That's right. That's why "Cyclist Killed by Truck" is sufficient. The primary goal of headlines is to be short and to the point.

How about "Dentist killed by Soccer Mom"? "Landscaper runs over cycling schoolteacher" ? Lots of ways both parties in a story can be represented by a person and not imbalanced where only one is a type of person, the other is a type of vehicle.

"Cyclist killed by drunk driver" and "cyclist killed by runaway truck" imply vastly different kinds of things - one puts criminal guilt squarely on a driver who may not even have been convicted, while the other actively seeks to absolve a driver (the truck just ran away...) who may yet be charged with criminal negligence or manslaughter

Person on bicycle killed by person not in control of car.

The occupation of the perpetrator or the victim is not usually considered noteworthy enough to be headline-worthy. An exception might be something like "Cyclist Killed by Senator" or "Judge Killed on Bicycle". But, those are all much different from a headline of the type, "Cyclist Killed by a Person Driving a Truck", which contains information that is unnecessary.



Yes, those hypothetical headlines are different, as they contain additional information that likely would be considered important and headline-worthy.


My only point is that you don't see headlines like "Cyclist Killed by a Person Driving a Truck" because headlines are meant to short and to-the-point, and they only contain the most important information. It has nothing to do with media bias, as suggested earlier.

In some way or other it seems that drivers have always been given a special benefit of the doubt when operating big deadly machines - I suppose you never needed specialized training to ride a horse either

There is probably a strongly reasonable argument for suspending drivers license after one or two "accidents"

But I guess barring a person from driving is considered (and often is) a huge imposition, especially in America

"Cyclist killed by Driver" is short and to the point also.

Sure, but which conveys more information?

"Cyclist Killed by Driver" or "Cyclist Killed by Truck"

The one that doesn't dehumanize anyone.

well a truck doesn't kill anyone ever. A person driving it can kill someone. A person being negligent in parking it can lead to the possibility of it rolling.

The way you argue it, drunk drivers don't kill people either, because their truck did?

I just want truthful information. Thanks!

No one is arguing that trucks, by themselves, kill people. If a headline reads "Cyclist Killed by Truck", the implication is that the cyclist was killed by a truck while being driven by someone. It doesn't imply the truck was responsible, the truck was driverless, or the truck fell out of the sky and landed on the cyclist.

Not at all. If a cyclist is killed by a drunk driver, the headline likely would be "Cyclist Killed by Drunk Driver". That conveys the most important detail.

I thought you likes short and to the point?

"Drunk driver kills cyclist"

4 words vs 6 words.

If you are going to set standards, then hold yourself to the standards you set!!! Please. Enough with the wishy washy BS

Sure, that's better. (But your counting skills need some work.)

I'm not trying to set any standards. I'm using hypothetical headlines to illustrate a point.

typing skills, ;)

This thread is closed.