Another cyclist killed in collision with car

[Alex Potter]

Snow can't be to blame...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-11853538

--
Alex

[alan.holmes]

"Alex Potter" > wrote in message
...
> Snow can't be to blame...
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-11853538

So it must be global warming which is the problem!

Alan


>
> --
> Alex
>

[Doug[_3_]]

On Nov 28, 6:07*pm, "alan.holmes" > wrote:
> "Alex Potter" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > Snow can't be to blame...
>
> >http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-11853538
>
> So it must be global warming which is the problem!
>
Climate change in this case, where some places get hotter and other
places get colder as a result of global warming. Its usually the
extremes and variability that are an indication, though over a much
longer period than 17 years.

BTW I don't like the phrase 'in collision with a car', which is a
euphemistic vulnerable victim blaming attempt, instead of 'car crashes
into cyclist'.

Doug

[FrengaX]

On Nov 29, 9:03*am, Doug > wrote:
>
> BTW I don't like the phrase 'in collision with a car', which is a
> euphemistic vulnerable victim blaming attempt, instead of 'car crashes
> into cyclist'.

The former wording is neutral, and used because there is no further
information (at least, not in the report). Using your wording is
immediately biassing the event. How do you know it was that way round.
Once the facts are known better, it is possible to say car crashes
into cyclist or even cyclist crashes into car, depending on what
actually happened. Until then, keep it correct as far as the known
facts allow.

[Tony Dragon]

On 29/11/2010 09:03, Doug wrote:
> On Nov 28, 6:07 pm, > wrote:
>> "Alex > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> Snow can't be to blame...
>>
>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-11853538
>>
>> So it must be global warming which is the problem!
>>
> Climate change in this case, where some places get hotter and other
> places get colder as a result of global warming. Its usually the
> extremes and variability that are an indication, though over a much
> longer period than 17 years.
>
> BTW I don't like the phrase 'in collision with a car', which is a
> euphemistic vulnerable victim blaming attempt, instead of 'car crashes
> into cyclist'.
>
> Doug
>

Its a pity you don't like that phrase, because you do not know that 'the
car crashed into the cyclist' that would be a very biased phrase & you
do not like bias.

--
Tony Dragon

[Doug[_3_]]

On Nov 29, 9:33*am, FrengaX > wrote:
> On Nov 29, 9:03*am, Doug > wrote:
>
>
>
> > BTW I don't like the phrase 'in collision with a car', which is a
> > euphemistic vulnerable victim blaming attempt, instead of 'car crashes
> > into cyclist'.
>
> The former wording is neutral, and used because there is no further
> information (at least, not in the report).
>
Of course its not neutral. It implies the cyclist collided with the
car instead of vice versa.

To be neutral it would have to say something like, 'Crash involving a
car and a cyclist caused the death of the cyclist. Though you would
almost certainly prefer to use the euphemistic word 'Accident' instead
of 'Crash' no doubt.
>
Using your wording is
> immediately biassing the event. How do you know it was that way round.
> Once the facts are known better, it is possible to say car crashes
> into cyclist or even cyclist crashes into car, depending on what
> actually happened. Until then, keep it correct as far as the known
> facts allow.
>
How does this look then, 'Motorist in collision with another cyclist
who is killed'? Not neutral but shifting the blame.

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

[FrengaX]

On Nov 29, 4:25*pm, Doug > wrote:
> On Nov 29, 9:33*am, FrengaX > wrote:> On Nov 29, 9:03*am, Doug > wrote:
>
> > > BTW I don't like the phrase 'in collision with a car', which is a
> > > euphemistic vulnerable victim blaming attempt, instead of 'car crashes
> > > into cyclist'.
>
> > The former wording is neutral, and used because there is no further
> > information (at least, not in the report).
>
> Of course its not neutral. It implies the cyclist collided with the
> car instead of vice versa.
>
> To be neutral it would have to say something like, 'Crash involving a
> car and a cyclist caused the death of the cyclist. Though you would
> almost certainly prefer to use the euphemistic word 'Accident' instead
> of 'Crash' no doubt.
>
> Using your wording is> immediately biassing the event. How do you know it was that way round.
> > Once the facts are known better, it is possible to say car crashes
> > into cyclist or even cyclist crashes into car, depending on what
> > actually happened. Until then, keep it correct as far as the known
> > facts allow.
>
> How does this look then, 'Motorist in collision with another cyclist
> who is killed'? Not neutral but shifting the blame.

Trouble with that wording is the position of the word "another". It
implies that the same motorist has collided with a cyclist before,
which is unlikely to be the case.