:-( Hope the person is ok
It would be interesting to know whether the cyclist collided with the car, or the car collided with the cyclist. There is a vast difference between the two, like "Who is the agent, and who is the patient?" (Grammatical terms, but very significant.)
Media reporting almost always assumes that the cyclist is the agent, not the recipient of the collision.
In the absense of definite evidence one way or the other, the reports should be neutral: "There was a collision between a motor vehicle and a cyclist..." Even the order of terms here could be taken to imply some sort of judgement as to cause or responsibility.
Police news was slightly differently worded
Police are at the scene of a serious crash at Salisbury Plain involving a car and a cyclist.
About 7.45am, police and emergency services were called to Saints Road near Willochra Road after reports that a car and bicycle had collided.
whereas the Advertiser has
A CYCLIST has been seriously injured after colliding with a car at Salisbury Plain this morning.
About 7.45am, police and emergency services were called to Saints Rd near Willochra Rd after reports of a crash between a car and bicycle.
Hope the cyclist is OK.
I guess that comes across like I'm not concerned about the driver. Hope they are OK as well. Just assuming they probably are from the report.
Don't be too concerned for the driver, he's been arrested for various serious offences.
Both could be true. For example (I have no idea of the specific circumstances of the collision that precipitated this thread, and hope that all involved will recover soon), if a car pulls out from the terminating road of a tee-junction and the driver's door is the point that makes contact with the front wheel of the bike, then technically the bike collided with the car, but the rider may not be the agent of the collision.
Was thinking the same.
Had a google streetview look at the intersection where this cyclist collided with the car, and I struggle to see how the cyclist could have collided with the car, or be at fault. If the cyclist was on the side roads, I fail to see how they could have collided with a car, unless crossing over the main road and misjudging their speed. Any which way the cyclist was on the main road, and collided with a car, or the car collided with the cyclist, the car driver would be at fault, unless the cyclist was riding erratic across the road.
Hope (s)he is ok.
A teenage driver has been arrested following a serious crash this morning that has left a cyclist in a critical condition in hospital.
At 7.45am on Sunday 22 October, a Mitsubishi sedan travelling south-east on Saints Road collided with a cyclist travelling in the same direction, near Willochra Road at Salisbury Plain.
The cyclist, a 62-year-old man from Salisbury sustained serious head injuries and was rushed to the Royal Adelaide Hospital where he remains a critical condition.
Major Crash investigators who attended the scene to examine the circumstances surrounding the crash have arrested the alleged driver of the Mitsubishi, a 18-year-old man from Smithfield and charged him with cause serious injury by dangerous driving, drink driving, after he allegedly returned a blood alcohol reading of 0.091, aggravated driving without due care and driving while disqualified.
The arrested man has been refused police and will appear in the Elizabeth Magistrates Court tomorrow.
Anyone with information on the crash is asked to contact Crime Stoppers on 1800 333 000.
All local roads in the vicinity of the crash were reopened to traffic at about 1pm.
I can't see any alternative than custodial sentences for people who drive when disqualified. Otherwise what is the point of disqualifying them ?
custodial sentencing, exactly what my wife said as I was reading her the update.
I think massive fines might work. And for people who cause serious injury through negligent driving, I'd like to see the fines ongoing, like a percentage of income for 5-10 years (subject to some minimum to stop them cheating the system), along with license disqualified for at least than long.
I don't see the point of locking people up (at huge taxpayer cost) when there are much more cost effective options.
The people who do these sorts of things often don't have the capacity to pay massive fines.
*IF* he was driving while disqualified because it was the only available way to get to work, I might have some sympathy, but the rest of the charges suggest that flagrant disregard for the law is a more likely interpretation (noting that we don't know why he was disqualified from driving in the first place).
No amount of fines will stop some people, or deter others. I get angry at situations like these, where people get seriously injured or die because of the stupidity, disregard, or recklessness of others. Fines just aren't enough.
I hope the cyclist pulls through.