Bizarre Battersea tow-truck - bus - bridge accident
 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7285085.stm

Except from the BBC news story:

quote
A tow-truck has overturned following an accident with a double-decker
bus under a railway bridge in south London.

The accident in Battersea Park Road [...] happened as the truck tried
to go under the bridge with its extended towing arm at about 1010 GMT.

The arm caught the bottom of the bridge resulting in it tilting on to
the oncoming number 345 bus, police said.

The bus, which was left leaning over, had 30 passengers onboard at the
time. None of the passengers were hurt.

No other injuries were reported.

[continues...]
/quote


Despite the BBC story currently saying that this happened in
Kennington it quite clearly didn't - it was in Battersea, the bridge
being that which carries the West London Line between Chelsea (i.e.
West Brompton, the Cremorne [rail] Bridge over the Thames) and Clapham
Junction (or indeed the "Ludgate" or "City lines" to Factory
Junctionand beyond, or the Sheepcote Lane curve towards Waterloo).

The bridge in question is at the centre of this street map:
http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.sr...&y=176412&ar=N

It would seem that this didn't disrupt rail services much, so
presumably the bridge is undamaged, in contrast to the 30 bus
passengers' somewhat damaged peace of mind, especially those on the
top deck!

Bizarre Battersea tow-truck - bus - bridge accident
 

On 8 Mar, 19:20, Mizter T wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7285085.stm

Except from the BBC news story:

quote
A tow-truck has overturned following an accident with a double-decker
bus under a railway bridge in south London.

The accident in Battersea Park Road [...] happened as the truck tried
to go under the bridge with its extended towing arm at about 1010 GMT.

The arm caught the bottom of the bridge resulting in it tilting on to
the oncoming number 345 bus, police said.

The bus, which was left leaning over, had 30 passengers onboard at the
time. None of the passengers were hurt.

No other injuries were reported.

[continues...]
/quote

Despite the BBC story currently saying that this happened in
Kennington it quite clearly didn't - it was in Battersea, the bridge
being that which carries the West London Line between Chelsea (i.e.
West Brompton, the Cremorne [rail] Bridge over the Thames) and Clapham
Junction (or indeed the "Ludgate" or "City lines" to Factory
Junctionand beyond, or the Sheepcote Lane curve towards Waterloo).

The bridge in question is at the centre of this street map:http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.sr...&y=176412&ar=N

It would seem that this didn't disrupt rail services much, so
presumably the bridge is undamaged, in contrast to the 30 bus
passengers' somewhat damaged peace of mind, especially those on the
top deck!

Yes i live five minutes away and was driving down the road just after
it happened. The truck must have just glanced the top of the bridge
and tipped over into the bus. The bus took quite a bit of damage from
the lifting arm but luckily it smashed into the stair section where no
one was at the time. Nobody was taken to hospital but a couple were
treated at the scene.

Initially it looked like a car had been crushed between the truck and
the bus but the truck in question was a TFL lift and remove truck for
parking on red routes etc. Would be a bit of a shock for the owner
when they went to claim it. Where is my car? Ahh there is a bit of a
problem sir - its been written off. M reg so not much to pay out!

Bizarre Battersea tow-truck - bus - bridge accident
 

"Mizter T" wrote in message
...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7285085.stm

Except from the BBC news story:

quote
A tow-truck has overturned following an accident with a double-decker
bus under a railway bridge in south London.

The accident in Battersea Park Road [...] happened as the truck tried
to go under the bridge with its extended towing arm at about 1010 GMT.

The arm caught the bottom of the bridge resulting in it tilting on to
the oncoming number 345 bus, police said.

The bus, which was left leaning over, had 30 passengers onboard at the
time. None of the passengers were hurt.

No other injuries were reported.

[continues...]
/quote

Shocking story. Mainly because it should be, "None of the passengers WAS
hurt."
The standards of journalism today. Bah!

Bizarre Battersea tow-truck - bus - bridge accident
 

Graculus wrote:
"Mizter T" wrote in message
...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7285085.stm

Except from the BBC news story:

quote
A tow-truck has overturned following an accident with a double-decker
bus under a railway bridge in south London.

The accident in Battersea Park Road [...] happened as the truck tried
to go under the bridge with its extended towing arm at about 1010
GMT. The arm caught the bottom of the bridge resulting in it tilting on
to
the oncoming number 345 bus, police said.

The bus, which was left leaning over, had 30 passengers onboard at
the time. None of the passengers were hurt.

No other injuries were reported.

[continues...]
/quote

Shocking story. Mainly because it should be, "None of the passengers
WAS hurt."
The standards of journalism today. Bah!

Today's journalists are only following their predecessors from the 9th
century onwards, who have used both singular and plural verbs after "none
of". See 'Modern English Usage' and many other authorities.

--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

Bizarre Battersea tow-truck - bus - bridge accident
 

On Mar 8, 9:20 pm, "Graculus"
wrote:
Mainly because it should be, "None of the passengers WAS
hurt."

Since when? "were" is the plural form, passengers is plural.

B2003

Bizarre Battersea tow-truck - bus - bridge accident
 

On 10 Mar, 11:45, Boltar wrote:
Since when? "were" is the plural form, passengers is plural.

But the subject of the verb is "none" rather than "passengers", and
grammar pedants think "none" is singular. answers.com has a nice Usage
Note denying this:

http://www.answers.com/none

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London

Bizarre Battersea tow-truck - bus - bridge accident
 

In article
,
Boltar wrote:

On Mar 8, 9:20 pm, "Graculus"
wrote:
Mainly because it should be, "None of the passengers WAS
hurt."

Since when? "were" is the plural form, passengers is plural.

Because none is (arguably) singular.

Sam

Bizarre Battersea tow-truck - bus - bridge accident
 

On 10 Mar, 12:06, Sam Wilson wrote:
In article
,

*Boltar wrote:
On Mar 8, 9:20 pm, "Graculus"
wrote:
Mainly because it should be, "None of the passengers WAS
hurt."

Since when? "were" is the plural form, passengers is plural.

Because none is (arguably) singular.

Consider oranges ...

If you said "several oranges", "three oranges", "fifty oranges" or a
"couple of oranges", you'd be referring to the individual oranges, so
you'd use "were" afterwards.

If you said "a box of oranges", most likely it's the box you are
referring to, so you'd say "was" (ie picking up a box is not the same
as picking up many individual oranges).

In the "none" case, it's not really a strictly grammatical issue; it's
whether you are considering the individual passengers or a unit
container of passengers. Is the meaning on the lines of "a none of
passengers ..."?

I doubt it, so I think that the plural is fine. There is no word
"nany", so "none" has to stand for "not one" and "not any".

Bizarre Battersea tow-truck - bus - bridge accident
 

In article
,
MIG wrote:

On 10 Mar, 12:06, Sam Wilson wrote:
In article
,

*Boltar wrote:
On Mar 8, 9:20 pm, "Graculus"
wrote:
Mainly because it should be, "None of the passengers WAS
hurt."

Since when? "were" is the plural form, passengers is plural.

Because none is (arguably) singular.

Consider oranges ...

If you said "several oranges", "three oranges", "fifty oranges" or a
"couple of oranges", you'd be referring to the individual oranges, so
you'd use "were" afterwards.

If you said "a box of oranges", most likely it's the box you are
referring to, so you'd say "was" (ie picking up a box is not the same
as picking up many individual oranges).

In the "none" case, it's not really a strictly grammatical issue; it's
whether you are considering the individual passengers or a unit
container of passengers. Is the meaning on the lines of "a none of
passengers ..."?

I doubt it, so I think that the plural is fine. There is no word
"nany", so "none" has to stand for "not one" and "not any".

And if it stands for "not one" then it's singular. I'm not being
dogmatic, just pointing out that, arguably, "none" is singular. You can
also argue that it's plural.

Sam

Bizarre Battersea tow-truck - bus - bridge accident
 

Graculus wrote:
"Mizter T" wrote in message
...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7285085.stm

Except from the BBC news story:

quote
A tow-truck has overturned following an accident with a double-decker
bus under a railway bridge in south London.

The accident in Battersea Park Road [...] happened as the truck tried
to go under the bridge with its extended towing arm at about 1010 GMT.

The arm caught the bottom of the bridge resulting in it tilting on to
the oncoming number 345 bus, police said.

The bus, which was left leaning over, had 30 passengers onboard at the
time. None of the passengers were hurt.

No other injuries were reported.

[continues...]
/quote

Shocking story. Mainly because it should be, "None of the passengers WAS
hurt."
The standards of journalism today. Bah!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_w-XQ6MVAsM

A lesson from Stephen Fry :D