Re: Cycling Postman injured in crash

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

"al_Mossah" > wrote in message
...

> Is it my imagination, or is there more sympathy and concern expressed here
> for the car driver rather than the cyclist? I haven't heard an update on
> his condition.

Obviously. The bike was in colision with a car - how could that be the
motorist's fault?

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.com

[Daniel Wilcox]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> "al_Mossah" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>Is it my imagination, or is there more sympathy and concern expressed here
>>for the car driver rather than the cyclist? I haven't heard an update on
>>his condition.
>
>
> Obviously. The bike was in colision with a car - how could that be the
> motorist's fault?
>

I only hope that the car can be repaired and made road
worthy soon. Seeing a car like that, no wonder the owner was
in shock.

[Richard]

al_Mossah wrote:
>
> http://www.thisiswiltshire.co.uk/wiltshire/chippenham/news/CHIP_NEWS_LOCAL13
> .html
>
> Looking at the photo, the car has crossed over to the wrong side of the road
> and taken the cyclist out.

Possibly. Or the cyclist was on the other side of the road to the
camera, and the car swerved in an attempt to avoid him and lost
control. It's impossible to say on the basis of this photograph.

It's a 30mph limit, about a kilometre out of
> town.
>
> Is it my imagination, or is there more sympathy and concern expressed here
> for the car driver rather than the cyclist?

I'm not sure you can say that. The only comment about the car driver
is that he or she was taken to hospital, and a witness said that they
were suffering from shock; that's hardly sympathy and concern.

[Frank X]

"Richard" > wrote in message
...
> al_Mossah wrote:
> >
> > Is it my imagination, or is there more sympathy and concern expressed
here
> > for the car driver rather than the cyclist?
>
> I'm not sure you can say that. The only comment about the car driver
> is that he or she was taken to hospital, and a witness said that they
> were suffering from shock; that's hardly sympathy and concern.

I remember witnessing an head on collision between two cars. The blameless
driver was left dazed sitting in his car while the girl who caused it got
out and was apparently uninjured but was behaving irrationally.

I told her to sit on the pavement by the side of the road while I went to
help the other driver. When the people who lived there came out my first
comment to them was that she appeared to be in shock, this was so they could
look after her and stop her walking into the road etc, while I helped the
other guy. It didn't mean I had more sympathy for her.

[Michael MacClancy]

In message >, David Hansen
> writes
>On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 10:41:54 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be
>"al_Mossah" > wrote this:-
>
>>http://www.thisiswiltshire.co.uk/wiltshire/chippenham/news/CHIP_NEWS_LOCAL13
>>.html
>>
>>Looking at the photo, the car has crossed over to the wrong side of the road
>>and taken the cyclist out.
>
>That's what it looks like to me. However, the newspaper (possibly
>quoting the police) disagrees. It states quite clearly, "A POSTMAN
>in his 50s was in a stable condition in hospital last night after
>his bike was in collision with a car yesterday." So there you have
>it, the postman rode his bike into the car.
>
>Of course it's far more likely that the car driver collided with the
>cyclist, but the newspaper obviously couldn't be so "controversial".
>


Or perhaps the newspaper interprets "bike in collision with car" to have
the same meaning as "car in collision with bike"? (Like "Sid in meeting
with John" means the same as "John in meeting with Sid".) The order of
the words doesn't change the meaning of the sentence. The newspaper is
probably trying to avoid attributing blame because it doesn't know who's
at fault.
--
Michael MacClancy

[Dave Larrington]

Steve Peake wrote:

> 1. The Posty (There's no such term as "going office worker")
> 2. Customs
> 3. The VAT man (technically the same person as 2, minus rubber
> gloves)
> 4. The bin man. (whats that smell, why its 4 weeks rubbish!!)

5. Bicycle Repair Man

Sorry.

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
================================================== =========
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
================================================== =========

[Peter B]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message
...
>
> Obviously. The bike was in colision with a car - how could that be the
> motorist's fault?

That's why I keep my bikes locked in the garage, bloody things, let 'em out
and they go straight for the nearest car.
OTOH the cars can be safely left out, the only risk to them seems to be
errant kerbs and shopping trolleys.

Pete

[David Hansen]

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 15:53:45 +0100 someone who may be Michael
MacClancy > wrote this:-

>>Of course it's far more likely that the car driver collided with the
>>cyclist, but the newspaper obviously couldn't be so "controversial".
>
>Or perhaps the newspaper interprets "bike in collision with car" to have
>the same meaning as "car in collision with bike"?

I have yet to see the latter in a newspaper.

Perhaps I don't see the right sort of stories. Perhaps my
interpretation is correct.

>The order of
>the words doesn't change the meaning of the sentence.

Highly debatable.

>The newspaper is
>probably trying to avoid attributing blame because it doesn't know who's
>at fault.

No. The newspaper is attributing blame to the cyclist, for a number
of possible reasons.


--
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.

[Tim Hall]

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 21:28:28 +0100, David Hansen
> wrote:

>On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 15:53:45 +0100 someone who may be Michael
>MacClancy > wrote this:-
>
>>>Of course it's far more likely that the car driver collided with the
>>>cyclist, but the newspaper obviously couldn't be so "controversial".
>>
>>Or perhaps the newspaper interprets "bike in collision with car" to have
>>the same meaning as "car in collision with bike"?
>
>I have yet to see the latter in a newspaper.
>
>Perhaps I don't see the right sort of stories. Perhaps my
>interpretation is correct.
>
>>The order of
>>the words doesn't change the meaning of the sentence.
>
>Highly debatable.

Agreed. "A bike was in collision with a car" suggests, to me at
least, the bike hit the car. Swapping bike and car changes it to the
car hitting the bike. "A bike and a car were in collision" is more
neutral - two vehicles tried to occupy the same space and time without
a judgement on who did what to whom.

Tim
In space no one can eat ice cream

[Michael MacClancy]

In message >, Ian Smith
> writes
>On Tue, 22 Jul, Michael MacClancy > wrote:
>
>Sid hit John.
>John hit Sid.
>
>Obviously synonymous. Try substituting "thumped" for hit if you still
>think it is.
>
>regards, Ian SMith

I'm not a grammarian (and it's obvious that you aren't either) but I do
know that you're confusing the point.

I ask you to consider the differences in meaning between the following
pairs:
1a. Car hits bike.
1b. Bike hits car.
2a. Car runs into bike.
2b. Bike runs into car.
3a. Car collides with bike.
3b. Bike collides with car.
4a. Car is in collision with bike.
4b. Bike is in collision with car.

The difference in meaning between 4a. and 4b. is marginal (if it exists
at all). That between 1a. and 1b. enormous.

The journalist chose a formulation that minimised the attribution of
blame. *We* don't know the full circumstances of the event and the
journalist probably didn't either when the copy was filed. Perhaps one
of the parties was going the wrong way down a one way street. Perhaps
one of them was on the wrong side of the road.

The victim culture is overly prevalent in this country and given oxygen
by people who get bothered about whether journalists write "bike is in
collision with car" or "car is in collision with bike".

--
Michael MacClancy