Tadej Pogačar isn't winding down for Christmas... smashes 209km and 4,200m of climbing at 35km/h average speed on team camp 'salad ride'; Raleigh owner's financial situation "unsustainable" according to new report; eBay eek + more on the live blog

Yeah.  What kind of bugs me is not so much that "cycling" still mostly equates to "recreation" for the powers that be (when they think of it at all).  It's that even that "recreation" is qualified - can't give them as much as (walking / cycling etc.).  So it's "narrow footpath down a muddy track / round the garages at the back of a chocolate-and-glitter-path estate"*.

I know that this is the Notional Cycle Network (being charitable here - an amazing effort to somehow stitch together some kind of continuous routes across the UK).  I know that "but nobody cycles".  It's the vicious cycle we have to break out of (for any change) - somehow...

Meanwhile other countries not only have a network for actually getting around everywhere - just like the roads.  They also have much better-quality "narrow paths in the countryside" for recreation also!  Heck - they signpost these with the intention that people will ride to the ride!

(Of course you could also use the effective public transport that we in the UK mostly haven't got...)!

* Actually needs one of those word clouds - perhaps Jeremy Clarkson / Nigel whatsischops could supply one?  "sporty", "lycra", "yoof", "dangerous", "MAMIL", "wobbling", "thief", "trouser clips", "irritating"...

NCN4 aka Kennet canal towpath looks just like that, and worse, with the added amusement of threatening you with an unguarded deep cold canal.

brooksby wrote:

And this one:

You passed your driving test but didn't realise that meant you were joining an eternal police line-up…

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/dec/20/police-to-be-able-to-...

That's such a bad idea and I blame all those people who voted for Sunak.

Or this on on the Bristol Post website

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/m5-closed-12-hours-after...

Quote:

The M5 has reopened after a lorry carrying potatoes overturned earlier today (December 20). The motorway was closed heading southbound between junction 27 for Tiverton and junction 29 for Exeter for just under 12 hours.

The lorry overturned at around 8am this morning and potatoes were spilt across the carriageway. According to National Highways, "specialist crews" were called to tackle the "complex" recovery of the vehicle.

All lanes reopened by around 7.45pm and traffic returned to normal shortly after. One person reportedly suffered minor injuries in the crash.

I am presuming that the person who reportedly suffered minor injuries was the driver, who was supposed to be in control of their vehicle, but the Post clearly doesn't have much interest in letting its readers know…

brooksby wrote:

Or this on on the Bristol Post website

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/m5-closed-12-hours-after...

Quote:

The M5 has reopened after a lorry carrying potatoes overturned earlier today (December 20). The motorway was closed heading southbound between junction 27 for Tiverton and junction 29 for Exeter for just under 12 hours.

The lorry overturned at around 8am this morning and potatoes were spilt across the carriageway. According to National Highways, "specialist crews" were called to tackle the "complex" recovery of the vehicle.

All lanes reopened by around 7.45pm and traffic returned to normal shortly after. One person reportedly suffered minor injuries in the crash.

For mash, have crash?

The guidelines suggest replacing 'car' with 'driver', rather than supplementing it. I sympathise with copywriters though, as following the guidelines can lead to some tortuous sentences. E.g. in this case, "the driver flipped and collided with a lampost" is unclear, while "the driver flipped their car and crashed it into a lampost" risks attributing blame when the circumstances aren't clear in the video (could have been dangerous driving, could have been caused by someone else's dangerous driving, could have been a medical episode etc). Horrendous video to watch though. I still don't understand how they weren't hit. 

The chief reporter of my local rag has an annoying click-bait habit. It goes like this: a few days after any noteworthy local incendiary, there comes a follow-up piece headlined, "Fire chief reveals cause of [factory etc] blaze". Who can't resist clicking on that? After wading through a rehash of the original article interspersed with ads, the reader is rewarded with the knowledge that the fire chief has determined the fire was accidental.

quiff wrote:

The guidelines suggest replacing 'car' with 'driver', rather than supplementing it. I sympathise with copywriters though, as following the guidelines can lead to some tortuous sentences. E.g. in this case, "the driver flipped and collided with a lampost" is unclear, while "the driver flipped their car and crashed it into a lampost" risks attributing blame when the circumstances aren't clear in the video (could have been dangerous driving, could have been caused by someone else's dangerous driving, could have been a medical episode etc). Horrendous video to watch though. I still don't understand how they weren't hit. 

How about "the driver lost control of their car which then flipped and crashed into a lamppost"?

"Tuesday's 'BBC News at Six' show ended with the following report of CCTV footage from Birmingham which has gone viral this week, showing the shocking and horrendous incident in which a mum and daughter narrowly avoided a potentially catastrophic situation after a driver lost control of their car which then flipped and smashed into a zebra crossing post"

Fragment, consider revising! But yes, it can be done, I just think sometimes it makes for an unwieldy sentence for dubious benefit.     

quiff wrote:

"Tuesday's 'BBC News at Six' show ended with the following report of CCTV footage from Birmingham which has gone viral this week, showing the shocking and horrendous incident in which a mum and daughter narrowly avoided a potentially catastrophic situation after a driver lost control of their car which then flipped and smashed into a zebra crossing post"

Fragment, consider revising! But yes, it can be done, I just think sometimes it makes for an unwieldy sentence for dubious benefit.     

You might think it's a dubious benefit, but the car industry put a fair amount of time and effort into controlling the narrative of car crashes, so they certainly think that the words matter a lot.

I am generally of the view that words absolutely do matter (I can usually be found here quibbling language or punning, rather than engaging with substance!) 

I'm just not convinced that in reality when people read "car hits cyclist" they think it has happened without human agency. In fact arguably if the car industry wanted to control the narrative of car crashes, they should be delighted with guidelines which suggest replacing 'car' with 'driver'. Anyway, not dying on this hill, I gues I'm just ambivalent.       

I think it's more that those who approve of the status quo just need to keep the usual ... usual, and the rest takes care of itself.  People naturally don't want to engage in effortful thinking / resist changes to well-worn mind-groves.

I don't believe in magic (or even majick) BUT ... adverts and salesmen and political activists get paid (often lots) by someone.  Maybe changing the words alone isn't enough to change the status quo - but changes in language always seems to accompany that.

I appreciate Your effort to avoid the usual "A car hit..." wording but using "driver's car collided" still leaves some implication that it was the car at fault (ie self driving, without indication of the actions of the driver/losing control).
I appreciate the driver probably didn't intend that to happen intentionally, so hence it was an accident, and the cause is yet to be determined.

As I've often said to other media sources: it would never be written the same if a bike was involved: ie "... a bike collided/hit...".
It is ALWAYS "... a cyclist hit..."
And this is always when the incident is first reported, before investigations have even begun.
(Applied to this incident, would the wording be
"... a cyclist's bicycle collided with..."
... ?
Which sounds ridiculous.)

But with the strive towards keeping reporting as concise as possible (for brevity), this is still leading to over simplification of the language used.
For everyone's benefit and to ensure that dangerous/careless driving is not excluded as a cause, I would strongly request using a few more words or an extra sentence to explain the current situation (with the cause unknown whilst it is investigated).
ie (I know I'm not a journalist so this is my humble attempt.)
"... a mum and daughter narrowly avoided a potentially catastrophic situation. The driver of a [car type, ie SUV in this case] ended up on the wrong side of the road, hitting a lampost at a pedestrian crossing and nearly colliding with the parent and child. The cause of the incident is still being investigated. Footage can be seen here..."
More wordy, yes.
But indicates what happened whilst also keeping it in mind that it isn't just a car fault.

Lets not forget that if the cause of even a small number of crashes was car design/faults then there would be uproar against the manufacturers.
But it is usually careless/dangerous driving (ie speeding/not to the conditions) and as it happens so much, is thought of as almost something we have to just live with.