Daily Mail

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

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

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?

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".

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/a...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

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/a...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?

"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

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

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.

"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.