Does the Daily Mail hates Cyclists?

Squashme wrote:

JNugent wrote:
Alan Braggins wrote:
PK wrote:
"Andy Leighton" wrote:

Well we don't know what the Daily Wail means by speeding. We don't know
if it was a pavement with some magic white paint OR a pedestrian only
pavement

I think the photograph of pavement, door and bollard in the article go some
way to answering those:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...tells-terrifyi...

If the cyclist was really on that very narrow pavement, why take a photo
of the bollard in the road?

Perhaps it has blood and other forensic evidence on it?

And as the bollard is in the road, so could the cyclist have been. And
the child.

Anything is possible.

But only one set of evidence will be shown to be true.

On 17 Jun, 18:59, JNugent wrote:
Squashme wrote:
JNugent wrote:
Alan Braggins wrote:
PK wrote:
"Andy Leighton" wrote:
Well we don't know what the Daily Wail means by speeding. We don't know
if it was a pavement with some magic white paint OR a pedestrian only
pavement
I think the photograph of pavement, door and bollard in the article go some
way to answering those:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...tells-terrifyi...
If the cyclist was really on that very narrow pavement, why take a photo
of the bollard in the road?
Perhaps it has blood and other forensic evidence on it?
And as the bollard is in the road, so could the cyclist have been. And
the child.

Anything is possible.

But only one set of evidence will be shown to be true.

Not all things are possible. No motorists were involved, so:-

1. It can't be just a tragic accident
2. The mother will not be blamed for her negligence
3. Speed may be a factor

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 11:41:36 -0700 (PDT), Squashme
wrote:

On 17 Jun, 18:59, JNugent wrote:
Squashme wrote:
JNugent wrote:
Alan Braggins wrote:
PK wrote:
"Andy Leighton" wrote:
Well we don't know what the Daily Wail means by speeding. We don't know
if it was a pavement with some magic white paint OR a pedestrian only
pavement
I think the photograph of pavement, door and bollard in the article go some
way to answering those:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...tells-terrifyi...
If the cyclist was really on that very narrow pavement, why take a photo
of the bollard in the road?
Perhaps it has blood and other forensic evidence on it?
And as the bollard is in the road, so could the cyclist have been. And
the child.

Anything is possible.

But only one set of evidence will be shown to be true.

Not all things are possible. No motorists were involved, so:-

1. It can't be just a tragic accident
2. The mother will not be blamed for her negligence
3. Speed may be a factor

Exactly. If it were a car, the headline would be:

'Child wanders out into road, tragic accident unavoidable, distraught
motorist didn't see her, deemed not at fault'.

Still, sad event, and sympathy to the family.

"Daniel Barlow" wrote in message
...
"PK" writes:

Whether cyclist stopped or not, the first Para of the first report is
the most telling:

"A girl of five was left fighting for her life after she was mown down
by a speeding cyclist on the *pavement* outside her home."

You're right, but it's not telling me what I think you think it's
telling you. If they're not correct that the cyclist left the scene,
it's entirely probable that the cyclist wasn't speeding *or* sporting
lawnmower blades on the front of her bike either. What this tells me
mostly is that the Daily Mail uses other peoples misery to sell
newspapers (or to draw visitors to their web site, whatever)

Don't get me wrong, if the situation *was* as reported then the cylist
is scum of the lowest order, but I have a certain amount of
scepticism. It's interesting to note that the text seems to have been
changed since you quoted it.

Didn't I see it reported recently that cyclists can't speed, as the relevant
speeding regulations apply to motor vehicles only?

--
David Lloyd
Time flys when you're having fun.
Your luggage flys only after you've left Terminal 5.

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008, David Lloyd wrote:

Didn't I see it reported recently that cyclists can't speed, as the
relevant speeding regulations apply to motor vehicles only?

Cyclists can't break the speed limit, except in rare situations.
Royal parks are one such situation, it is also possible for bylaws or
local acts to impose speed limits on bicycles.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

David Lloyd wrote:

"Daniel Barlow" wrote:
"PK" writes:

Whether cyclist stopped or not, the first Para of the first report is
the most telling:

"A girl of five was left fighting for her life after she was mown down
by a speeding cyclist on the *pavement* outside her home."
You're right, but it's not telling me what I think you think it's
telling you. If they're not correct that the cyclist left the scene,
it's entirely probable that the cyclist wasn't speeding *or* sporting
lawnmower blades on the front of her bike either. What this tells me
mostly is that the Daily Mail uses other peoples misery to sell
newspapers (or to draw visitors to their web site, whatever)

Don't get me wrong, if the situation *was* as reported then the cylist
is scum of the lowest order, but I have a certain amount of
scepticism. It's interesting to note that the text seems to have been
changed since you quoted it.

Didn't I see it reported recently that cyclists can't speed, as the relevant
speeding regulations apply to motor vehicles only?

The word "speed" as a verb, meaning to travel swiftly and without delay
(past participle: "sped") has been in use in English for centuries.
Shakespeare used it. It does not require an Act of Parliament to define
the word or to validate or justify its use. A cyclist can certainly speed.

"NewRiderPS" wrote in message
...

Exactly. If it were a car, the headline would be:

'Child wanders out into road, tragic accident unavoidable, distraught
motorist didn't see her, deemed not at fault'.


And there would be rather more massive condemnation of the driver than there
has been of the cyclist on this thread, and less debating over details
which, glancing quickly through, seem to be aimed at trying to reduce the
blame apportioned to the cyclist.

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:48:19 +0100
"David Lloyd" wrote:

Didn't I see it reported recently that cyclists can't speed, as the
relevant speeding regulations apply to motor vehicles only?

While speed limits don't apply to cyclists on normal roads that
obviously doesn't mean that they have no liability for harm
caused by inappropriate speed in particular situations, e.g failing to
give way to pedestrians on crossings because they can't stop in time.

On 18 Jun, 00:24, "Adam Lea" wrote:
"NewRiderPS" wrote in message

...



Exactly. If it were a car, the headline would be:

'Child wanders out into road, tragic accident unavoidable, distraught
motorist didn't see her, deemed not at fault'.

And there would be rather more massive condemnation of the driver than there
has been of the cyclist on this thread, and less debating over details
which, glancing quickly through, seem to be aimed at trying to reduce the
blame apportioned to the cyclist.


Doubtless, but it is in response to original mis-reporting of the
collision as hit and run. The blame seems to have needed some
reduction.

"Police wish to state that their enquiries have revealed that she did
remain at the scene" (Gloucestershire Constabulary)

"Cyclist hit & run leaves little girl fighting for her life" (Sunday
Mirror)

And the folk-memory of this incident will remain overwhelmingly as
that of a hit and run pavement cyclist, who had to be traced by the
police, despite the newspapers' gradual alteration on their websites.
The Sunday Mirror and the Daily Mail leave a tiny group like urc dead
in the water. And yes, I know that this is partly the result of the
actions of a relative minority of cyclists. But this ignorant anger
builds into "knowledge" which does translate into road behaviour by
motorists, when they see one of us stereotypes wobbling along.

I begin to have some understanding of the experience of UK muslims.
Mind you, don't get me started on them ...

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 12:18:11 -0400, NewRiderPS
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 19:22:43 +0100, Steve C
wrote:

A five year old was knocked over in Cheltenham and badly injured by a
person on a bike. I first saw the story on the Daily Mail's web site -
(http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...d-cyclist.html)
relevant bit to this post being "The female cyclist did not even stop".
However on reading about the incident on Cheltenham's local paper's web
site -
(http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co....l/article.html)
the article states "The cyclist involved has been interviewed by CID
after remaining at the scene and contacting the police."

My full symphathies towards the little girl and I hope she recovers soon
but in terms of this post did the woman on the bike stay or did she
cycle off? Each story paints completely different pictures of the
incident and the comments in the Daily Mail are of the typical tax, fine
and ban cyclists vein. Would it be possible that the Daily Mail has
some (hidden) agenda against cyclists and are exploiting stories like
this for some perverse reason?

Steve C

What is the possibility that the cyclist did not 'hit' the child at
all? Sounds like all the injuries were caused by the fall onto the
bollard.

In addition the mother adds information that is unnecessary to the
story, invoking the comment about someone fixing the doorbell.

Mrs Kent said Millie had simply stepped on to the pavement while
a workman was fixing the front door's buzzer before the cyclist
crashed into her.

In my experience, when someone adds info not related to the incident
they are lying, or assuaging their own guilt/involvement.

Guilt != Culpability

Sounds to me like the mother allowed the child out on her own, when
she should not have (thus the extraneous comment), the child then
skipped or ran out into the street/road and when she saw the cyclist
coming, jumped back and tripped.

I'd suggest they examine the child for injuries related to the 'hit'
by the cyclist. If no abrasions or cuts or bruises are found then I'd
suspect the cyclist didn't hit anybody, but was just in the proximity.
Of course that can't happen b/c the mother would have no one to blame.

Judging from the standard of journalism related to this event, I
wouldn't be suprised if it subsequently turned out there was no
cyclist involved!

--
(\__/) 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