Does the Daily Mail hates Cyclists?

Steve C

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/art...ad-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...il/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

PK

"Steve C" <sc99cs@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:4856af7f$0$80733$c5fe31e7@reader.usenet4all.se...
>
> 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


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."



pk

Daniel Barlow

"PK" <pgk2@hotmail.co.uk> 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.


-dan

Andy Leighton

On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 20:16:01 +0100, Daniel Barlow <dan@telent.net> wrote:
> "PK" <pgk2@hotmail.co.uk> 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)

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. After all this is the same paper that has the line "Officials
believe that the area - near to the Taliban stronghold of Quetta in
Pakistan - was turning dried cannabis leaves into heroin." in one of its
stories.

> 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.

Indeed.

--
Andy Leighton => andyl@azaal.plus.com
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

PK

"Daniel Barlow" <dan@telent.net> wrote in message
news:87myll198u.fsf@toy.config...
> "PK" <pgk2@hotmail.co.uk> 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.
>
>
> -dan


Not much of a change:

"A girl of five was left with horrific head injuries after she was mown down
by a cyclist on the pavement outside her home."



The key issue, is whether the cyclist was on the pavement.



pk

PK

"Andy Leighton" <andyl@azaal.plus.com> wrote in message
news:slrng5die7.rb1.andyl@azaal.plus.com...

> 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/art...ad-cyclist.html

pk

JNugent

Daniel Barlow wrote:

> "PK" <pgk2@hotmail.co.uk> 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.

*Any* speed along the footway is excessive.

> 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)

*All* newspapers use whatever it is they choose to report in order to
sell copies. They are businesses, and they all try to appeal to a
particular demographic.

However, unless this story was *front page* news, it would be hard to
see how it had sold any more copies than if the story hadn't been reported.

Was it on the front page? I don't know whether it was.

> 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.

On the "facts" as known and reported, it possible that both versions are
correct and that the cyclist was apprehended by a passer-by whilst
trying to escape.

JNugent

PK wrote:

> "Daniel Barlow" <dan@telent.net> wrote:
>> "PK" <pgk2@hotmail.co.uk> 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.

> Not much of a change:

> "A girl of five was left with horrific head injuries after she was mown
> down by a cyclist on the pavement outside her home."

> The key issue, is whether the cyclist was on the pavement.

It says she was. That doesn't sound like much of an "ishoo".

JNugent

PK wrote:
> "Daniel Barlow" <dan@telent.net> wrote in message
> news:87myll198u.fsf@toy.config...
>> "PK" <pgk2@hotmail.co.uk> 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.
>>
>>
>> -dan
>
>
> Not much of a change:
>
> "A girl of five was left with horrific head injuries after she was mown
> down by a cyclist on the pavement outside her home."

> The key issue, is whether the cyclist was on the pavement.

Verbatim from the relevant website at 22:40 tonight (16/06/08):

STARTQUOTE:
"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.

As she fell, Millie is believed to have cracked her head on a metal
bollard, fracturing her skull and causing massive internal bleeding
around the brain.

She was taken to Cheltenham General Hospital with life-threatening head
injuries ... Surgeons struggled for four hours to stem blood loss in her
head, before fitting metal plates to cover the open fractures in her
skull. ...

Gloucestershire Police said a woman cyclist was being questioned about
the incident.

No arrests have been made. Sergeant Steve Jones said: 'The girl's
injuries are significant but improving. A cyclist has been traced.
ENDQUOTE

Perhaps she was local and was recognised.

Martin

JNugent wrote:
> Daniel Barlow wrote:
>
>> "PK" <pgk2@hotmail.co.uk> 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.
>
> *Any* speed along the footway is excessive.

Indeed. Anyone cycling along this footway is incredibly foolish. I
guestimate the width to be about 2feet.

>> 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)
>
> *All* newspapers use whatever it is they choose to report in order to
> sell copies. They are businesses, and they all try to appeal to a
> particular demographic.

Indeed. I had the unfortunate experience of flicking through a copy of
the daily mail at work the other day.
The mails demography seems to be for people who like to moan about
anything they can, and gossip about celebrities.

JNugent

Martin wrote:
>
> JNugent wrote:
>> Daniel Barlow wrote:
>>
>>> "PK" <pgk2@hotmail.co.uk> 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.
>>
>> *Any* speed along the footway is excessive.
>
> Indeed. Anyone cycling along this footway is incredibly foolish. I
> guestimate the width to be about 2feet.
>
>>> 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)
>>
>> *All* newspapers use whatever it is they choose to report in order to
>> sell copies. They are businesses, and they all try to appeal to a
>> particular demographic.
>
> Indeed. I had the unfortunate experience of flicking through a copy of
> the daily mail at work the other day.
> The mails demography seems to be for people who like to moan about
> anything they can, and gossip about celebrities.

That describes around 50% of the national dailies. As it happens, the
Daily Mail is far from being the worst offender in either respect.

Geoff Lane

Steve C <sc99cs@googlemail.com> wrote in news:4856af7f$0$80733$c5fe31e7
@reader.usenet4all.se:

> Would it be possible that the Daily Mail has
> some (hidden) agenda against cyclists and are exploiting stories like
> this for some perverse reason?

I've just posted the text from "This is Gloucestershire" as a comment and
expressed wonder as to whether The Mail is reporting accurately. I also
wonder whether they'll post my comment on their website ...

spindrift

On Jun 17, 7:48*am, Geoff Lane <ge...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> Steve C <sc9...@googlemail.com> wrote in news:4856af7f$0$80733$c5fe31e7
> @reader.usenet4all.se:
>
> > Would it be possible that the Daily Mail has
> > some (hidden) agenda against cyclists and are exploiting stories like
> > this for some perverse reason?
>
> I've just posted the text from "This is Gloucestershire" as a comment and
> expressed wonder as to whether The Mail is reporting accurately. I also
> wonder whether they'll post my comment on their website ...

they won't.

I know for a fact that several people reported this filth:

The story:

Pictured: Shocking moment drunk driver ploughs into group of
cyclists.

A cyclist was killed and 10 others were injured yesterday when a car
ploughed into a bike race in Mexico.

The terrified sportsmen were hurled high into the air as a 28-year-old
driver, apparently drunk and asleep at the wheel, crashed into the
race near the US-Mexico border.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s.html#comments

And then the site moderators allow this comment:

This clearly shows that cycling is dangerous and should be banned.
Those bikes will have caused terrible damage to the car as well

- Ken Hall, Barrow in Furness, Cumbria, 03/6/2008 09:33


Beyond fxxxing belief.


Many, many comments criticising this vile garbage did not appear on
the website, despite that funny symbol next to it that means it's been
flagged.



I wonder if the cyclist in the OP could sue, seeing as The Mail lied
about her leaving the scene...

Alan Braggins

In article <HPydnWMyXZm9UcvVnZ2dnUVZ8vKdnZ2d@bt.com>, PK wrote:
>"Andy Leighton" <andyl@azaal.plus.com> wrote in message
>news:slrng5die7.rb1.andyl@azaal.plus.com...
>
>> 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/art...ad-cyclist.html

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