Motorcyclist collides with car?

[5ive]

Let me know when you guys start getting paid to po$t your dribble here on KB, also let me know when more than a handfull of people bother reading it.

I want in on that action

[Maha]

Of course, woman was driving.

Was she Asian?

Drivers name has been released...Sum Ting Wong and his passenger Ho Lee Fuk.

[R650R]

You're actually completely wrong. The phrasing does imply blame. "An accident involving" does not. I analysed this in 2008-2009. Roughly 98% of multi vehicle accidents involving motorcycles listed in Fairfax online publications used the phrase "Motorcycle" or "Motorcyclist" collided with (insert other vehicle here). It is so rare that it is listed the other way as to be a simply a brain fart on the part of the person lodging the report who forgot the "rules". I had and still have my suspicions that Fairfax have a policy of implying blame on the part of any motorcyclist involved in any accident that rates as newsworthy.

The same happens across all publications if a truck is involved... and it gets called a truck even if its a light commercial vehicle or dinky little milk truck etc....
I'm not sure whats the greater crime, the accidental or deliberate error in grammar or getting obsessed about it to start with....

Couple years ago we had our local paper get arse whipped by police for reporting 'Police car collides with motorist" or similar outside our airport. The actual circumstance was the cop minding own business at 80kish when car pulled out from give way sign, failed to use merging lane and crossed into path of cop car. Funny it was about the only time they took notice of multiple reader comments about one of there many errors.

[R650R]

Whatever your personal connotations of the wording are, journalists who assign blame can be done for libel if their apportionment of that blame is wrong ...

In reporting circles, and tested in legal forums, "collided with" does not imply blame. If Fairfax have apportioned blame as you suggest, then the said motorcyclist can sue for libel - but I doubt they would win and I doubt any libel lawyer would take the case ...

Now, semantic and linguistically, in the subject-verb-object relationship, the subject is usually seen as the active participant - however the passive nature of "collided with" negates that implication ... "collided with" does not construct an active involvement on the part of the subject becasue the verb is passive (and that does not mean not moving).

P.S. I'd love to see your analysis.

Are you claiming passive for past tense as opposed to using 'collides with'. Is a Thug who 'stabbed' an old ladynot guilty as opposed to a thug who 'stabs' an old lady????

[Banditbandit]

Are you claiming passive for past tense as opposed to using 'collides with'. Is a Thug who 'stabbed' an old ladynot guilty as opposed to a thug who 'stabs' an old lady????

No passive in a linguistic sense ... this has nothing to do with tenses ... passive verbs can be past, present or future .. the subject undergoes the action - the motorcycle collided with the car - rather than doing it - the motorcycle ran into the car ...

Go here ... http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/wo...-passive-verbs

[caspernz]

You're actually completely wrong. The phrasing does imply blame. "An accident involving" does not. I analysed this in 2008-2009. Roughly 98% of multi vehicle accidents involving motorcycles listed in Fairfax online publications used the phrase "Motorcycle" or "Motorcyclist" collided with (insert other vehicle here). It is so rare that it is listed the other way as to be a simply a brain fart on the part of the person lodging the report who forgot the "rules". I had and still have my suspicions that Fairfax have a policy of implying blame on the part of any motorcyclist involved in any accident that rates as newsworthy.

Same goes for train hits car, technically impossible unless the train jumps off the tracks. You get in the way of a train I'd say.

And how often does a car pull out in front of a truck and gets snotted, with the headline reading truck hits car, technically correct but wrongly slanted.

Journalism is a lost art, we no longer get a news report, we've been getting the opinion of some journo instead of the facts.

[pritch]

Let me know when you guys start getting paid to po$t your dribble here on KB, also let me know when more than a handfull of people bother reading it.

Is your mother a policeman?

[caspernz]

Let me know when you guys start getting paid to po$t your dribble here on KB, also let me know when more than a handfull of people bother reading it.

I want in on that action

We've been getting paid for years. Didn't you get your invite to this party??

[Akzle]

"collides with" does not imply causality or responsibility - that's why the reporters use that word ...

But yeah ... the car is coming off a stop sign ... and hits the bike ... pretty obvious what happened there ...

yeah but.

The whole thing is poorly said.

'a motorcyclist has broken his leg'... Did he now, why would he do that?

Not 'a motorcyclist had his leg broken' or 'left with a broken leg after...' or 'motocyclist has a broken leg'

but HAS broken HIS leg.

[Str8 Jacket]

Yep, I got taken out by a car 6 week ago and broke my leg. Guy is going to court for careless casuing injury and the report still states that I collided with a car.

[Swoop]

Firstly, you're reading an article on the Stuff website... what did you expect in terms of reporting/journalism/grammar (or lack of).

What he said.

"stuff" is a gossip site and nothing more.

[5ive]

Is your mother a policeman?

No, why is that?

[russd7]

I don't understand how people have missed it. it is obvious that the motorcyclist ran the stop sign plowing in to that poor lady in her car, she was obviously so concerned about the safety of the motorcyclist that she moved her car around to block off the side road so no one else could run through it and cause more damage, damned dangerous those motorbikes

[J.A.W.]

I don't understand how people have missed it. it is obvious that the motorcyclist ran the stop sign plowing in to that poor lady in her car, she was obviously so concerned about the safety of the motorcyclist that she moved her car around to block off the side road so no one else could run through it and cause more damage, damned dangerous those motorbikes

Dr Dumbask sez..

"Indeed, these well known facts are so self evident that it is a given.. & we all know - full well - that life's cheap to that kind of organ donor - anyhow"..

[Berries]

I don't understand how people have missed it. it is obvious that the motorcyclist ran the stop sign plowing in to that poor lady in her car,

Who knows. If you look at the intersection on Google there is no island at the intersection yet there is one in the crash photo. Obviously a bit of a history for crashes here. In Google you can also see how restricted the visibility is to the right from where the car pulled out. I assume that the skid mark is from the bike so they should be able to have a bit of a guess of the speed coming down that hill. Factor in that it was a black bike (statistically the worst colour for lower body injuries*) and it was bound to happen. That ambulance parked where it is wouldn't have helped with the visibility either.





* I lied about that bit.