They just can't get it right can they?

[BentMikey]

Aaaaaaaand you're on the ignore list. Toodle.

+1

aka "*Plonk*"

 

[Camgreen]

That it seems implied the tailbacks are the cyclists fault?

Either way I hope she makes a full recovers!

Disagree. The article simply states the cyclist collided with the car, I don't read any implication of fault. As I read it there were tailbacks due to the incident, not the cyclist. The piece is pretty much straightforward and sticks to the facts. It doesn't name the company involved true enough (and maybe that is a detail it could've included) but it doesn't name the cyclist either.

 

[jonny jeez]

That it seems implied the tailbacks are the cyclists fault?

How??...it just says that there were tailbacks, no mention of blame or fault.

Sorry, but i dont see how this is car/bike centric in any way, "in collision with" means just that and the whole piece seems balanced (if a little short).

Who do we know who rides with their partner through Oxford, I hope the lady in question recovers well and swiftly.

Jonny

 

[jonny jeez]

Woman cyclist its probably her fault thats the first thing i thought anyway.

I see that Blazed has his agro-magnet set to "stun" today.

I do think he was referring to the impression of the Journo tho,...not his own personal take.

That said I still disagree as the Journo seems unbiased...almost matter of fact.

 

[Arch]

I think the point is, not so much who caused the accident, but the fact that the tailbacks are regarded as as important as the fact that someone's ben injured. We can't have cars waiting, can we, while they scrape someone off the road...

My instinct is that saying the cyclist was in collision with the lorry does have tones of "She rode into it", which is different from "It drove into her", but it could just be standard journalistic phrasing, trying to be even handed. The most neutral way would be to say that 'they both collided', but it's a fine point.

 

[Camgreen]

Disagree Arch, think you're reading too much into it. It's a straightforward report, bare facts. Yes it could've had a more sympathetic slant toward the cyclist; the same could also be argued toward the driver of the vehicle.

There seems to be an assumption that the cyclist has been slighted in the report, but as we are only aware of the most basic details (as is the journalist presumably), we don't know who is to blame do we?

By all means be up in arms if there is a case to answer folks, but it strikes me that with no further information to hand, a few posters have developed the proverbial cyclist chip on their shoulder rather look at the report in a more objective manner.

 

[jonny jeez]

Disagree Arch, think you're reading too much into it. It's a straightforward report, bare facts. Yes it could've had a more sympathetic slant toward the cyclist; the same could also be argued toward the driver of the vehicle.

There seems to be an assumption that the cyclist has been slighted in the report, but as we are only aware of the most basic details (as is the journalist presumably), we don't know who is to blame do we?

By all means be up in arms if there is a case to answer folks, but it strikes me that with no further information to hand, a few posters have developed the proverbial cyclist chip on their shoulder rather look at the report in a more objective manner.

+1

 

[Arch]

Disagree Arch, think you're reading too much into it. It's a straightforward report, bare facts. Yes it could've had a more sympathetic slant toward the cyclist; the same could also be argued toward the driver of the vehicle.

There seems to be an assumption that the cyclist has been slighted in the report, but as we are only aware of the most basic details (as is the journalist presumably), we don't know who is to blame do we?

By all means be up in arms if there is a case to answer folks, but it strikes me that with no further information to hand, a few posters have developed the proverbial cyclist chip on their shoulder rather look at the report in a more objective manner.

That's a side effect of spending 10 years reading for a living as a student, I guess...

I don't know if I think the cyclist has been slighted, I'm more concerned about the fact that the tailbacks, which are only, after all an inconvenience, are deemed as newsworthy as the injuries - that happens a lot, even when someone is killed, they still have to mention the traffic problems.

I still think that the wording of the phrase "X collided with Y" could be construed as implying fault (in that case, X), but I also accept that the average website hack these days may not be literate enough to realise it.

You could say a car collided with a bollard for example, but you wouldn't say the bollard collided with a car.

If some of us tend to feel hard done by, it's because by and large, we are. It's ok to laugh at us, joke about killing us, whatever you like, as long as it doesn't cause a tailback....

 

[Joe]

I still think that the wording of the phrase "X collided with Y" could be construed as implying fault (in that case, X), but I also accept that the average website hack these days may not be literate enough to realise it.

You could say a car collided with a bollard for example, but you wouldn't say the bollard collided with a car.

It definitely reads that way to me, and it's almost always how it's written, regardless of the facts known!

There have been a couple on the bbc website which were changed to a more neutral wording after emails from forumites (was it this forum?). It seems like a minor thing to get worked up about but to me it's just another form of (unconcious?) victim blaming.

 

[GrasB]

It's fairly standard but slightly divisive phrasing, which to some people will seem biased in one way but is easily passed off as being neutral. The result is that people who have a vested interest in stories like this in a negative way, i.e. cyclists, will read it & taint it with pre-conceptions. The phrasing "There were tails backs in Oxford Road following an accident involving a young woman." & "The collision between a 25 year old cyclist & a lorry just outside Oxford Road Primary School happen just after 8:30." are more neutral in stance but are slightly less easy to read.

 

[FOAD]

It doesn't say "collided with" it says "in a collision with".

Heaven forbid if the lady was actually at fault and they reported it straight up "lady cyclist causes accident with lorry"...

Some of you guys would be hanging yourselves in distress by now.

Lighten up ffs.