BBC under fire for reporting three children 'hit by car'; Cav back on the track; Want to train as a bike mechanic?; Bid for a slice of signed G memorabilia; Ned Boulting joins cycle path news fan club; Philip Hindes retires + more on the live blog

Ride On wrote:

The BBC were probably quoting a police or ambulance press release, perhaps that's where the problem lies.

In my brief stint in an ambulance control room many years ago traffic collisions were often referred to in short hand as 'car v ped', '4 veh rtc' or 'lorry v bike'. No mention of drivers or riders.

that's useful to learn, because of course first aiders are not concerned with who did what, only with the nature of the injuries. So 'car v ped' is all they likely need to know, let the police deal with the uninjured driver.

Whereas the same reasoning is why it is not appropriate for a news report, where it is unhelpful to perpetuate the myth that these things are nobody's doing.

Struck by a driver is better.
You don't often hear the term struck by a bullet. 

It's not so common these days but once upon a time if you parked on a hill you turned the wheel into the curb and left it in gear. In fact so ingrained I still always leave my car in gear and I think the turning the wheel thing is still in HC. So I'm pretty sure that it is possible to be struck by a car without a driver.

Nigel Garage wrote:

It isn't a problem at all.

• "People struck by car" -> Implies someone was driving
• "People struck by driverless car" -> someone wasn't driving

No new English language required.

What if if it were a cyclist unable to brake in time before a pedestrian steps into the road and they 'collide'? Would you be just as comfortable with the heading 'pedestrian struck by bicycle'? 'A man was treated for injuries after he was hit by a bicycle'? It would always, and quite rightly, be 'pedestrian hit by cyclist', just as it should be 'pedestrian hit by motorist'.

Kendalred wrote:

Nigel Garage wrote:

It isn't a problem at all.

• "People struck by car" -> Implies someone was driving
• "People struck by driverless car" -> someone wasn't driving

No new English language required.

What if if it were a cyclist unable to brake in time before a pedestrian steps into the road and they 'collide'? Would you be just as comfortable with the heading 'pedestrian struck by bicycle'? 'A man was treated for injuries after he was hit by a bicycle'? It would always, and quite rightly, be 'pedestrian hit by cyclist', just as it should be 'pedestrian hit by motorist'.

Can't recall but I think someone here argued against exactly this (reasonable) point before. "A pair of Doc Martins was in collision with a Ford Cortina..."

Mungecrundle wrote:

Well even though not ideal, it is concisely descriptive, necessarily avoids placing blame prior to proper investigation and is far better than the "pedestrian in collision with vehicle" type of headlines we have seen in the past. I think part of the problem is the lack of a suitable verb for being struck by a vehicle. You can be shot or stabbed which are recognised actions of guns and knives and imply that someone instigated those actions. but is there really an equivalent for being cared (carred, card, car'd???)

Removal of the mention of the driver suggests there was no occupant in control of the car.

In addition, if "car strikes school children" can be used without implying intention or blame so can "motorist strikes school children whilst driving" or "with car"

It is factual, does not imply blame or intention, and more importantly does not veil any human involvement

Nigel Garage wrote:

Now far be it from me to defend the BBC, an organisation that I thankfully no longer pay for, but the truth should always come first.

"Three children struck by car" is the factually correct statement. "Three children struck by driver" is ambiguous at best, and false at worst.

It may or may not be factually correct but it is quite misleading, suggesting the car has free will, which is obviously false.

"Three children struck by car driver" wouldn't have been difficult, would it?

Ask yourself why we don't see headlines such as:

"Teenager killed by knife."

"Pensioner hospitalised by baseball bat."

"Dangerous driver injured by chainring."

The object has no agency and misreporting like this seeks to remove the blame from the driver.

Nigel Garage wrote:

ChrisB200SX wrote:

It may or may not be factually correct but it is quite misleading, suggesting the car has free will, which is obviously false.

"Three children struck by car driver" wouldn't have been difficult, would it?

Ask yourself why we don't see headlines such as:

"Teenager killed by knife."

"Pensioner hospitalised by baseball bat."

"Driver injured by chainring."

It doesn't suggest the car has free will. Take the sentence "Skier struck by falling rock": does a rock have free will? will anyone think the sentence is misleading? No.

"Three children struck by car driver" is incorrect on two levels. First of all it's factually incorrect; the children weren't struck by a car driver, they were struck by a car. Second, it can also mean that a car driver got out their car and punched the children, which is also incorrect in this instance.

As for your other sentences, they are all ambiguous in their meaning and could be tightened up, e.g.:

• "Teenager stabbed to death"
• "Pensioner hospitalised after being hit by a baseball bat."

A rock doesn't have a driver who is responsible for controlling it. If the car rolled down a hill then yes it makes sense to say "hit by a car" - though you would normally say "hit by a runaway car".

You would "Pensioner hospitalised after being hit by a baseball bat." You would say ""Pensioner hospitalised after being hit with a baseball bat."

Makes sense for this report to say "Three children 'struck with a car' in Lanarkshire" - however it is a quote, so not really the BBC's fault, if they quoted accurately.

*edit - it is a quote on the twitter link shown, the actual article itself is different - the BBC should have done better.

...and if you got hit with a driver (a special type of golf-club), swung by a cyclist - just imagine that confusion!

It's just the interplay between the language and our cultural norms - and those change all the time subject to deliberate choice (e.g. by an editor, a politician) or the whims of fashion. As you know very well. To run with your theme you don't tend to see:

• "Man hit by bullet" (cf. "Man hit by car)
• or "Woman punched by fist"

...but rather "Man shot by police" or "Woman punched by entitled driver". There's no given grammatical reason we shouldn't change the focus in the sentences about cars and drivers. You of course disagree with the particular examples for ideological reasons but this merely shows that the language is indeed important.

Nigel Garage wrote:

"Woman punched by fist" is particularly foolish because the verb "punch" already means "hit with a fist", so you're unnecessarily stating the same thing again.

I see a hole in your argument.

?

But they were struck by a car. Struck by a driver would mean that they were thumped. 

Alternatively, they could phrase it as "car driven into woman and three children in South Lanarkshire" - that would solve the problem of identifying the vehicle and that someone was driving.

Or phrased as "struck by car driver". Not perfect perhaps, but on the other hand the "struck by car" version is also ambiguous (I.e. was it being driven or had it rolled on its own); nature of the English language.

CyclingInGawler wrote:

Or phrased as "struck by car driver". Not perfect perhaps, but on the other hand the "struck by car" version is also ambiguous (I.e. was it being driven or had it rolled on its own); nature of the English language.

I think the phrase "driven into" is a perfectly cromulent way of replacing "struck by car driver".

hawkinspeter wrote:

CyclingInGawler wrote:

Or phrased as "struck by car driver". Not perfect perhaps, but on the other hand the "struck by car" version is also ambiguous (I.e. was it being driven or had it rolled on its own); nature of the English language.

I think the phrase "driven into" is a perfectly cromulent way of replacing "struck by car driver".

Have a like. Not that I'm taking a position on your proposed phrasing - just for use of the word 'cromulent'.

Whilst that may well be the case, it apportions blame before due investigation, could prejudice any legal proceedings and possibly leave the reporting organisation open to a charge of defamation should it emerge that the driver was in fact (insert unlikely but conceivably possible scenario here) completely innocent.

Mungecrundle wrote:

Whilst that may well be the case, it apportions blame before due investigation, could prejudice any legal proceedings and possibly leave the reporting organisation open to a charge of defamation should it emerge that the driver was in fact (insert unlikely but conceivably possible scenario here) completely innocent.

I'm not seeing how that's prejudicial. The act of moving a car is known as "driving" and the car most definitely was driven into the same space as a woman and three children. If maybe the driver had already jumped out of the car and was not in it at the time of the collision, then you could say "empty car rolled into woman and three children", but I don't believe that's true in this case.

We're really into the semantics now - maybe it's the whole "active / passive" "driving" thing?  I don't think hawkinspeter's suggestion apportions culpability or blame in that way (e.g. to an identifiable individual). Was "driving" occurring ("driving down the road")? Yes. Was there a driver? Yes. Was it being driven?

Unless like some of our judiciary you're flirting with the idea of redefining "driving" as a state that can come and go like consciousness I think this is perfectly acceptible. ("He was in the car all the time, he was driving in the moments leading up to the incident and afterwards he drove himself home... but he did not drive into the child as in that instant we shall show he wasn't driving").

It's of course on the BBC (or others) to distinguish between a car with no-one at the controls / unpowered *. But are they that careful in the case of e.g. assault, robbery ("a woman was sexually assulted [but we can't say 'by a man' and even 'by a person' is risking it...]")

* Which indeed they do - you read above "an unoccupied vehicle", "with no-one at the controls" and "it rolled down the hill into...".

Just common sense really.

But were you not just struck by an idea? Do you have a bruise to show for that?