Say 'drivers', not 'cars': it's the people in inside the boxes that do the stuff

Exemplary reporting:

Angie Cook, 63, was riding in rush hour traffic in Teddington yesterday morning when she was knocked down by a woman driving a black Vauxhall Zafira.

Later in the article--also OK, I think:

The mother-of-one from Sunbury-on-Thames escaped with a bruised coccyx as she was hit by the car turning right at the roundabout. The driver stopped at the scene and was not arrested.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/hit-cyclist-left-lying-in-the-road-for-90-minutes-hits-out-at-shambles-of-nhs-care-9896977.html

Sadly it all went down hill when the cyclist (a cycling instructor!) was quoted:-
“I’ve been cycling all my life but this is my first accident. It shows it could happen to anyone. Fortunately I’m very careful and was wearing high visibility clothing and a helmet. Otherwise it could have been much more serious. I was very lucky.”

Well, yes, but that's not the subject of this thread. :)

#lfgssalwaysstaysontopic

the world at One is about to start

cold out

Are people saying that instead of saying 'he was hit by a car' they would rather read 'he was hit by a man/woman/person driving a car'? Because that could imply that someone was driving a car, stopped the car, got out and delivered a punch - or maybe even hit out from within the vehicle.

It's a journalist's function to report with a sense of disassociation. Do you really want the news to read like an exert from Michael Herr's Dispatches?

"The driver careered their car carelessly, the person riding the bicycle being the unfortunate victim of the callous, maddening impact that would result, leaving behind a family who'd never really get over their loss. No matter how many accidents - or aftermaths of - I saw, it didn't get any easier; the smell of spilled petrol, the sight of twisted spokes, fractured helmets - blood occasionally - conspired to leave one feeling helpless, but fortunate too. I didn't have to be there, by that road, and I was hated for it. You could see it in their eyes; the paramedics, the fire officers and junior constables. I learned to take it, move on, but it wouldn't stop there: sleepless nights, generic flashbacks, dystopian images of contorted bodies, innocents caught in the crossfire of that bitter, senseless fight for who controlled the road."

Give over.

I thought it was also about reporting undisputed facts. In the example, the car hit someone (who nobody objects to being called a cyclist), but it may not yet be clear who was driving the car or even whether they were at fault (as opposed to mechanical failure, etc).

Are people saying that instead of saying 'he was hit by a car' they would rather read 'he was hit by a man/woman/person driving a car'?

Yes I am like this quoted above:

Angie Cook, 63, was riding in rush hour traffic in Teddington yesterday morning when she was knocked down by a woman driving a black Vauxhall Zafira.

Which does not

imply that someone was driving a car, stopped the car, got out and delivered a punch - or maybe even hit out from within the vehicle.

Saying "the car was racing" is just stupid. The driver was racing. But saying "the pedestrian was hit by a car" makes more sense than "the pedestrian was hit by a driver", since it was the car rather than the driver that was actually in contact with them. For a cyclist, it's reasonable to say that the person was hit by a cyclist since the cyclist actually makes up most of the mass (75kg of cyclist vs. 15kg of bike), but for a car (1200kg of car vs. 75kg of driver) that doesn't hold.

So, yes @skydancer, saying "she was knocked down by a woman" does imply that there was person to person contact. Adding "driving a black Vauxhall Zafira" makes that, at best, ambiguous.

/devilsadvocate

I'm looking forward to the fun we will have in this thread when driverless cars become more common.

That should force a language change.

Why do I need to know who was driving the car that hit 'the cyclist'?

And what's wrong with being referred to as 'the cyclist'?

This thread is a load of semantic fuss and bother, I feel.

Hit by an algorithm thread

Man killed and woman seriously injured by car

A cyclist is 'seriously ill' in hospital this Sunday after the bike he was riding crashed with a van in Coventry.

The poor rider seems to have been the active party. But wait:

“We don’t know the cause but he was struck by the van from behind.

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventry-cyclist-seriously-ill-after-8117227

Does it matter? The journalists could argue it's just a mistake, but it happens over and over again.

Why is this reply directed at me?

You said you thought it was semantics. I think it's a reflection of society and how cyclists are considered. The driver isn't even mentioned in that Coventry paper link, it's a little bit strange, no?

Why is this reply directed at me?

Because you're arguing that the semantics aren't important, and those quotes are examples where the semantics are important.

I think it's wrong to suggest that the only approach other than the status quo is the hyperbolic version you used in your argument against. There is a middle ground, and the media is more often than not failing to take that.

The fault of that article has nothing to do with semantics: it is flawed because it waits until the end of the feature before mentioning that the car hit the cyclist from behind, when really it should have been stated almost from the start.

The point I made was that 'car' and 'cyclist' are perfectly adequate terms when trying to convey the essence of what has happened. And so it is here.

"Crashed with a van" is different to "was in a collision with a van" and is totally different to "was hit from behind". that's semantics, but it's important because it allocates passivity. Reading that article you can clearly see that there's an odd slant, the victim's behaviour is focused on and the driver isn't even mentioned. If the van left the road before hitting the cyclist it's even odder reporting.

I'm looking forward to the fun we will have in this thread when driverless cars become more common.
That should force a language change.

Indeed. As driverless cars will then become the new vulnerable road users with others trying to get the vehicle to crash into them to win a claim from google

Poor dears

Fortunately I’m very careful and was wearing high visibility clothing and a helmet. Otherwise it could have been much more serious

I'm interested to know how someone actually hit by a car can think the 'high visibility clothing' has done its job

Now there is a good question...
...for another thread

I don't dispute that that particular article is loaded - consciously so or otherwise - or even any other feature on accidents involving cyclists. But you posted after I had made my initial point, which was that I take no issue with saying a 'car' impacted with a 'cyclist'. How it impacted is a different matter.
You are right, 'crashed' and 'collided' have very different implications, but in this case it goes beyond semantics: it's just inaccurate reporting, choosing the completely wrong word. Probably some junior hack who'd really rather be writing about something else - the standard of writing in local rags tends to be very poor.

In any case, 'semantics' was probably a rather heavy handed way to describe it in the first instance.

I'm a person first - driver, cyclist or pedestrian second.

ftfy.

Now there is a good question...
...for another thread

This thread is out of control!