Pedestrian/Cyclist collision on Oxford Street

[The utility cyclist]

Er, if I collide with you or I was in collision with you, the accepted implication from that wording by the vast majority is that it was I that went into (collided with) you, not vice versa. this by definition implies fault/blame.
Unless you think me going into you say in my car whilst I pull out from a junction is you colliding with me? Again, that implies you went into me when in fact it was I who collided with you.
You could say both collided if equally to blame but the wording and how people understand it and how it is taken means that saying a 'cyclist was in collision with' implies blame to the cyclist for going into another party or into an object. Would you say the fallen tree 'collided with the car' or the sheep in the road around a blind bend 'collided with' a motorist who was driving too fast into a low sun or would you say there was a collision between a car and a sheep, a motorist and a fallen tree?
When no information as regards to fault as per most incidents reported, to state X was in 'collision with' or 'collided with' is just wrong and does imply blame.

[[XAP]Bob]

Er, if I collide with you or I was in collision with you, the accepted implication from that wording by the vast majority is that it was I that went into (collided with) you, not vice versa. this by definition implies fault/blame.
Unless you think me going into you say in my car whilst I pull out from a junction is you colliding with me? Again, that implies you went into me when in fact it was I who collided with you.
You could say both collided if equally to blame but the wording and how people understand it and how it is taken means that saying a 'cyclist was in collision with' implies blame to the cyclist for going into another party or into an object. Would you say the fallen tree 'collided with the car' or the sheep in the road around a blind bend 'collided with' a motorist who was driving too fast into a low sun or would you say there was a collision between a car and a sheep, a motorist and a fallen tree?
When no information as regards to fault as per most incidents reported, to state X was in 'collision with' or 'collided with' is just wrong and does imply blame.

Doesn't 'a collision between a car and a sheep' imply blame in the same way as 'collision between a car and a sheep'

There is no entirely neutral way of describing things, so I think the press should standardise on 'as neutral as possible' whilst giving benefit to the common occurrence. It is far more frequent for a car to hit a sheep than a sheep to hit a car, so we'd say 'car in a collision with a sheep' or 'collision between a car and a sheep'.

[ianrobo]

note in this case the injured pedestrian (and hope they are ok) was elderly and these tend be the majority of incidents and no prizes for guessing why. From what I know no police action was taken, which indicates the cyclists had no chance because not enough care was taken crossing the road.

A familiar case in most ped/cyclists incidents

[LollyKat]

The pedestrian died some hours later.