Pedestrian to car interface on London Circuit of a Saturday night

KB1971 said :

OLydia said :

why is that the pedestrian “collided” with the car? Surely it was the other way round?

Does really matter how the article was written? Fair dinkum.

To students of grammar, yes. Most clauses will contain participants – the subject and object. The subject enacts the verb contained in the clause, while the object has the verb done to them or is acted upon by the subject.

“The pedestrian collide with the car” has a different meaning to “the car collided with the pedestrian.” If we are to consider the act of pedestrian and car colliding as a negative one, who/what is the subject of the sentence describing the collision is indeed important, as blame for this incident is now apportioned.

Of course, before an investigation into the collision is completed by the police, the neutral way to report on this would have been to say that there was a collision between a car and pedestrian. Considering this statement was given mere hours after the collision, I’m going to guess the investigation into it was not complete.

bundah said :

Deref said :

KB1971 said :

OLydia said :

why is that the pedestrian “collided” with the car? Surely it was the other way round?

Does really matter how the article was written? Fair dinkum.

My very word it does.

There’s a big difference between a pedestrian colliding with a car and the reverse. I hope it was intentional and not just idiotically bad writing.

As I’ve said before, there’s a big difference between helping your uncle, Jack, off a horse and helping your uncle jack off a horse.

Hence it would’ve been much less controversial had they articulated that she’d been hit by a vehicle..

I read it as she ran infront of a vehicle, which could not stop in time, and she was hit. Implication being the pedestrian at fault. I’m all for pedantry (I’m a proud pedant myself!), but I felt the message was portrayed clearly. We’re an elite few being here, so lets stop fighting about this.

figjam said :

dtc said :

Why a tunnel – we can go up – expressways

Because we’ve learnt from other cities’ mistakes. Boston’s elevated expressways were hideous eyesores which divided communities. The ‘Big Dig’ was an extremely expensive correction of that error, involving tearing down the expressways and digging tunnels.

Well, my comment was a joke – that said, expressways work well in Tokyo and HK. The key is to make them high enough to use the area underneath

dtc said :

Why a tunnel – we can go up – expressways

Because we’ve learnt from other cities’ mistakes. Boston’s elevated expressways were hideous eyesores which divided communities. The ‘Big Dig’ was an extremely expensive correction of that error, involving tearing down the expressways and digging tunnels.

Deref said :

KB1971 said :

OLydia said :

why is that the pedestrian “collided” with the car? Surely it was the other way round?

Does really matter how the article was written? Fair dinkum.

My very word it does.

There’s a big difference between a pedestrian colliding with a car and the reverse. I hope it was intentional and not just idiotically bad writing.

As I’ve said before, there’s a big difference between helping your uncle, Jack, off a horse and helping your uncle jack off a horse.

Hence it would’ve been much less controversial had they articulated that she’d been hit by a vehicle..

KB1971 said :

OLydia said :

why is that the pedestrian “collided” with the car? Surely it was the other way round?

Does really matter how the article was written? Fair dinkum.

My very word it does.

There’s a big difference between a pedestrian colliding with a car and the reverse. I hope it was intentional and not just idiotically bad writing.

As I’ve said before, there’s a big difference between helping your uncle, Jack, off a horse and helping your uncle jack off a horse.

dtc said :

Why a tunnel – we can go up – expressways

Can’t we just issue pedestrians with jetpacks- problem solved.

Why a tunnel – we can go up – expressways

Not sure what the cost would be but dropping that section of Northbourne (from Barry Drive to London Circuit) under ground with a single lane shared zone above ground would make it safer for all, speed up through traffic and, most importantly, better connect both sides of the City.

Lucky you’re not in government and in charge of the budget or maybe you’re holding out on us and know where the money tree is.

I saw the result of this on Saturday night when we left Soju Girl around 11:30…

I’m surprised more people havn’t been killed. I have had to slam on the brakes a few times on Friday and Saturday nights at that intersection!