newspapers and TV are so incredibly consistent in applying verbs in this
    >way; it seems to be practically every time.


    Was there not a bit of a hoo-har a while back about some pending
    (EU?) ruling which was planned to place a presumption of fault on the
    driver of a motor vehicle that was involved in an accident with
    pedestrians or cyclists? What's happened to that?

    --

    "Bob"

    'The people have spoken, the bastards'

    Email address is spam trapped.
    To reply directly remove the beverage.
     
  10. On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 00:28:27 +0100, David Martin
    <[email protected]> wrote in message
    <BD976D2B.23BEC%[email protected]>:

    >Where is the implication of fault? It was a neutral statement.


    It's not very neutral to say the bike was in collision with a car.
    That always sounds suspiciously as if the cyclist was the one doing
    the colliding, whereas it's usually the other way round.

    Guy
    --
    May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
    http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

    88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
     
  11. David Hansen

    David Hansen Guest

    On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 12:11:48 +0100 someone who may be Keith
    Willoughby <[email protected]> wrote this:-

    >"bike in
    >collision with a car" means that there was a collision, and it involved
    >a bike and a car.


    Incorrect, that is an active sentence and implies fault.

    To be neutral one needs to use a passive sentence. "A bike and car
    collided" for example.

    The insidious war waged by legal and mass media organisations in
    favour of poor motoring is being challenged and this is part of that
    battle.


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


    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
    ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
     
  12. Ian Smith

    Ian Smith Guest

    On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 00:28:27 David Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
    > On 17/10/04 12:07 am, in article [email protected],
    > "David Hansen" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > > On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 15:31:52 +0100 someone who may be Tony Raven
    > > <[email protected]> wrote this:-
    > >
    > >> A PAPERBOY is in a critical condition after his bike was in collision
    > >> with a car.

    > >
    > > Surprise, surprise. As usual the mass media have chosen to express
    > > an opinion that the crash was caused by the cyclist.

    >
    > Where is the implication of fault? It was a neutral statement.


    No it isn't.

    "A bike and car collided" is neutral.

    "A bike collided with a car" implies blame on teh bike.

    regards, Ian SMith
    --
    |\ /| no .sig
    |o o|
    |/ \|
     
  13. David Hansen

    David Hansen Guest

    On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 12:31:14 +0100 someone who may be "Simon D"
    <[email protected]> wrote this:-

    >It would be easier to disregard this type of media statement, and to dismiss
    >those who make accusations about them, if it were not for the fact that
    >newspapers and TV are so incredibly consistent in applying verbs in this
    >way; it seems to be practically every time.


    I would go so far as to remove the word "practically" from your
    sentence.

    The mass media claim they do this because that is what the police
    do.


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


    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
    ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
     
  14. Nick Kew

    Nick Kew Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    Call me Bob <[email protected]> writes:

    > Was there not a bit of a hoo-har a while back about some pending
    > (EU?) ruling which was planned to place a presumption of fault on the
    > driver of a motor vehicle that was involved in an accident with
    > pedestrians or cyclists? What's happened to that?


    That's anti-EU spin.

    The presumption is responsibility, not fault. If you wield a deadly
    weapon, you should take responsibility for it, even in the absence
    of attributable *fault*.

    --
    Nick Kew
     
  15. Sue White

    Sue White Guest

    Call me Bob <[email protected]> whizzed past me
    shouting
    >
    >Was there not a bit of a hoo-har a while back about some pending
    >(EU?) ruling which was planned to place a presumption of fault on the
    >driver of a motor vehicle that was involved in an accident with
    >pedestrians or cyclists? What's happened to that?
    >

    One country does have a law like that - I think it's Switzerland.

    Someone living there told me it makes motor drivers very careful around
    cyclists, which would be a good thing.
    Of course it wouldn't affect People Like Us, because when we drive motor
    thingies we're always very careful around cyclists.

    Sadly I've never heard of any proposal to extend it to the EU.

    --
    Sue ]8:))

    What goes down must come up again - Confucius' Law of Mountain Biking
     
  16. On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 21:48:12 +0100, Sue White <[email protected]>
    wrote in message <[email protected]>:

    >>Was there not a bit of a hoo-har a while back about some pending
    >>(EU?) ruling which was planned to place a presumption of fault on the
    >>driver of a motor vehicle that was involved in an accident with
    >>pedestrians or cyclists? What's happened to that?


    >One country does have a law like that - I think it's Switzerland.


    I believe several do, including Holland.

    Guy
    --
    May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
    http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

    88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
     
  17. On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 21:48:12 +0100, Sue White <[email protected]>
    wrote in message <[email protected]>:

    >>Was there not a bit of a hoo-har a while back about some pending
    >>(EU?) ruling which was planned to place a presumption of fault on the
    >>driver of a motor vehicle that was involved in an accident with
    >>pedestrians or cyclists? What's happened to that?


    >One country does have a law like that - I think it's Switzerland.


    Several do, I believe, including Holland.

    >Sadly I've never heard of any proposal to extend it to the EU.


    Proposed Fifth Insurance DIrective, or one very small part of it, the
    majority being about ensuring that you can buy a car in Holland and
    insure it to drive to England, insurers can't weasel out of paying for
    injuries caused to passengers in their insured vehicles, forcing some
    insurers to pay up when an at-fault driver injures an uninsured third
    party, and so on.

    I read it at the time, it was, in the main, profoundly boring :)

    Guy
    --
    May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
    http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

    88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
     
  18. Sniper8052

    Sniper8052 Guest

    Just to enter the fray and duck out quickly less the brick ends start to
    fly, could it not be that the journalist is so dim he or she fails to
    appreciate the finer points of what they have written and seeing nothing
    wrong wrote anything which came to mind?

    --
    Sniper8052
     
  19. >The car driver was uninjured.

    Oh well, that's a relief then. Must've been touch and go eh?
    The above is another well used phrase in these circumstances.

    Robert
     
  20. Sniper8052

    Sniper8052 Guest

    I heard it was to be considered in this country. At the time I was dead
    against it as it sounded completely unfair to assume one party was always to
    be at fault. However I am coming to believe that there may be some virtue
    in the idea and that it should not only cover cyclists and pedestrians but
    also motorcyclists. After all when did you last see two motorcycles crash
    into each other, and look at their accident / death rate.

    --
    Sniper8052
     
Loading...