Pedestrian/Cyclist collision on Oxford Street

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
jca
Posts: 1
Joined: 12 Sep 2017, 8:28pm

Pedestrian/Cyclist collision on Oxford Street

Postby jca » 12 Sep 2017, 8:36pm

As headline says

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/o ... 33331.html

Shocking news. I was reading the forum earlier and came across the thread about the young man killed in Reading when he had a collision with a pedestrian and it made me draw comparisons in my head with the recent Charlie Alliston case. Here's hoping that this pedestrian makes a full recovery

bertgrower
Posts: 173
Joined: 2 Jun 2017, 6:47pm

Re: Pedestrian/Cyclist collision on Oxford Street

Postby bertgrower » 12 Sep 2017, 9:08pm

Did the cyclist have road legal bike

The utility cyclist
Posts: 753
Joined: 22 Aug 2016, 12:28pm

Re: Pedestrian/Cyclist collision on Oxford Street

Postby The utility cyclist » 13 Sep 2017, 7:25am

bertgrower wrote:Did the cyclist have road legal bike

Was the pedestrian wearing a helmet, if not, why not?
Why doesn't the article say the pedestrian was in collison with a bicycle? Afterall newspapers are still running with that format even when it is actually fallacious and libelous) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-li ... e-41220187

reohn2
Posts: 27638
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Pedestrian/Cyclist collision on Oxford Street

Postby reohn2 » 13 Sep 2017, 9:18am

The utility cyclist wrote:
bertgrower wrote:Did the cyclist have road legal bike

Was the pedestrian wearing a helmet, if not, why not?
Why doesn't the article say the pedestrian was in collison with a bicycle? Afterall newspapers are still running with that format even when it is actually fallacious and libelous) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-li ... e-41220187

IMO 'in collision with' is a fair statement until more is known about any crash incident.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.

User avatar
meic
Posts: 18226
Joined: 1 Feb 2007, 9:37pm
Location: Caerfyrddin (Carmarthen)

Re: Pedestrian/Cyclist collision on Oxford Street

Postby meic » 13 Sep 2017, 9:26am

Notice that a road accident involving a cyclist is covered by the newspapers "crime" section
but a car road accident is covered by its "transport" section.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transpo ... 31656.html
Yma o Hyd

The utility cyclist
Posts: 753
Joined: 22 Aug 2016, 12:28pm

Re: Pedestrian/Cyclist collision on Oxford Street

Postby The utility cyclist » 13 Sep 2017, 3:20pm

reohn2 wrote:
The utility cyclist wrote:
bertgrower wrote:Did the cyclist have road legal bike

Was the pedestrian wearing a helmet, if not, why not?
Why doesn't the article say the pedestrian was in collison with a bicycle? Afterall newspapers are still running with that format even when it is actually fallacious and libelous) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-li ... e-41220187

IMO 'in collision with' is a fair statement until more is known about any crash incident.

No it isn't, it proffers an action of someone doing something to another, and in our society with respect to colliding that means guilt on the person that does the colliding. if I collide WITH something, that clearly suggests I went into it, this suggests clearly that the cyclist went into the injured party, do we know this for a fact, no we don't.
The correct terminology should be "there was a collision between XX and YY", or a collision involving xx and yy.

reohn2
Posts: 27638
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Pedestrian/Cyclist collision on Oxford Street

Postby reohn2 » 13 Sep 2017, 3:48pm

The utility cyclist wrote:No it isn't, it proffers an action of someone doing something to another, and in our society with respect to colliding that means guilt on the person that does the colliding. if I collide WITH something, that clearly suggests I went into it, this suggests clearly that the cyclist went into the injured party, do we know this for a fact, no we don't.
The correct terminology should be "there was a collision between XX and YY", or a collision involving xx and yy.

'In collision with' still says the same thing to me.
"a cyclist was in collision with a motor" is the same as "a motor was in collision with a cyclist" to me .
The word "in", in this context says to me "involved",as in, "involved in a collision" or "a collision involving",meaning there was no blaim either way.
Whereas "a cyclist collided with a motor" imlies fault on the cyclists part.

I don't profess to know the intricacies of grammer,so I stand to be corrected,but I do see language as a way of comunicating one to another and I don't read "in collision with" as placing blaim on either party,if someone proves me wrong you have my apology.
Last edited by reohn2 on 13 Sep 2017, 4:00pm, edited 1 time in total.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.

bertgrower
Posts: 173
Joined: 2 Jun 2017, 6:47pm

Re: Pedestrian/Cyclist collision on Oxford Street

Postby bertgrower » 13 Sep 2017, 3:53pm

May be there was collision between a and b?

profpointy
Posts: 386
Joined: 9 Jun 2011, 10:34pm

Re: Pedestrian/Cyclist collision on Oxford Street

Postby profpointy » 13 Sep 2017, 4:38pm

reohn2 wrote:
The utility cyclist wrote:No it isn't, it proffers an action of someone doing something to another, and in our society with respect to colliding that means guilt on the person that does the colliding. if I collide WITH something, that clearly suggests I went into it, this suggests clearly that the cyclist went into the injured party, do we know this for a fact, no we don't.
The correct terminology should be "there was a collision between XX and YY", or a collision involving xx and yy.

'In collision with' still says the same thing to me.
"a cyclist was in collision with a motor" is the same as "a motor was in collision with a cyclist" to me .
The word "in", in this context says to me "involved",as in, "involved in a collision" or "a collision involving",meaning there was no blaim either way.
Whereas "a cyclist collided with a motor" imlies fault on the cyclists part.

I don't profess to know the intricacies of grammer,so I stand to be corrected,but I do see language as a way of comunicating one to another and I don't read "in collision with" as placing blaim on either party,if someone proves me wrong you have my apology.


Unless you could equally well say "a tree was in collision with" .. the there is not an equivalance for most readers

reohn2
Posts: 27638
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Pedestrian/Cyclist collision on Oxford Street

Postby reohn2 » 13 Sep 2017, 6:36pm

profpointy wrote:Unless you could equally well say "a tree was in collision with" .. the there is not an equivalance for most readers

Tree = static,inanimate,immovable(usually),so a vehicle can only collide with it,so the correct way to report it would be "vehicle collides with tree".
Cyclist and motorist collide,can be reported either way "cyclist in collision with motor" or "motor in collision with cyclist".
I've seen it reported both ways,are both grammatically incorrect?

EDITED for typos.
Last edited by reohn2 on 13 Sep 2017, 8:54pm, edited 1 time in total.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.

User avatar
Tigerbiten
Posts: 1371
Joined: 29 Jun 2009, 6:49am

Re: Pedestrian/Cyclist collision on Oxford Street

Postby Tigerbiten » 13 Sep 2017, 7:58pm

It's like the headline "They shouldn't have been there" for the crash on the A16 a few day ago during an audax.
Which is a true headline as the route of the audax doesn't use the A16.
Until you learn that the police diverted them onto the A16 due to a fatal accident on the official audax route.
Now is that headline still true as it was an "official" diversion ??
And if you think on the headline in relation to cyclists in general, is that headline saying cyclists shouldn't have been on that road at all ??

So it's all about preconceptions.
As it normally A -> B not A <- B, saying "a cyclist collided with a car" makes you think the cyclist may have caused the collision but not the diver may have caused the collision.

User avatar
bovlomov
Posts: 2653
Joined: 5 Apr 2007, 7:45am
Contact:

Re: Pedestrian/Cyclist collision on Oxford Street

Postby bovlomov » 13 Sep 2017, 8:00pm

Two things can collide with each other, but I'd say that usually one object is the active object that collides with the passive one, even if the latter is moving.

- If a car hits a cyclist from behind, the car has collided with the bike. They haven't collided with each other.

- If a bike fails to stop at a T-junction and hits the side of a car travelling along the main road, I'd say the bike collided with the car.

User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 15490
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Pedestrian/Cyclist collision on Oxford Street

Postby [XAP]Bob » 14 Sep 2017, 7:20am

bovlomov wrote:Two things can collide with each other, but I'd say that usually one object is the active object that collides with the passive one, even if the latter is moving.

- If a car hits a cyclist from behind, the car has collided with the bike. They haven't collided with each other.

- If a bike fails to stop at a T-junction and hits the side of a car travelling along the main road, I'd say the bike collided with the car.

And if the bike fails to stop but the collision is between the bonnet and the side of the cyclist?
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.
A good pun is it's own reword

There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.

Phil Fouracre
Posts: 615
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 12:16pm
Location: Deepest Somerset

Re: Pedestrian/Cyclist collision on Oxford Street

Postby Phil Fouracre » 14 Sep 2017, 8:39am

Car hits bike! :-)
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity

Flinders
Posts: 2645
Joined: 10 Mar 2009, 6:47pm

Re: Pedestrian/Cyclist collision on Oxford Street

Postby Flinders » 14 Sep 2017, 8:42am

Why use the word in the first place? Or you could say 'a cyclist and a (whatever) were involved in a collision'. It's not too difficult to make it unambiguously without blame - if you actually want to, that is. :|