In collision with...

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/s...es/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

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.

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/s...es/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?

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.

"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/s...es/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.

"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

"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

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.

"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).

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/