Amtrak 174(12) in Waverly, VA
http://www.wvec.com/news/Car-Amtrak-train-collide-in-Waverly--235552061.html
http://www.wvec.com/news/Car-Amtrak-train-collide-in-Waverly--235552061.html
Yes, the title is not very clear. Perhaps the title of the thread should be changed to "Norfolk Regional grade crossing collision".The title of teh thread makes it sound like a more dire event than it actually is.
Or "Drunk driver stops in front of moving train injuring himself instead of killing innocent people""Drunk driver struck by Amtrak train #174" should suffice.
Headlines are meant to be concise (not that I don't agree with you). Yours would make a really good first sentence, though.Or "Drunk driver stops in front of moving train injuring himself instead of killing innocent people""Drunk driver struck by Amtrak train #174" should suffice.
Maybe: "Another Drunk Driver Struck by Amtrak Train" ... I very much agree with your conciseness, but maybe "another" is needed to convey the reality of the (bigger) story. Maybe not?"Drunk driver struck by Amtrak train #174" should suffice.
I'm really not that invested in it. It was just a suggestion for a thread title.Maybe: "Another Drunk Driver Struck by Amtrak Train" ... I very much agree with your conciseness, but maybe "another" is needed to convey the reality of the (bigger) story. Maybe not?"Drunk driver struck by Amtrak train #174" should suffice.
I read your suggestion as a possible/more appropriate newspaper article title.I'm really not that invested in it. It was just a suggestion for a thread title.Maybe: "Another Drunk Driver Struck by Amtrak Train" ... I very much agree with your conciseness, but maybe "another" is needed to convey the reality of the (bigger) story. Maybe not?"Drunk driver struck by Amtrak train #174" should suffice.
Maybe another approach:I know the media like to sensationalize, but I want to see them tell what actually happened. "Driver hits Amtrak train" is more correct than "Amtrak train hits driver". After all, the train can not swerve to avoid the crash.
He's been beating that horse for as long as I can remember, but thanks for the much needed dose of reality.Actually, unless the driver ran into the side of the train (which doesn't appear to be the case), "Amtrak train his driver" is correct.
Since neither a train or car can pro-create, they are not eligible for a Darwin award. In the context of a Darwin award and since the driver survived, the headline could read: "Idiot drives around the lowered gates to try to win a Darwin award, but lives and fails". Yes, that is a wordy headline.Maybe another approach:
Darwin Awards Competition Continues: Car Vs. Train - Car Loses
"DUI idiot bypasses train gates in Darwin attempt. Fails"Since neither a train or car can pro-create, they are not eligible for a Darwin award. In the context of a Darwin award and since the driver survived, the headline could read: "Idiot drives around the lowered gates to try to win a Darwin award, but lives and fails". Yes, that is a wordy headline.Maybe another approach:
Darwin Awards Competition Continues: Car Vs. Train - Car Loses
Technically correct :-(Since neither a train or car can pro-create, they are not eligible for a Darwin award. In the context of a Darwin award and since the driver survived, the headline could read: "Idiot drives around the lowered gates to try to win a Darwin award, but lives and fails". Yes, that is a wordy headline.Maybe another approach:
Darwin Awards Competition Continues: Car Vs. Train - Car Loses
Enter your email address to join: