He was driving below the limit, he was not drunk and the pedestrian essentially jumped on the road. So what exactly was the driver’s fault?
Not really fair.
I read it much earlier before the story was released by the press syndicate (your stories say one hour ago).
Two case studies here
. How many do you want?
Well, if we are talking about fairness, I directly googled your exactly quoted headline of " Landrover drives over child in car park and kills them" and my screenshot was what was presented.
Journalistically, it makes sense to state what vehicle was involved. Stating that a child was killed by a driver of “a vehicle” is just nonsense. Car? Van? Mobility scooter? Ice cream van?
I’m surprised you’ve not yet picked up on the detail under many of the searches that states “the 40-year-old driver was uninjured”. For me that’s more of a WTF detail than whatever vehicle he was driving.
OK, this is getting silly now. You gave some numbers about motorists being punished for “killing” cyclists.
Now you’re quoting cases of penalties imposed for causing injury as if that somehow supports your earlier assertion, which incidentally you still haven’t given a reference for.
How many irrelevant case studies do I want? Err, none, please.
1 Like
You are missing the point entirely again, like you usually do - the one which @Axa made, and to which I replied with another example.
Yes, a press-release writer at a new syndicate wasn’t biased unlike the original journalist in the earlier article. So what?
Basically you’re trolling again like you normally do.
1 Like
Actually, no you didn’t. You provided a fictitious headline. The source you provided after the fact was only similar to what you wrote.
You probably need to look up the word trolling because it’s not defined by “people disagreeing with me with an alternative view that I can’t cope with”. HTH.
But hey, you do you.
2 Likes
I’ll try to extinguish the fire, haha
@ShirleyNot, this is about the use of language.
One sad example is the use of passive voice when reporting law enforcement in the US. The headline “driver dies during traffic stop” is a curious way to report “police officer shots 10 times a driver during traffic stop”.
Same thing happens with cyclists, passive voice is abused. The extreme example is road closed to car traffic with the very specific purpose of having a road cycling race. Even in this context, something hardwired on the brains on the TV commenters made them say “the rear wheel of the racer touched the car”.
Even when we have the context of cycling race and the video…it’s never the driver’s fault. This is a cultural issue that prevent us from being better drivers. It’s never our fault, why worry?
1 Like
I fully understand the point you are making and, yes, it does seem odd that the “sanitised” version of events is presented by the press. I know that reporting at that stage (i.e. directly after the incident), a story can’t run that would pre-convict / pre-exonerate anyone involved. If a publication is seen to be making a judgement, it would ruin any subsequent legal action because lawyers would have a field day getting their client off on a technicality or prejudice or whatever.
Imagine writing “Man in enormously heavy car kills innocent cyclist/pedestrian by carelessly driving over them” as a headline.
Once the legal action is settled, the “full story” usually comes out and reporting restrictions are lifted.
1 Like
Missing the point, Yet again.
I’m not sure even you know what point you are making.
1 Like
I can see that.
Perhaps you shouldn’t reply to a post if you don’t understand it despite others being able to do so?
And could you stop calling others trolls who simply do not agree with you or do not get your posts? Very condescending post…
1 Like
Yeah well, it’s just easier I guess.
Anyhoooo… props to all of us that biked into work this morning then looked at the rain radar for later in the day. Hardcore 
You are basing your reply on two different posts, mixing them together to suggest I wrote something with a different intent entirely.
Why did you do that?
You wrote:
You are missing the point entirely again, like you usually do
Basically you’re trolling again like you normally do.
Missing the point, Yet again.
You think that is normal behaviour for people who discuss things? You say that to your friends and family as well?
1 Like
Trolling is when someone posts or comments online to ‘bait’ people, which means deliberately provoking an argument or emotional reaction . In some cases they say things they don’t even believe, just to cause drama.
This is what @Shirley does and has done on the past in this thread. Another poster also acknowledged it but they can stop that sort of thing as they used to be a moderator on EF.
A moderator should be able to spot these things.
I should just put them back on ignore like I did last week. Problem solved!
Sheesh, are you always that friendly?
Some people here have a life outside the fora…
Very condescending post…and off-topic.
You are a moderator. You need to do better.