• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

2 RWC moto-cops hit by distracted driver

Why do journalists always word it like this:
Two Redwood City police officers were sent to the hospital Friday evening after their motorcycles collided with a suspected distracted driver.
Click to expand...

They always do that in articles about motorcycle v. car accidents, even when the car is at fault (and it usually is). Car turned left in front of the bikes, and the bikes hit the car. Yeah sure, in a strictly mechanical sense, the bikes collided with the car. But I can't help but feel like the journalist wants readers to jump to the conclusion that the riders were at fault from the first sentence. Then the reader has to actually go through and comprehend the whole article to learn that the driver was at fault.

Another gem from the article:
No one could fathom how a driver could miss two big bikes coming toward them.
Click to expand...
 
quicksparks said:
Why do journalists always word it like this:


They always do that in articles about motorcycle v. car accidents, even when the car is at fault (and it usually is). Car turned left in front of the bikes, and the bikes hit the car. Yeah sure, in a strictly mechanical sense, the bikes collided with the car. But I can't help but feel like the journalist wants readers to jump to the conclusion that the riders were at fault from the first sentence. Then the reader has to actually go through and comprehend the whole article to learn that the driver was at fault.

Another gem from the article:
Click to expand...

Welcome to media bias against two wheels. They do the same shit with cyclists vs car, also generates about the same quality of idiotic comments by the readers.
 
quicksparks said:
Why do journalists always word it like this:
Two Redwood City police officers were sent to the hospital Friday evening after their motorcycles collided with a suspected distracted driver.​

They always do that in articles about motorcycle v. car accidents, even when the car is at fault (and it usually is). Car turned left in front of the bikes, and the bikes hit the car. Yeah sure, in a strictly mechanical sense, the bikes collided with the car. But I can't help but feel like the journalist wants readers to jump to the conclusion that the riders were at fault from the first sentence. Then the reader has to actually go through and comprehend the whole article to learn that the driver was at fault.
Click to expand...
"Collided with" is totally neutral. "Collided" says only that an impact occurred--nothing about the mechanics. And "with" is a bidirectional preposition; it doesn't imply the former doing something to the latter or vice-versa, only that they did it together. "Collided with" is, in fact, a great phrase to use when you don't know all the facts and don't want to imply judgment.

When you're looking for bias, you can always find it.
 
DataDan said:
"Collided with" is totally neutral. "Collided" says only that an impact occurred--nothing about the mechanics. And "with" is a bidirectional preposition; it doesn't imply the former doing something to the latter or vice-versa, only that they did it together. "Collided with" is, in fact, a great phrase to use when you don't know all the facts and don't want to imply judgment.

When you're looking for bias, you can always find it.
Click to expand...

I typed out a whole response and erased it, this is better. You guys are reading into it too much. Collided with is exactly what happened, the front of the bikes hit the side of the car. It doesn't imply fault, that's just what happened.

Now the other thread of the cop car rear ending the motorcycle, yeah you can't say 'the motorcycle collided with the cop car' that doesn't make sense. But you also have to keep in mind the media is just flat out stupid sometimes and even if you tell them word for word what happened they'll get it wrong.
 
DataDan said:
"Collided with" is totally neutral. "Collided" says only that an impact occurred--nothing about the mechanics.
Click to expand...

Quite true. However, does the latter of these seem a little more "neutral"?

1) after their motorcycles collided with a car
2) after their motorcycles and a car collided
 
The woman was on her cellphone when she turned in front of them.
 
DataDan said:
"Collided with" is totally neutral. "Collided" says only that an impact occurred--nothing about the mechanics. And "with" is a bidirectional preposition; it doesn't imply the former doing something to the latter or vice-versa, only that they did it together. "Collided with" is, in fact, a great phrase to use when you don't know all the facts and don't want to imply judgment.

When you're looking for bias, you can always find it.
Click to expand...

That is somewhat correct, but it is the emission of the fine details that makes it look like the moto could be at fault. In reality, it's the driver who was at fault.

In this case, they could have reported:
Two Redwood City police officers were sent to the hospital Friday evening after their motorcycles collided with a suspected distracted driver who had pulled directly into their path.

Semantics aside, wishing the MotoLEO's a speedy recovery and hope the driver has the book thrown at them. Felony hit and run just for starters ......
 
I'm wondering why she didn't initially stop? Just trying to escape thinking they were regular riders and got scared by the 3rd?
 
It's amazing how much people can be not paying attention. She may have thought she just hit a pot hole.
 
DataDan said:
"Collided with" is totally neutral. "Collided" says only that an impact occurred--nothing about the mechanics. And "with" is a bidirectional preposition; it doesn't imply the former doing something to the latter or vice-versa, only that they did it together. "Collided with" is, in fact, a great phrase to use when you don't know all the facts and don't want to imply judgment.

When you're looking for bias, you can always find it.
Click to expand...
I very much disagree.

If it was said that "his nose collided with my fist," would that be a totally neutral way of portraying a battery?
 
That article is confusing: It says that another officer had to stop the woman from trying to leave the scene, but also says the woman was allowed to leave after questioning.

So why wasn't the woman arrested for hit-and-run?
 
The media assholes will never get it.

If this was a case of an inattentive douchebag driver who turned left in front of the motorcycles, SHE COLLIDED WITH THEM.

Fuck the media.
 
DataDan said:
"Collided with" is totally neutral. "Collided" says only that an impact occurred--nothing about the mechanics. And "with" is a bidirectional preposition; it doesn't imply the former doing something to the latter or vice-versa, only that they did it together. "Collided with" is, in fact, a great phrase to use when you don't know all the facts and don't want to imply judgment.

When you're looking for bias, you can always find it.
Click to expand...

If you are breaking down the individual words, you are correct in their meaning. The way the sentence is structured is incorrect. The clause should be reversed-- a suspected distracted driver collided with their motorcycles.
 
Similar:

San Jose Mercury News said:
(the rider)...suffered serious but non-life threatening injuries when her motorcycle collided with a Fremont police patrol car and a truck Friday evening, authorities said.
Click to expand...

:|
 

Attachments

  • 1185899_10151573644801831_1401935799_n.jpg
    1185899_10151573644801831_1401935799_n.jpg
    117.9 KB · Views: 16
To be fair, the article itself lays the blame entirely at the feet of the driver.
Headline : 'Distracted driver causes crash with Redwood City motorcycle cops'
'No one could fathom how a driver could miss two big bikes coming toward them.'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top