According to the TAB’s initial report*, “A 14-year-old male student riding a bicycle to school was hit by a car.” Not to pick on the departing Ms. Studley, but isn’t there a driver involved? Someone struck a schoolboy with his or her car. There’s no way to know who is at fault without more information, but it’s wrong to ignore that there is another person with possible agency. There was someone behind the wheel of a potentially deadly instrument who failed, this morning, to avoid hitting a child.
As noted safe streets advocate Aaron Naparstek wrote, how we talk about automobile violence matters. Don’t ignore the driver.
Why am I writing about the reporting and not the incident? That would be a good question. At this time, with what we know, I don’t have much to say about this particular incident. It’s a damn shame that a kid got injured. It’s good that the injuries appear minor. I’m sure I’ll have more to say later. And, this post has brought the incident to your attention.
But, this journalist tick of ignoring the driver is a pet peeve of mine.
* No doubt, there will be a more detailed follow-up.
Ah ya got me. I made the mistake of assuming people would gather there was someone driving the vehicle that hit the boy. I have not yet been told who was driving or if a citation was issued, but will update everyone as soon as I do!
Ps- I have info on the accidents you tweeted about. Stay tuned!
Sean, I hear what you are saying but the fact of the matter is that it WAS the car that hit the bicycle-riding student; it was not the driver who did the actual colliding. From a grammatical and accuracy point of view, Ashley’s reporting is actually more on-point than what you suggest.
Now, perhaps she (and, frankly, my wonderful editor over at Patch) might have found a way to include the fact that there was a driver behind the wheel in the report, but keep in mind that for an initial story like this- where the police have yet to charge the driver, if indeed that is warranted. – a good reporter would actually want to keep blame OUT of the tone of the article. This is, after all, the reporting of *news,* not an opinion piece.
Wendy, by the extension of your logic, a person who was shot was injured by the bullet, not the person who pulled the trigger. A person kicked was injured by the boot, not the person who did the kicking. A person who was hit injured by the bat, not by the person swinging it. The bicyclist (here a kid) was hit by something being controlled by somebody. A car doesn’t have volition. It can’t start itself.
Ashley’s right that we assume that there was a driver (though I made that mistake on Twitter a few weeks ago, where someone was actually by a driverless car). But, to not voice the assumption is to not make the driver explicitly part of the conversation. If I were Ashley, I would have added: “There is no information yet about whether the driver of the car was cited or is under investigation.”
Now, as for blame, the mention of someone involved in an crash doesn’t suggest blame. The driver was there. He or she was part of the event that’s being reported. Technically, the car was the object that touched the child and caused him to crash. But, the car didn’t get there on its own. A person drove it.
My primary objection is to the use of the passive voice. If the active voice is used (intentional irony), the sentence goes something like this: “A driver struck a young pedestrian with a car this morning.” Problem solved. Confidence restored.
What Ted said.
It is not just automobile violence that must be discussed with care, but bicycle negligence as well. After all it is not just the bikes that run red lights and flagrantly ignore traffic laws, but there are riders there as well.
I just happened to be outside my home within feet of the incident and wonder if there is such a thing as over-response? I counted no less than 10 emergency vehicles: fire trucks, ambulances, marked cruisers, unmarked cruisers, fire officials, off-duty-on duty etc. wait a minute here, who makes the call for response need?
Eric,
Can you cite even one example of a news story where a bicyclist hit someone or something and the article failed to even make allusion to the cyclist, only mentioned the bike?
Given that it was an initial report, doesn’t Ashley’s formulation make better sense? We don’t know who was at fault – perhaps the teenager was. Perhaps the driver had no ability to swerve or stop before the teenager was struck – so it really was the car hitting the teenager. Ted’s active voice implies this collision was the driver’s fault (by my reading.)
Also, as a reader, I don’t care about the driver. I care who was a hit – was it a child, a grandmother, a jogger? So I think leading with that information is appropriate even if it requires the passive voice. As facts develop, then the driver can be introduced into the story and their role in the incident clarified.
(fortunately, it seems the teenager’s injuries were minor)
http://newton.patch.com/articles/young-pedestrian-struck-by-car-friday-morning-in-newton
Was that the area near Day school that was a problem not so long ago?
Ted and Gail,
The passive voice is not really the issue. If you cure the passive voice, you get “Car hits 14-year-old boy.” Still no driver (though the driverlessness of the car is more pointed in the active voice.) The problem is something deeper. We are reluctant to identify the true subject of the sentence — the real agent: the driver.
I think we’re so accustomed to, and oddly unfazed by, motor vehicle crashes that we think of them as a necessary — or at least unavoidable — consequence of our car-dependent culture. We’re hesitant to think of car crashes as possibly someone’s personal responsibility. Drivers are kept out of the loop both in our language and our official response.
It may very well be that the driver in this case was completely faultless. But, maybe not. Our accounting of the incident ought to reflect that the driver is being considered part of the story.
That is not the point Sean and anyway, can you prove the absence of such a story?
While I do not have an issue with the semantic games in which you appear to relish, I find your prejudicial attitude toward those of us who use cars on a regular basis troubling at best. In this case, the reference to Mr. Naparstek’s statements implies that today’s event should have been construed, at the time of your writing, as a case of auto-induced violence. It would not appear however that when the posting was made, the facts were in. For all we may have known at the time, the biker could have been at fault. Yet your “spin” is one that attempts to bias the reader in one clear direction which happens to be one where I do not fully agree with you. Hence my post.
Now, if I am mistaken here and it was known at the time you posted that the driver was at fault, then I happily concede the point. Additionally, having said all of this, I would not want to leave anyone with the impression that I am unsympathetic to the medical condition of the biker who apparently was hurt pretty badly. Regardless of the circumstances of the accident, I do hope that he is all right.
Eric,
I’ll keep this really simple. A person driving a potentially lethal instrument hit someone who riding a not-even-remotely-as-lethal instrument. In this conflict, the one in the potentially lethal instrument was also far less vulnerable than the one on the less potentially lethal instrument.
I note that maybe the article could mention both human beings and you construe that as prejudicial? Either person could be a fault. They may have both contributed. Suggesting that omitting mention of the driver is odd doesn’t come close to suggesting that we should assume the driver was at fault.
You’re trying too hard on this one.
By the way, today’s incident may or may not have been auto-induced violence. But, it was definitely auto-involved violence … and injury. There’s too much auto-involved injury.
As for “proving the absence of such a story,” you are the one suggesting that we need to make sure that cyclists are mentioned when cyclists are involved. If it’s a problem, you must have an example or two you can cite. No?
Today’s driver may not have been at fault (the crossing guard nearby didn’t seem to think so), but plenty are. I’ve been really nervous about my sixth-grader walking to Day Middle School this year for the first time, and my fears weren’t allayed either by today’s incident or by my own walk home from Day today. I tried to cross Walnut Street at one of the crosswalks in Newtonville (standing in the street so drivers could see me despite the cars parked right up to the crosswalk), and at least half a dozen cars sped past me before anyone stopped. One of them was a Newton Parking and Traffic vehicle, the driver talking on her cell phone.
Sean, you seem stuck on the “fact” that the driver hit the cyclist. But aren’t you making an assumption there? Car/bike accidents can also result from bikes running into cars, with sometime tragic results, as happened not too long ago in Newton. As reported by Channel 7:
http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/local/12008532409968/student-biking-to-school-hit-by-car-in-newton/
The kid on the bicycle was driving on the wrong side of the road.
That should change all of you cyclist loving people. The kid was on the wrong side of the road. That counts. Teach your kids how to ride a [expletive deleleted] bike.
Tricia,
You raise an interesting point, though I think I may not have made my intention clear enough.
When two bodies are both in motion and collide, it’s tough to say that one hit the other. They collided. The journalistic convention seems to be that the bigger thing “hit” the smaller thing. Even the WHDH account to which you’ve referred, which is the first I’ve seen that reports the kid was riding on the wrong side of the road, opens by saying “a student was hit by a car.” WHDH doesn’t seem to think that car-hit-bicyclist imputes responsibility to the driver.
That said, I would have no objection to “driver in car and kid on bike collide, responsibility being sorted out.”
My sole point in raising this is not that we should presume responsibility, but that we should include all of the actors in the reporting. If a reporter wants to bend over backward to make it clear that there has been no finding against the driver, that’s fine. Just. Mention. That. The. Car. Had. A. Driver.
Kim,
Agreed, biking against traffic (“salmoning” amongst the hipsters) is moronic. A 14-year-old ought to know better. But, your potty-mouthed response suggests that somehow he deserved it.
We ought to live in a city where kids who make mistakes getting to school don’t end up in the hospital.
Lucky for all involved that the police just added a sign saying something like “School Speed Limit 20 MPH when children are present.” By adding the sign, maybe speed was lowered enough to prevent a worse injury?
One bicycles at their own risk in this city. There are car drivers who are simply too aggressive. Whether bicycling or walking, I have watched cars fly by, and once over, the neon green “pedestrian crossing” signs on clearly marked ladder walks. It would be interesting to conduct a survey to find out how many people even understand what a ladderwalk indicates. Or, what rights a bicyclist has to the street. Or, whether a pedestrian crossing light is really signals an opportunity to jump a right turn at a light, or perhaps, maybe something else.
Bicyclists and pedestrians are not faultless. I’ve seen bicyclists fly through red lights at full speed, while there are many, many pedestrians in village squares who simply cannot be bothered to walk the extra 20 ft. to the ladderwalk. That does not help drivers avoid them.
I personally know three people who over the past few years have been seriously injured riding a bicycle in this city. It is amazing that there are not more fatalities, and unfortunately, there probably will be.
So, that said, I do not fault the kid for “salmoning” (great term) on the street. Following the rules around here, which are not all the clear, is not an entirely safe path, either. There is a huge communication gap that needs to be closed regarding bicycle rights and safety.
Wendy writes:
“but the fact of the matter is that it WAS the car that hit the bicycle-riding student; it was not the driver who did the actual colliding.”
Wendy: What the hell? How does this make any sense? You seem to be proving Sean’s point by specifying that the bicyle was ridden by a human being, a student. So, if we make note of that, why not also make note of the fact that the car was also piloted by a human being?
This is Sean’s point: Motor vehicles are not autonomous actors. Human beings are in control of the cars. Human beings should be held responsible when cars injure and kill other human beings.
This notion of motor vehicle violence as “accidental” and “blameless” and beyond the control of mere mortals is so deeply pervasive in our culture that Ashley and Wendy can’t even understand what Sean is talking about here. It’s incredible.
Give me a break Sean. Because I have a potty mouth means that the cyclist is closer to to correct? Stop it. You are brutal in some of your analysis. You know I am too. The kid was wrong. The kid was at fault. This is not an example of aggressive drivers as Bill suggests. This is a cyclist that broke the rules and was at fault.
Dear Kim,
I should have made things simpler for you. My apologies.
Your response was unfortunately potty-mouthed.
Now, separate point. Independent of your inappropriate language, you seem to be suggesting that the kid deserved being hit for biking the wrong way. That’s some cold, hard consequence being delivered to a child.
When you get behind the wheel of a ton-and-a-quarter (smallest Prius) to two-ton (Honda Odyssey) to nearly three-ton (Chevy Suburban) vehicle, you are piloting something that is potentially lethal. What makes the kids’ behavior potentially deadly is not just his poor decision-making, but that we have created — for our convenience — a world of traffic that gives so little margin-of-error for entirely predictable adolescent behavior. If you operate a vehicle, you contribute to that fundamentally unsafe environment.
If you’re driving near a [expletive deleted] school when kids are [expletive deleted] walking and biking, drive like you expect a kid to act like a kid and maybe dart out between two cars or bike the wrong way or cross outside a crosswalk. Or, better yet, don’t drive near a school near school opening or closing. It’s your [expletive deleted] moral obligation to protect children.
If you’re not driving in a way that is childproof near a school just before school, you are absolutely driving aggressively.
I agree with the basic premise Sean, I really do. In fact, I would go farther and say that people should drive like that everywhere. But let’s be honest – “childproof” is just not possible. The other day I saw a kid dart out between parked cars at pick-up – given the sight lines and the speed with which the kid was running, even a car going 15mph in the 20 mph school zone wouldn’t have been able to avoid her if the timing had been different. The fact of the matter is we do not know the facts of this incident. To imply that it is possible to drive in a way that is 100% guaranteed to prevent any accident involving a child is just wrong. I wish it weren’t, but it is.
Tricia,
Your underlying premise is sound. Cars and children are a toxic mix. So, at times when there are lots of kids around, why do we allow the mix? Why do we have to have cars within 1/4-mile of a school during pickup and dropoff times?
We prohibit cars within the safe zone, I will guarantee that no kids will be hit or killed by cars in those zones during the safe period.
Glad we all realize high traffic areas are exceedingly dangerous. In a perfect world recreational bicyclists would make it a point to fully enjoy the hundreds of miles of less traveled roads in this area instead of using high traffic areas. And those non-recreational bicyclists would use road appropriate bikes — you know, the ones that can ride fully to the right not risking a popped tire ridding over road debris — and understand that by the laws of nature they are vulnerable to the 1500 lb beast and should ride respecting that danger.
@Sean, absolutely not. Driver hits pedestrian with car. Person shoots another person with gun. Active beats passive. Same thing.
@Anil, there is no assignment of fault here. Unless the “bicycle” hit the car (or more properly the rider hit the car with the bicycle), the driver hit the pedestrian with the car. It could have been a bicyclist who darted out in traffic or a careless driver or maybe the bicyclist and driver were equally at fault. The man bites dog story, as Sean suggests, is if there was no one driving the car when it hit the pedestrian.
I think it’s pointless to claim that either cyclists or motorists are the sole culprits when it comes to bad driving habits. I was born in Newton 75 years ago and grew up here. I hesitate to even talk about this because it can just sound like an old man’s rant and I can remember plenty of old men ranting about some of the things we did. We were anything but angels.
I think the problem started when people began to see themselves as consumers rather than as citizens. I m pretty certain that there were many more kids riding bicycles on a daily basis than there are now, although few adults rode bikes of any kind. I cannot remember even one instance when anyone on a bike was hit by someone driving a car. It may have happened, but it certainly wasn’t anything like the large number of accidents that have happened here in recent years.
I think a lot of the problem is the stress of fast pace living that has entrapped parents, commuters, students etc. You cannot drive near the speed limit anywhere in Newton and not expect some idiot to come up behind you and lean on his horn. I’ve even been honked at when stopped for pedestrians at marked crosswalks. I’ve also seen both kids and adults pull some real boneheaded moves when they are on their bicycles. This is a cultural problem that far transcends the type of vehicle people are driving.
Welcome to Newton, Massachusetts where you may eat or be eaten! Haven’t we all seen plenty of poor drivers on two-wheeled non-motorized vehicles (sans helmets) and clearly negligent automobile motorists. Why can’t everyone respect and share the roads and stop blaming the other guy… Regardless of the “tense” your opinion is shared in!
Want a pedestrian story? On a recent morning I watched two adults and two kids crossing Elm Street at Washington Street in West Newton Square, from the Keltic Krust side to the Village Bank side, while traffic coming from over the Pike heading north on Elm St. had a green light. Not only were they not looking to see if there was any traffic coming, the adults and the big kid were up ahead, and the little kid–he looked about six years old– was by himself a couple yards behind. No one holding his hand, it was like he didn’t even belong to them.
Sean,
It’s a joke that you extrapolate my argument to ‘deserves.’ That’s tabloid shit bro. Pardon my potty mouth. What a joke. I said the kid was at fault. I never came close to saying he deserved it.
Interesting route this discussion has taken.
I took Sean’s post to be predominantly about perspective and therefore expression of attitude.
I wouldn’t go so far to say that Ashley’s article was wrong. In fact, I don’t think Sean said that either. He simply commented it was a pet peeve of his. When people think of “cars hitting a cyclist”, one does tend to focus on that cyclist, especially when that cyclist is a child and even while everyone would conclude there was a driver involved if one just stopped to think about it, it does take an extra step to stop and think about it, but we’re already worrying about the kid that got hit.
I think Sean’s suggestion is a good one and would perhaps help us all to have more of an attitude change so that we might better share our roads. If we keep remembering that ultimately, there is a person behind each action and to promote more accountability for all who share our roads. By getting into the habit of thinking in terms of the people behind the decisions being made in taking these actions (the 14 year-0ld riding the bicycle, the “x” driver driving the car, the woman walking her daughter) … these things give color and dimension to the story.
“Car hits cyclist” … reads differently from “car hits child on bike” … reads differently from “bank manager, driving an SUV, hits 14 year-old student biking to school”
It makes a difference and could potentially help to change people’s attitudes.