A collision involving a car and a tree

From the West Sussex Gazette

Wisborough Green tree collision

EMERGENCY services were called to Wisborough Green after a collision involving a car and a tree on Tuesday January 31. Firefighters attended the scene in Newpound Common at 12.42pm. The man had released himself from the car and was checked over by paramedics. No injuries are reported to have been suffered.

That is, a car crashed into a tree. I’m not quite sure how else the tree could have been ‘involved’ in this collision, unless it had escaped from the Lord Of The Rings.

Other news stories in this vein –

Wisborough Green ground collision

EMERGENCY services were called to Wisborough Green after a collision involving an elderly lady and the ground on Tuesday January 31.

Which would be a curious way of saying ‘a lady fell over.’

Or

Wisborough Green lamp post collision

EMERGENCY services were called to Wisborough Green after a collision involving a lamp post and a man on Tuesday January 31.

Which would be a curious way of saying ‘a man walked into a lamp post’.

When a motor vehicle is involved, however, these inanimate objects become party to collisions, in ways that defy common sense usage of language.

Although come to think of it, it was only yesterday that I witnessed a collision involving a desk and my toe.

This entry was posted in Road safety, The media. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to A collision involving a car and a tree

  1. One eye witness said “I saw the car overtake the tree and then start to turn left, at that point the tree collided with the car”.

  2. Kim says:

    This is shocking, isn’t time we had a law that made it compulsory for all trees to be fitted with Hi-viz coverings and lights, they are a serious danger to blameless motorist.

  3. Nic says:

    A BMW and a tree were involved in a collision near my house at 1am a few years ago. The speed limit is 30mph. The driver died. All roadside trees should be cut down to prevent this type of accident occurring.

  4. gerlachus says:

    Willing to bet that the next thing that happens is that the council chop down the tree, as it is a hazard to motorists.

  5. Henz says:

    “No injuries are reported to have been suffered.”
    Does this include the tree, or is it going to need tree-surgery?

  6. Paul M says:

    The use of the words “collide” and “collision” have, I’m afraid, become something of a hobby-horse of mine. My “Shorter” (ie the size of two breeze blocks) OED is not frightfully helpful on definitions (eg “Collide” v.t. to be in collision with….) but it is abundantly clear from the context that the terms refer to two or more objects of broadly comparable mass and momentum coming into violent contact with each other.

    We can agree that being hit by an HGV is violent, but when there is a violent coming-together of a 100kg cyclist travelling at 10-15mph and a 15 tonne tipper truck travelling at 30mph-plus, that is NOT a collision.

    Why does this matter, why is not just pedantry? When I tackled City of London Police on their use of the word their repsonse was that this is the word they are “required” to use (required by whom they did not say – it was only a tweet). I think you make the point well – it implies a division of “blame” between the parties which is often far from the truth. It diminishes the culpability of the motorist at the expense of the cyclist or pedestrian who, in reality, was run over or knocked down by the vehicle, rather than “colliding” with it.

    Even where there is no demonstrable recklessness or negligence by the motorist (a point on which many victims’ compensation claims founder, hence the need for strict liability in civil claims) they should fully appreciate the fact that in travelling around in some 1.5 tonnes or more of fast-moving steel, they are deploying a lethal weapon. You would not be forgiven for walking around with a loaded and unbroken shotgun if you let it go off. You shouldn’t expect any more sympathy if you mismanage a car.

  7. Carl Vincent says:

    although it’s not the tree’s fault, it’s not the car’s fault either.
    There’s only one party that in the story that could have any responsibility – and he’s only mentioned to say that he was unharmed…
    The car and tree were damaged when the man drove the car into the tree.

  8. Pingback: Inanimate object strikes again | As Easy As Riding A Bike

  9. Don says:

    I bet those bloody trees don’t have any training or third party insurance. They should be registered and forced to get a license. Bark-louts!

  10. Dave H says:

    Collision is perhaps the most neutral way to report there was a collision involving a cycle ridden by _ and a motor vehicle driven by _ or a collision between a motor vehicle being driven by _ and a tree which has been growing at the side of xx road for the past 40 years (you’d have though the driver would have noticed it)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s