In collision with...

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

Once again the vulnerable road user is "in collision with" the mobile death
greenhouse which killed them. Clearly only cars should be allowed on the
roads.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/southern_counties/3105669.stm

A vehicle recovery worker has been killed as she helped a motorist on the
hard shoulder of a motorway.

The woman, who has not been named, was attending a broken down vehicle on
the M3 in Surrey.

She was standing on the hard shoulder when she was in collision with a black
Ford Escort.

Police said the woman was pronounced dead at the scene.

The accident happened at about 1900 BST on Monday between junctions two and
three of the motorway.

Police are asking anyone who saw the collision to contact them.

--
Guy
===

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

[Jim Price]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> Once again the vulnerable road user is "in collision with" the mobile death
> greenhouse which killed them. Clearly only cars should be allowed on the
> roads.

I was taught at school that excessive use of the passive tense was bad
grammar. Then I worked with some 'melicans who had found a way to use it
to their advantage. Instead of saying "I messed it up", they would say
"It was messed up". It became clear after a while that in such
circumstances they were the responsible party, thus removing a nuance of
the english language from usability in their presence. I think that with
the EU law making any collision with a vulnerable road user the fault of
the motorist, this example is similar, and supports the idea that no
cars should be allowed on roads with vulnerable road users.

As a journalistic cliche, it probably has a limited lifespan, like
others such as "drugs with a street value of" and "balance of trade
deficit".

--
Jim Price

http://www.jimprice.dsl.pipex.com

Conscientious objection is hard work in an economic war.

[Tenex]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> Once again the vulnerable road user is "in collision with" the mobile
> death greenhouse which killed them. Clearly only cars should be
> allowed on the roads.
>
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/southern_counties/3105669.stm


I generally enjoy reading this NG (and your contributions) but I really
don't see the point of posts like this. All cars and all car users are
bad/evil/etc? So ban all internal combustion engined vehicles?

[Helen Deborah Vecht]

Thus spake Jim Price >


> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> > Once again the vulnerable road user is "in collision with" the
> > mobile death
> > greenhouse which killed them. Clearly only cars should be allowed on the
> > roads.

> I was taught at school that excessive use of the passive tense was bad
> grammar.

Even Micro$oft Word does that...

--
Helen D. Vecht:
Edgware.

[Tony W]

"Tenex" > wrote in message
...
> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> > Once again the vulnerable road user is "in collision with" the mobile
> > death greenhouse which killed them. Clearly only cars should be
> > allowed on the roads.
> >
> >
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/southern_counties/3105669.stm
>
>
> I generally enjoy reading this NG (and your contributions) but I really
> don't see the point of posts like this. All cars and all car users are
> bad/evil/etc? So ban all internal combustion engined vehicles?


This was the M3 -- so actually one of the roads where cars -- or more
accurately motorised vehicles -- do reign supreme.

My problem with the article is the sloppy use of English. Surely the phrase
that should have been used was 'struck by', 'hit by' or even 'mown down
by' -- all of which make clear that the car was the active element in the
tragedy and the woman the passive victim.

'In collision with' somehow implies both car and victim were equal
participants -- a tonne + of metal moving at speed and ~70 kg of woman
essentially stationary are far from equal participants -- as the sad outcome
testifies.

'In collision with' seems to be an increasingly stock phrase within the
BBC's repertoire.

Car drivers are not, as a class, 'evil' -- and probably the majority of
contributors to this NG are drivers as well as cyclists. If I recall
correctly Guy is also a driver.

Very few drivers intentionally run over pedestrians or cyclists -- but,
inattention, excess speed, insufficient control or plain stupidity do,
sadly, mean that a significant number of pedestrians and cyclists find
themselves dead or injured after 'being in collision with' a car or lorry.
Often there will be contributory negligence on the part of the victim - but
it is the driver who is in charge of the deadly weapon and so has a large
responsibility to keep it in control and safe.

T

PS -- many of Guy's posts contain a significant element of irony.

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

"Jim Price" > wrote in message
...

> I think that with
> the EU law making any collision with a vulnerable road user the fault of
> the motorist

Point of information: I read the proposed Directive and its primary function
was to remove a loophole whereby in some countries the driver's insurance
does not cover pedestrians and cyclists injured in a crash.

There was text in there explicitly to address the question of civil
liability and "fault" where the ped / cyclist was indeed at fault.

Of course, it was a typical tabloid cycle-bashing excuse - the fact that
peds are far more likely to be responsible for their own downfall than
cyclists could not be allowed to interfere with the story.

--
Guy
===

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

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

"Tenex" > wrote in message
...

> I really don't see the point of posts like this.

A week or so back there was a similar story about a postie on a bike "in
collision with" a car. Looking at the pictures, the car was on the wrong
side of the road. It's like the word "accident:" it obscures the fact that
the car brought all the danger to the situation, that the car driver is very
often at fault, but the dead person is always "in collision with" the car,
as if the car was just sitting there minding its own business.

I don't have a problem with neutral terminology until the facts of the case
are established, I do have a problem with this pseudo-legalese weasel phrase
which implies fault on the part of the person who is statistically less
likely to be to blame.

That's all it's about.

As for:

> All cars and all car users are
> bad/evil/etc? So ban all internal combustion engined vehicles?

That is the Only Sane and Rational Response ;-)

--
Guy
===

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

[Jim Price]

Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:

> Thus spake Jim Price >
>>I was taught at school that excessive use of the passive tense was bad
>>grammar.
>
> Even Micro$oft Word does that...

Not when I went to school. :)

I'm now a convert to OpenOffice.

--
Jim Price

http://www.jimprice.dsl.pipex.com

Conscientious objection is hard work in an economic war.

[Tony W]

"Tenex" > wrote in message
...
> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
> But if the issue is the language and reporting style - I still don't see
the
> point of posting here. Write and complain to the publisher - the BBC - it
> may (v. unlikely) be taken on board.

No, its about accuracy not style. (As I said to Beeb when I complained).

[marc]

Jim Price > wrote:

> As a journalistic cliche, it probably has a limited lifespan, like
> others such as "drugs with a street value of"

Have you noticed , when it's drugs they talk about the "street value"
yet when it's counterfeit money it's always the face value not the
"street value".


--
Marc
Stickers,decals,membership,cards, T shirts, signs etc
for clubs and associations of all types.
http://www.jaceeprint.demon.co.uk/

[Pete Biggs]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> I don't have a problem with neutral terminology until the facts of
> the case are established, I do have a problem with this
> pseudo-legalese weasel phrase which implies fault on the part of the
> person who is statistically less likely to be to blame.

This is paranoia - thinking that the BBC and everyone is out to blame
cyclists. It's rubbish.

"In collision with" does not imply fault. It's entirely neutral and
reversible. It's natural to put the victim first (literally) becuase
that's who the audience is usually most interested in. "The cyclist was
in collision with a car" means "the cyclist most likely got hit by a car"
in my mind whenever I hear or read it.

~PB

[Steve]

Pete Biggs wrote in message ...
> "In collision with" does not imply fault. It's entirely neutral and
> reversible.

Well I disagree there. If "A" was in collision with "B" then that implies
"A" was the moving object to my mind so a pedestrian isn't in collision with
a with a vehicle if the pedestrian isn't moving *significantly*.

When your ****ed, you are in collision with a lamp-post. The lamp-post isn't
in collision with you. The same goes for the previous reference to the
cyclist in collision with a car. It implies the cyclist was moving
significantly fast enough to collide with the car. It may on may not be
true, but it somehow implied the cyclist was at fault.

[Pete Biggs]

Steve wrote:

> When your ****ed, you are in collision with a lamp-post. The
> lamp-post isn't in collision with you.

Yes it is. If lamp posts were important things which everybody cared
about more than human beings then I could imagine the BBC reporting: "the
lamp post was in collision with a drunk". It does sound funny now but I
think that's because lamp posts are not important or interesting so we
don't put them first.

I didn't think "in collision with" meant precisely the same thing as
"collided with". Surely the whole idea of using the phrase is that it is
neutral and reversible so the reporter doesn't have to make a judgement
and the report is just a bare statement of fact. Otherwise why not just
directly say "the cyclist colided with the car"? Implication is a vague
concept open to individual interpretation and I think far more is being
read into the reporting than actually is meant.

> The same goes for the previous
> reference to the cyclist in collision with a car. It implies the
> cyclist was moving significantly fast enough to collide with the car.
> It may on may not be true, but it somehow implied the cyclist was at
> fault.

It still doesn't to my mind (and I don't think it's just because I'm a
cyclist myself because it's the same with other victims as well). Maybe
I've got a back-to-front mind!

~PB

[Dave Kahn]

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 13:15:46 +0000, (marc)
wrote:

>Jim Price > wrote:
>
>> As a journalistic cliche, it probably has a limited lifespan, like
>> others such as "drugs with a street value of"
>
>Have you noticed , when it's drugs they talk about the "street value"
>yet when it's counterfeit money it's always the face value not the
>"street value".

This is entirely logical as counterfeit money has a face value and
drugs don't (except back in the sixties, I suppose, when people used
to put a dose of LSD on a postage stamp).

--
Dave...

[Michael MacClancy]

In message >, Pete Biggs
> writes
>I didn't think "in collision with" meant precisely the same thing as
>"collided with". Surely the whole idea of using the phrase is that it
>is neutral and reversible so the reporter doesn't have to make a
>judgement and the report is just a bare statement of fact. Otherwise
>why not just directly say "the cyclist colided with the car"?

Having taken part in a similar discussion last week (about the postie
who was in a collision with a car) I've been drawn into this debate.

My dictionary defines 'collision' as 'a violent impact of moving
objects'. The action of a car hitting a pedestrian on a motorway can
hardly be described as a collision.

Charitably one could argue that the BBC journalist made a clumsy error.
A cynical analyst might conclude that the journalist was trying to
remove blame from the motorist when this is unnecessary.
--
Michael MacClancy

[Tim Woodall]

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 08:08:46 +0100,
Michael MacClancy > wrote:
>
> My dictionary defines 'collision' as 'a violent impact of moving
> objects'. The action of a car hitting a pedestrian on a motorway can
> hardly be described as a collision.
>
Maybe you have the same dictionary because mine is very similar.

It also includes a violent encounter of a moving body with a fixed object.

I would argue whether you could call a pedestrian a fixed object but even
so, ISTM that the car is in collision with the tree/lamppost/pedestrian,
not the other way around.

Tim.



--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and there was light.

http://tjw.hn.org/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/

[Daniel Wilcox]

Pete Biggs wrote:
> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> This is paranoia - thinking that the BBC and everyone is out to blame
> cyclists. It's rubbish.
>
> "In collision with" does not imply fault. It's entirely neutral and
> reversible. It's natural to put the victim first (literally) becuase
> that's who the audience is usually most interested in. "The cyclist was
> in collision with a car" means "the cyclist most likely got hit by a car"
> in my mind whenever I hear or read it.
>
> ~PB
>
>

How about in keeping this thread relevant with the postman
article as in:

a) The postman was in bed with his wife!
b) His wife was in bed with the postman!

I don't know re-reading it I think their is a case for
saying that a) makes it seem like the postman was the
involved in the, err incident. b) Would imply that the wife
was the randy old bugger. Although they are reversible I
would tend to say that people would infer that the first
mentioned was at fault.

I don't know I could be entirely wrong.

Just my 2p.

;)

[Dave Kahn]

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 09:31:56 +0000, (marc)
wrote:

>I agree it's entirely logical as far as the law enforcment agency is
>concerned ( it makes their haul sound better), but a fake £20 note is
>worth £5 "on the street"

How do you know that? I presume this inside knowledge is in no way
connected with your printing business? :-)

--
Dave...

[Dave Kahn]

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 12:08:26 +0100, Daniel Wilcox
> wrote:

>a) The postman was in bed with his wife!
>b) His wife was in bed with the postman!
>
>I don't know re-reading it I think their is a case for
>saying that a) makes it seem like the postman was the
>involved in the, err incident. b) Would imply that the wife
>was the randy old bugger. Although they are reversible I
>would tend to say that people would infer that the first
>mentioned was at fault.

They were in bed together.

"A cyclist and a car were in a collision."

"A car and a cyclist were in a collision".

Changing the order here, for me at any rate, seems to have less effect
on the implied meaning than with "a cyclist was in a collision with a
car". I suspect the real reason for the rather clumsy wording that
appears again and again is that lazy journalists simply echo the
wording of the police press release. This I'm guessing is also the
reason they often then go into great detail about the ensuing traffic
chaos. It's much easier and quicker to quote the press release
verbatim than to write a proper story.

--
Dave...

[marc]

Dave Kahn > wrote:

>
> >I agree it's entirely logical as far as the law enforcment agency is
> >concerned ( it makes their haul sound better), but a fake £20 note is
> >worth £5 "on the street"
>
> How do you know that?

A friend of a friend etc....

> I presume this inside knowledge is in no way
> connected with your printing business? :-)

Not at all , but there was one incident about 25 years ago when the
company I was working for printed a job the the local TA.
The job consisted of 1/2 a £5 note ( the then bounty for joining the TA)
and the slogan "Join your local TA" on the other half. We did quite a
good job of it with good quality paper and the TA were going around
dropping these on the street. We then got a visit from the Fraud Squad
that confiscated the plates, negs and artwork. It turned out that people
were sliding them across the bar in dark clubs/pubs etc... :-(


--
Marc
Stickers,decals,membership,cards, T shirts, signs etc
for clubs and associations of all types.
http://www.jaceeprint.demon.co.uk/

[Daniel Wilcox]

Daniel Wilcox wrote:
> Pete Biggs wrote:
>
>> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>> This is paranoia - thinking that the BBC and everyone is out to blame
>> cyclists. It's rubbish.
>>
>> "In collision with" does not imply fault. It's entirely neutral and
>> reversible. It's natural to put the victim first (literally) becuase
>> that's who the audience is usually most interested in. "The cyclist was
>> in collision with a car" means "the cyclist most likely got hit by a car"
>> in my mind whenever I hear or read it.
>>
>> ~PB
>>
>>
>
> How about in keeping this thread relevant with the postman article as in:
>
> a) The postman was in bed with his wife!
> b) His wife was in bed with the postman!
>

Oops re-reading it the second one is definitely worse!
Perhaps it would be better phrased as,

a) The postman was in bed with Johns wife.
b) Johns wife was in bed with the postman.

There that sounds better, this grammar malarky is well hard,
innit.

;)

[John]

Daniel Wilcox wrote in message ...
> Perhaps it would be better phrased as,
> a) The postman was in bed with John's wife.
> b) John's wife was in bed with the postman.

OY !! ... keep my wife out of this discussion ;-)

[Andrew Sweetman]

Dave Kahn > ...
> "A cyclist and a car were in a collision."
>
> "A car and a cyclist were in a collision".
>
> Changing the order here, for me at any rate, seems to have less effect
> on the implied meaning than with "a cyclist was in a collision with a
> car". I suspect the real reason for the rather clumsy wording that
> appears again and again is that lazy journalists simply echo the
> wording of the police press release.

I've even hear it stated by someone from the Police side of things that the
the reason they don't say "the car was in collision with a cyclist" is that
this would imply that the motorist was at fault.

No, I can't remember where/when.

Andrew