Does the Daily Mail hates Cyclists?

[Peter Clinch]

Paul George wrote:

> We are just trying to get at the truth. The initial report

.... was not in the most objective or overburdened with excess facts
journalistic publication available. It's the Daily Mail, do you
/really/ expect to get the truth?

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Steve C]

Another child was injured today according to the BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/sussex/7460594.stm


"Cyclist sought after girl injured

A four-year-old girl is in a serious condition with head injuries after
she was hit by a cyclist in West Sussex.
....
The youngster had just crossed Aldwick Road, in Bognor, with her mother
and 18-month-old sister when she was struck on the pavement on Tuesday
afternoon.
....
They are now trying to trace the boy, who was on a black BMX-style bike.
He is described as white and in his teens."

Not mentioned at all in the Daily Mail. Why not because on the face of
it this is just as bad as the previous incident? Is it because it was a
teenager who was involved and the Mail just hates more 'mature' cyclists?

Hope this child recovers quickly as well.

 

[PoB]

"Steve C" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:4859299b$0$80732$
| Not mentioned at all in the Daily Mail. Why not because on the face of
| it this is just as bad as the previous incident? Is it because it was a
| teenager who was involved and the Mail just hates more 'mature' cyclists?
|
| Hope this child recovers quickly as well.

The group that owns the Daily Mail owns the local rag in Cheltenham, so they
would share a database of stories, I don't think the Bognor Regis Observer
is in the same group (Johnston Press for Bognor)...

....and they probably thought "Bugger Bognor"

pOB

 

[NewRiderPS]

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 00:24:20 +0100, "Adam Lea" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"NewRiderPS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>> 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.
>

Cute, but I doubt it. We're all aware that cars occasionally hit/graze
kids who venture into the street.

The point is that cars hurt and kill people, not their drivers.
(sarcasm); driving is a right; there's a difference between
manslaughter and -vehicular- manslaughter; 'I didn't see them' is
considered a valid all-purpose excuse for running over cyclists and
other road-sharers.

Seriously, how often do we see 'life threatening' injuries from
collisions with cyclists? In fact, how often do we see cyclists
injuriously colliding with pedestrians? It's rare enough that it makes
the news. Cars do it a lot more frequently and we never hear about it
because those that venture into the street 'deserve to be hit' (or so
they say).

 

[JNugent]

NewRiderPS wrote:

> Seriously, how often do we see 'life threatening' injuries from
> collisions with cyclists?

*Too* often.

And they have a tendency to result from wanton and quite cynical abuse
of facilities - the footway - which are supposed to be reserved for our
use when we are on foot.

The perps often try to excuse themselves by pleading 'force majeure'
(just as though they had no choice but to endanger us when we are at our
most vulnerable) because the alternative - cycling lawfully on the
carriageway - is argued to be too dangerous for the poor things to even
consider.

> In fact, how often do we see cyclists injuriously colliding with pedestrians?

I don't *see* it very often, but I *hear* of it too often. On the
footway, it simply should *never* happen. It can only happen because of
the phenomenon described above.

> It's rare enough that it makes
> the news. Cars do it a lot more frequently

Absolute tripe.

You *never* see a car being driven along a footway at normal travelling
speed (let's not digress onto the subject of vehicles which are out of
control - that's a different, if well-used, red herring).

There are several cyclists (including some adults) who regularly cycle
along the 3 foot wide footway between my property and the carriageway,
barging pedestrians (mainly my neighbours) aside.

As it happens, most posters here quite rightly condemn such arrogant
disregard for pedestrian rights, so don't imagine that you will find
unalloyed support from other cyclists - you won't.

 

[David Hansen]

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 14:42:34 +0100 someone who may be "PK"
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>>, the fact that there was
>> apparently a workman standing on it
>
>
>There was nothing to suggest the workman was *on* the footway - I took the
>report to mean the workman was in the open doorway working on the buzzer

Unless the house has some space at the front working on the pavement
and working in the doorway will amount to the same thing. If the
workman was working in the doorway how did the child get out, push
past him?




--
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]

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 21:01:12 -0400 someone who may be NewRiderPS
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>Seriously, how often do we see 'life threatening' injuries from
>collisions with cyclists? In fact, how often do we see cyclists
>injuriously colliding with pedestrians? It's rare enough that it makes
>the news. Cars do it a lot more frequently and we never hear about it
>because those that venture into the street 'deserve to be hit' (or so
>they say).

"They" also speak of cars and cyclists, either deliberately or
accidentally. It would be better to speak of cars and bikes, or
motorists and cyclists.



--
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

 

[JNugent]

David Hansen wrote:

> NewRiderPS <[email protected]> wroteL

>> Seriously, how often do we see 'life threatening' injuries from
>> collisions with cyclists? In fact, how often do we see cyclists
>> injuriously colliding with pedestrians? It's rare enough that it makes
>> the news. Cars do it a lot more frequently and we never hear about it
>> because those that venture into the street 'deserve to be hit' (or so
>> they say).

> "They" also speak of cars and cyclists, either deliberately or
> accidentally. It would be better to speak of cars and bikes, or
> motorists and cyclists.

Absolutely. That sort of linguistic imprecision* annoys me too.

That is one of the reasons why I found the recent allegation by a poster
here that a driver shouted at him "I'm a ******* car" to be totally
unbelievable. When one is making things up, care should be taken that
the fabrication has the ring of truth about it. "I'm a ... car" is
something that no-one would say.

[* However, I suggest that "drivers" is better than "motorists", that
latter term, for me, always conjuring up an image of a rakishly-clad,
moustachioed person in a British Racing Green MG about it.]

 

[Dave Larrington]

In news:[email protected],
JNugent <[email protected]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:

> You *never* see a car being driven along a footway at normal
> travelling speed (let's not digress onto the subject of vehicles
> which are out of control - that's a different, if well-used, red
> herring).

Horse. I see it almost daily, when the impatient drive over the pavement in
order to cut across Kwik-Fit's forecourt and onto the A406, merely so they
don't have to wait a few second for the lights at the Crooked Billet
roundabout.

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Tip of the Day: 20%

 

[JNugent]

Dave Larrington wrote:

> JNugent <[email protected]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:

>> You *never* see a car being driven along a footway at normal
>> travelling speed (let's not digress onto the subject of vehicles
>> which are out of control - that's a different, if well-used, red
>> herring).

> Horse. I see it almost daily, when the impatient drive over the pavement in
> order to cut across Kwik-Fit's forecourt and onto the A406, merely so they
> don't have to wait a few second for the lights at the Crooked Billet
> roundabout.

A. It is lawful to cross a footway to gain access to land adjacent to
the highway (think about it).

B. The maneouvre you describe - even if it were as unlawful as you seem
to think - is not done at normal travelling speed.

0/10.

You know full well that what you describe is not comparable to the
cynical disregard of pedestrian safety exhibited by some (only some,
certainly not all) cyclists.

 

[spindrift]

On Jun 19, 9:35 am, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Larrington wrote:
> > JNugent <[email protected]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
> >> You *never* see a car being driven along a footway at normal
> >> travelling speed (let's not digress onto the subject of vehicles
> >> which are out of control - that's a different, if well-used, red
> >> herring).
> > Horse.  I see it almost daily, when the impatient drive over the pavement in
> > order to cut across Kwik-Fit's forecourt and onto the A406, merely so they
> > don't have to wait a few second for the lights at the Crooked Billet
> > roundabout.
>
> A. It is lawful to cross a footway to gain access to land adjacent to
> the highway (think about it).
>
> B. The maneouvre you describe - even if it were as unlawful as you seem
> to think - is not done at normal travelling speed.
>
> 0/10.
>
> You know full well that what you describe is not comparable to the
> cynical disregard of pedestrian safety exhibited by some (only some,
> certainly not all) cyclists.


Forty people a year are killed by cars mounting the pavement.


You're living in cuckoo-land.

 

[JNugent]

spindrift wrote:

> JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Dave Larrington wrote:
>>> JNugent <[email protected]>:

>>>> You *never* see a car being driven along a footway at normal
>>>> travelling speed (let's not digress onto the subject of vehicles
>>>> which are out of control - that's a different, if well-used, red
>>>> herring).

>>> Horse. I see it almost daily, when the impatient drive over the pavement in
>>> order to cut across Kwik-Fit's forecourt and onto the A406, merely so they
>>> don't have to wait a few second for the lights at the Crooked Billet
>>> roundabout.

>> A. It is lawful to cross a footway to gain access to land adjacent to
>> the highway (think about it).

>> B. The maneouvre you describe - even if it were as unlawful as you seem
>> to think - is not done at normal travelling speed.

>> 0/10.

>> You know full well that what you describe is not comparable to the
>> cynical disregard of pedestrian safety exhibited by some (only some,
>> certainly not all) cyclists.

> Forty people a year are killed by cars mounting the pavement.

Why do you think I wrote:

"...(let's not digress onto the subject of vehicles which are out of
control - that's a different, if well-used, red herring)..."?

> You're living in cuckoo-land.

Actually, that would be anyone who can't tell the difference between a
deliberate (and cynical) act and an involuntary one - or who pretends
that there is no difference between them when they know full well that
they are completely different.

Drivers and riders should never lose control of their vehicles. But
sometimes they do. Sometimes, it's their own fault that they have lost
control. Sometimes it isn't.

But whatever blame can or cannot be attributed in such cases, and even
if the number of people killed by vehicles "mounting the pavement" were
ten times higher than it is, that would not be a reason to cycle along
the footway - would it?

 

[[email protected]]

On 17 Jun, 10:20, Dan Gregory
<[email protected]> wrote:
> PK wrote:
> > The key issue, is whether the cyclist was on the pavement.
>
> If it was on the pavement why is the photographer on the pavement taking
> photos of the accident scene on the road??

The forensic photographer will photograph anything that could possibly
be of interest, this includes any debris that may have come from the
accident, blood spatter etc. For an incident like this its not hard to
imagine an FP photographing quite a wide area so don't infer anything
from the direction the FP's camera was pointing when the press
photographer got the shot for the paper....

 

[spindrift]

On Jun 19, 9:55 am, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
> spindrift wrote:
> > JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Dave Larrington wrote:
> >>> JNugent <[email protected]>:
> >>>> You *never* see a car being driven along a footway at normal
> >>>> travelling speed (let's not digress onto the subject of vehicles
> >>>> which are out of control - that's a different, if well-used, red
> >>>> herring).
> >>> Horse.  I see it almost daily, when the impatient drive over the pavement in
> >>> order to cut across Kwik-Fit's forecourt and onto the A406, merely sothey
> >>> don't have to wait a few second for the lights at the Crooked Billet
> >>> roundabout.
> >> A. It is lawful to cross a footway to gain access to land adjacent to
> >> the highway (think about it).
> >> B. The maneouvre you describe - even if it were as unlawful as you seem
> >> to think - is not done at normal travelling speed.
> >> 0/10.
> >> You know full well that what you describe is not comparable to the
> >> cynical disregard of pedestrian safety exhibited by some (only some,
> >> certainly not all) cyclists.
> > Forty people a year are killed by cars mounting the pavement.
>
> Why do you think I wrote:
>
> "...(let's not digress onto the subject of vehicles which are out of
> control - that's a different, if well-used, red herring)..."?
>
> > You're living in cuckoo-land.
>
> Actually, that would be anyone who can't tell the difference between a
> deliberate (and cynical) act and an involuntary one - or who pretends
> that there is no difference between them when they know full well that
> they are completely different.
>
> Drivers and riders should never lose control of their vehicles. But
> sometimes they do. Sometimes, it's their own fault that they have lost
> control. Sometimes it isn't.
>
> But whatever blame can or cannot be attributed in such cases, and even
> if the number of people killed by vehicles "mounting the pavement" were
> ten times higher than it is, that would not be a reason to cycle along
> the footway - would it?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

An instance, please , of a car going out of control that wasn't the
drivers' fault.

 

[Robin Johnson]

JNugent wrote:
> You *never* see a car being driven along a footway at normal travelling
> speed (let's not digress onto the subject of vehicles which are out of
> control - that's a different, if well-used, red herring).

I had to jump out of one's way the other day. The pavement near my work
is wide enough for a Transit van to pull up onto, so they do.
--
Robin Johnson

 

[JNugent]

spindrift wrote:

> JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>> spindrift wrote:
>>> JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Dave Larrington wrote:
>>>>> JNugent <[email protected]>:

>>>>>> You *never* see a car being driven along a footway at normal
>>>>>> travelling speed (let's not digress onto the subject of vehicles
>>>>>> which are out of control - that's a different, if well-used, red
>>>>>> herring).

>>>>> Horse. I see it almost daily, when the impatient drive over the pavement in
>>>>> order to cut across Kwik-Fit's forecourt and onto the A406, merely so they
>>>>> don't have to wait a few second for the lights at the Crooked Billet
>>>>> roundabout.

>>>> A. It is lawful to cross a footway to gain access to land adjacent to
>>>> the highway (think about it).
>>>> B. The maneouvre you describe - even if it were as unlawful as you seem
>>>> to think - is not done at normal travelling speed.
>>>> 0/10.
>>>> You know full well that what you describe is not comparable to the
>>>> cynical disregard of pedestrian safety exhibited by some (only some,
>>>> certainly not all) cyclists.

>>> Forty people a year are killed by cars mounting the pavement.

>> Why do you think I wrote:
>> "...(let's not digress onto the subject of vehicles which are out of
>> control - that's a different, if well-used, red herring)..."?

>>> You're living in cuckoo-land.

>> Actually, that would be anyone who can't tell the difference between a
>> deliberate (and cynical) act and an involuntary one - or who pretends
>> that there is no difference between them when they know full well that
>> they are completely different.

>> Drivers and riders should never lose control of their vehicles. But
>> sometimes they do. Sometimes, it's their own fault that they have lost
>> control. Sometimes it isn't.

>> But whatever blame can or cannot be attributed in such cases, and even
>> if the number of people killed by vehicles "mounting the pavement" were
>> ten times higher than it is, that would not be a reason to cycle along
>> the footway - would it?

> An instance, please , of a car going out of control that wasn't the
> drivers' fault.

I didn't limit my remarks to cars. The driver of any vehicle can lose
control.

You asked for instances - do you mean instances other than drivers or
riders losing control because of:

(a) suffering a medical emergency (eg, a heart attack or stroke), or
(b) having to maneouvre or brake violently to avoid something which
moves suddenly into their path from an unseen position (eg, a vehicle
emerging without giving way or a pedesrian darting out into the road), or
(c) having their vehicle or themselves struck by another vehicle or a
missile?

But perhaps you would say that all of those are the driver's fault.

So there's an answer to your question.

Perhaps you might like to provide the answer to mine?

Whatever blame can or cannot be attributed in cases of lost control, and
even if the number of people killed by vehicles "mounting the pavement"
were ten times higher than it is, that would not be a reason to cycle
along the footway - would it?

 

[JNugent]

Robin Johnson wrote:

> JNugent wrote:

>> You *never* see a car being driven along a footway at normal
>> travelling speed (let's not digress onto the subject of vehicles which
>> are out of control - that's a different, if well-used, red herring).

> I had to jump out of one's way the other day. The pavement near my work
> is wide enough for a Transit van to pull up onto, so they do.

"Pull up onto"?

What does that mean?

Is it like when I pull up onto my driveway?

I don't do that at normal travelling speed (which would be 30ish along
this road), but I asume this Transit must have been doing that sort of
speed for you to consider that the case is one of a vehicle being driven
along the footway at normal travelling speed. It must have been a sight
to see. No wonder you claim you "had" to "jump out of the way".

 

[PK]

"Robin Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> JNugent wrote:
>> You *never* see a car being driven along a footway at normal travelling
>> speed (let's not digress onto the subject of vehicles which are out of
>> control - that's a different, if well-used, red herring).
>
> I had to jump out of one's way the other day. The pavement near my work is
> wide enough for a Transit van to pull up onto, so they do.


pull up on, not travel intentionally from a to b at speed.

pk

 

[Dave Larrington]

In news:[email protected],
JNugent <[email protected]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
> Dave Larrington wrote:
>
>> JNugent <[email protected]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
>
>>> You *never* see a car being driven along a footway at normal
>>> travelling speed (let's not digress onto the subject of vehicles
>>> which are out of control - that's a different, if well-used, red
>>> herring).
>
>> Horse. I see it almost daily, when the impatient drive over the
>> pavement in order to cut across Kwik-Fit's forecourt and onto the
>> A406, merely so they don't have to wait a few second for the lights
>> at the Crooked Billet roundabout.
>
> A. It is lawful to cross a footway to gain access to land adjacent to
> the highway (think about it).
>
> B. The maneouvre you describe - even if it were as unlawful as you
> seem to think - is not done at normal travelling speed.
>
> 0/10.
>
> You know full well that what you describe is not comparable to the
> cynical disregard of pedestrian safety exhibited by some (only some,
> certainly not all) cyclists.

http://www.shipmentoffail.com/fails/2007/12/your-shipment-of-fail-has-been-delivered/

Not only do they cross the pavement to reach Kwik-fit's forecourt, but they
frequently drive a significant distance /along/ it, as the road is full of
stationary motor vehicles queueing at the lights.


--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
A *National* Socialist Government did you say, Mr. Chaplin?

 

[Robin Johnson]

JNugent wrote:
> Robin Johnson wrote:
>
>> JNugent wrote:
>
>>> You *never* see a car being driven along a footway at normal
>>> travelling speed (let's not digress onto the subject of vehicles
>>> which are out of control - that's a different, if well-used, red
>>> herring).
>
>> I had to jump out of one's way the other day. The pavement near my
>> work is wide enough for a Transit van to pull up onto, so they do.
>
> "Pull up onto"?
>
> What does that mean?

Park on. I didn't want you to say parked vehicles aren't moving.

> I don't do that at normal travelling speed (which would be 30ish along
> this road), but I asume this Transit must have been doing that sort of
> speed for you to consider that the case is one of a vehicle being driven
> along the footway at normal travelling speed.

It was certainly above normal travelling speed for a pavement.

> It must have been a sight
> to see. No wonder you claim you "had" to "jump out of the way".

I'll admit to being a bit of an airhead as a pedestrian sometimes, but
why shouldn't I be? I don't expect to encounter Transit vans.
--
Robin Johnson