Pedestrian to car interface on London Circuit of a Saturday night

johnboy 21 July 2013 21

An 18-year-old Curtin woman has been taken to The Canberra Hospital after colliding with a vehicle in Civic last night.

About 11.25pm last night (Saturday, July 21) the woman was running east bound along London Circuit and crossed Northbourne Avenue where she was struck by a Hyundai Sonata sedan travelling north.

The woman sustained a number of injuries and was taken to The Canberra Hospital in a serious but stable condition.
The driver of the vehicle was taken to The Canberra Hospital as a precaution.

ACT Policing urge anyone who witnessed the incident, or has any information to contact Crime Stoppers on 1800 333 000 or via www.act.crimestoppers.com.au. Information can be provided anonymously.

[Courtesy ACT Policing]


What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
21 Responses to Pedestrian to car interface on London Circuit of a Saturday night
Filter
Order
Jethro Jethro 5:54 pm 26 Jul 13

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.

MonarchRepublic MonarchRepublic 4:14 pm 26 Jul 13

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.

dtc dtc 3:41 pm 26 Jul 13

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

figjam figjam 3:29 pm 26 Jul 13

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.

bundah bundah 6:11 pm 22 Jul 13

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..

Deref Deref 5:50 pm 22 Jul 13

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.

chewy14 chewy14 5:29 pm 22 Jul 13

dtc said :

Why a tunnel – we can go up – expressways

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

dtc dtc 4:49 pm 22 Jul 13

Why a tunnel – we can go up – expressways

Innovation Innovation 3:19 pm 22 Jul 13

Snave81 said :

Innovation said :

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.

Like I said – I don’t know what the cost would be but the Government is already talking about putting a much larger section of Parkes Way underground (to connect the city to the lake) and they are planning to do a lot of work around there for light rail. A boulevard effect between the Sydney and Melbourne buildings could transform that area and, per dollar, be equally as beneficial as the other projects on the boil.

Anyway, I wouldn’t be surprised if the Government thinks of doing something like this after they have finished all of the other works in the area and then they have to dig those works up again.

Snave81 Snave81 2:31 pm 22 Jul 13

Innovation said :

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.

grundy grundy 1:03 pm 22 Jul 13

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!

Arrow Arrow 11:42 am 22 Jul 13

Innovation said :

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.

I like this idea a lot.

KB1971 KB1971 5:32 pm 21 Jul 13

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.

Innovation Innovation 5:21 pm 21 Jul 13

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.

Pork Hunt Pork Hunt 5:15 pm 21 Jul 13

OLydia said :

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

If the pedestrian was in the cars domain then she collided with the car. It’s not like the car chased her on to the foot path to collide with her…

agent_clone agent_clone 5:13 pm 21 Jul 13

OLydia said :

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

I would say the driver was happily driving along and the pedestrian ran on to the road.when the go lights for the car were green. And the go lights for pedestrians were red. Given she was running the car wouldn’t have had enough time to spot the person (which would be difficult in the dark anyway) and stop in time to not hit the pedestrian.

c_c™ c_c™ 5:01 pm 21 Jul 13

OLydia said :

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

Because most people are well aware of how suicidal pedestrians are on Northbourne, even when presumably sober in the middle of the day.

OLydia OLydia 3:40 pm 21 Jul 13

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

KB1971 KB1971 12:46 pm 21 Jul 13

caf said :

Quelle surprise. The number of people wandering out in front of traffic at that intersection on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights is astonishing.

Yah, we went through there last Saturday night at midnightish and about a dozen people ran across the road in front of us.

Then there are the jaywalkers during business hours…….

bundah bundah 11:06 am 21 Jul 13

From my lengthy experience,over the decades, I think it’s extraordinary that more party animals haven’t been cleaned up by cars or buses in and around Civic given the stupid risks that some take.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top

Search across the site