Pedestrian/Cyclist collision on Oxford Street

[bovlomov]

And if the bike fails to stop but the collision is between the bonnet and the side of the cyclist?

Then it's quite clear! I haven't a clue.

I suppose, if I'm cycling along the main road and a car edges out from a side street (as often happens) and I hit it side on (as hasn't happened yet), then I would have collided with the car - even if there's nothing I could have done to prevent it.

But the form of words often implies blame, and with much of the media that is quite intentional. In the above case, a newspaper report would say (quite truthfully) that a cyclist rode into a car, and most of the readers would (quite mistakenly) assume it was the cyclist's fault.

Perhaps we need a new, standard vocabulary to describe the various ways that objects can meet.

[bovlomov]

It's not too difficult to make it unambiguously without blame - if you actually want to, that is.

What I've just posted, but you've said it quicker.

[[XAP]Bob]

Perhaps we need a new, standard vocabulary to describe the various ways that objects can meet.

Hence 'in a collision with' rather than 'collided with'.
One is true...

A was in a collision with B is logically equivalent to B was in a collision with A.

It actually doesn't matter whether A or B is a cyclist, motorist, tree, lighthouse or aircraft carrier...

The alternative is, I suppose, there was a collision between A and B. But the choice of which is labelled A and which B will always be contentious...

[gaz]

Here's hoping that this pedestrian makes a full recovery

Sadly the pedestrian has died.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-41263926

[meic]

A spokesman for the Metropolitan Police said the cyclist stopped at the scene of the crash and no arrests have been made.

We can assume that the cyclist was indeed on a road legal bike then.
Or is it likely that serious charges may follow even without an arrest at the scene?

[thirdcrank]

... We can assume that the cyclist was indeed on a road legal bike then.
Or is it likely that serious charges may follow even without an arrest at the scene?

Part of the significance of the cyclist stopping at the scene is that without reg plate etc., they might take more tracing than a car. (Think of the current search for the jogger.) I do know that scarpering implies something to hide. There's nothing that says that an arrest is a prerequisite for an investigation, or that somebody cannot be arrested later. Re the bike, I'd say it was normal and reasonable to check it properly and in due course, as would be normal with a motor vehicle. Less to check on a bike of course but it still needs to be done properly.

[reohn2]

Here's hoping that this pedestrian makes a full recovery

Sadly the pedestrian has died.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-41263926

The report says a man was arrested at the scene but police are refusing to say whether it was the cyclist or not.
Anyway it's a sad end to someone's life

PS,I wonder how many people were killed by cars on the same day.

[LollyKat]

There is a photo of the bike here: https://twitter.com/BBCTomEdwards/statu ... 0507288576 . It has flat bars, disc brakes and appears to have a camera so it may be possible to find out what happened.

[The utility cyclist]

Here's hoping that this pedestrian makes a full recovery

Sadly the pedestrian has died.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-41263926

The report says a man was arrested at the scene but police are refusing to say whether it was the cyclist or not.
Anyway it's a sad end to someone's life

PS,I wonder how many people were killed by cars on the same day.

He was apparently arrested on an unrelated previous crime.

[reohn2]

Sadly the pedestrian has died.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-41263926

The report says a man was arrested at the scene but police are refusing to say whether it was the cyclist or not.
Anyway it's a sad end to someone's life

PS,I wonder how many people were killed by cars on the same day.

He was apparently arrested on an unrelated previous crime.

Thanks
Got a link to that information ?

[LollyKat]

It's in the same link that Gaz posted and just quoted by yourself...

[Eton Rifle]

There is a photo of the bike here: https://twitter.com/BBCTomEdwards/statu ... 0507288576 . It has flat bars, disc brakes and appears to have a camera so it may be possible to find out what happened.

Jeez, there are some right [ silly persons ] commenting on that twitter thread. I filled my bingo card after about five tweets.

[MikeF]

What was the point of listing all the fatal cycle/pedestrian collisions? If it had been compared with motor vehicle collisions it may have put things in perspective.

[MikeF]

There is a photo of the bike here: https://twitter.com/BBCTomEdwards/statu ... 0507288576 . It has flat bars, disc brakes and appears to have a camera so it may be possible to find out what happened.

Jeez, there are some right [ silly persons ] commenting on that twitter thread. I filled my bingo card after about five tweets.

There usually are, but there are a few sensible ones.

[tykeboy2003]

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.

As I understand it, the term "collision" is used nowadays so that there is no apportionment of blame implied; "I collided with him" has exactly the same meaning as "he collided with me" neither statement implying any fault or blame on either party. Also it is not possible for me to collide on my own, there has to be at least one other party or object involved (which could of course be a brick wall).

Similarly the term "road traffic accident" is no longer used as it implies that there was no blame and that it was unintentional.