Bill, I'm not speculating or assuming, just pointing out a use of language that seems contradictory or misleading. I'm not even sure those were Joel's words, but it's how it was reported (and how the audience is reading it). Describing vehicle 'A' as colliding with vehicle 'B' paints a picture for me that is very different than a description of vehicle 'B' colliding with vehicle 'A'. Language is important, especially in a bike/car incident where many have preconceived ideas of the mv automatically being at fault because it's a mv and others thinking it's the cyclist's fault for riding on a busy road. My critique was of the incident's description, not of the MV driver's action or inaction.
If a car blows a red light and t-bones another car, I would say the first car collided with the second. If a car blows a red light and is t boned by another car, I would say the second car collided with the first. That doesn't necessarily change who's at fault or who sustained the greater injury, but it's a significant difference. (I also found it odd that the MV was described in detail -small SUV-, but there was no mention of whether the cyclist was riding a road bike or MTB. Is this because the audience is more interested in the details of the MV or can just better relate to a MV description? Does a small SUV sound less dangerous than an SUV? I'm not accusing Joel or the reporter of trying to manipulate the audience or defend the MV operator, but I think these are interesting questions and may shed some light on the power dynamic we experience on the street and/or public opinion/sentiment as it relates to MV/bicycle incidents.) Regardless, it's another cyclist who died on our streets and it's a shame; this happens too frequently. Grant On Jul 24, 2013 7:31 PM, "William Hauda" <[email protected]> wrote: > > ** **Hesitate on these things. Don't automatically assume. Maybe > the responding officers have not yet had time to file their written > reports. Maybe Joel is trying with limited info to respond to a public > concern. Speculation at this point doesn't serve anyone. Facts will > eventually come out. Then we can decide. > > At 05:21 PM 7/24/2013, Grant Foster wrote: > > I find the language attributed to Joel DeSpain interesting: "the bicyclist > collided with a small SUV" even though "she did not see the bicyclist until > he was right in front of her". There isn't much detail to go on, but it > seems significant that the bicyclist is attributed with the collision even > though it sounds like he was struck by the MV. This doesn't mean the MV > driver is at fault, but it's an odd nuance that seems to cast the > responsibility on the cyclist. It's also notable that the 'bicyclist' > (person) collided with the SUV (object), further removing the MV driver > from the equation. > > It's another terrible loss. > > Grant > On Jul 24, 2013 12:37 PM, "Mary Ebeling" <[email protected]> wrote: > > http://host.madison.com/news/local/crime_and_courts/bicyclist-killed-in-collision-with-suv-on-east-side-police/article_de7415b3-d2d7-589b-a807-a0afcd4062c3.html > > This just happened this morning. From reading the report and trying to > parse out what might have happened, it seems that someone may have run a > light or there could have been some sidewalk riding. It is hard to tell > what happened from the limited information in the article. It would be good > to see a crash report. > > Either way, this really sucks. > > _______________________________________________ > Bikies mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org > > _______________________________________________ > Bikies mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org > >
_______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
