Yet another cyclist death, this one near Edinburgh

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by David Hansen, Jan 26, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. David Hansen

    David Hansen Guest

    The Edinburgh Evening News for Saturday 25/1/03 has news of the death of someone else.
    http://www.edinburghnews.com/index.cfm?id=99392003 I repeat most of the article for posterity.

    Note that he died due to a motor vehicle driver and the "massive head injuries" were not prevented
    by his helmet.

    =================================================================

    POLICE were today searching for a hit-and-run driver who killed a cyclist near his Midlothian home.

    Alan John Moir died just an hour after he was struck by a van in Dalkeith last night.

    It is believed the 34-year-old suffered massive head injuries after the wing mirror from the vehicle
    struck him.

    Mr Moir was heading to his Kippielaw Road home along the A68 Old Dalkeith Road when he was struck by
    the dark-coloured - possibly dark blue or black Ford Transit-style van - just south of Lugton Brae.

    Mr Moir was taken by ambulance to Edinburgh Royal Infirmary but later died of his injuries.
    Police have launched a major investigation into the incident and have appealed for public help in
    tracing the van.

    A spokesman said: "The van is described as being Transit/Ambulance sized, having tail lights fitted
    near the bottom and the top rear of the vehicle. It is described as being possibly rounded at the
    top edges. The nearside door mirror, which did not have glass fitted, was recovered at the locus."

    A spokesman for the Scottish Ambulance Service said: "We arrived at the scene to find a man had been
    thrown from his bike.

    "He had intensive head injuries. He had on-going treatment and was taken to Edinburgh Royal
    Infirmary where he died of his injuries."

    [snip]

    A neighbour of Mr Moir’s said it was a tragic loss. He said: "He was a really good, honest man and a
    really good friend."

    Police are seeking information on the movements of Mr Moir prior to the accident. They want to know
    if other motorists may have seen him cycling in the area of Gilmerton Flyover/Dobbies Garden Centre
    or the Sheriffhall Roundabout near to Old Dalkeith Road towards Dalkeith, as these are said to be
    his normal choices of routes home.

    He was wearing a black cycling helmet, light blue fleece style jacket and dark coloured cycling
    shorts. His bicycle is a red and white racer.

    =================================================================

    --
    David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
    keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.
     
    Tags:


  2. Davis, I don't think anyone on this newsgroup, however pro-helmet they are is under any illusion
    that a helmet is going to say anyone from massive head injuries.

    Saying that - it *is* incredibly sad that yet another cyclist is killed. I hope they get the driver
    of the vehicle involved.

    helen s

    ~~~~~~~~~~
    Flush out that intestinal parasite and/or the waste product before sending a reply!

    Any speeliong mistake$ aR the resiult of my cats sitting on the keyboaRRRDdd
    ~~~~~~~~~~
     
  3. Peter B

    Peter B Guest

    "David Hansen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > The Edinburgh Evening News for Saturday 25/1/03 has news of the death of someone else.
    > http://www.edinburghnews.com/index.cfm?id=99392003 I repeat most of the article for posterity.
    >
    > Note that he died due to a motor vehicle driver and the "massive head injuries" were not prevented
    > by his helmet.

    Note also that contemporary expression and it's variants "was in collision with....." was supplanted
    by the more correct "was struck by....".

    No consolation but let's call a spade a spade.

    Pete
     
  4. Paul - XXX

    Paul - XXX Guest

    David Hansen, deftly scribbled ;

    > The Edinburgh Evening News for Saturday 25/1/03 has news of the death of someone else.
    > http://www.edinburghnews.com/index.cfm?id=99392003 I repeat most of the article for posterity.
    >
    > Note that he died due to a motor vehicle driver and the "massive head injuries" were not prevented
    > by his helmet.

    It's a sad loss when anyone dies, but you have no true knowledge of whether the van driver or the
    cyclist caused the collision. So, aren't you 'jumping the gun' a bit ? How do you know it wasn't the
    cyclists fault ? OK, circumstantial evidence of the driver not stopping does lend some weight to
    that, but aren't you acting just like 'the car drivers' on the 'speed' websites ?

    What the newspaper says is also not necesarily strictly accurate because they don't know he was
    'struck by' .. it's all conjecture until proven otherwise. The cyclist could have 'struck' the van,
    and the van driver may have been an entirely innocent party. As it appears it was only the wing
    mirror that hit the cyclist, he maybe (and that is only a maybe) didn't even know he'd hit anything.

    Unless you saw it, in which case I may be wrong. ;)

    Your 'hidden agenda' of introducing your views on the wearing of cycle helmets, on the back of some
    persons death, is also noted with some disgust.

    --
    ...................................Paul-xxx Seti 1358 wu in 9565 hours
     
  5. Peter B

    Peter B Guest

    "David Hansen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > The Edinburgh Evening News for Saturday 25/1/03 has news of the death of someone else.
    > http://www.edinburghnews.com/index.cfm?id=99392003

    I neither know nor care what motivated the OP and not being a witness can't lay blame, but if you
    look at the photograph certain things are readily apparent: The road has a bend and is surfaced with
    an extra grippy coating suggesting it is a problem section. Also there is a central refuge, great
    for pedestrians and also useful for keeping dickhead drivers to their own side of the road but
    creating a bottleneck for any motor vehicle behind a cyclist and perhaps ruling out the feasibility
    of attempting an overtake if safety is to be considered.

    Pete
     
  6. David Hansen

    David Hansen Guest

    On 26 Jan 2003 11:41:02 GMT someone who may be [email protected]
    (wafflycathcsdirtycatlitter) wrote this:-

    >I don't think anyone on this newsgroup, however pro-helmet they are is under any illusion that a
    >helmet is going to say anyone from massive head injuries.

    It's an impression that some individuals and organisations give. It's an impression that must be
    countered at every possible occasion.

    --
    David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
    keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.
     
  7. Pete Biggs

    Pete Biggs Guest

    Paul - xxx wrote:
    > David Hansen wrote:
    >> Note that he died due to a motor vehicle driver and the "massive head injuries" were not
    >> prevented by his helmet.

    > Your 'hidden agenda' of introducing your views on the wearing of cycle helmets, on the back of
    > some persons death, is also noted with some disgust.

    hear, hear.

    ~PB
     
  8. Tim Cain

    Tim Cain Guest

    "Peter B" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    >
    > "David Hansen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > The Edinburgh Evening News for Saturday 25/1/03 has news of the death of someone else.
    > > http://www.edinburghnews.com/index.cfm?id=99392003 I repeat most of the article for posterity.
    > >
    > > Note that he died due to a motor vehicle driver and the "massive head injuries" were not
    > > prevented by his helmet.
    >
    > Note also that contemporary expression and it's variants "was in collision with....." was
    > supplanted by the more correct "was struck by....".
    >
    > No consolation but let's call a spade a spade.

    Nay lad.

    Why call it a spade, when we can call it a digging impliment?

    Tim.
     
  9. David Hansen

    David Hansen Guest

    On Sun, 26 Jan 2003 14:04:56 -0000 someone who may be "Paul - xxx" <[email protected]>
    wrote this:-

    >The cyclist could have 'struck' the van,

    Highly unlikely. Perhaps you could indicate how?

    Had he 'struck' the van then he would very likely have crashed into a different part.

    >As it appears it was only the wing mirror that hit the cyclist, he maybe (and that is only a maybe)
    >didn't even know he'd hit anything.

    A very big maybe. The sound of breaking cycle helmet, the vibration transmitted along the arms to
    the van body, the sound of the wing mirror falling off and hitting the road. A very big maybe.

    >Your 'hidden agenda' of introducing your views on the wearing of cycle helmets, on the back of some
    >persons death, is also noted with some disgust.

    Nothing hidden and nothing for me to apologise for. Helmet discussions are full of people who say,
    "my helmet saved my life". Those who could say, "my helmet didn't save my life" are obviously absent
    from discussions.

    --
    David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
    keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.
     
  10. Kona

    Kona Guest

    "Paul - xxx" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > David Hansen, deftly scribbled ;
    >
    > > The Edinburgh Evening News for Saturday 25/1/03 has news of the death of someone else.
    > > http://www.edinburghnews.com/index.cfm?id=99392003 I repeat most of the article for posterity.
    > >
    > > Note that he died due to a motor vehicle driver and the "massive head injuries" were not
    > > prevented by his helmet.
    >
    > It's a sad loss when anyone dies, but you have no true knowledge of
    whether
    > the van driver or the cyclist caused the collision. So, aren't you
    'jumping
    > the gun' a bit ? How do you know it wasn't the cyclists fault ? OK, circumstantial evidence of the
    > driver not stopping does lend some weight
    to
    > that, but aren't you acting just like 'the car drivers' on the 'speed' websites ?
    >
    > What the newspaper says is also not necesarily strictly accurate because they don't know he was
    > 'struck by' .. it's all conjecture until proven otherwise. The cyclist could have 'struck' the
    > van, and the van driver
    may
    > have been an entirely innocent party. As it appears it was only the wing mirror that hit the
    > cyclist, he maybe (and that is only a maybe) didn't
    even
    > know he'd hit anything.
    >
    I've been hit by a *50mph wing mirror* while cycling, it was 9 years ago. And I completely avoided
    that particular stretch of road for absolutely *months*. Because the idea of riding there again was
    too much for me. Mentally I mean.

    I cycle-commute eight months of the year, but have not got the nerve to do it after dark. But I
    admire those of you who do!!
     
  11. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    On Sun, 26 Jan 2003 14:04:56 -0000, "Paul - xxx" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > As it appears it was only the wing mirror that hit the cyclist, he maybe (and that is only a
    > maybe) didn't even know he'd hit anything.

    You'd have to be pretty much brain dead not to notice a bang big enough to completely remove a
    mirror assembly on a van, thats not going to be a quiet thing. Which argues that the van driver
    was in the wrong and knew it - at the very least he's left the scene of the collision, itself
    an offence.

    Guy
    ===
    ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
    dynamic DNS permitting)
    NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
    work. Apologies.
     
  12. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    On Sun, 26 Jan 2003 12:21:24 +0000, David Hansen <[email protected]> wrote:

    >>I don't think anyone on this newsgroup, however pro-helmet they are is under any illusion that a
    >>helmet is going to say anyone from massive head injuries.

    >It's an impression that some individuals and organisations give. It's an impression that must be
    >countered at every possible occasion.

    No need to do so here, I would say, as we're all well aware of it. And I'll stop there rather than
    risk YAHT.

    Guy
    ===
    ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
    dynamic DNS permitting)
    NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
    work. Apologies.
     
  13. Paul - XXX

    Paul - XXX Guest

    David Hansen, deftly scribbled ;

    > On Sun, 26 Jan 2003 14:04:56 -0000 someone who may be "Paul - xxx" <[email protected]>
    > wrote this:-
    >
    >> The cyclist could have 'struck' the van,
    >
    > Highly unlikely. Perhaps you could indicate how?

    No idea, I didn't see it. I do know of someone many years ago, maybe 14, who was cycling,
    'undertaking' a slowly moving Artic, and hit his head on the wing mirror bracket (relatively
    immovable) at a fair rate of knots. He also died. He wasn't wearing a helmet. (To pre-empt your
    next question)

    > Had he 'struck' the van then he would very likely have crashed into a different part.

    How do you know that ?

    >> As it appears it was only the wing mirror that hit the cyclist, he maybe (and that is only a
    >> maybe) didn't even know he'd hit anything.
    >
    > A very big maybe. The sound of breaking cycle helmet, the vibration transmitted along the arms to
    > the van body, the sound of the wing mirror falling off and hitting the road. A very big maybe.

    Isn't 'maybe' what I said, twice, to emphasise it ?

    >> Your 'hidden agenda' of introducing your views on the wearing of cycle helmets, on the back of
    >> some persons death, is also noted with some disgust.
    >
    > Nothing hidden and nothing for me to apologise for. Helmet discussions are full of people who say,
    > "my helmet saved my life". Those who could say, "my helmet didn't save my life" are obviously
    > absent from discussions.

    Your routine use of "Yet another cyclist death" to further press and sensationalise your tired
    argument, that you've already done many, many times, and no doubt will continue to do so, in this
    same newsgroup, sickens
    me. You know absolutely nothing, other than press reports, about the deceased or the manner in
    which he died and yet you use this untimely death to further your own ideals is what's so
    disgusting. I don't want an apology, I never asked for one anyway, just a realisation that
    you are an uncaring, unfeeling person who appears to revel in it when someone dies and you
    see yet another opportunity to add your 'spin' to the circumstances.

    --
    ...................................Paul-xxx Seti 1363 wu in 9630 hours
     
  14. Paul - XXX

    Paul - XXX Guest

    Just zis Guy, you know?, deftly scribbled ;

    > On Sun, 26 Jan 2003 14:04:56 -0000, "Paul - xxx" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> As it appears it was only the wing mirror that hit the cyclist, he maybe (and that is only a
    >> maybe) didn't even know he'd hit anything.
    >
    > You'd have to be pretty much brain dead not to notice a bang big enough to completely remove a
    > mirror assembly on a van, thats not going to be a quiet thing. Which argues that the van driver
    > was in the wrong and knew it - at the very least he's left the scene of the collision, itself an
    > offence.

    I understand this, I wasn't really arguing the case for the driver. According to many posts and
    posters to this newsgroup, isn't being "pretty brain dead" a normal driving state of mind .. ;) It
    was more a case of arguing against the continuation of the helmet debate .. the above was 'fallout'
    from the rest of DH's post, shall we say .. ;)

    --
    ...................................Paul-xxx Seti 1363 wu in 9630 hours
     
  15. David Hansen

    David Hansen Guest

    On Sun, 26 Jan 2003 14:08:32 +0000 someone who may be "Just zis Guy, you know?"
    <[email protected]> wrote this:-

    >No need to do so here, I would say

    I think differently.

    Every helmet discussion soon generates someone who claims that their helmet saved their life. For
    obvious reasons people do not say that their helmet didn't save their life.

    --
    David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
    keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.
     
  16. Frank

    Frank Guest

    "Paul - xxx" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > David Hansen, deftly scribbled ;
    >
    > > On Sun, 26 Jan 2003 14:04:56 -0000 someone who may be "Paul - xxx" <[email protected]>
    > > wrote this:-
    > >
    > >> The cyclist could have 'struck' the van,
    > >
    > > Highly unlikely. Perhaps you could indicate how?
    >
    > No idea, I didn't see it. I do know of someone many years ago, maybe 14, who was cycling,
    > 'undertaking' a slowly moving Artic, and hit his head on the wing mirror bracket (relatively
    > immovable) at a fair rate of knots.
    He
    > also died. He wasn't wearing a helmet. (To pre-empt your next question)
    >

    The article is quite definite that the driver killed the cyclist, I would presume that this is
    because the head injury is at the back and/or there were witnesses

    We can say maybe about anything, but this article it is about as definite as they get. Perhaps he
    was hit by a meteorite and it only looked like the van hit him?

    You sound like a Paul Smith style motorist apologist.

    snip
    >
    > Your routine use of "Yet another cyclist death" to further press and sensationalise your tired
    > argument, that you've already done many, many times, and no doubt will continue to do so, in this
    > same newsgroup,
    sickens
    > me. You know absolutely nothing, other than press reports, about the deceased or the manner in
    > which he died and yet you use this untimely
    death
    > to further your own ideals is what's so disgusting. I don't want an apology, I never asked for one
    > anyway, just a realisation that you are an uncaring, unfeeling person who appears to revel in it
    > when someone dies
    and
    > you see yet another opportunity to add your 'spin' to the circumstances.
    >
    >

    We have had loads of stories about cyclist being killed over the last two weeks, *yet another* seems
    like entirely appropriate language.

    If we are talking about life saving safety equipment it seems entirely appropriate that it should be
    highlighted when it fails to work, by necessity this will be when someone has died or been seriously
    injured. What you are trying to do is censor serious discussion by restricting the evidence people
    use to explain their position. No doubt when someone dies from lung cancer after a lifetimes smoking
    you believe it would be wrong for the anti-smoking lobby to mention it.

    David does not appear to have spun the story in anyway, he has used it as evidence to support his
    position on cycling helmets.
     
  17. Tony Raven

    Tony Raven Guest

    David Hansen <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > I think differently.
    >

    Only in that you want to debate this subject yet again ad nauseam and use the unfortunate death of a
    cyclist as your pretext to get started. Lots of people don't want to wear helmets, lots do. Let them
    make their own minds up..

    > Every helmet discussion soon generates someone who claims that their helmet saved their life. For
    > obvious reasons people do not say that their helmet didn't save their life.

    So what? Nor do they say not wearing a helmet saved their life.

    Tony
     
  18. Tony Raven

    Tony Raven Guest

    Frank <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > We have had loads of stories about cyclist being killed over the last two weeks, *yet another*
    > seems like entirely appropriate language.
    >

    On average their will unfortunately be one cyclist death every two to three days. I just hope each
    one does not start another dreaded helmet thread.

    Tony

    http://www.raven-family.com

    "The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place" George
    Bernard Shaw.
     
  19. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    On Sun, 26 Jan 2003 20:41:28 -0000, "Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >On average their will unfortunately be one cyclist death every two to three days. I just hope each
    >one does not start another dreaded helmet thread.

    On average there will be one helmet thread every two to three days, I only hope that each one
    doesn't start with the death of a cyclist :-/

    Guy
    ===
    ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
    dynamic DNS permitting)
    NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
    work. Apologies.
     
  20. >Davis,

    Darned cats on the keyboard again - mistype - should be David.

    apologies, helen s

    ~~~~~~~~~~
    Flush out that intestinal parasite and/or the waste product before sending a reply!

    Any speeliong mistake$ aR the resiult of my cats sitting on the keyboaRRRDdd
    ~~~~~~~~~~
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...