bipedalconsumer

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

Metieval

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

tomato coupe

Sure, but which conveys more information?

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

sumgy

The one that doesn't dehumanize anyone.

Metieval

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!

tomato coupe

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.

Metieval

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

tomato coupe

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.

Metieval

typing skills,

Hermes

This thread is closed.