Originally Posted by
James Deuce
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.
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.
"So if you meet me, have some sympathy, have some courtesy, have some taste ..."
Bookmarks