Pedestrian/Cyclist collision on Oxford Street

[jca]

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]

Did the cyclist have road legal bike

[The utility cyclist]

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]

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.

[meic]

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

[The utility cyclist]

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]

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.

[bertgrower]

May be there was collision between a and b?

[profpointy]

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]

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.

[Tigerbiten]

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.

[bovlomov]

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.

[[XAP]Bob]

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?

[Phil Fouracre]

Car hits bike!

[Flinders]

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.