![]() |
View
New Forum Topics Today's Forum Topics Set as homepage |
|
|||||||
Welcome to CyclingForums.com You are currently viewing our website as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions. You will have to register before you can post to this thread. By joining our free online community you will have access to post new topics, communicate privately with other cyclingforums.com members (PM), respond to polls, upload photos and access other special features like product reviews and classifieds. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
#1 |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Worthing, Sussex
Posts: 116
|
This short article is clumsy in the extreme, but is not untypical of the language newspapers use when reporting vehicle versus cyclist or vehicle versus pedestrian injuries.
This one states that Mr. Harmer collided with the lorry which appeared to have been overtaking him, effectively making him the author of the accident. Why do newspapers use this sort of language? I can recall reading of an elderly pedestrian sustaining serious injuries when "in collision with" a motor vehicle, when it is obvious that she could not move fast enough to sustain those injuries. http://www.theargus.co.uk/display.var.1799498.0.cyclist_killed_in_crash_named.php John. |
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 89
|
Its basically the weird, skewed way that the world views the bicycle and those that use it. Even when being killed its our fault. Still not to get bent out of shape about it, we just have to treat car drivers as unpredictable, aggressive and child-like, a cross between Eddle Munster and a Tornado.
__________________
"Americans are a broad-minded people. They'll accept the fact that a person can be an alcoholic, a dope fiend, a wife beater, and even a newspaperman, but if a man doesn't drive there's something wrong with him" - Art Buchwald 1968 |
|
|
|