Police kill cyclist
 

Story on the BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/s...re/3884467.stm



--

Police kill cyclist
 

"MSeries" wrote in message
...
Story on the BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/s...re/3884467.stm


I guess it's a bit insensitive, but how did the driver and passenger of the
car sustain injuries? I was a bit surprised to read that.

Nick

Police kill cyclist
 

Nick Drew wrote:
"MSeries" wrote in message
...

Story on the BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/s...re/3884467.stm



I guess it's a bit insensitive, but how did the driver and passenger of the
car sustain injuries? I was a bit surprised to read that.

Nick



At a guess, I can think of two ways - either they hit, swerved, hit
something else, or something went through the windscreen (ick).

--


Velvet

Police kill cyclist
 

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 15:02:27 +0000, Velvet wrote:

Nick Drew wrote:
"MSeries" wrote in message
...

Story on the BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/s...re/3884467.stm



I guess it's a bit insensitive, but how did the driver and passenger of the
car sustain injuries? I was a bit surprised to read that.

Nick



At a guess, I can think of two ways - either they hit, swerved, hit
something else, or something went through the windscreen (ick).
Hate to be cynical, but read the arcticle more closely.
There are no injuries to the policemen.

The article almost makes it sound like "this cyclist ran into a stationary
police car. The cyclist was killed, and the poor policeman are all shaken
up by the incident"


Due sympathy and respect to this poor fellow, and his family who have now
been left husbandless or fatherless.

Police kill cyclist
 

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 16:10:37 +0100, John Hearns wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 15:02:27 +0000, Velvet wrote:

Nick Drew wrote:
"MSeries" wrote in message
...

Story on the BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/s...re/3884467.stm



I guess it's a bit insensitive, but how did the driver and passenger of the
car sustain injuries? I was a bit surprised to read that.

Nick



At a guess, I can think of two ways - either they hit, swerved, hit
something else, or something went through the windscreen (ick).
Hate to be cynical, but read the arcticle more closely.
There are no injuries to the policemen.

Reading the article closely, there were minor injuries to the policemen.

The article almost makes it sound like "this cyclist ran into a stationary
police car. The cyclist was killed, and the poor policeman are all shaken
up by the incident"

Reading the article closely, it says nothing about the circumstances of
the incident. How is assuming anything about it given the information
in the article helpful? Is it really not possible that, even were the
policement *entirely* to blame, they would not require treatment for shock?
Is it also not possible that they might not have been entirely to blame
for whatever happened? Reading the article partiularly closely, I fail
to see how it could have been more neutral in both content and tone.

Due sympathy and respect to this poor fellow, and his family who have now
been left husbandless or fatherless.

Reading the article closely, there is no indication that the man was either
a husband or a father. While this is entirely possible, are you not
perhaps reading more into the facts you have at your disposal than might
be justified by the content of the article you so cynically critique?

--
Trevor Barton

Police kill cyclist
 

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 15:31:22 +0000, Trevor Barton wrote:



Reading the article closely, there were minor injuries to the policemen.

The article almost makes it sound like "this cyclist ran into a stationary
police car. The cyclist was killed, and the poor policeman are all shaken
up by the incident"

Reading the article closely, it says nothing about the circumstances of
the incident.

I realise that. Let me make try to make this clearer - the words in the
article are slanted in a certain way. It does use the word "accident"
(twice) with no justification if you follow your logic (*). The mental
image they put in my mind is the one I've described.

I'm no good at doing this, but let's say the article said:
"A police car collided with a cyclist on the Rotherham Road.
The cyclist was killed, but the officers escaped with minor injuries"

Sorry, I really don't want to pick a fight with you,
especially over such a tragic story.


(*) the article pre-judges that this was an "accident".

Police kill cyclist
 

Gonzalez wrote:
On 12 Jul 2004 15:31:22 GMT, Trevor Barton wrote:

Hate to be cynical, but read the arcticle more closely.
There are no injuries to the policemen.

Reading the article closely, there were minor injuries to the
policemen.

"Two officers inside the car were treated for shock and minor
injuries."

I doubt the officers suffered any injury at all. I expect they were
carted off to hospital to be examined as a matter of routine, and a
senior policeman told the press it was for "shock and minor injuries".

I'd like to know a lot more detail about this incident.

There was a piece on local TV this evening, didn't say much more. The victim
has been identified and the police on board camera is being examined to try
to find out what happened.

Police kill cyclist
 

Gonzalez typed


On 12 Jul 2004 15:31:22 GMT, Trevor Barton wrote:

Hate to be cynical, but read the arcticle more closely.
There are no injuries to the policemen.

Reading the article closely, there were minor injuries to the policemen.

"Two officers inside the car were treated for shock and minor
injuries."

I doubt the officers suffered any injury at all. I expect they were
carted off to hospital to be examined as a matter of routine, and a
senior policeman told the press it was for "shock and minor injuries".

I'd like to know a lot more detail about this incident.

Just looking at AutoRoute and adding details given on website:

Road is A631, east of Junction with M18(J1). There's a Little Chef and a
couple of petrol stations (oldish AutoRoute so might not still be) on
the roundabout of the junction. If details given in report are correct,
cyclist would have been going west.

Whether he was hit from behind as Police sped towards motorway or
whether he was hit head-on as they sped away is open to conjecture...

--
Helen D. Vecht:
Edgware.

Police kill cyclist
 

John Hearns wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 15:31:22 +0000, Trevor Barton wrote:



Reading the article closely, there were minor injuries to the policemen.

The article almost makes it sound like "this cyclist ran into a stationary
police car. The cyclist was killed, and the poor policeman are all shaken
up by the incident"

Reading the article closely, it says nothing about the circumstances of
the incident.


I realise that. Let me make try to make this clearer - the words in the
article are slanted in a certain way. It does use the word "accident"
(twice) with no justification if you follow your logic (*). The mental
image they put in my mind is the one I've described.

I'm no good at doing this, but let's say the article said:
"A police car collided with a cyclist on the Rotherham Road.
The cyclist was killed, but the officers escaped with minor injuries"

Sorry, I really don't want to pick a fight with you,
especially over such a tragic story.


(*) the article pre-judges that this was an "accident".

Only if the reporter has the same amount of information as you or I.
I'm supposing that isn't the case.

However, common usage of the word accident doesn't imply guilt on any
party, and although you might justifiably argue that most road accidents
are not accidents, your posting seemed to assume that the car drivers
were responsible in your opinion. This is both unfair and unjustified
given the information you have.

There is a spectrum of culpability in any incident, ranging from "one
party being completely in the wrong and the other being unable to do
anything about it" (eg a car driving off a motorway onto a trainline),
to "could have been avoided if the victim was more experienced/paying
more attention" (eg a car coming out of give way sign and running into a
car that has priority), to completely shared responsibility (umm, two
cars coming out of opposing give way signs at the same time??). Most
incidents are not black and white. It's certainly not right to assume
that the coppers were in the wrong based on the information in the
article. They almost certainly share some of the the responsibility,
but you have no way of knowing how much. It does not neccessarily
follow that because they were in the car they are primarily responsible
for what happenned, as you seemed to imply.

But, yes, it's not really a story to pick a fight over.

--
Trevor Barton

Police kill cyclist
 

Nick Drew opined the following...
I guess it's a bit insensitive, but how did the driver and passenger of the
car sustain injuries? I was a bit surprised to read that.

The shock made them choke on their doughnuts?

Jon (Who does insensitive remarkably well!)