VIDEO: Undertaking cyclist collision divides Australia

burtthebike wrote:

“The rider is going too fast and the car had no chance of seeing, even if he inched out.”

One more added: “Legally, car at fault, however, a little bit of common sense on the part of the cyclist would have been to slow down through that section.”

Both of these comments demonstrate how far we still have to go in drivers accepting responsibility for their actions; "...the car had no chance of seeing" and "Legally, car at fault....."

Neither assign blame to the driver, but both blame the car.  The car doesn't make decisions, cars don't just pull across a junction, cars don't do anything, drivers do.

The assumption that the car is at fault, not the driver, is so common in today's society that it doesn't raise an eyebrow, but it implicity excuses the driver from fault.  Any report, any article, any quote, that blames the car not the driver, should be challenged and corrected, otherwise drivers will continue to mow down other road users and escape responsibility for their actions.

It's called 'metonymy'. It's not an assumption that the car is at fault, it's a figure of speech, a type of metaphor. You're being overly literal in your reading.

ConcordeCX wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

“The rider is going too fast and the car had no chance of seeing, even if he inched out.”

One more added: “Legally, car at fault, however, a little bit of common sense on the part of the cyclist would have been to slow down through that section.”

Both of these comments demonstrate how far we still have to go in drivers accepting responsibility for their actions; "...the car had no chance of seeing" and "Legally, car at fault....."

Neither assign blame to the driver, but both blame the car.  The car doesn't make decisions, cars don't just pull across a junction, cars don't do anything, drivers do.

The assumption that the car is at fault, not the driver, is so common in today's society that it doesn't raise an eyebrow, but it implicity excuses the driver from fault.  Any report, any article, any quote, that blames the car not the driver, should be challenged and corrected, otherwise drivers will continue to mow down other road users and escape responsibility for their actions.

It's called 'metonymy'. It's not an assumption that the car is at fault, it's a figure of speech, a type of metaphor. You're being overly literal in your reading.

No he's not, otherwise it would also be "the bike was clearly at fault" or the cycle was legally in the wrong" to redress the balance but those comments are never made, it's always "the cyclist." With drivers it's always their vehicle. The human element is removed subconsciously to depersonalise it and deflect blame and accountability. Because it's everyone's birthright to control a lump of metal and nobody better get in the way.

ConcordeCX wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

“The rider is going too fast and the car had no chance of seeing, even if he inched out.”

One more added: “Legally, car at fault, however, a little bit of common sense on the part of the cyclist would have been to slow down through that section.”

Both of these comments demonstrate how far we still have to go in drivers accepting responsibility for their actions; "...the car had no chance of seeing" and "Legally, car at fault....."

Neither assign blame to the driver, but both blame the car.  The car doesn't make decisions, cars don't just pull across a junction, cars don't do anything, drivers do.

The assumption that the car is at fault, not the driver, is so common in today's society that it doesn't raise an eyebrow, but it implicity excuses the driver from fault.  Any report, any article, any quote, that blames the car not the driver, should be challenged and corrected, otherwise drivers will continue to mow down other road users and escape responsibility for their actions.

It's called 'metonymy'. It's not an assumption that the car is at fault, it's a figure of speech, a type of metaphor. You're being overly literal in your reading.

And 'figures of speech' become such for what reason, exactly? The trouble is you aren't explaining anything here, you are just restating the problem. You need to then ask why that form has become a 'figure of speech' while the equivalent for cycle and pedestrian collisions and crashes have not.

Last time this came up someone claimed we get things like 'the car lost control, mounted the pavement and flipped over, trapping the motorist' because to say 'the driver lost control, drove onto the pavement, and flipped the car' would be legally bad for journalists because it would imply blaming the driver before it was legally proven. Which I agree sounds plausible.

But then within a day I saw a headline saying something like 'cyclist hits pedestrian and seriously injures them' to describe a collision between....er... a bike and...er...I suppose one is obliged to say 'a pair of shoes', to continue this form of language.

So I'm not convinced by the case for this driver-erasing language.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

ConcordeCX wrote:

It's called 'metonymy'. It's not an assumption that the car is at fault, it's a figure of speech, a type of metaphor. You're being overly literal in your reading.

And 'figures of speech' become such for what reason, exactly? The trouble is you aren't explaining anything here, you are just restating the problem. You need to then ask why that form has become a 'figure of speech' while the equivalent for cycle and pedestrian collisions and crashes have not. Last time this came up someone claimed we get things like 'the car lost control, mounted the pavement and flipped over, trapping the motorist' because to say 'the driver lost control, drove onto the pavement, and flipped the car' would be legally bad for journalists because it would imply blaming the driver before it was legally proven. Which I agree sounds plausible. But then within a day I saw a headline saying something like 'cyclist hits pedestrian and seriously injures them' to describe a collision between....er... a bike and...er...I suppose one is obliged to say 'a pair of shoes', to continue this form of language. So I'm not convinced by the case for this driver-erasing language.[/quote]

they become figures of speech for any number of reasons, not just one, and are then used for multiple purposes.  

The important point is that normal adults do not take them literally.

So for example, if you read that the Vatican has fired a broadside at Washington for using the term "Mother of all bombs". The White House has responded by bla, bla, you do not believe that

• the architectural complex in Rome has literally fired a cannonade at the city of Washington
• the Pope and his divisions think that the USA believes the bomb literally to have given birth to all other bombs past and present
• the big white building on Pennsylvania Avenue has responded in some way

and you assume that other normal adults do not believe that either, and do not need the metonymic character to be explained to them.

If an adult takes this driver one literally then they have some sort of mental or psychological problem; if they think other adults take it literally and need to be told that it's not really the cars doing it, then they're not granting to others the same intelligence they credit themselves with.

ConcordeCX wrote:

If an adult takes this driver one literally then they have some sort of mental or psychological problem; if they think other adults take it literally and need to be told that it's not really the cars doing it, then they're not granting to others the same intelligence they credit themselves with.

You seem to be deliberately failing to grasp the point. It's not necessary for anyone to 'take something literally' for a constant use of language to influence how people think about something. There's a continuum between 'taking something literally' and not being affected by it at all - why pretend there isn't?

And none of your examples address the point - that motorists get erased from the picture in a way that other modes of travel are not. Cars tend to be seen as inanimate forces of nature with no moral agency, something which clearly influences the way juries and other parts of the justice system thinks about things.

Also, come to think of it, your examples are silly, because 'The White House' or 'The Vatican' are institutions, with a legal definition far beyond that of just their current boss - neither is remotely analogous to a car with a single driver.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

ConcordeCX wrote:

 

If an adult takes this driver one literally then they have some sort of mental or psychological problem; if they think other adults take it literally and need to be told that it's not really the cars doing it, then they're not granting to others the same intelligence they credit themselves with.

You seem to be deliberately failing to grasp the point. It's not necessary for anyone to 'take something literally' for a constant use of language to influence how people think about something.

I think FluffyKittenofTindalos is correct (racism and misogyny being two leading examples of this kind of thing), but ConcordeCX used the "metonymic character" in a sentence, which is like using Z on a triple letter score in scrabble as far as I am concerned.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

ConcordeCX wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

“The rider is going too fast and the car had no chance of seeing, even if he inched out.”

One more added: “Legally, car at fault, however, a little bit of common sense on the part of the cyclist would have been to slow down through that section.”

Both of these comments demonstrate how far we still have to go in drivers accepting responsibility for their actions; "...the car had no chance of seeing" and "Legally, car at fault....."

Neither assign blame to the driver, but both blame the car.  The car doesn't make decisions, cars don't just pull across a junction, cars don't do anything, drivers do.

The assumption that the car is at fault, not the driver, is so common in today's society that it doesn't raise an eyebrow, but it implicity excuses the driver from fault.  Any report, any article, any quote, that blames the car not the driver, should be challenged and corrected, otherwise drivers will continue to mow down other road users and escape responsibility for their actions.

It's called 'metonymy'. It's not an assumption that the car is at fault, it's a figure of speech, a type of metaphor. You're being overly literal in your reading.

And 'figures of speech' become such for what reason, exactly? The trouble is you aren't explaining anything here, you are just restating the problem. You need to then ask why that form has become a 'figure of speech' while the equivalent for cycle and pedestrian collisions and crashes have not. Last time this came up someone claimed we get things like 'the car lost control, mounted the pavement and flipped over, trapping the motorist' because to say 'the driver lost control, drove onto the pavement, and flipped the car' would be legally bad for journalists because it would imply blaming the driver before it was legally proven. Which I agree sounds plausible. But then within a day I saw a headline saying something like 'cyclist hits pedestrian and seriously injures them' to describe a collision between....er... a bike and...er...I suppose one is obliged to say 'a pair of shoes', to continue this form of language. So I'm not convinced by the case for this driver-erasing language.

this is consisent with other language and perceptions - the cyclist is active, aggressive, terorrizing the poor motorists - the driver is by contrast the passive, emasculated, victim of the "war on motorists"

despite the obvious rhetoric - there's a nugget of truth there - the driver is physically passive, sedentary, and also in some ways identified with the car (eg. an audi driver, or someone who drives a jag!), the protective box doubles as a prison cell - no wonder there is frustration there

the cyclist is on the other hand somewhat naked from not being "clothed" in a metal box and therefore exposed and vulnerable, has nothing to hide behind - and so is placed in the contadictory position of being both more threatening and more vulnerable at the same time!

ConcordeCX wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

The assumption that the car is at fault, not the driver, is so common in today's society that it doesn't raise an eyebrow, but it implicity excuses the driver from fault.  Any report, any article, any quote, that blames the car not the driver, should be challenged and corrected, otherwise drivers will continue to mow down other road users and escape responsibility for their actions.

It's called 'metonymy'. It's not an assumption that the car is at fault, it's a figure of speech, a type of metaphor. You're being overly literal in your reading.

This isn't a metonym: bolox.

According to Wikipedia, the definition of a metonym is "A metonym is a figure of speech used in rhetoric in which a thing or concept is not called by its own name, but by the name of something intimately associated with that thing or concept."  Now call me pedantic, but a car is not a driver, and  a driver is not a car, and using one for the other is not metonymy, it is a socially acceptable way to deflect blame from the driver.

KalBoy wrote:

I bet he wouldn't have crossed a third traffic lane without checking if it was clear first

Sloppy driving IMO

 

Sorry but Youtube is rife with video of drivers doing exactly what you bet wouldn't happen.

leqin wrote:

KalBoy wrote:

I bet he wouldn't have crossed a third traffic lane without checking if it was clear first

Sloppy driving IMO

 

 

Sorry but Youtube is rife with video of drivers doing exactly what you bet wouldn't happen.

you're so right...so this tells me the cyclist probably isn't at fault

spen wrote:

“It seems it hasn't clicked for cyclists yet. That you need to take responsibility for your own safety on the road.”

 

By this logic drivers of thirty odd ton lorries can drive anyway they like as they are unlikely to be injured in the vast majority of collisions and any injuries inflicted on others isn't their fault.  What an idiot!

well, I don't think it's clicked for truck drivers either. Or home-owners, come to that.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newsvideo/viral-video/12159535/Dashcam-f...

ConcordeCX wrote:

spen wrote:

“It seems it hasn't clicked for cyclists yet. That you need to take responsibility for your own safety on the road.”

 

By this logic drivers of thirty odd ton lorries can drive anyway they like as they are unlikely to be injured in the vast majority of collisions and any injuries inflicted on others isn't their fault.  What an idiot!

well, I don't think it's clicked for truck drivers either. Or home-owners, come to that.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newsvideo/viral-video/12159535/Dashcam-f...

 

I'll be honest in that I very rarely take my house out for a spin...

ConcordeCX wrote:

Been there, done that, got the bike fixed. Police prosecuted the driver; court found the driver guilty; driver paid his debt to society; his insurance paid the bill for my bike. No different from the video, only the jurisdiction has changed.

I am, however, a little bit more circumspect in similar conditions now.

me too , exactly the same incident ,exactly the same outcomes .except I flew over the roof of the car . I too take it a bit easier now around banked up traffic .