Tell it how it is

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
Post Reply
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Tell it how it is

Post by thirdcrank »

We've had various discussions of the use of expressions such as "... was in collision with ..." and I was surprised by the directness of the language used at such an early stage in the inquiries here:

A dog walker and her pet have been killed along with a motorcyclist who ploughed into them in Dorset.

The crash happened near Chafey's roundabout in Weymouth on Saturday when the bike hit the 63-year-old woman and her dog.

The air ambulance attended but all three died at the scene.

Police said 23-year-old biker had been riding his bronze-coloured Honda from Westwey Road junction towards Chafeys Roundabout shortly after 17:00 BST. (My emphasis.)


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-28509461

I've posted this in full because I fancy it may change later when the force's press office takes a look.

(Two people dead so I apologise to any of the bereaved who may chance across this, for using their personal tragedy to make this point.)
Bicycler
Posts: 3400
Joined: 4 Dec 2013, 3:33pm

Re: Tell it how it is

Post by Bicycler »

It's ten times better than "a pedestrian and dog were killed when they collided with a motorbike".
User avatar
BeeKeeper
Posts: 1265
Joined: 29 Apr 2011, 6:45am
Location: South Devon

Re: Tell it how it is

Post by BeeKeeper »

It's just Red Top journalism. Something similar happened on a BBC report about the Oscar Pistorius trial when they described how the accused "threw up" in court. What's wrong with "vomited"?
User avatar
Vantage
Posts: 3050
Joined: 24 Jan 2012, 1:44pm
Location: somewhere in Bolton
Contact:

Re: Tell it how it is

Post by Vantage »

Bicycler wrote:It's ten times better than "a pedestrian and dog were killed when they collided with a motorbike".

+1
Unfortunately.

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... rl-7508431
Bill


“Ride as much or as little, or as long or as short as you feel. But ride.” ~ Eddy Merckx
It's a rich man whos children run to him when his pockets are empty.
Bicycler
Posts: 3400
Joined: 4 Dec 2013, 3:33pm

Re: Tell it how it is

Post by Bicycler »

Vantage wrote:http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/sharston-taxi-crashes-toddler-girl-7508431

Girl, 2, fights for life after collision with taxi

Police said the toddler was involved in a crash with a silver Ford Focus estate on Crossacres Road, Sharston, at 12.15pm on Friday.

Unbelievable!
pete75
Posts: 16370
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 2:37pm

Re: Tell it how it is

Post by pete75 »

Bicycler wrote:It's ten times better than "a pedestrian and dog were killed when they collided with a motorbike".


I disagree. Both are equally as bad for the person and the dog.
'Give me my bike, a bit of sunshine - and a stop-off for a lunchtime pint - and I'm a happy man.' - Reg Baker
User avatar
BeeKeeper
Posts: 1265
Joined: 29 Apr 2011, 6:45am
Location: South Devon

Re: Tell it how it is

Post by BeeKeeper »

There is a reason for the use of this language, which I suspect is why 3rd crank posted it. The reporting has to be sure it does not prejudice any possible prosecution. Hence the concept of a "collision" between a child and a car. To infer the car hit the child is to possibly prejudge the case as it suggests the child was innocent of any blame. As we don't have strict liability in this country the press have to be careful what they say. I remember being in collision with a car when on my trike as a nipper. The driver was not at fault as he was inside his house drinking a cup of tea at the time I ran into his parked car!
ChrisButch
Posts: 1188
Joined: 24 Feb 2009, 12:10pm

Re: Tell it how it is

Post by ChrisButch »

BeeKeeper wrote:There is a reason for the use of this language, which I suspect is why 3rd crank posted it. The reporting has to be sure it does not prejudice any possible prosecution. Hence the concept of a "collision" between a child and a car. To infer the car hit the child is to possibly prejudge the case as it suggests the child was innocent of any blame. As we don't have strict liability in this country the press have to be careful what they say. I remember being in collision with a car when on my trike as a nipper. The driver was not at fault as he was inside his house drinking a cup of tea at the time I ran into his parked car!

There's a readily available solution, both legally neutral and free of language abuse, which avoids that dilemma. Simply don't use any of the parties to the incident as the subject of a verb. So instead of saying 'x was in collision with y', or 'x collided with y', you say 'there was a collision between x and y'. Police and press seem rarely if ever to use that form of words, for reasons hard to understand.
Bicycler
Posts: 3400
Joined: 4 Dec 2013, 3:33pm

Re: Tell it how it is

Post by Bicycler »

BeeKeeper wrote:There is a reason for the use of this language, which I suspect is why 3rd crank posted it. The reporting has to be sure it does not prejudice any possible prosecution. Hence the concept of a "collision" between a child and a car. To infer the car hit the child is to possibly prejudge the case as it suggests the child was innocent of any blame. As we don't have strict liability in this country the press have to be careful what they say. I remember being in collision with a car when on my trike as a nipper. The driver was not at fault as he was inside his house drinking a cup of tea at the time I ran into his parked car!

Yes but this language isn't neutral. There is a difference between your example "a collision between" and "collided with". Obviously the examples with the child and pedestrian are absurd but using less prejudicial language becomes more important in other cases. When we read " a cyclist [active] collided with a car [passive]" we infer that the cyclist has hit the car rather than the other way around. They should not use any language which implies something which is not known.

Edit Chris made this point whilst I was typing this post
User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 19793
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Tell it how it is

Post by [XAP]Bob »

ChrisButch wrote:
BeeKeeper wrote:There is a reason for the use of this language, which I suspect is why 3rd crank posted it. The reporting has to be sure it does not prejudice any possible prosecution. Hence the concept of a "collision" between a child and a car. To infer the car hit the child is to possibly prejudge the case as it suggests the child was innocent of any blame. As we don't have strict liability in this country the press have to be careful what they say. I remember being in collision with a car when on my trike as a nipper. The driver was not at fault as he was inside his house drinking a cup of tea at the time I ran into his parked car!

There's a readily available solution, both legally neutral and free of language abuse, which avoids that dilemma. Simply don't use any of the parties to the incident as the subject of a verb. So instead of saying 'x was in collision with y', or 'x collided with y', you say 'there was a collision between x and y'. Police and press seem rarely if ever to use that form of words, for reasons hard to understand.


Because it takes a modicum of English grammar?
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
Pete Owens
Posts: 2442
Joined: 7 Jul 2008, 12:52am

Re: Tell it how it is

Post by Pete Owens »

BeeKeeper wrote:There is a reason for the use of this language, which I suspect is why 3rd crank posted it. The reporting has to be sure it does not prejudice any possible prosecution. Hence the concept of a "collision" between a child and a car. To infer the car hit the child is to possibly prejudge the case as it suggests the child was innocent of any blame. As we don't have strict liability in this country the press have to be careful what they say. I remember being in collision with a car when on my trike as a nipper. The driver was not at fault as he was inside his house drinking a cup of tea at the time I ran into his parked car!


That is simply not the case - you can still report that X was run over by a bus (ie the straight facts of a case) without implying any criminiality on the part of the bus driver. The press are quite happy to post accounts of people being robbed, assualted, raped and so on in straight forward language rather than convoluted attempts to portray neutrality. Imagine this as a red-top headile "Miss Smith aged 13 is in hospital having collided with a basebal bat, during a financial transaction with Mr Jones aged 34."

The "in collision with" terminology actually represents progress from the previous practice which was to describe all crashes as "accidents".
Post Reply