- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
forum
Is this BBC report fair. Opinions wanted before I complain.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-24937699
The poor cyclist is described as in a "crash with a bus", the headline describes cyclists, in the opinion of bus drivers, as "unbelievable", and the accompanying media just takes the one sided reporting up a notch. The reporter makes no attempt to balance the report by interviewing any cyclists. Do people think this is all a little biased, or is my judgement clouded because I happen to be a cyclist? I'm tempted to complain about this, but I'll go by what readers think.
If you're new please join in and if you have questions pop them below and the forum regulars will answer as best we can.
Latest Forum Topics
Latest Comments
- Muddy Ford 23 min 40 sec ago
Grinds my gears that I am obliged to pay a TV Licence that is used to fund the BBCs repetitive anti cyclist bile. They won't lose customers if they...
- HLaB 46 min 52 sec ago
I found a LCWIP Map on line: https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/23172b0d9b1043eebfbeaa6e092901d3
- Destroyer666 1 hour 14 sec ago
Woohoo Sram, let's continue to make wheel removal and placement slower! Anyone working as a bike mechanic will know that this will not eliminate...
- johnny20whales 1 hour 12 min ago
Not previously heard of Factor Bikes so it's a little cheeky of that new brand to copy such an established marque as Scarab. Shame on them!
- Simon E 1 hour 33 min ago
I've not seen any falling or hovering bicycles as I go past - it's on Chester Street in Shrewsbury and indicates where the so-called shared space...
- belugabob 1 hour 39 min ago
They've got Chiles, it's stupefying...
- Redstonefourteen 1 hour 57 min ago
The actions of the perpetrator are utterly horrifying, contemptible & unacceptable both under the law and morally....
- Miller 2 hours 5 min ago
Campagnolo chains are excellent and so is the pin joining system although it does require careful installation. I've got by in recent years with a...
- massive4x4 2 hours 26 min ago
It's only a laughing stock for people who can't comprehend the concept of a minimum viable product or who are scared of the logical consequences if...
- momove 3 hours 42 min ago
I love how you say this as if it would help me! 🤣
Add new comment
41 comments
To be fair to the BBC, they do seem to have become (slightly) more careful about this sort of reporting, but there's clearly room for improvement.
I have noticed that if one spots a real "howler", and they receive complaints, the actual wording sometimes gets changed and then you get a letter claiming they can't find the instance to which you were referring. So always grab a screen shot.
OP, if you do decide to complain, I would recommend emailing, rather than phoning, and taking it higher if you are not satisfied. Good luck.
Just to drag this, kicking and screaming, back to the original question.
No! It is not fair, reasoned and unbiased. This is stated to be a report not an opinion piece and because of this infringes the remit of the BBC.
I have no problem with opinion pieces but they must be flagged as such and carry the disclaimer that the opinions given do not necessarily represent the opinions of the BBC.
As to the other debate. X was in collision with Y does give the impression that X was the prime mover. I also don't like "a cyclist was in collision with" , what's wrong with "a cycle was..." We don't use "a car driver was...", "a lorry driver was..." or "a bus driver was..."
Never really noticed a bias until people said there was one. But even then I think it's more imagined than real. People have hated me for irrational reasons, but most people like me and I feel that attitudes to cycling are similar. Most people have ridden a bike and enjoyed it. Some people are knobs and resent anything in their way. You can get a bit of skewed perspective if the only conversation you have about cycling is with a raging idiot and similarly, if the only time you read about cycling in the press is about people dying while cycling, or people complaining about cyclist RLJing. Most people think cycling is a good thing.
It's an opinion piece, so I reckon it's fair enough. And from what I have observed on the roads, I can understand their point of view. There are some real kamikazis out there on bikes who are quite prepared to take on a bus.
AFAIK
"a bicycle collided with a bus" is less neutral than "there was a collision involving a bus and bicycle".
Granted, the former is a more engaging way of writing the copy and more interesting for the reader. It is also one commonly used.
I think we can argue semantics all day and not come to any conclusion or meeting of minds and that certainly seems to be the case here.
The "collided with" quote was from the BBC and it was one we were attempting to find a better use of language to describe so that, perhaps, ultimately we can suggest to the BBC and others (when their report p*ss us off) that they might attempt to alter the editorial to find a better way of expressing the incident without inference, through what might be lazy or populist journalism, that it was the cyclist who was the cause of the event. I guess if you think it's neutral there's no inference there. To me there is - even if it's just a hint.
If you consider, for example, over these last few weeks that the headlines had been:
"tipper truck collides with cyclist"
"London bus collides with cyclist"
"HGV collides with cyclist"
rather than (for example)
"cyclist collides with tipper truck"
"cyclist collides with London bus"
"cyclist collides with HGV"
to me, at least, the inference is clear.
They are all interchangeable because 'collides with' does not mean 'crashes into'. Those six headlines mean two vehicles in motion tried to occupy the same space.
In any case, none of those incidents are newsworthy IMO. What is very much newsworthy, IMO, is a serious injury or fatality occuring due to a collision.
So which is better?
Cyclist seriously injured in collision with tipper truck
or
Tipper truck collides with cyclist who is now seriously injured
The second is unsatisfactory IMO but maybe you can come up with a better version.
No, but it implies it does.
wall and cyclist is a different use case. one is static and one is dynamic. a bus and a cyclist are both dynamic; a collision between them simply describes them coming together, it doesn't apportion cause or blame.
Both the Earth and an asteroid are in motion. A wall isn't ..... well relative to the cyclist although it is attached to a planet travelling at very high speed. ... as is the cyclist ....
my head hurts.
It is because the wall is stationary that it becomes apparent that the word order does make a difference. If the positioning of the words in the sentence made no difference to its meaning it would be possible to reverse the sentence and still make sense, since the meaning would be the same whichever way round.
Because the wall is stationary it becomes apparent that 'collision with', is not appropriate at all in the sentence "wall collides with cyclist" as in the non-Physics sense, walls do not move. Most people would write that as "cyclist crashes into wall".
But "bicycle in collision with car" and "car in collision with bicycle" mean exactly the same thing, if both were moving at the time of the collision. They came together ..... Not in that sense, obviously.
Words.
edit
or put more intelligently, wot Dave just said ^^^
"In collision with" and collides with" are not grammatically the same. I'm not going to labour this any more, but surely, if " the car collided with the bike" meant exactly the same as " the bike collided with the car" then "the bike collided with the wall" could be replaced with " the wall collided with the bike" without any problem.
I was quibbling about "collides with" not "in collision with".
Don't think so. They carry quite different implications. In one the cycist is the active subject the car the passive object. In the other the reverse.
Now the difference is reduced significantly by the use of the more passive 'in collision with' rather than 'collides with', so its not so bad in that form. The bias is far clearer in the case of 'cyclist collides with...'.
But grammatically the distinction is surely pretty simple? - one is subject the other object. The subject is the active party, the 'do-er'. That's just basic grammar, no?
Edit - the more I think about it, though, the more I think the 'in collision with' form is far less objectionable than when it uses 'collides with'. While still seeming to make the cyclist the subject, it emphasises just involvement rather than causation. They were 'in' the collision, not necessarily doing the colliding.
I think the whole point here was to discuss such use of language as:
"cyclist died after colliding with lorry"
that's kind of simon's point, and also mine. we use 'in a collision with' because it's neutral. 'collided with', as you've written above, isn't neutral.
'in a collision with' is currently the accepted phraseology in circumstances where the specifics aren't known, because it doesn't apportion blame to either party and nor does it rule out the possibility of blame, which accident does in a legal sense.
the only reason it's the cyclist first, and not the lorry or bus, is because the cyclist is the normally the subject of the sentence, because they've been injured or killed.
'accident' most assuredly *isn't* neutral. it explicitly implies no blame to either party. which is why even the police have stopped using it.
The OED says accident is:
An unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury.
So, unless the incident was a purposeful attempt to maim a cyclist, it can be an accident, wouldn't you agree? If we don't know that then it would be better to say:
"there was a collision today involving a bus and a cyclist" or vv.
Again, much more semantically neutral than
"a bus collided with a cyclist" or vv.
you have to look at legal precedent here, not the OED. everyone stopped using accident for a reason. it has a specific meaning in law.
For a change, this report seems OK. It's just a quote according to the bus drivers. However one might say that the reporter has biased the report in favour of cyclists:
Reporter: "Where the cyclist was hit last night...died after being hit by a bus"
That seems to load the argument negatively towards the bus (if you see what I mean). Sure the bus was involved but where did the fault lie - from this it seems it was the fault of the bus.
The BBC usually seems to report that a cyclist was "in collision" with a lorry/bus etc. And yes, that's factually inaccurate - unless the BBC had called in the police etc to ascertain whether or not it's the truth (very unlikely). I'm sure we've had this discussion before but an accurate report would state that there was an accident involving a lorry/bus and a cyclist or vv.
As for interviewing the bus drivers and only giving their point of view on this report - that's fine. A balanced broadcast argument can, over time, interview and show the different sides of the argument; it doesn't have to do it all in one report. I've seen much worse. And complained to the BBC. Their complaints procedure is pretty useless though as William said. Much better (IMO) to contact the manager of the LBC or local TV station manager and discuss the perseption of bias with them.
My experience is that in the immediate aftermath of a fatality, the police will do no more than refer you to the statement they are likely to have issued - whether you're the BBC, or road.cc.
Saying that a cyclist, car, whatever, was "in a collision" with another vehicle isn't "factually inaccurate" - it's neutral, and very often is the only thing the media is able to say until further details emerge.
To say that someone "collided" with another vehicle is very different, though - it implies a specific situation happened, and shouldn't be used until facts are known (often, not until a coroner's inquest or a trial).
Sorry to disagree but it's not - and it all comes down to semantics.
"a bus today was in a collision with a bicycle"
"a cyclist today was in a collision with a bus"
In the first instance what people will generally glean is that is was the BUS that did the colliding; in the second that it was the CYCLIST.
"an accident involving" is neutral.
In both cases those people would be wrong. Collide simply means to come together which is why "collide with" makes sense and "collide into" does not.
"The Earth collides with an asteroid" and "an asteroid collides with the Earth" mean exactly the same thing. The only difference is which object you consider to be the most important when you structure your sentence.
A headline like,
Cyclist seriously injured in collision with bus
Is correct, IMO, as the injury to the cyclist is more important than the existence of a collision.
Bus in collision with seriously injured cyclist
Is misleading. Was the cyclist seriously injured before the collision?
Bus in collision with cyclist who suffers serious injuries
Is unwieldy and makes the collision the subject of the sentence with the serious injuries as just additional information, which is inappropriate IMO.
Accident? How do we know that it was an accident until the collision has been thoroughly investigated? Maybe it was no accident, a jealous partner paid someone to run the unfortunate cyclist down on the way home from work?
We know for sure that a collision has taken place. IMO it is the most appropriate word to use in these circumstances, but never 'collide into'.
"Crash into" is only appropriate when a moving object hits a stationary one.
It seems to me there is a difference.
Consider, "the cyclist collided with the wall."
and "the wall collided with the cyclist."
Blimey, it's the grammatical equivalent of a tongue twister. But I agree. I think.....
Equating the way cyclists are treated in the media to racism is really poor taste.
Prejudice is prejudice, it is judging a person based on their race, sex religion, disability, age, sexual type, etc.
All prejudices are wrong, I don't think you understood the purpose of my post and I don't see why it is in poor taste at all. Britain has a serious anti-cycling prejudices, this silly idea that cycling is for children or cyclists should only be mountain biking off-road, or all cyclists are law-breakers.
If you think my post is in bad taste then you need to explain why. The prejudices I have met on the road have been life-threatening at times, the behavior of some anti-cyclist drivers is scary, they have 2-ton weapons and when they are careless with them, they just get a slap on the wrist, if anything.
Well said, there is an anti-cycling bias in this country. It is perceived as a childish thing to do, and you should really grow up and buy a car.
Not strictly true. Prejudice is about prejudging, which we all do whether we will admit it or not. Having prejudices in itself is not a bad thing, it's what you do with them that causes problems and leads to stereotyping (see below), labelling and discrimination.
This is not prejudice, this is stereotyping where one aspect of a person or group is taken to be the defining factor.
What you have experienced is probably not prejudice but a demonstration of poor driving and arrogance on the part of other road users.
To be discriminated against you need to have one of your Protected Characteristics, as defined by the Equality Act 2010, identified as the basis for the discriminatory action; i.e your age, gender, colour, religion, sexual orientation etc. Unfortunately being a cyclist is not a protected characteristic and therefore our treatment by certain sections of the media and the public cannot be equated with racism.
Perhaps a social media campaign in the run up to the next census to rival the Jedi in 2001 could sort that out.
If we could convince them that 'Cycling', in all its forms is either a religion or a belief system then it might just work
Pages