Why is it that

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by Albert-Fish, Feb 14, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Albert-Fish

    Albert-Fish Guest

    I just read a report of another death of a cyclist in Leicestershire (37)

    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

    But when Teletext or Ceefax report an 'accident' involving just cars it's there was an accident
    involving a red whatever and a blue whatever. .suggesting it was just happenstance...

    Am I the only one that reads it like this ?

    Albert
     
    Tags:


  2. Pete Biggs

    Pete Biggs Guest

    Albert-Fish wrote:
    > 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
     
  3. James G

    James G Guest

    "Pete Biggs" <pLime{remove_fruit}@biggs.tc> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Albert-Fish wrote:
    > > 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"
     
  4. > 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
     
  5. Peter B

    Peter B Guest

    "Jeremy Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > > 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
     
  6. Pete Biggs

    Pete Biggs Guest

    > 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 driver was in collision with a bicycle

    = a pedestrian was in collision with a bicycle.

    ~PB
     
  7. Danny Colyer

    Danny Colyer Guest

    Peter B wrote:
    > 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) ( http://www.juggler.net/danny ) Recumbent cycle page:
    http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/recumbents/ "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." -
    Thomas Paine
     
  8. Albert-Fish

    Albert-Fish Guest

    "Pete Biggs" <pLime{remove_fruit}@biggs.tc> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > > 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

    > > a driver was in collision with a bicycle
    >
    > = a pedestrian was in collision with a bicycle.

    and the cyclist was to blame :-(

    Albert
     
  9. Albert-Fish

    Albert-Fish Guest

    "Jeremy Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > > 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
     
  10. Peter B

    Peter B Guest

    "Danny Colyer" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > Peter B wrote:
    > > 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
     
  11. Josh Towers

    Josh Towers Guest

    Albert-Fish <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    > 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
     
  12. In news:[email protected], Peter B <[email protected]> typed:

    > 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
     
  13. Albert-Fish

    Albert-Fish Guest

    "Josh Towers" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    > Albert-Fish <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > >
    > > 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
     
  14. Pete Biggs

    Pete Biggs Guest

    >> 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.

    >> 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
     
  15. Murk

    Murk Guest

    "Albert-Fish" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:<[email protected]>...
    > "Josh Towers" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > >
    > > Albert-Fish <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected]...
    > > >
    > > > 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
     
  16. 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
     
  17. Albert-Fish

    Albert-Fish Guest

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

    > 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

    > 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
     
  18. "Pete Biggs" <pLime{remove_fruit}@biggs.tc> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Albert-Fish wrote:
    > > 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.
    >
    > 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
    >
    > ~PB
     
  19. David Hansen

    David Hansen Guest

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

    >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.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...