Daily Mail

[Jim]

The Daily Mail has the following headline "Cyclist killed teenage girl on
pavement 'after refusing to swerve to avoid her'" but nowhere in the article
does anyone actually say they saw the cyclist on the pavement.

see
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1032894/Cyclist-killed-teenage-girl-pavement-refusing-swerve-avoid-her.html

Jim J

[Marc[_2_]]

Jim wrote:
> The Daily Mail has the following headline "Cyclist killed teenage girl on
> pavement 'after refusing to swerve to avoid her'" but nowhere in the article
> does anyone actually say they saw the cyclist on the pavement.
>
>

Serves you right for reading the daily wail!

[Paul Boyd[_4_]]

On 07/07/2008 18:54, Jim said,
> The Daily Mail has the following headline "Cyclist killed teenage girl on
> pavement 'after refusing to swerve to avoid her'" but nowhere in the article
> does anyone actually say they saw the cyclist on the pavement.

From the article:

"The court heard that Howard, of Western Avenue, Buckingham, was
travelling at between 23 mph and 17 mph *down the road* and was captured
on CCTV."

"He could have moved to the other side of *the road*..."

But also "riding his cycle towards a group of young people who were on a
pavement".

Even the witness doesn't seem to know whether the cyclist was on the
road or the pavement, so that headline is very misleading and intended
to antagonise, at best.

Whatever the exact circumstances though, the cyclist's behaviour *as
reported* was pretty despicable. No matter where the girl was, it was
down to him to ride in a responsible manner, in exactly the same way as
we expect motorists to drive in a responsible manner.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

[!Speedy Gonzales!]

"Jim" > wrote in message
...
> The Daily Mail has the following headline "Cyclist killed teenage girl on
> pavement 'after refusing to swerve to avoid her'" but nowhere in the
> article does anyone actually say they saw the cyclist on the pavement.

Reading the article fully, reminded me of a situation where I possibly could
have ended up in a similar state of affairs.
I was cycling a shared use path in North Edinburgh a few years back, not far
from where a 30+ year old guy was attacked by up to 30 neds whilst cycling
the same path. I was fast approaching a small group of teenagers when 3 of
the lads strung themselves out across the path. I could see their motives
were nothing more than to cause bother, and perhaps for a few fleeting
minutes look 'brave' in front of the 2 girls that made up the rest of the
compliment. I made a quick decision that I was NOT stopping and if I was
being made to stop, I was going to take out one of their number. I shouted
ahead I wasn't stopping and if they didn't clear the way I would steam
roller my way through, by this time my dander was up and I was really
annoyed that some young kids seem to take great enjoyment out of causing
distress to others.

On approach, they made no attempt to move so I steered my front wheel to the
space between 2 of the lads and as I squeezed my way through, I felt the
moment deserved a wee bit retaliation so I give the youth to my right a good
kick in the ol' family jewels. These guys were 17/18 so I know he felt that
one. The other 2 gave a very brief chase but my head was down by this point
and long gone.

I fully realise that had anything had came of this incident, I'd be the one
getting charged, and it would be my mug shot on the front of the Mail, 'teen
ramblers assaulted by crazed biker' being the tag line.

Suffice to say I no longer cycle this route after tea time, lovely route but
just not worth the hassle.


--
!Speedy Gonzales!

Remove the SPAMTRAP to reply

[gregory]

Jim wrote:
> The Daily Mail has the following headline "Cyclist killed teenage girl on
> pavement 'after refusing to swerve to avoid her'" but nowhere in the article
> does anyone actually say they saw the cyclist on the pavement.
>
> see
> http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1032894/Cyclist-killed-teenage-girl-pavement-refusing-swerve-avoid-her.html
>
> Jim J
>
>
That is one seriously tabloid website. Horrendous. National Enquirer eat
your heart out.

[Bernard]

"Jim" > wrote in message
...
> The Daily Mail has the following headline "Cyclist killed teenage girl on
> pavement 'after refusing to swerve to avoid her'" but nowhere in the
> article does anyone actually say they saw the cyclist on the pavement.
>
> see
> http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1032894/Cyclist-killed-teenage-girl-pavement-refusing-swerve-avoid-her.html
>
> Jim J

But what do you infer from the statement

"He told the judge that Rhiannon was walking on a pavement next to a road
when she was hit by the cyclist."

and what about

"he described the defendant's bike as being on the pavement."

and

"The witness said: 'When I turned around he was on the footpath.'"

[Martin[_2_]]

Bernard wrote:
>
> "Jim" > wrote in message
> ...
>> The Daily Mail has the following headline "Cyclist killed teenage girl
>> on pavement 'after refusing to swerve to avoid her'" but nowhere in
>> the article does anyone actually say they saw the cyclist on the
>> pavement.
>>
>> see
>> http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1032894/Cyclist-killed-teenage-girl-pavement-refusing-swerve-avoid-her.html
>>
>>
>> Jim J
>
> But what do you infer from the statement
>
> "He told the judge that Rhiannon was walking on a pavement next to a
> road when she was hit by the cyclist."

There was also the bit about Rhiannon stepping out in front of the cyclist.

> and what about
>
> "he described the defendant's bike as being on the pavement."

After the accident.

> and
>
> "The witness said: 'When I turned around he was on the footpath.'"

After the accident.



"Howard then struck tragic 17-year-old Rhiannon Bennett, knocking her
over onto the pavement"

Implying she was not on the pavement prior to the collision.


It is very unclear what happened from the Daily Wails usual standard of
reporting. It is a pity that there seems to be no independent witnesses.


If the cyclist acted in the way that the Wail portrays, then he is an
idiot, and deserve jail. However the events in the Wails reporting are
very unclear.

[Tom Crispin]

On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 01:00:35 +0100, Martin >
wrote:

>If the cyclist acted in the way that the Wail portrays, then he is an
>idiot, and deserve jail. However the events in the Wails reporting are
>very unclear.

It does sound as if he was cycling down the road with drunken youths
on and off the pavement. He shouted a warning, and the young lady
stumbled onto the road into his path.

I cannot believe that he would have mounted the pavement at 17 mph,
but I am curious as to why he didn't slow to just above walking pace
or take a wider line to avoid any possibility of a conflict.

[David Hansen]

On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 19:05:23 +0100 someone who may be Paul Boyd
> wrote this:-

>Whatever the exact circumstances though, the cyclist's behaviour *as
>reported* was pretty despicable. No matter where the girl was, it was
>down to him to ride in a responsible manner, in exactly the same way as
>we expect motorists to drive in a responsible manner.

Agreed.

There is also something extremely fishy about these "witnesses"
being granted anonymity by the Hutton. What possible reason could
these people have for asking for anonymity and why on earth did the
Hutton grant it? What gave they got to hide?




--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

[Tosspot[_2_]]

Jim wrote:
> The Daily Mail has the following headline "Cyclist killed teenage girl on
> pavement 'after refusing to swerve to avoid her'" but nowhere in the article
> does anyone actually say they saw the cyclist on the pavement.
>
> see
> http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1032894/Cyclist-killed-teenage-girl-pavement-refusing-swerve-avoid-her.html

She should have been wearing a helmet which would have prevented the
fatal head injuries.

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 18:54:28 +0100, "Jim" > said in
>:

>"Cyclist killed teenage girl on
>pavement 'after refusing to swerve to avoid her'" but nowhere in the article
>does anyone actually say they saw the cyclist on the pavement.

s/cyclist/chav/ and proceed as normal.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[Toom Tabard]

On 7 Jul, 18:54, "Jim" > wrote:
> The Daily Mail has the following headline "Cyclist killed teenage girl on
> pavement 'after refusing to swerve to avoid her'" but nowhere in the article
> does anyone actually say they saw the cyclist on the pavement.
>
> seehttp://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1032894/Cyclist-killed-tee....
>
> * *Jim J

It would not particularly matter if he wasn't on the pavement. You owe
a duty of care to other 'road' users, whoever they might be and even
if (or particularly if) you can see they are acting unwisely. He
clearly saw a situation arising, where he could and should have
exerted care. Instead 'In a police interview, Howard admitted he could
have steered away from the pedestrians but thought a shout was enough
to avoid the collision'. If you see a hazard on the road ahead it is
not sufficient to shout, ring a bell, or toot you horn and barrel your
way through regardless of potential injury to others.

Toom

[JNugent[_4_]]

David Hansen wrote:

> Paul Boyd > wrote:

>> Whatever the exact circumstances though, the cyclist's behaviour *as
>> reported* was pretty despicable. No matter where the girl was, it was
>> down to him to ride in a responsible manner, in exactly the same way as
>> we expect motorists to drive in a responsible manner.

> Agreed.

> There is also something extremely fishy about these "witnesses"
> being granted anonymity by the Hutton. What possible reason could
> these people have for asking for anonymity and why on earth did the
> Hutton grant it? What gave they got to hide?

Is there a "Hutton" involved in every court case?

Or are you just indulging in gibberish again?

[JNugent[_4_]]

Jim wrote:

> The Daily Mail has the following headline "Cyclist killed teenage girl on
> pavement 'after refusing to swerve to avoid her'" but nowhere in the article
> does anyone actually say they saw the cyclist on the pavement.

<http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1032894/Cyclist-killed-teenage-girl-pavement-refusing-swerve-avoid-her.html>

One witness *does* say that.

QUOTE:
"One [member of her group] said she was on the pavement. But another
said in a police statement that she believed the accident could have
been avoided if Rhiannon had not stepped into the path of the cyclist".
ENDQUOTE

If she did "step into the path of the cyclist", that does not mean that
she was not on the footway before and after the "step".

[David Hansen]

On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 09:43:48 +0100 someone who may be Tosspot
> wrote this:-

>Jim wrote:
>> The Daily Mail has the following headline "Cyclist killed teenage girl on
>> pavement 'after refusing to swerve to avoid her'" but nowhere in the article
>> does anyone actually say they saw the cyclist on the pavement.
>>
>> see
>> http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1032894/Cyclist-killed-teenage-girl-pavement-refusing-swerve-avoid-her.html
>
>She should have been wearing a helmet which would have prevented the
>fatal head injuries.

Indeed.

B**** have an e-mail address where one can ask them if they will be
using this case to campaign for pedestrian helmets.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

[Tosspot[_2_]]

David Hansen wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 09:43:48 +0100 someone who may be Tosspot
> > wrote this:-
>
>> Jim wrote:
>>> The Daily Mail has the following headline "Cyclist killed teenage girl on
>>> pavement 'after refusing to swerve to avoid her'" but nowhere in the article
>>> does anyone actually say they saw the cyclist on the pavement.
>>>
>>> see
>>> http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1032894/Cyclist-killed-teenage-girl-pavement-refusing-swerve-avoid-her.html
>> She should have been wearing a helmet which would have prevented the
>> fatal head injuries.
>
> Indeed.
>
> B**** have an e-mail address where one can ask them if they will be
> using this case to campaign for pedestrian helmets.

It's terrible the number of head injuries suffered, we should raise a
petition to parliament for compulsory wearing of helmets outside of the
house. A million people in the UK go to hospital each year, traffic and
falls accounting for over half of these. The burden on the NHS caused
by these easily avoidable injuries is prohibitively expensive. Small
shops are being forced to close, church attendance is down, and
thousands of children are loosing their parents as a result.

God, I should write for the Daily Mail. Where can I apply?

[Dave]

"JNugent" > wrote in message
...
> Jim wrote:
>
>> The Daily Mail has the following headline "Cyclist killed teenage girl on
>> pavement 'after refusing to swerve to avoid her'" but nowhere in the
>> article does anyone actually say they saw the cyclist on the pavement.
>
> <http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1032894/Cyclist-killed-teenage-girl-pavement-refusing-swerve-avoid-her.html>
>
> One witness *does* say that.
>
> QUOTE:
> "One [member of her group] said she was on the pavement. But another said
> in a police statement that she believed the accident could have been
> avoided if Rhiannon had not stepped into the path of the cyclist".
> ENDQUOTE
>
> If she did "step into the path of the cyclist", that does not mean that
> she was not on the footway before and after the "step".
>

It sounds like the Mail don't know what to report and the witnesses are
saying different things.

Bearing in mind they had been drinking so whilst they may not have been
"drunk" having has 2 Stellas could have been over the level considered safe
to drive (not that they were doing).

But it mentions speeds of 23 to 17 mph - can someone really accurately guess
those speeds or are they the highs and lows guesses of any witnesses.

It said he was riding down the road - was it the road or the pavement?

It said he could have moved to the other side of the road - was he on the
road or the pavement?

It said there were a lot of young people on the road.

I'm not saying the cyclist was in the right in how he handled the situation
but it could well have been reported very wrongly or at best inconsistently.

Dave

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 12:01:01 +0100, "Dave"
> said in
>:

>It sounds like the Mail don't know what to report and the witnesses are
>saying different things.

The Mail always knows what to report, whatever actually happened on
the ground. If what happened bears some relation to what they want
to report it's counted as a bonus, but it's certainly not essential.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[JNugent[_4_]]

Dave wrote:

> "JNugent" > wrote:
>> Jim wrote:

>>> The Daily Mail has the following headline "Cyclist killed teenage girl on
>>> pavement 'after refusing to swerve to avoid her'" but nowhere in the
>>> article does anyone actually say they saw the cyclist on the pavement.
>> <http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1032894/Cyclist-killed-teenage-girl-pavement-refusing-swerve-avoid-her.html>

>> One witness *does* say that.
>> QUOTE:
>> "One [member of her group] said she was on the pavement. But another said
>> in a police statement that she believed the accident could have been
>> avoided if Rhiannon had not stepped into the path of the cyclist".
>> ENDQUOTE
>> If she did "step into the path of the cyclist", that does not mean that
>> she was not on the footway before and after the "step".

> It sounds like the Mail don't know what to report and the witnesses are
> saying different things.

The second of those points is undoubtedly true. If it were otherwise, it
would sound incredibly suspicious. Eyewitness accounts of an incident
usually differ.

> Bearing in mind they had been drinking so whilst they may not have been
> "drunk" having has 2 Stellas could have been over the level considered safe
> to drive (not that they were doing).
> But it mentions speeds of 23 to 17 mph - can someone really accurately guess
> those speeds or are they the highs and lows guesses of any witnesses.

They must be.

Well, estimates rather than guesses, but IKWYM.

> It said he was riding down the road - was it the road or the pavement?
> It said he could have moved to the other side of the road - was he on the
> road or the pavement?
> It said there were a lot of young people on the road.
> I'm not saying the cyclist was in the right in how he handled the situation
> but it could well have been reported very wrongly or at best inconsistently.

I try not to make comment on the merits of ongoing cases for the reasons
you cite as well as the obvious one.

[Bernard]

"Martin" > wrote in message
...
> It is very unclear what happened from the Daily Wails usual standard of
> reporting. It is a pity that there seems to be no independent witnesses.
>
I know it's unclear, it doesn't mean the Daily Mail always gets it wrong.

[David Hansen]

On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 04:50:58 +0100 someone who may be Tom Crispin
> wrote this:-

>It does sound as if he was cycling down the road with drunken youths
>on and off the pavement. He shouted a warning, and the young lady
>stumbled onto the road into his path.

There does seem to still be a lot to come out. It will be
interesting to hear what the defence has to say.

Personally I consider the evidence of anonymous young people who
have been drinking in a park not to be of the highest integrity,
unless confirmed by others. While most young people who have been
drinking in a park are fine some are not, for example those who
killed someone for looking different
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1582960/Parents-of-teens-who-killed-Goth-condemned.html>.

The Daily Wail usually criticises youngsters, it is mildly amusing
to see their different approach in this case. Presumably this
confirms that they dislike cyclists more than youngsters.

There is some more evidence from one of the youngsters at
<http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=208306&in_page_id=34>
which the Daily Wail probably excluded because it shows the cyclist
in a better light than they want to portray cyclists

"After the collision, Howard put Rhiannon in the recovery position.

"'He was rubbing his chest and was shouting at her. I think he shook
her to see if she was conscious,' added the boy."

If this is true then I presume the "shouting" would be to assess her
level of consciousness.

"The youngster told Aylesbury Magistrates' Court that Howard's bike
was seen on the pavement after the crash."

Presumably where it was dropped by the cyclist on his way to
administer First Aid.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

[PK[_2_]]

"Dave" > wrote in message
. uk...
> But it mentions speeds of 23 to 17 mph - can someone really accurately
> guess those speeds or are they the highs and lows guesses of any
> witnesses.


from the article:
Howard, of Buckingham, was travelling at between 23mph and 17mph down the
road and was captured on CCTV, Aylesbury Magistrates heard.



So I guess it is an estimates from the cctv evidence,



pk

[[email protected]]

On 7 Jul, 22:43, gregory >
wrote:
> Jim wrote:
> > The Daily Mail has the following headline "Cyclist killed teenage girl on
> > pavement 'after refusing to swerve to avoid her'" but nowhere in the article
> > does anyone actually say they saw the cyclist on the pavement.
>
> > see
> >http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1032894/Cyclist-killed-tee...
>
> > Jim J
>
> That is one seriously tabloid website. Horrendous. National Enquirer eat
> your heart out.

Should one mention Article 8 of the European Convention on Human
Rights?

Sniper8052

[J. Chisholm]

PK wrote:
>
> "Dave" > wrote in message
> . uk...
>> But it mentions speeds of 23 to 17 mph - can someone really accurately
>> guess those speeds or are they the highs and lows guesses of any
>> witnesses.
>
>
> from the article:
> Howard, of Buckingham, was travelling at between 23mph and 17mph down
> the road and was captured on CCTV, Aylesbury Magistrates heard.
>
>
>
> So I guess it is an estimates from the cctv evidence,
>

Of course if the CCTV shows the crash all should be clear, but if the
CCTV shows him at that speed on another part of the road, it does not
meant he didn't slow down on approaching the group.

Jim Chisholm

[John Pitcock]

> Jim wrote:
>
>> The Daily Mail has the following headline "Cyclist killed teenage girl on
>> pavement 'after refusing to swerve to avoid her'" but nowhere in the
>> article does anyone actually say they saw the cyclist on the pavement.
>
> <http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1032894/Cyclist-killed-teenage-girl-pavement-refusing-swerve-avoid-her.html>

The story is in today's Times
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4289830.ece
It is also confusing:
Headline "cyclist 'yelled at girl' before collision."
It says:
"A cyclist caused a teenager fatal injuries when they collided on a pavement
told her to 'move, because I'm not stopping'".
The prosecutor said: "He could have moved to the other side of the road"
"He faces a maximum fine of £2000" (if it was deliberate mowing down:
wouldn't he have been charged with manslaughter?)

See also:
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2263354/Cyclist-knocked-down-and-killed-teenage-girl,-court-hears.html>

My wife recently stepped out of a shop onto the pavement straight in front
of a speeding youth on a bicycle: he swerved and shouted for her to look
where she was going!

[Dave]

"J. Chisholm" > wrote in message
...
> PK wrote:
>>
>> "Dave" > wrote in message
>> . uk...
>>> But it mentions speeds of 23 to 17 mph - can someone really accurately
>>> guess those speeds or are they the highs and lows guesses of any
>>> witnesses.
>>
>>
>> from the article:
>> Howard, of Buckingham, was travelling at between 23mph and 17mph down the
>> road and was captured on CCTV, Aylesbury Magistrates heard.
>>
>>
>>
>> So I guess it is an estimates from the cctv evidence,
>>
>
> Of course if the CCTV shows the crash all should be clear, but if the
> CCTV shows him at that speed on another part of the road, it does not
> meant he didn't slow down on approaching the group.
>
> Jim Chisholm
>

Somebody has just given me the Mirror - according to that the cyclist was
travelling "at least 23 mph before he careered into student ......"

Of course that doesn't mean he hit her at that speed.

According to that paper it was in a cul-de-sac and the cyclist was on the
road but cut the corner across the pavement where he hit her.

I suppose it not only changes with eact witness but with each reporters
interpretation of what is said in court.

Dave

[David Hansen]

On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 15:36:33 +0100 someone who may be "Dave"
> wrote this:-

>According to that paper it was in a cul-de-sac

Presumably either it is only blocked to motor vehicles, not bikes,
or he was going to/from somewhere in the street.

>and the cyclist was on the
>road but cut the corner across the pavement where he hit her.

A cyclist travelling "at 23mph" managed to mount the pavement on the
corner? This mounting the pavement involving crossing the kerb at an
extremely shallow angle, due to the path of the cyclist and the
(presumed) radius of the kerb round the corner, without falling off?
If true, a very impressive piece of cycling, but I suspect it is not
true.





--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

[Martin[_2_]]

Dave wrote:
> "J. Chisholm" > wrote in message
> ...
>> PK wrote:
>>> "Dave" > wrote in message
>>> . uk...
>>>> But it mentions speeds of 23 to 17 mph - can someone really accurately
>>>> guess those speeds or are they the highs and lows guesses of any
>>>> witnesses.
>>>
>>> from the article:
>>> Howard, of Buckingham, was travelling at between 23mph and 17mph down the
>>> road and was captured on CCTV, Aylesbury Magistrates heard.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So I guess it is an estimates from the cctv evidence,
>>>
>> Of course if the CCTV shows the crash all should be clear, but if the
>> CCTV shows him at that speed on another part of the road, it does not
>> meant he didn't slow down on approaching the group.
>>
>> Jim Chisholm
>>
>
> Somebody has just given me the Mirror - according to that the cyclist was
> travelling "at least 23 mph before he careered into student ......"
>
> Of course that doesn't mean he hit her at that speed.
>
> According to that paper it was in a cul-de-sac and the cyclist was on the
> road but cut the corner across the pavement where he hit her.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories/2008/07/08/speeding-cyclist-killed-teenage-girl-on-pavement-after-refusing-to-swerve-89520-20635650/

'but instead just shouted "Move out of my way, I'm not stopping".'

It is curious that they comprehended a cyclist shouting that. We all
know how difficult it is to hear what a motorist shouts when he
overtakes, even if it is just one or two words.
Assuming he takes 3s to shout that, travelling at 17mph, he will cover
about 23meters in that time. (23mph -> 31meters).

[PK[_2_]]

"David Hansen" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 15:36:33 +0100 someone who may be "Dave"
> > wrote this:-
>
>>According to that paper it was in a cul-de-sac
>
> Presumably either it is only blocked to motor vehicles, not bikes,
> or he was going to/from somewhere in the street.
>
>>and the cyclist was on the
>>road but cut the corner across the pavement where he hit her.
>
> A cyclist travelling "at 23mph" managed to mount the pavement on the
> corner? This mounting the pavement involving crossing the kerb at an
> extremely shallow angle, due to the path of the cyclist and the
> (presumed) radius of the kerb round the corner, without falling off?
> If true, a very impressive piece of cycling, but I suspect it is not
> true.


all kerbs local to me are dropped on all corners for disabled access, such
cutting of corners is perfectly possible

pk

[J. Chisholm]

John Pitcock wrote:
>> Jim wrote:
>>
>>> The Daily Mail has the following headline "Cyclist killed teenage
>>> girl on pavement 'after refusing to swerve to avoid her'" but nowhere
>>> in the article does anyone actually say they saw the cyclist on the
>>> pavement.
>>
>> <http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1032894/Cyclist-killed-teenage-girl-pavement-refusing-swerve-avoid-her.html>
>>
>
> The story is in today's Times
> www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4289830.ece
> It is also confusing:
> Headline "cyclist 'yelled at girl' before collision."
> It says:
> "A cyclist caused a teenager fatal injuries when they collided on a
> pavement
> told her to 'move, because I'm not stopping'".
> The prosecutor said: "He could have moved to the other side of the road"
> "He faces a maximum fine of £2000" (if it was deliberate mowing down:
> wouldn't he have been charged with manslaughter?)
>
> See also:
> www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2263354/Cyclist-knocked-down-and-killed-teenage-girl,-court-hears.html>
>
>
> My wife recently stepped out of a shop onto the pavement straight in front
> of a speeding youth on a bicycle: he swerved and shouted for her to look
> where she was going!
There can be issues with this.

Was it a 'shared use' path or a street paved 'wall to wall' that
cyclists may legally use.

One street in Cambridge can be legally used by cyclists outside
10:00-16:00, but the 'layout' has been redesigned with seats and bike
stands in the centre leaving the only clear path for cyclists next to
shop doorways.
It is always interesting when a push chair emerges from a shop doorway,
and totally blocks the path. It is almost as good as the Volvo bonnets
that block shared use paths.

Although cyclists shouldn't 'speed' pedestrians also have responsibilities

Jim Chisholm

[David Hansen]

On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 16:11:08 +0100 someone who may be "PK"
> wrote this:-

>all kerbs local to me are dropped on all corners for disabled access,

And they are not on all corners local to me.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

[David Hansen]

On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 16:00:00 +0100 someone who may be Martin
> wrote this:-

>http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories/2008/07/08/speeding-cyclist-killed-teenage-girl-on-pavement-after-refusing-to-swerve-89520-20635650/
>
>'but instead just shouted "Move out of my way, I'm not stopping".'
>
>It is curious that they comprehended a cyclist shouting that.

Indeed, especially as they had been drinking in a park.

It would be interesting to know when they first said that the
cyclist had shouted that.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

[Paul Boyd[_3_]]

PK said the following on 08/07/2008 16:11:

> all kerbs local to me are dropped on all corners for disabled access,
> such cutting of corners is perfectly possible

At "23mph" ???

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

[PK[_2_]]

"Paul Boyd" > wrote in message
...
> PK said the following on 08/07/2008 16:11:
>
>> all kerbs local to me are dropped on all corners for disabled access,
>> such cutting of corners is perfectly possible
>
> At "23mph" ???


17-23 earlier on the cctv, at what speed at the corner ? the argument was
put that jumping the kerb was virtually impossible - my point was that
without knowing the details of the location that assumption cannot be made,
at many locations close to here moving to road to pavement at junctions is
perfectly possible at high speed as all kerbs/pavements are dropped flush
with the road surface.

pk

[Tom Crispin]

On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 16:44:01 +0100, David Hansen
> wrote:

>On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 16:11:08 +0100 someone who may be "PK"
> wrote this:-
>
>>all kerbs local to me are dropped on all corners for disabled access,
>
>And they are not on all corners local to me.

Local to me the roads a raised to the height of the pavement.

[naked_draughtsman[_3_]]

On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 18:40:44 +0000, !Speedy Gonzales! wrote:

> I fully realise that had anything had came of this incident, I'd be the one
> getting charged, and it would be my mug shot on the front of the Mail, 'teen
> ramblers assaulted by crazed biker' being the tag line.

I had someone deliberately jump out in front of me while on a shared use
cycle path. There was no hope of me avoiding him and I wasn't prepared to
swerve harshly onto some very muddy and slippery grass so I made sure he
got at least some of the pain that I was going to end up with.

It seems to be one of those increasing problems (like pavement cycling)
with pedestrians believing everyone must stop for them when walking down
roads with perfectly adequate pavements. Unfortunately I don't think
they're breaking any law by being such a nuisance.

peter

[naked_draughtsman[_3_]]

On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 04:50:58 +0100, Tom Crispin wrote:

> I cannot believe that he would have mounted the pavement at 17 mph,
> but I am curious as to why he didn't slow to just above walking pace
> or take a wider line to avoid any possibility of a conflict.

Another vehicle overtaking without giving enough space to swerve around any
hazards up ahead? Might not have come forward as a witness in case the
blame was put on him/her.

The cyclist could have stopped (in advance), but depends on how much time
there was to react to someone falling into the road in front of you.

peter

[burtthebike]

"Bernard" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Martin" > wrote in message
> ...
>> It is very unclear what happened from the Daily Wails usual standard of
>> reporting. It is a pity that there seems to be no independent witnesses.
>>
> I know it's unclear, it doesn't mean the Daily Mail always gets it wrong.


Not that I read the atrocious rag, but perhaps you could give us a couple of
examples when they got it right?



>

[Adam Lea[_2_]]

"Martin" > wrote in message
...
>

> It is curious that they comprehended a cyclist shouting that. We all know
> how difficult it is to hear what a motorist shouts when he overtakes, even
> if it is just one or two words.

A motorist has to shout over the noise of the engine, a cyclist doesn't have
that problem so his voice would likely be clearer.

[Mark[_3_]]

On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 00:39:07 +0100, "Bernard"
> wrote:

>
>"Jim" > wrote in message
...
>> The Daily Mail has the following headline "Cyclist killed teenage girl on
>> pavement 'after refusing to swerve to avoid her'" but nowhere in the
>> article does anyone actually say they saw the cyclist on the pavement.
>>
>> see
>> http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1032894/Cyclist-killed-teenage-girl-pavement-refusing-swerve-avoid-her.html
>>
>> Jim J
>
>But what do you infer from the statement
>
>"He told the judge that Rhiannon was walking on a pavement next to a road
>when she was hit by the cyclist."
>
>and what about
>
>"he described the defendant's bike as being on the pavement."
>
>and
>
>"The witness said: 'When I turned around he was on the footpath.'"

The article has obviously changed. These quotes are not there.

The only mention of the word "pavement" is
"... suffering fatal injuries as she hit her head on the pavement."

It looks like the story has been "corrected" like last time.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org

[Paul Boyd[_3_]]

naked_draughtsman said the following on 08/07/2008 18:38:

> The cyclist could have stopped (in advance), but depends on how much time
> there was to react to someone falling into the road in front of you.

In this case, the cyclist appeared to have no intention of stopping
whether he could have done so or not.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

[bugbear]

Jim wrote:
> The Daily Mail has the following headline "Cyclist killed teenage girl on
> pavement 'after refusing to swerve to avoid her'" but nowhere in the article
> does anyone actually say they saw the cyclist on the pavement.

There's surprisingly little info on this case;
I can't find any reports of the original incident.

Here's the best I can find today, from the various newspaper
websites (courtesy google news search)

> Howard was cycling on the road when he approached the group
> but the court heard conflicting evidence about whether
> he mounted the kerb at any point during the incident.

> The court heard that Howard, of Western Avenue, Buckingham,
> was travelling at between 23 mph and 17 mph down
> the road and was captured on CCTV.

> The teenager admitted that the group had been drinking in
> the nearby skatepark prior to the incident but recalled
> Rhiannon only having consumed two cans of Stella Artois
> lager and told the court that she was not drunk and "absolutely fine".

> Howard, of Buckingham, was cycling his £4,750 customised
> bicycle when he came upon Rhiannon and her
> friends on their way to the shops.

> The carbon fibre titanium bicycle was built to Howard's specifications.
>
> Despite its cost, the court heard it did not
> comply with the Highway Code because it had no
> reflectors on the pedals or on the back.

> Howard, who has a previous conviction and
> is well-known in his home town as a 'thrill-seeker',
> was also ordered to pay £750 in costs.

I wonder what the "previous conviction" is for.

BugBear

[Roger Merriman]

Paul Boyd > wrote:

> PK said the following on 08/07/2008 16:11:
>
> > all kerbs local to me are dropped on all corners for disabled access,
> > such cutting of corners is perfectly possible
>
> At "23mph" ???

depends on bike i guess, on a racer be dumb, a hybrid be okay if dry and
with some care, on a mountain bike not a problem.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

[Paul Boyd[_3_]]

Mark said the following on 09/07/2008 09:56:

> It looks like the story has been "corrected" like last time.

Hmm...

"Despite its cost, the court heard it did not comply with the Highway
Code because it had no reflectors on the pedals or on the back."

Well, that makes all the difference to the outcome then, doesn't it?

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

[Jim]

"Paul Boyd" > wrote in message
...
> naked_draughtsman said the following on 08/07/2008 18:38:
>
>> The cyclist could have stopped (in advance), but depends on how much time
>> there was to react to someone falling into the road in front of you.
>
> In this case, the cyclist appeared to have no intention of stopping
> whether he could have done so or not.
>
> --
> Paul Boyd
> http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

The BBC web site has it that he was cycling through a gap in the group when
the girl stepped into the gap which sounds like it was very close to the
kerb. So it sounds like a very risky thing for the
cyclist to do rather than give them a very wide berth which seemed to have
been an option.
I guess it's the equivalent of a driver sounding their horn but not stopping
and hitting a pedestrian.

Jim J

[Ekul Namsob]

J. Chisholm > wrote:

> One street in Cambridge can be legally used by cyclists outside
> 10:00-16:00, but the 'layout' has been redesigned with seats and bike
> stands in the centre leaving the only clear path for cyclists next to
> shop doorways.
> It is always interesting when a push chair emerges from a shop doorway,
> and totally blocks the path. It is almost as good as the Volvo bonnets
> that block shared use paths.
>
> Although cyclists shouldn't 'speed' pedestrians also have responsibilities

Certainly it makes sense for pedestrians to observe basic safety
precautions but anyone who cycles, runs, drives or otherwise controls a
vehicle close to shop doorways should do so such that they can 'stop
within the distance they can see to be clear' and should express no
surprise at all if some pedestrians have the temerity to walk out of
those shop doorways while not entirely paying attention.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

[Rob Morley]

On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 13:09:39 +0100
Paul Boyd > wrote:

> Mark said the following on 09/07/2008 09:56:
>
> > It looks like the story has been "corrected" like last time.
>
> Hmm...
>
> "Despite its cost, the court heard it did not comply with the Highway
> Code because it had no reflectors on the pedals or on the back."
>
> Well, that makes all the difference to the outcome then, doesn't it?
>
But was he wearing a helmet? And was she?

[John Clayton]

"!Speedy Gonzales!" > wrote in
message m...
> "Jim" > wrote in message

>I could see their motives were nothing more than to cause bother, and
>perhaps for a few fleeting minutes look 'brave' in front of the 2 girls
>that made up the rest of the compliment. I made a quick decision that I was
>NOT stopping and if I was being made to stop, I was going to take out one
>of their number. I shouted ahead I wasn't stopping and if they didn't clear
>the way I would steam roller my way through, by this time my dander was up
>and I was really annoyed that some young kids seem to take great enjoyment
>out of causing distress to others.

Fairly similar thing with me a year ago on the "green way" out of Wakefield
to Horbury.
Naturally I also don't use this way any more, a pity since it's quiet and
traffic free.
Just the conditions these tw*ts might like.
John