Cycling & bikes - Daily Mail

CycleBanter.com (http://www.cyclebanter.com/index.php)

- UK (http://www.cyclebanter.com/forumdisplay.php?f=13)

- - Daily Mail (http://www.cyclebanter.com/showthread.php?t=189843)

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/a...avoid-her.html

Jim J

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!

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/

"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

"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/a...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.'"

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/a...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.

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.

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