Journalism and Cycling 2: the difficult second album

magicbastarder

interesting; of the four you'd listed, i'd naturally pick motorist/car/motorist/car probably.

fat bloke

I wonder if the reason the common parlance is most natural to you MB is because we've been inured to it. The car is the implement used, it is being directed and handled (mishandled) by a person. It would sound ludicrous to say "the knife entered the victim" in the case of a stabbing. Someone wielded the knife and used it to stab another person. Similarly, someone was at the wheel of the car and they are rarely referred to - in fact one of the most common references to the person driving is to put our minds at ease because they were "uninjured in the accident".

The whole newspaper / reporter speak behind vehicular incidents is so peculiar, and consistently so across all reporting outlets, be they print or otherwise. Do they teach it in reporting school? Is it an anti litigation thing? - Whatever, it's weird and pernicious and infuriating and once you notice it you can't unsee or unlearn it ever again

magicbastarder

fat bloke wrote: »

Someone wielded the knife and used it to stab another person.

yes, but the analogous way of phrasing 'i was hit by a car' would be 'i was stabbed' (the notion of having to include that it was a person who stabbed you is superfluous); same as 'my brother in law knocked me down' would be 'my brother in law stabbed me'. it depends on context.

as i mentioned, i can see the issue, but don't see an elegant solution which i'd be happy to use.

breezy1985

fat bloke wrote: »

I wonder if the reason the common parlance is most natural to you MB is because we've been inured to it. The car is the implement used, it is being directed and handled (mishandled) by a person. It would sound ludicrous to say "the knife entered the victim" in the case of a stabbing. Someone wielded the knife and used it to stab another person. Similarly, someone was at the wheel of the car and they are rarely referred to - in fact one of the most common references to the person driving is to put our minds at ease because they were "uninjured in the accident".

The whole newspaper / reporter speak behind vehicular incidents is so peculiar, and consistently so across all reporting outlets, be they print or otherwise. Do they teach it in reporting school? Is it an anti litigation thing? - Whatever, it's weird and pernicious and infuriating and once you notice it you can't unsee or unlearn it ever again

Imagine the headline :
A man in Dublin is in hospital today after colliding with a knife on Baggot st. The incident took place as the man was crossing from Merrion row and went head on into the knife
The knife wielder not injured in the accident


(Bonus points for anyone reading that in Anne Doyle voice)

tomasrojo

"The car fled the scene/failed to remain at the scene" is about as ridiculous as "the car was taken in for questioning". "... was struck by a car" isn't as ridiculous, but it does highlight how we don't have a simple verb for this common occurrence, akin to "stabbed"/"shot"/"punched".

magicbastarder

'i was carpunched on my way home today'.

eeeee

Driverpunched?

magicbastarder

though i'd have thought 'knocked down' would be the commonly used one.

tomasrojo

"The car lost control" is also ridiculous. I guess they don't want to insinuate fault on the part of the person behind the wheel, but a driver can lose control blamelessly.

tomasrojo

magicbastarder wrote: »

though i'd have thought 'knocked down' would be the commonly used one.

I think the reason they don't use that is because they want to specify the vehicle. Being run down by a truck is usually worse than a car, which is usually worse than a bike.

tomasrojo

This is maybe pushing the sentient-car grammar as far as you can go?

They said the car ignored instructions to stop and drove at a police officer, who then fired a round.

The bullet didn't hit anyone, but the car lost control and hit roadside railings and overturned.

https://www.thestandard.com.hk/breaking-news/section/4/164856/Two-held-held-after-cops-fire-on-car-in-Tai-Po

breezy1985

eeeee wrote: »

Driverpunched?

Motoristhumped

breezy1985

tomasrojo wrote: »

This is maybe pushing the sentient-car grammar as far as you can go?


https://www.thestandard.com.hk/breaking-news/section/4/164856/Two-held-held-after-cops-fire-on-car-in-Tai-Po

The car was off its t1ts at the time too
"seven grams of suspected cocaine in the vehicle"

magicbastarder

it had been sniffing petrol.

breezy1985

I think the Irish Times may have been listening looking at todays headline

"Driver who crossed to wrong side of road 20 times jailed for three years
Motorist (30) also given 20-year driving ban for drunken-driving escapade in west Cork"

No mention of a pissed as a fart car or swerving vehicle

RobbieMD

tomasrojo wrote: »

"The car fled the scene/failed to remain at the scene" is about as ridiculous as "the car was taken in for questioning". "... was struck by a car" isn't as ridiculous, but it does highlight how we don't have a simple verb for this common occurrence, akin to "stabbed"/"shot"/"punched".

I suppose the thinking behind saying the car fled the scene/failed to remain at the scene is that it’s a criminal offence to remove the car from the scene where there is injury to persons or property. A driver however can leave the scene without issue. This is to cover the fact they might need medical assistance.

Incidentally the Section of the Road Traffic act that covers this and associated offences has been amended multiple times since 1961 and still refers to it as “Duties on occurrence of accident”. I guess things haven’t moved on in 60 years.

tomasrojo

Yeah, that's not something I know anything about, but I don't think that's what they're getting at. It's really the driver fled the scene in their car. That covers any possible offence.

tomasrojo

Fair distinction though, between the driver left the scene, and the driver left the scene in their car.

buffalo

breezy1985 wrote: »

I think the Irish Times may have been listening looking at todays headline

"Driver who crossed to wrong side of road 20 times jailed for three years
Motorist (30) also given 20-year driving ban for drunken-driving escapade in west Cork"

No mention of a pissed as a fart car or swerving vehicle

I think the difference there is that the article is reporting from the trial of a person, not the scene of a crime/accident/collision.

buffalo

RobbieMD wrote: »

I suppose the thinking behind saying the car fled the scene/failed to remain at the scene is that it’s a criminal offence to remove the car from the scene where there is injury to persons or property. A driver however can leave the scene without issue. This is to cover the fact they might need medical assistance.

That can't be right surely? A hit and run isn't a hit and run if the car is still there and only the driver runs? If the driver was drunk and now can't be breathalysed, there's no further penalty?

p15574

hesker wrote: »

I often wonder did phone use have a contribution in that death. I would think there are few kids that notice or bother complaining about tags on their toys.

I wonder if it's standard - especially when there's a death involved - to check call & text records, and if it's possible (or even legal?) to check app logs - if they even log it - to see, for example, if she was viewing or typing in WhatsApp at the time.

magicbastarder

breezy1985 wrote: »

No mention of a pissed as a fart car or swerving vehicle

to be fair, there's a laundry list of things he did, including threats to kill, baseball bat, doing it while out on bail, 53 previous convictions, so they have to pick *something*

Eamonnator

RobbieMD wrote: »

I suppose the thinking behind saying the car fled the scene/failed to remain at the scene is that it’s a criminal offence to remove the car from the scene where there is injury to persons or property. A driver however can leave the scene without issue. This is to cover the fact they might need medical assistance.

Incidentally the Section of the Road Traffic act that covers this and associated offences has been amended multiple times since 1961 and still refers to it as “Duties on occurrence of accident”. I guess things haven’t moved on in 60 years.

Surely, the driver has to give the the other party name, address, insurance details, etc. If he fails to do that, it's an offence.

tomasrojo

I seem to remember at least one case of a driver running from the scene of a collision, and it being a legal problem.

tomasrojo

Citizens Information says that the relevant act is from 1961, with amendments.
https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/travel_and_recreation/motoring_1/motor_accidents.html#

They paraphrase the first obligation as

Stay at the scene: You must stop your car and remain at the scene of the accident for a reasonable time.

This is the actual act:
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1961/act/24/section/106/enacted/en/html#zza24y1961s106

So I guess they're paraphrasing:

(a) if the vehicle is not stationary after the occurrence, the driver of the vehicle shall stop the vehicle;

(b) the driver or other person in charge of the vehicle shall keep the vehicle at or near the place of the occurrence for a period which is reasonable in all the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of this section;

I guess you could interpret "keep the vehicle at" as "leave the vehicle there".

RobbieMD

buffalo wrote: »

That can't be right surely? A hit and run isn't a hit and run if the car is still there and only the driver runs? If the driver was drunk and now can't be breathalysed, there's no further penalty?

It’s only a hit and run if the car is removed from the scene. Otherwise it’s a collision and the associated obligations to report etc kick in. There are several charges under the relevant provision but none are for the driver leaving the scene. The driver may leave the scene without fear of prosecution. This is to avoid the scenario of a medical case and the driver being taken away by ambulance and then being prosecuted for leaving the scene. There is no obligation on them to remain at the scene, but their information may be shared with whoever is injured or their property. They are obliged to report an occurrence if property or persons are injured.

There’s been plenty of drunk drivers who’ve left the scene and plenty more yet to happen unfortunately. It’s the most technical prosecution at district court level by far, and the one with the most case law.

RobbieMD

Eamonnator wrote: »

Surely, the driver has to give the the other party name, address, insurance details, etc. If he fails to do that, it's an offence.

Yes they’re required if injury to persons or property is caused but there is no requirement for that to happen immediately, or for the driver to wait for someone to come along to report it to, or for the driver to seek out the property owner.

There is no hit and run offence committed in a driver crashing into a parked car. Leaving their car there, heading off and saying they had to pop home to ring the Gardaí and report it. What matters is that it’s reported but that could happen 3 hours after driving, and I think I’m right in thinking that you know 3 hrs is the cut off for intoxicant driving offences.

JMcL

breezy1985 wrote: »

Motoristhumped

George hooked?

eeeee

Excellent.

Thelonious Monk

https://www.thejournal.ie/luke-kelly-statue-5358666-Feb2021/

"The cyclist" lol