No, actually please stop with regurgitating weird language constructs.
Everybody knows that a car doesn’t drive itself (STFU Tesla fanboys, it doesn’t) and that a driver is responsible.
That, and yes, a vehicle DID hit them. It’s not like the driver stopped, got out and beat the shit out of the toddler, his car, driven by him (doh) hit the toddler and killed her.
No, its still passive voicing that intermediates between the actor and the act.
The vehicle struck the child
vs
The driver struck the child
is analgous to
The bullet struck the child
vs
The cop shot the child
EDIT:
With the active phrasing… you can just append a following clause to give more detail, and it flows naturally.
The driver struck the child [with the truck] , [unaware of their presence].
The cop shot the child [unintentionally] / [with their service pistol], [while pursuing a suspect].
These kinds of statements are active voiced, and also more fact/detail content heavy.
It is entirely possible to use active voicing and also be precise… you’re bending over backwards with your hyperbolic example.
The whole point of using passive voicing is that it works on the reader at a subconscious or subliminal level.
Yes, ‘everybody knows’ that a car doesn’t drive itself, but phrasing and vocabulary have always been key elements of propaganda, because only more literate, more critically analytic readers realize what is happening in a more conscious way.
But in this case it’s actually the vehicle that is the problem. These trucks are simply unsafe and shouldn’t exist. The blame is to be put on the car manufacturer. Of course the drivers are at fault but I bet they didn’t want to squish their kids. They bought a car, assuming it should be safe to drive.
It seems you may have misread the room. The problem here is not only the driver but also the fucking vehicle. This kind of vehicle should not be allowed to exist, because it’s inherently unsafe.
Yes. The car the person was in didn’t hit them. When it got close enough, it transformed. Then the person spiderman’d off their wheel (now 10ft in the air) and kicked the poor little girl.
If we want to be correct, a car doesn’t work like a gun. Bullets kill people. Guns shoot bullets and people shoot guns. Saying “Guns shoot people” or “people shoot people” isn’t a stretch.
When dealing with collisions, saying “the vehicle didn’t hit them, the person did” means the one hit never came into contact with the car.
Neither does a shooting victm come into contact with the gun or shooter. This is why the analogy works for guns and not cars.
That person was most definitely hit by a car. But today, like a hudered years ago and for the forseeable future, someone was driving that car. So yeah, they were hit by the drivier of the car. But they werem’t hit by the driver and not the car. Then they must’ve stopped driving and given the victim a run for their money with a baseball bat. Which, again, most definitely did hit them.
Putting the news site aside, you are in a community called “fuck cars”. We focus on the issue with big cars, not reckless drivers.
We point out how ridiculous it is that north america gives multi-ton death machines to 16 year olds, alcoholics, senile people, and everyone in between because you can’t take away peoples driving licenses when there is no alternative transportation.
If you are here looking for humans to hate, you should probably find a different community.
The vehicle didn’t hit them. A person driving the vehicle did. Stop with this regurgitation of passive police reports.
No, actually please stop with regurgitating weird language constructs.
Everybody knows that a car doesn’t drive itself (STFU Tesla fanboys, it doesn’t) and that a driver is responsible.
That, and yes, a vehicle DID hit them. It’s not like the driver stopped, got out and beat the shit out of the toddler, his car, driven by him (doh) hit the toddler and killed her.
No, its still passive voicing that intermediates between the actor and the act.
The vehicle struck the child
vs
The driver struck the child
is analgous to
The bullet struck the child
vs
The cop shot the child
EDIT:
With the active phrasing… you can just append a following clause to give more detail, and it flows naturally.
The driver struck the child [with the truck] , [unaware of their presence].
The cop shot the child [unintentionally] / [with their service pistol], [while pursuing a suspect].
These kinds of statements are active voiced, and also more fact/detail content heavy.
It is entirely possible to use active voicing and also be precise… you’re bending over backwards with your hyperbolic example.
The whole point of using passive voicing is that it works on the reader at a subconscious or subliminal level.
Yes, ‘everybody knows’ that a car doesn’t drive itself, but phrasing and vocabulary have always been key elements of propaganda, because only more literate, more critically analytic readers realize what is happening in a more conscious way.
But in this case it’s actually the vehicle that is the problem. These trucks are simply unsafe and shouldn’t exist. The blame is to be put on the car manufacturer. Of course the drivers are at fault but I bet they didn’t want to squish their kids. They bought a car, assuming it should be safe to drive.
Still, fuck the drivers too.
what a waste of time
Is what your parents said after they had sex to conceive you
smooth, not contrived at all
Read the room, Asshole, what the fuck is wrong with you?
It seems you may have misread the room. The problem here is not only the driver but also the fucking vehicle. This kind of vehicle should not be allowed to exist, because it’s inherently unsafe.
“9-year-old… hit by truck.” Someone should go have a talk with these trucks.
Yes. The car the person was in didn’t hit them. When it got close enough, it transformed. Then the person spiderman’d off their wheel (now 10ft in the air) and kicked the poor little girl.
If we want to be correct, a car doesn’t work like a gun. Bullets kill people. Guns shoot bullets and people shoot guns. Saying “Guns shoot people” or “people shoot people” isn’t a stretch.
When dealing with collisions, saying “the vehicle didn’t hit them, the person did” means the one hit never came into contact with the car.
Neither does a shooting victm come into contact with the gun or shooter. This is why the analogy works for guns and not cars.
That person was most definitely hit by a car. But today, like a hudered years ago and for the forseeable future, someone was driving that car. So yeah, they were hit by the drivier of the car. But they werem’t hit by the driver and not the car. Then they must’ve stopped driving and given the victim a run for their money with a baseball bat. Which, again, most definitely did hit them.
Putting the news site aside, you are in a community called “fuck cars”. We focus on the issue with big cars, not reckless drivers.
We point out how ridiculous it is that north america gives multi-ton death machines to 16 year olds, alcoholics, senile people, and everyone in between because you can’t take away peoples driving licenses when there is no alternative transportation.
If you are here looking for humans to hate, you should probably find a different community.