SCV Talk · Archive
Nine years of the Valley’s town square · 2006–2015
SCV Talk
January 10, 2012· scvtalk.com · WordPress (SCVTalk 3.0) · Wayback capture

Passive voice and the Free Agency of SCV Cars

By Jeff — Jeff Wilson

In car-friendly and ped-hostile SCV, driving people never collide with walking people, instead, walking people are simply hit by cars, which have their own agency and free will. To wit:

Two women hit by a car outside Mimi’s Cafe in Valencia today were taken to a hospital with minor injuries, while the 9-month-old baby in a stroller with them emerged uninjured, a sheriff’s spokesman said.

At 2:14 p.m., a car collided with two adult women, pushing the stroller with a baby in it through the intersection of Magic Mountain Parkway and Auto Center Drive between Mimi’s and the Westfield Valencia Town Center mall, said Lt. Tom Bryski of the Santa Clarita Valley Sheriff’s Station.

“The two female adults were slightly injured but the baby in the stroller was uninjured,” he said.

The women were treated at Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital.

“Basically, what happened was one female hit by the car was pushing the stroller, so that when she fell, she pushed the stroller forward and the baby fell out of the stroller,” said one local firefighter who responded to the scene of the collision.

“A car collided,” “the two women were hit by a car,” “one female hit by the car,” and so on. We see this kind of language used all the time in Signal and Sheriff’s reports about car-on-ped or bike accidents in the SCV. They always use the passive voice (the women were hit by the car) or they imply the car had free-agency and decided to hit the women on its own accord (the car collided).

Let’s look at this story once again as it should have been written:

A driver of a silver Mercedes SUV struck two women pushing a 9 month old in a stroller at a crosswalk in Valencia Monday, Sheriff’s officials report. The two women, who suffered minor injuries, were treated at the scene and transported to Henry Mayo Hospital. The infant was uninjured in the collision, which occurred at the intersection of Magic Mountain Parkway and Auto Center Drive.

“Basically, what happened was one female hit by the car was pushing the stroller, so that when she fell, she pushed the stroller forward and the baby fell out of the stroller,” said a firefighter on the scene.

*insert text about how the investigation is continuing, which doesn’t matter anyway, because we all know there will never be a follow-up*

See how that works so much better? When it’s written the first way, I get a little nervous that there are rogue, angry cars in the SCV that randomly strike people crossing the street. When it’s written the correct way, I realize now that it was the driver of the Mercedes who struck the woman with her car, not her car acting independently of human control.

Don’t get me wrong, I think reporting on such incidents has improved somewhat. A year or two ago, the lede might have been “Two women were accidentally hit by a car while obstructing traffic in a crosswalk.” At least they’ve dropped the word “accident” and replaced it with the more accurate “collision,” but still, please drop the passive voice and stop implying that cars are free agents in these kinds of stories. Thank you.

Comments (51)

  1. spineflower2January 10, 2012 at 10:30 am
    I disagree; your wuggested wording in not correct, either: “A driver of a silver Mercedes SUV struck two women…” This wording states the driver struck the women. This sounds like an attack, presumably with his fists, since there is no mentoin of what weapon he used (the car). There is also an implication of intent, since it does not mention that it was an accident. I think most readers would conclude a man slugged a women in an intentional attack, far from the real situation.
  2. JeffJanuary 10, 2012 at 11:21 am
    “I think most readers would conclude a man slugged a women in an intentional attack, far from the real situation.” In which case the Signal would report that “a fist collided with two women” right?
  3. spineflower2January 10, 2012 at 11:55 am
    LOL!
  4. NateJanuary 10, 2012 at 10:35 am
    The intersections around the mall are very dangerous.
  5. brookJanuary 10, 2012 at 3:48 pm
    I agree – I walk across McBean at Town Center at least once a day during the week. At least half the time the drivers waiting to turn onto McBean from Town Center are inching up on me and rushing in front or behind me before I even physically get out of their lane they want to turn into.
  6. MikeJanuary 10, 2012 at 11:38 am
    I’ll need to chew on this. I’ve been in two serious accidents in my life, and here’s how I would generally describe them: A: In 1994, while jaywalking across Lyons, I was hit by a car. B: In 1982, while riding with my father, we were hit by a drunk driver. A was my fault, B was the drunk driver’s fault. I’m still the target of the action, but the “doer” is a value judgement, for the most part, though we’re probably more likely to ascribe the action to the driver if it’s known who the driver is. A dog escapes into the next neighborhood, and it was hit by a car, but the dog on my street was run over by my neighbor. If someone is crossing a crosswalk and everything else is kosher, much less two people, and much less with a baby, I’d say they were hit by a driver. And no, I don’t think anyone would read it and conclude that a driver hit them by some other means. By labeling the person a “driver”, unless it’s their occupation, you are implying that they were driving. Clear as day, as far as I’m concerned.
  7. AlpinerJanuary 10, 2012 at 11:57 am
    Jeff, the original version is fine and means just what it says. If you start playing around with the grammar you dig yourself into a deeper hole.
  8. NateJanuary 10, 2012 at 12:10 pm
    Who cares… this is like the Tea Baggers worrying about Illegal Immigrant vs. Illegal ALIEN. It isn’t the job of news papers to place blame or interpret what someone meant. Jeff you get like this every time there is Gun violence or someone gets hurt in a “accident” or as you would say a “car collision.”
  9. JeffJanuary 10, 2012 at 12:25 pm
    Unless the driver had a heart attack, stroke or some other medical condition, there is no such thing as a “car accident,” only collisions involving negligence or malice. As far as I know, there were no 20 something blonde women involved in this incident so I expect you not to get too upset about it.
  10. NateJanuary 10, 2012 at 12:50 pm
    Here let me help you will a definition of accident 1. an undesirable or unfortunate happening that occurs unintentionally and usually results in harm, injury, damage, or loss; casualty; mishap: automobile accidents. 2. Law . such a happening resulting in injury that is in no way the fault of the injured person for which compensation or indemnity is legally sought. 3. any event that happens unexpectedly, without a deliberate plan or cause. 4. chance; fortune; luck: I was there by accident. 5. a fortuitous circumstance, quality, or characteristic: an accident of birth.
  11. MikeJanuary 10, 2012 at 12:57 pm
    When cars collide, there is usually an intentional antecedent, e.g. speeding, following too closely, not using a signal, drinking too much, etc. There are genuine accidents, such as a car spinning out of control because a nail in the road punctured its tire. Hitting a pedestrian in a crosswalk in broad daylight? Probably not.
  12. Mr PerezJanuary 10, 2012 at 6:54 pm
    So under this definition if I fire a hand gun at you with simply the intent to scare you, but in turn kill you instead, is this is an accident?
  13. LindaJanuary 10, 2012 at 12:56 pm
    Sometimes the negligence is on the part of the pedestrian. Darting across the street against the red light or out from between parked cars would be examples of that. But in this case, the German luxury car was most likely traveling too fast…
  14. NateJanuary 10, 2012 at 1:30 pm
    The smell of that sweet speculation.
  15. LindaJanuary 10, 2012 at 2:09 pm
    Not really. The Signal is now reporting the driver was a “Saugus woman” and that she was cited…. http://www.the-signal.com/section/36/article/57724/
  16. JeffJanuary 10, 2012 at 2:43 pm
    Wow. You can literally run people over in this town and all you get is a ticket?
  17. aolstillexistsJanuary 10, 2012 at 3:51 pm
    Not just this town but any town. If your not under the influence but simply fail to yield that’s all the law allows. Of course the pedestrians can sue the driver for medical costs, etc…
  18. NateJanuary 10, 2012 at 3:51 pm
    California Vehicle Code 21950(a)… not Santa Clarita Vehicle Code 21950(a) I really hope for your sake you never make a mistake behind the wheel of a car.
  19. The Venturan formerly known as NDJanuary 10, 2012 at 9:53 pm
    It doesn’t excuse the driver from civil liability .
  20. NateJanuary 10, 2012 at 3:48 pm
    ‘failure to yield’ = “most likely traveling too fast” FAIL
  21. LindaJanuary 10, 2012 at 6:36 pm
    Someone who fails to yield is, by definition, traveling too fast, i.e. they are traveling when they should be stopping. But you keep reading the dictionary and I’m sure you’ll understand it eventually.
  22. ThomasJanuary 10, 2012 at 9:00 pm
    Oh boy Linda, here you go again. So if I am traveling westbound new hall ranch road to northbound mcbean at 5 mph and I don’t yield, this is too fast? Again, we know why you are only a paralegal. Stop trying to act like you know the law. PLEASE.
  23. LindaJanuary 10, 2012 at 10:44 pm
    Thomas, when someone is required to yield the right of way to pedestrians and doesn’t, they are, by definition, going too fast. So if there were pedestrians in the crosswalk in your example, and your car failed to yield the right of way to them, you would be going too fast. In the context of traffic laws, yield means to slow or stop to allow another vehicle to proceed ahead of you. http://definitions.uslegal.com/y/yield/ Maybe you can ask one of your five children to explain it to you. Perhaps they can also explain capitalization of proper names.
  24. aolstillexistsJanuary 11, 2012 at 9:08 am
    Sorry but the dictionary is not the authority on driving and the California Vehicle Code. Failure to Yield means failure to yield. It does not mean travelling too fast. If the vehicle was travelling to fast then the Sheriff would have written a ticket to the driver for CVC22350 which is unsafe speed for the prevailing conditions.
  25. NateJanuary 11, 2012 at 1:50 pm
    Whoa can I play the game? We can turn anything into “likely traveling too fast” Person gets cited for an open container; obviously they were traveling too fast because they should have been traveling at zero miles an hour. Person gets cited a fix it ticket for a cracked windshield; obviously they were traveling too fast because they should have been traveling at zero miles an hour.
  26. LindaJanuary 10, 2012 at 12:15 pm
    It should read “struck by a Mercedes driven by [insert name or description here].” What is noticeably missing from the article is the name or description of the driver. And why is it missing?
  27. JeffJanuary 10, 2012 at 12:23 pm
    What is noticeably missing from the article is the name or description of the driver. And why is it missing? Because cars in the SCV involved in collisions are sentient beings, capable of great destruction and harm, duh
  28. spineflower2January 10, 2012 at 1:55 pm
    …or it was a prominent public official or a peace officer.
  29. aolstillexistsJanuary 10, 2012 at 3:53 pm
    Its not relevant to the story. Identifying her as a female is not even relevant. The description of the driver did not cause the accident. It was the action.
  30. ScottEJanuary 10, 2012 at 4:06 pm
    Did she have any tattoos? 0__0
  31. LindaJanuary 10, 2012 at 6:23 pm
    That has to be one of the dumbest statements I’ve ever read here on SCVTalk. And you left the apostrophe out of “its.”
  32. ThomasJanuary 10, 2012 at 9:01 pm
    Does that include all the statements you have ever posted?
  33. aolstillexistsJanuary 11, 2012 at 8:58 am
    Sorry…But I am writing on a blog site that is informal so mistakes will happen with grammar. I do not purport to be a grammar expert. While you claim my statement is the dumbest thing you’ve ever read on SCVTalk, the only thing you can say about it is that I left an apostrophe out. That is a weak argument in my opinion. I am really interested why you think it is a dumb statement. By adding her name, what does it add to the story? It does not add anything useful to the article. If they add the driver’s name, why not the two women who were hit as well as the 9-month old baby. Should the signal report every collision that occurs in the City and report their names?
  34. MikeJanuary 10, 2012 at 12:18 pm
    Amateur observations to follow: questions o passive voice aside, I’m not on board with some of the short hand in your revision, e.g. “9 month old”, “on the scene” “Henry Mayo Hospital”. I also think your sentences and paragraphs would too dense for a newspaper article, which need to breathe a little bit. Plus I think it’s OK to quote the officer, especially since it’s an assessment/conclusion. Better to quote the cop than to draw the conclusion yourself, especially if you don’t have enough information to draw that conclusion yourself.
  35. JeffJanuary 10, 2012 at 12:37 pm
    On the first point, noted. I didn’t have my AP style book with me, 9 month old is probably not correct and I don’t know when “toddler-hood” starts so I couldn’t call the baby a toddler. On the density point, I beg to differ. It’s the lede, it’s intended to capture close to the full story in a single sentence because readers don’t often have time to dig into the paragraphs below. Or at least that’s how I learned it in my journalism class. Maybe you’re just accustomed to the Signal which, lately, hasn’t had very good ledes? Also I didn’t quote the cop cause I hate writing posts over 500 words (see the information density argument above)
  36. MikeJanuary 10, 2012 at 12:52 pm
    I like a dense lead, but it should be proportionate to the story, if that makes sense. Encapsulate, then put the smaller bits further down for those who want to keep reading. I think your lead would fit an article where there’s a lot more to be told. Speaking of word counts, my “brief” yesterday was over 800 words, which is absurd. And to be clear, I don’t think the rules and conventions of newspaper reporting are all that useful outside of a newspaper, so I was only commenting in that context. (and not that I know much about that, either)
  37. spineflower2January 10, 2012 at 2:01 pm
    Don’t expect proper ledes or even the basic “inverted triangle” structure to be present in modern journalism, or the pale imitation of same that is in most local papers today. I can’t tell you how many articles madden me by withholding crucial information like location or date until late in the story (or perhaps omitting them entirely!). I actually blame editors, as well as writers, for these oversights. When a story is cut down to fit a proper story should be able to be cropped from the bottom up (writer’s duty), but a proofread of the result should be done (by the editor).
  38. Lori RivasJanuary 10, 2012 at 1:21 pm
    Per Stephen King, in _On Writing: a memoir of the craft_ (p123), “I think timid writers like (passive verbs) for the same reason timid lovers like passive partners. The passive voice is safe. There is no troublesome action to contend with; the subject just has to close its eyes and think of England, to paraphrase Queen Victoria. I think unsure writers also feel the passive voice somehow lends their work authority, perhaps even a quality of majesty…the timid fellow writes (in the passive voice) because that somehow says to him, ‘put it this way and people will believe you really know.’ Purge this quisling thought! Don’t be a muggle! Throw back your shoulders, stick out your chin, and (use the active voice! Don’t you feel better?”
  39. Lori RivasJanuary 10, 2012 at 1:22 pm
    Just happened to read that bit last night…in a book borrowed from COLAPL.
  40. Saugus SplasherJanuary 10, 2012 at 1:47 pm
    The book “On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft” by Stephen King Is an excellent read. It is of course available locally through the Santa Clarita Public Library.
  41. LarMccJanuary 11, 2012 at 1:08 am
    And it only cost us how many millions?
  42. JeffJanuary 10, 2012 at 1:48 pm
    Lori Rivas wins the internet with that quote
  43. Lori RivasJanuary 10, 2012 at 10:55 pm
    As winner of the Internet, my first act will be to privatize the whole shebang, and rent it out, in pieces, to make maximum profit. Muah hahaha!
  44. spineflower2January 10, 2012 at 2:08 pm
    Agreed. It is far more effective (not to say, more satisfying) to forego the passive voice “it is desirable that you will have fornicated by someone” in favor of a good, old-fashioned, active, declarative “F*** YOU!”
  45. JaneJanuary 10, 2012 at 3:38 pm
    See this all the time and The Signal is the primary (but by no means, only) offender. The car lost control. The car went over the side of the road. As you state, makes it seem as though the cars were operating on their own.
  46. SeanJanuary 10, 2012 at 3:54 pm
    Let me start this comment by stating that I’m not usually picky about the passive voice, but I did want to address some of your points. You put the phrase “the two women were hit by a car,” in quotation marks, yet I see no corresponding phrase in the story. I do see “Two women hit by a car,” in which the phrase “hit by a car” is used as a reduced relative clause. The passive voice (“were taken”) is used, but not in the manner you suggest.
  47. PattyJanuary 11, 2012 at 8:48 am
    A woman in a luxury SUV hit two women Monday as they crossed a busy Valencia intersection while pushing a baby in a stroller. (Make and color of car aren’t critical to story.) The 9-month-old, thrown from the stroller, was uninjured and the two pedestrians were treated for minor injuries at Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital. The driver of the silver Mercedes SUV reportedly drove through the crosswalk at 1:40 p.m. at Magic Mountain Parkway and Auto Center Drive. (Time/place. “Intersection of” is redundant.) “Basically, what happened was one female hit by the car was pushing the stroller, so that when she fell, she pushed the stroller forward and the baby fell out of the stroller,” said a firefighter on the scene.
  48. JeffJanuary 11, 2012 at 8:52 am
    Nice.
  49. Phil EllisJanuary 11, 2012 at 10:19 am
    Just out of curiosity, has anybody’s understanding of this incident been improved by all the alternate versions?
  50. JeffJanuary 11, 2012 at 10:37 am
    Clarity & precision is important in language. There’s an entire industry of people whose careers involve precision in language, we call them lawyers.
  51. Phil EllisJanuary 11, 2012 at 1:30 pm
    Amongst other names

Preserved as part of the SCV Talk Archive. Text is presented as originally published; presentation has been standardised for readability. The original capture is available at the Internet Archive.

Support