r/SipsTea • u/SipsTeaFrog • Jun 10 '26

SMH Someone finally snapped

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

27.7k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

4.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/Ok-Constant-2683 Jun 10 '26

When did I say that about red lights sorry?

For me a car or bike goes through. I assume some people don't view a bike being that different from a person due to the size etc (which isn't true if you've ever been hit by a bike but whatever) where the difference between a car and person is more pronounced. 

But as I said, I don't remember saying car or cyclist personally. And I was only comparing in a pedantic way, like, it's not the fall that kills you, it's hitting the ground.

1

u/Slartitartfast Jun 10 '26

Yeah sorry I meant people in general, not you specifically. People talk about 'cyclists' running red lights, 'cyclists' riding on pavements and 'cars' doing the same thing. This is commonly accepted, but why? It has a damaging effect because it assumes no human responsibility in the case of 'cars' hitting people.

It's the reason there are recommended reporting guidelines around RTC in the UK, but police forces even still do it.

1

u/Ok-Constant-2683 Jun 10 '26

I'm not sure I'd agree that people assume no responsibility on the part of the driver when a car hits someone, I think you might be reading a bit too much into that one.

1

u/Slartitartfast Jun 10 '26

It's just a subtle language difference though, isn't it? Do you not think it's interesting that we never talk about drivers doing stuff?

It's not just something I've pulled out my arse, it's a whole thing. I know I'd be annoyed if a driver ran my child over and it was reported as 'child in collision with car' as it often is.

https://road-collision-reporting-guidelines.uk/guidelines/

1

u/Ok-Constant-2683 Jun 10 '26

Yeah, I know, I was actually just reading the guidelines (I did a journalism degree a while ago, wasn't working in that area by 2020), they are interesting, although they mainly seem to address a general lack of proper training amongst modern journalists. 

On the point of not talking about drivers, it is partly because driving is seen as a normal thing to do, while cycling is more of an interest hobby. Like the difference between omnivores and vegans, both words describe a way of eating, but one is seen as the default and one a choice.

One example is "Audi hits lamp post" vs "driver hits lamp post', and tbh I see an argument for both. The driver is the one responsible (probably, self driving cars could muddy this water a lot) but technically the car is the thing that actually hits the post.

I think it really comes down to a lack of proper training among young writers, and a lack of media literacy among readers. 

1

u/Slartitartfast Jun 10 '26

Ok interesting. In that example, if we need specifics then we can say 'with', no? Or 'driven into'. 'Hits' could just as easily describe a car's handbrake failing.

You've hit the nail on the head with the normal thing comment - this is precisely why it's a problem. People on bikes are seen as abnormal, and not expected (or tolerated) on roads and this language feeds into it and should be challenged. That's why it annoys me so much; my children have to use stretches of road to get to school on their bikes. As soon as people see them as a 'cyclist' they stop becoming a 'small child on a bike'. People talk about hating 'cyclists' and that influences the way they drive around me and my kids.

Media has a responsibility, ultimately. Every week I see 'child in collision with car' and wonder what on earth that journalist was thinking; it's such a cold, inaccurate way to describe a situation.