 You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
What is is with this habit of describing recent events, especially traffic accidents, using "has"? It seems to have infected the Police and anybody who wears a jobsworth flouro jacket.
For example "the car has gone through the wall" instead of "the car went through the wall". Even the Scottish Justice Secretary does it, making it worse by mixing the two forms:
"My understanding is that it appears that this car has come off the road at some point on Sunday and that a call was made to Police Scotland."
This is idiotic. It annoys me as much as idiots who make videos with their phones in portrait.
You're talking about the fact that they left a crashed car for three days, with one dead person and one critically injured person inside, and it's their use of the English language that you've picked up on?
Tsk.... yes of course that's a disgrace and a tragedy and needs a full investigation and somebody ought to swing. But I'm not discussing that incident, you may not have spotted it but I'm posting about misuse of the English language.
This is going to end well, isn't it.
The minute they open their mouths, you can be sure it's going to be something annoying. Bloody bizzies, bizzyin' around doing polis stuff.
"The accused has stopped throwing himself down the custody suite steps"
Yer Honer
Da FiveO be getting all up in yo grill and shit, blud?
It may bring you a little comfort to know that my DI and I had a ten minute discussion (not an argument), including the use of online grammar resources, to ensure we made the correct choice between 'less' and 'fewer' in a report we were writing last week.
Where has the world come too?
"Ello, 'ello, 'ello, what's all this then?" really gets my goat. Do they not have h's in the police force?
Also "Now then Sonny, pack that in" generally indicates that the evening in going to descend into a bit of a bummer all round.
There does always seem to be a tendency to use many more words and more formal language than is necessary. I noticed one of those "police filmed at work" shows where the officer explaining what they had done, said
"we proceeded to the location on foot"
which, to my mind, would have been much easier to explain by saying
"we walked there"
Is there an actual reason why they do this?
It may bring you a little comfort to know that my DI and I had a ten minute discussion (not an argument), including the use of online grammar resources, to ensure we made the correct choice between 'less' and 'fewer' in a report we were writing last week.
See? This is it.
This is kind of stuff they're bizzying around with instead of out solving crimes. Jaysus wept. 🙄
What do you think I was writing a report about? 🙂
On those Police programs when they raid somebody's house, and they try to make premises singular. "we are going to execute a warrant on the premise", what premise?
It my experience, the most annoying thing the police say is "your under arrest" 😀
It my experience, the most annoying thing the police say is "your under arrest"
No officer, that under arrest is definitely not mine, you try and prove otherwise...
And how many people would see an accident where a car left the road, and just ring up the police - especially when no one got out?
Surely they'd have either investigated or waited until the Police turned up - no doubt ring them after a while to find out where they were?
that use of "has" is footballer speak: "he's played the ball through and the other lad's smashed it into the back of the net as the keeper's tripped over his own feet". Really bizarre and makes my skin crawl.
Coppers using cod formal language is traditional, isn't it? "Hi was proceeding in a heasterly direction when I saw the haccused exiting from an 'ouse hadjacent to an 'ostelry" 😆
And how many people would see an accident where a car left the road, and just ring up the police - especially when no one got out?Surely they'd have either investigated or waited until the Police turned up - no doubt ring them after a while to find out where they were?
In their defence, my understanding (apologies if I've got this wrong) is that the incident happened on a motorway which imo makes it slightly different - it's drummed into everyone that the only thing you do on a motorway is drive along, then off it. You don't stop, pull over, wander about etc etc.
I don't think it's unreasonable for another vehicle (which may have been on the opposite carriageway, travelling in the opposite direction) to keep going and for a passenger to call it in to 999. I also don't think it's an unreasonable expectation that the caller would have that, having called it in, the emergency services would take responsibility for the "doing stuff" part thereafter.
How many cases have we all read about where "good samaritans" trying to help after an incident on a motorway have ended up becoming casualties themselves, as well as police and recovery drivers killed on hard shoulders?
And what if they were travelling in the same direction as the crashing car? Let's assume that they've gone past as it's happened - what are they to do next? Do they stop and reverse up the carriageway? Do they stop and do a three point turn and drive down the carriageway in the wrong direction to get back to the incident? Do they come off at the next junction, rejoin the motorway in the opposite direction, come off at the next junction, rejoin the carriageway in the same direction they originally travelled in and then look for the site of incident?
Or, maybe, they leave it to the professionals who, you might suppose, know what they're doing and are trained to deal with this kind of thing?
Or, maybe, they leave it to the professionals [b]who, you might suppose, know what they're doing[/b] and are trained to deal with this kind of thing?
It's that one tiny detail that seems to be in doubt, here.
One might come to the conclusion that a mere amateur might have done a significantly better job... 🙄
What do you think I was writing a report about?
Probably about fitting some geezer up for something he didn't do. 😛
Gold Star for you 🙂
He has got himself a gold star.
Woo!! 😀
You can't fight evolution, language isn't a preserved exhibit in a glass case. Differences that make no difference are no difference, and personally I'm happy to see them given exactly that much consideration.
The language has gone through teh change.
The language in the OP is similar to the increasing use of the passive voice. In the passive voice, no one is responsible. Shit just happened. The CPS love the passive voice.
The car having left the road is now "just there". No thought of just how the car left the road has been made. It is a benign statement of effect, with no reference to cause.
I've been watching "The Met" on telly. Far better than any fictional cop show but the profanities!!!!
Alpha papa charlie.. Can you tell me why I has just stopped you??
in the same direction as the crashing car? Let's assume that they've gone past as it's happened - what are they to do next? Do they stop and reverse up the carriageway? Do they stop and do a three point turn and drive down the carriageway in the wrong direction to get back to the incident? Do they come off at the next junction, rejoin the motorway in the opposite direction, come off at the next junction, rejoin the carriageway in the same direction they originally travelled in and then look for the site of incident?
Well, what I would do, and I would hope any DECENT human being would do, is pull over as soon as it is safe to do so, park safely on the hard shoulder and utilise my mark 1 legs to head to the site of the accident whilst using my mark 1 eyeballs to keep myself safe from potential dangers. I'd then actually KNOW what I was ringing 999 about rather than just being able to say "err, I think I maybe saw a car crash somewhere on the motorway probably, anyway good luck finding it, can't stop I've got a terribly important jujitsu appointment to be getting to." I appreciate that some people may not be confident enough to actually investigate but SURELY to god they can stop to provide emergency services with a concrete location. The amount of times I've driven up and down a stretch of road to reports of a crash only to find absolutely nothing would surprise people. The amount of folk who ring 999 just because there is a stationary vehicle in the hard shoulder is an eye opener. It's an abdication of the responsibility to be a decent human being because 'we've got people who do that for us'.
I don't know all of the details of the current sad case but I suspect that if the initial caller had actually investigated then it would likely not have panned out as it did.
Having been the witness to this sort of incident quite recently:
http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/just-witnessed-a-terrifying-rta
I can confidently say that it can be bloody hard to find a car that's gone airborne through a hedge even if you see it and go looking. If the witness was going in the opposite direction on a dual carriageway and just phoned in a description I can understand how this tragic set of events came about.
This is going to end well, isn't it.
Maybe, but it should end with a question mark.
So Northwind are you saying that English has reached the menopause ? Great metaphor.
good luck with that. Hard shoulders are dangerous places to be.park safely on the hard shoulder and utilise my mark 1 legs to head to the site of the accident whilst using my mark 1 eyeballs to keep myself safe from potential dangers.
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22651108 ]bbc say[/url] ~800 casualties pa
[url= http://www.safermotorways.co.uk/statistics/ ]safermotorways[/url](?) say ~1500 pa
good luck with that. Hard shoulders are dangerous places to be.
I am well aware of that, thank you. But the risks are mitigable, by, for example, walking on the ground away from the carriageway where possible, keeping a close eye on approaching traffic and other common sense methods. It is after all, a patch of ground that traffic drives past, NOT quicksand, lava or shark infested custard.
However, using that as a reason to not stop and help a fellow human being who is in the CONSIDERABLY more hostile environment of a bent and mangled car in a ditch is just pathetic and cowardly. (IMHO, of course).
yes and possibly. I wasn't making a statement on the latter merely reiterating that they are dangerous places. I doubt those 800-1500pa people are having fun and games on the HS, presumably quite a few of them also use their mk1 eyes and mk1 legs to try be careful but still sadly ended up as casualty statistics.NOT quicksand, lava or shark infested custard.However using that as a reason to not stop and help a fellow human being who is in the CONSIDERABLY more hostile environment of a bent and mangled car in a ditch is just pathetic and cowardly.
Knock knock.
Who's there?
Irish Stew.
Irish Stew who?
Irish Stew in the name of the law!
8)
(coat already on)
Can we please stop calling them 'accidents' or 'RTA'?
Don't you know that it is a 'collision' or 'RTC' and nothing in the world of the police ever happens by accident.
Bloody bollox...
In my travels if I have seen an RTC or accident on the motorway,I always pull in on the hard shoulder and report from the nearest SOS phone.
Most times the operator has said thanks we have got the incident on camera now.
I have mobile phone hands free on board but always advised to report from the SOS as they give location to control room staff.
Like others using the motorways I have seen plenty of incidents,especially being on 24 hr call at times.
Knock knock.
Who's there?Irish Stew.
Irish Stew who?
Irish Stew in the name of the law!
(coat already on)
Knock Knock
Who's there?
Justice
Justice Who?
Justice as well you've got your coat
The accident happened at 0300/0400 according to the info on the bbc website. Not a lot of people around, pitch dark, and the bank beside the road at that bit of the M9 is treelined and steep. I don't blame a passer-by for not getting out and looking, I am super-paranoid and carry a torch, hi-vis and walking boots in the car, but that's just me.
I do think Police Scotland have a fair bit of explaining to do, but we don't know all the facts at this stage.
Not a lot of people around, pitch dark, and the bank beside the road at that bit of the M9 is treelined and steep. I don't blame a passer-by for not getting out and looking
Maybe a reason not to investigate, depending on the abilities of the caller, but the importance of stopping and clarifying the location of what they saw to attending responders is massively heightened in the situation you describe.
The BBC story said yesterday that a call had been received about it, but no officers sent. If that's correct then that's a control room error/matter. I would expect someone to be sent to check the area following a call like that - it's a regular occurrence.
This is something that irks me something rotten when we watch Motorway Cops or something. Why don't they speak English? I am on Northwind's side with the "language evolves" stuff but the way they talk is almost unintelligible. It's clearly stupid people (referring only to the ones on the show, not all police, obvs) trying to sound clever.
I'd imagine that more likely is that someone driving past noticed a car in the trees and presumably thought that it would have been dealt with previously. Hence they called 101 or whatever it is rather than 999.
Terrible situation, seems the person that received the info either ignored it or thought "I'll sort that in 2 mins after I finish this cuppa............................ahhhh, now where was I?"
Either way, not good. You'd also have to say incredibly unlucky of the occupants for this all to happen.
If I'd seen an accident, I would pull over in the hard shoulder and walk/run back as far away from the road as possible whilst phoning 999. Seems though that there wasn't a crash barrier where this happened, just a drop down a bank into trees.
I thought it was probably someone seeing it leave the road and phoning in, but the car then coming to rest out of sight of the road, explaining why they didn't get any more calls about it, which IME is what normally happens. Just my guess though.
EDIT Looks like the wrong guess
We know that just prior to 11.30am on Sunday 5th July 2015 a member of the public contacted Police Scotland via the 101 system to report that they could see a vehicle down an embankment near the M9 slip road at Bannockburn.All callers to 101 receive an electronic options menu. This call was answered within 6 seconds following that message by an experienced officer and the relevant details were given by the caller.
For reasons yet to be established this call was not entered onto our police systems and not actioned out to operational teams in the Stirling area to respond and trace the vehicle.
Shortly before 10am on 8th July 2015 a second call was made to Police Scotland via the 101 system. This call was answered, recorded and allocated to operational teams who located Mr Yuill and Ms Bell within their car.
Chief Constable's statement
You can't fight evolution, language isn't a preserved exhibit in a glass case. Differences that make no difference are no difference, and personally I'm happy to see them given exactly that much consideration.The language has gone through teh change.
There was an interesting debate recently about an underground silo for storing nuclear waste in Finland regarding what signage /warnings / symbols to put on and in the facility, and particularly what language they should be in - the bunker has been designed to last for 100,000 years. Finnish language has only been around for 3500 years, English is only about 1500 years old and the bunker will last twice as long as the whole history of all 'modern human behaviour' let alone language so what message would remain legible for 100,000 years?
'Totes radioactive!!!!1111one11. Soz. Loooool'