Journalism and cycling

tomasrojo

The Dutch have a truck that picks up illegally parked cars. Saw it on Twitter recently. Pretty impressive!

meeeeh

tomasrojo wrote: »

The Dutch have a truck that picks up illegally parked cars. Saw it on Twitter recently. Pretty impressive!

As the truck with a crane that is a common menace around Europe? Unlike clamps they also mean you have to trek across the town to pick up the car and pay a fine. They had very happy hunting ground around my college campus mostly picking cars that 'forgot' to pay for parking. It empties the space for who ever wants to pay for it.

I love Sean nos

Moflojo wrote: »

Could your average forklift truck comfortably lift an average saloon car?

Say pick it up a few inches off the ground and move it 2-3 metres to the side?

Asking for a friend.

Depends on the forklift. And the car. I remember lifting one end of a 40' flatbed trailer with one back in 1994. Can't remember the forklift spec.

Doctor Bob

tomasrojo wrote: »

The Dutch have a truck that picks up illegally parked cars. Saw it on Twitter recently. Pretty impressive!

I could watch it on a loop!

https://twitter.com/nobby15/status/855617162345447424

(Actually in Istanbul, according to the comments below.)

josip

Gone in 60 seconds.

Lemming

I've seen those in operation in the UK on occasion too; first time being in Glasgow (Queen St.) mid to late 90s.

Chiparus

I love Sean nos wrote: »

No. I just find it strange that they report on the status of the driver of a 2 tonne vehicle who collided with a 14 year old.

With regard to the collision vs accident, I believe that there is now a policy with vehicles to no longer use the word " accident" as in "road traffic accident" when describing incidents involving vehicles.

The use of collision implies that there was blame as opposed to accident which implies there was no blame.

Cyclist injured in collision with a vehicle is actually better than cyclist injured in accident because it means that they will investigate it properly.

Chuchote

There's a difference between "in collision with" and "collided with", though.

Chiparus

Chuchote wrote: »

There's a difference between "in collision with" and "collided with", though.

All these news reports use the same garda press statement , in collision with and collided with does not apportion blame.

Chuchote

Chiparus wrote: »

All these news reports use the same garda press statement , in collision with and collided with does not apportion blame.

"In collision with" means the two vehicles collided. "Collided with the car" means the bike hit the car.

More on greenways in today's Irish Times

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/towpaths-and-greenways-1.3126815

Basically, Aileen Broderick of Carlow says

Contrary to her description of the track as being accessible to walkers and cyclists, in many places it is downright dangerous, being rutted, tangled and muddy. Waterways Ireland could develop short sections of the track for walkers of all ages, individuals using wheelchairs and mobility aids, parents with buggies and families on bicycles, thus allowing all members of the community to enjoy the beauty and spirituality of the riverside

while Tom Dredge of Leixlip says

I was surprised at the large sections of towpath that are of gravel or tarmac to accommodate cyclists. They are meant to accommodate pedestrians as well but they seriously hinder anyone wishing to take more than just a leisurely stroll. The surface is too hard for a 10km or 20km walk. On the other hand, cyclists have always used the green towpaths. However, the only serious way to experience the beauty and peace of our canals and waterways is to walk them and to soak up the huge variety of animal and plant life. Whizzing by on a bicycle just won’t do the same thing.

and

I recently drove to Longwood Harbour to stroll back towards Enfield and was shocked to discover that the whole towpath had been gouged up and covered with rough stone. A width of three to four metres was ploughed up and the high grass on the hedgerow side was gone. This grass is a habitat for a large variety of insects and butterflies as well as many wild flowers.
Ploughing up well-established and well-used towpaths that harbour part of that diversity is surely not the way to go.

(What's this 'whizzing' nonsense, by the way? My cycles are more like 'just about staying upright while ambling along'.)

Chips Lovell

Someone can be to blame for an accident. Accident simply means lack of intent. So you could hit someone without setting out to but could still be to blame due to negligence, incompetence or recklessness.

Chuchote

The cyclist involved in a collision with a car in Rathfarnham yesterday has died +RIP+

http://www.thejournal.ie/cyclist-crash-rathfarnham-3455276-Jun2017/?utm_source=twitter_self

amcalester

Chiparus wrote: »

All these news reports use the same garda press statement , in collision with and collided with does not apportion blame.

I've just had a look at the last 3 press releases following the death of a cyclist and none of them say the cyclist collided with the vehicle.

They all state "The collision involved..." and then it describes the vehicles involved, cyclist, car, lorry etc.

So it would appear to me that the media are responsible for this particular way of describing road traffic collisions.

http://www.garda.ie/Controller.aspx?Page=20702&Lang=1

http://www.garda.ie/Controller.aspx?Page=20534&Lang=1

http://www.garda.ie/Controller.aspx?Page=20533&Lang=1

http://www.garda.ie/Controller.aspx?Page=20439&Lang=1

Chuchote

amcalester wrote: »

I've just had a look at the last 3 press releases following the death of a cyclist and none of them say the cyclist collided with the vehicle.

They all state "The collision involved..." and then it describes the vehicles involved, cyclist, car, lorry etc.

So it would appear to me that the media are responsible for this particular way of describing road traffic collisions.

Lack of training of "new journalists" then. It used to be that any sub-editor who allowed "collided with" would cause a shocked silence in the newsroom, as this could lay the publication open to a lawsuit for affecting the outcome of a later trial.

tomasrojo

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Someone can be to blame for an accident. Accident simply means lack of intent. So you could hit someone without setting out to but could still be to blame due to negligence, incompetence or recklessness.

"Accident" does seem to be being phased out though, certainly in the UK, and I've read discussions of dropping it in the US media. I think it's just the colloquial use of "accident" implies that it's just one of those things (which is really "freak accident"). The UK Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (despite their name) recommends against its use, and the British police (according to Hot Fuzz anyway) strongly prefer Road Traffic Collision, or something like that.

ED E

Pretty sure garda and AA twitter accounts use RTC too.

tomasrojo

From one of those letters Chuchote quoted:

I was surprised at the large sections of towpath that are of gravel or tarmac to accommodate cyclists. They are meant to accommodate pedestrians as well but they seriously hinder anyone wishing to take more than just a leisurely stroll. The surface is too hard for a 10km or 20km walk.

Gravel is never used "to accommodate" cyclists. It's a terrible surface to cycle on (unless you're looking for skill-challenging difficulties). Also, walking 10km on tarmac is something I do all the time. Also concrete, and whatever else they use in cities. It's no problem at all.

amcalester

Chuchote wrote: »

Lack of training of "new journalists" then. It used to be that any sub-editor who allowed "collided with" would cause a shocked silence in the newsroom, as this could lay the publication open to a lawsuit for affecting the outcome of a later trial.

It does appear to be lazy journalism, I did send in some feedback to RTE a few months back about this same issue, don't think I ever got anything other than a standard "Thanks for your feedback".

Might chase that up.

Chuchote

amcalester wrote: »

It does appear to be lazy journalism, I did send in some feedback to RTE a few months back about this same issue, don't think I ever got anything other than a standard "Thanks for your feedback".

Might chase that up.

Address it to the chief sub-editor.

AndrewJRenko

ED E wrote: »

Pretty sure garda and AA twitter accounts use RTC too.

They do, and RSA too, though you will occasional see a quote from a local Garda saying that a particular incident is 'just a tragic accident'.

Chips Lovell

Chuchote wrote: »

Lack of training of "new journalists" then. It used to be that any sub-editor who allowed "collided with" would cause a shocked silence in the newsroom, as this could lay the publication open to a lawsuit for affecting the outcome of a later trial.

Newspapers have been using the term "collided with" in reporting of road accidents since at least the 1980s. I'm unaware of any cases where a paper was sued for use of the term.

ericzeking

Kinda loosely linked to this thread....has anyone noticed the car ads currently doing the rounds on the radio advertising free "Road tax" for the 172 deals, Volkswagon and Honda are two that I definitely heard....it is fair f#cking annoying, like they would be paying an agency to do those ads you'd imagine so you would expect the terminology to be correct rather than propagating the same old misinformation....unless of course they are doing it on purpose to pander to motorists sense of entitlement to the road.

HivemindXX

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Newspapers have been using the term "collided with" in reporting of road accidents since at least the 1980s. I'm unaware of any cases where a paper was sued for use of the term.

Perhaps if they switched things around for a while and constantly referred to the motorist colliding with the cyclist instead of the other way they may get sued. It is interesting that the preferred phrasing turned out to imply the party with the insurance company capable of bringing a libel suit is the innocent victim.

To collide is a verb. When you say X collided with Y you are saying that X was the subject, the thing taking the action, and Y was merely the object, the thing the action happened to.

We see, sometimes, X was in a collision with Y. This is neutral. We very often see X collided with Y and in almost all cases X is the bicycle and Y is the car.

tomasrojo

Quite a few people complained in the UK about the use of "road tax" in car ads there, but they didn't get very far. The standards agency permitted the use on the grounds of it being a colloquialism, or something like that.

Chuchote

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/latest-cyclist-death-popular-school-principal-dies-after-collision-with-car-while-going-to-work-35850809.html

Padraic Carney (53) had left his house on Butterfield Close shortly after 8am yesterday morning and was cycling down Butterfield Park when his bike and a car collided at the junction with Butterfield Crescent.
Local residents and builders who were working on a house nearby rushed to his aid and and assisted as best they could until the emergency services arrived.

But Mr Carney, who was the popular principal of St Louis Senior Primary School in Rathmines, was brought by ambulance to Tallaght Hospital where he later died from his injuries.

The circumstances of the crash are currently being investigated by gardai at Rathfarnham garda station. The incident is being treated as a tragic accident.

The elderly driver of the car involved was uninjured but shaken by the crash.

Macy0161

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

They do, and RSA too, though you will occasional see a quote from a local Garda saying that a particular incident is 'just a tragic accident'.

As they have again today. Really makes you wonder how seriously they investigate, if they're starting off from that point of view.

Chips Lovell

HivemindXX wrote: »

Perhaps if they switched things around for a while and constantly referred to the motorist colliding with the cyclist instead of the other way they may get sued. It is interesting that the preferred phrasing turned out to imply the party with the insurance company capable of bringing a libel suit is the innocent victim.

Except, they use the same phrasing too when both parties have insurance (or at least are meant to). For example:

A woman in her 70s died when her car collided with another on the N72, Killarney to Mallow road, on Monday afternoon.

Again, I'm unaware of any newspaper every being sued for using such phrasing, nor have I ever come across anyone who automatically assumed the deceased/injured party was at fault because their car was described as "colliding with" another car.

I don't want to labour the point, but it really feels like people are taking offence when none exists and none is intended.

Pinch Flat

tomasrojo wrote: »

Quite a few people complained in the UK about the use of "road tax" in car ads there, but they didn't get very far. The standards agency permitted the use on the grounds of it being a colloquialism, or something like that.

This has come up before on this forum. There's a concerted effort among the car makers to reinforce the roads as the sole place of cars, hence the "road tax" use. I also read someone had taken an action for false advertising in the UK, but got nowhere.

Any car advert will use this term. Also note that car adverts how clear open roads, never the reality of being stuck in jam, dealing with other vulnerable road users like pedestrians and cyclists.

seamus

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Also note that car adverts how clear open roads, never the reality of being stuck in jam, dealing with other vulnerable road users like pedestrians and cyclists.

To be fair, it's an ad though, not a public service announcement.

Beer ads show people having a great time with their mates, not having your head down a grotty toilet in some dark stall.

McDonalds ads show happy, skinny, middle-class families laughing and smiling with their food rather than the reality of restaurants filled with tracksuits, greasy hair, obesity and angry drunks after 9pm.

I agree with you on the use of some language to create the illusion that owning a car is what successful people do and that cars are the best, but I'm not going to demonise an advertiser for trying to give the impression that using their product is an absolute joy.

magicbastarder

car ads are getting increasingly hilarious though. i've seen a few recently and it's not clear what the product is till the end of the ad.