Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

A rider Down post

Discussion in 'The Pub' started by vic, Apr 20, 2009.

  1. I'm not discussing the tragic accident here. What I am discussing is why the media always state that the pedestrian/rider/cyclists/camel jockey etc, etc, collided with a car

    Why is it never, when the car struck the pedestrian/rider/cyclists/camel jockey etc, etc,?

    Cyclist fights for her life after roundabout collision

    * Mex Cooper
    * April 20, 2009 - 2:21PM

    A woman is fighting for her life after being hit by a car while cycling in Melbourne's north this afternoon.

    The 37-year-old was riding through a roundabout in Watsonia when she collided with a car being driven by an 82-year-old woman, a Victoria Police spokeswoman said.

    The cyclist was taken to the Royal Melbourne Hospital in a critical condition with a serious head injury.

    The driver, from Diamond Creek, is helping police with their investigations.

    The accident happened at the corner of Nell Street West and Watsonia Road just after midday.
  2. i think its just the lack of a thesaurus
    the article does start out by saying "hit by a car"
  3. I agree. It is probably because the rider was the subject of interest in the article hence the subject collided with a larger obstacle. However as stated by es it is put in perspective in the earlier paragraph. I suppose they could change their wording and not use the term collide or its derivatives and stick to "hit", but the article may start to sound repetitive. Could loz (as a writer) or others in that field shed some light? :shock:
  4. I hear ya Vic.

    The problem is that 'A collides with B' creates the impression, right or wrong, that the A was at fault, and the media do this even when it is undisputed that B was at fault and doing the colliding.

    It is unprofessional and unacceptable IMO.
  5. I understood the jist of the article. Can't see the prob.
  6. I can see the news headline now:

    Car strikes cyclist

    A car struck a cyclist today sustaining damage to its right front panels. Witnesses say the panels never stood a chance, the force of the impact crumpling them beyond repair.

    A basic sentence consists of :

    the package.... arrived ....in the morning.

    my friend.... invited me... to a party

    subject: cyclist
    verb: hit
    object: car

    you can switch them round and it still makes sense. but then you sound like yoda:
    to a party my friend invited me.

    as with my above smartassery, you also can lose the context/subject matter. bad for the media. hence they don't do it
  7. i think its more the fact as said, the subject of the article collides with the object. as a subject, it does the doing, so to speak. i do also see where you are coming from though, people who dont read it like this and simply think of the subject HIT the object, its the subjects fault.

    what to do...
  8. Maybe (just maybe) they are being literally correct. I had a front row seat to a car/cycle collision yesterday, in which the cycle unarguably hit the (stationary) car, and yet is was also unquestionably the car driver's fault. Could they just be reporting exactly the facts?

  9. Let's not forget...

    A woman is fighting for her life after being hit by a car while cycling in Melbourne's north this afternoon.

    She is (prob) someones wife, sister, daughter, friend, workmate....
    Please don't make light of her tragedy.
  10. Here is the Herald Sun's take on the article. Different perspective:
  11. An 82-year-old Diamond Creek woman, who was driving the car, is helping police with their enquiries.
  12. How a person over 80 years is allowed to hold their licence i do not understand.....but that's besides the point.

    All forms of media is there to sell basically. News just happens to have some truth in there. That's why there's laws limiting the amount of media a company can control in the market.

    Only exception to this is "Today Tonight". They provide the most unbiased form of news. :)
  13. Every time I read "helping police with their enquiries" it evokes the image of phone books and truncheons,
    The old lady is really in for a hard time :shock:
  14. So how did my post on this get removed?

    I posted about how police offer an immediate reason for an accident when it's a car/bike, but any other offence is afforded due process. No speculation, no idle gossip. Oh, I think I pointed out the obvious that in any accident, once the vehicle is moving, of courses speed is involved. That's the whole ridiculous point about the statements that come from the police.

    So, why was it removed?
  15. Not a mod of this forum but I think you posted in the
    this thread cejay :)
  16. only vaguely on topic, but a quick question. Once you get past a certain age I thought you were obliged to do regular testing to keep your license. Is this not a national practise or am I just totally wrong? If its true then her age shouldnt be relevant but maybe the testing process should be.
  17. And there's an automatic assumption here that she's to blame. No actual facts - just speculation. Who's to say that the car wasn't already in the roundabout and the cyclist moved in front of her?
  18. According to what my mum was told by Vicroads, she is supposed to undergo a medical examination by her doctor every year and if the doctor believes she is unsafe he/she is supposed to contact Vicroads and report it. Dunno what age that started at.
  19. in qld you just have to have medical form from a dr saying you are ok to still drive. not sure on exact ages so don't come down hard on me but iirc it was something like every 5 yrs after 65 and then every yr or 2 after 80. but there's always ways around this. my g'dad had a brain tumour removed around 65yo and drs told qld transport he couldn't drive due to tumour and removal etc etc (rightly so - his reactions were dramatically affected by brain surgery and tumour). his drs wouldn't give his license back and my g'ma (didn't want to drive) just took him to dr after dr until one signed the form. At least that took her about a yr so he was almost back to pre-tumour reaction but she pressured him into driving when he and everyone else was saying he should hand in his license - he ended up having a really minor ding pulling up behind someone before she would listen and he was "allowed" to hand his license in. i still think he did it deliberately cause he knew he shouldn't be driving (this was yrs later and his reactions had slowed due to age).

    i also know of someone else who is persuading drs to do this for her father cause he drives her kids around everywhere when imo he should hand it in and prob would if there wasn't this pressure from his daughter and wanting to help his grandkids. i think that if the person has family support saying reactions are still good, i feel safe etc in car that drs may trust that as they don't have time to do full neuro and reaction test.

    so summary for people who got sick of the really long way of saying that even though you need med cert after certain age there's ways of getting it - NOT implying this lady involved did that at all.

    bottom line - it's become clear to me that signing up to forums has brought about a tendancy to ramble on and on (sometimes just about sh*t). will work on this... :oops: