Does the Daily Mail hates Cyclists?

NewRiderPS

On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 13:38:35 +0100, Tony B <tony@thebramahs.plus.com>
wrote:

>NewRiderPS wrote:
>
>> Sounds to me like the mother allowed the child out on her own, when
>> she should not have
>
>Why should 5 yo kids not be allowed out on their own (car free)doorstep?
>
>T

Agreed. I meant to say 'sounds like..., when she FELT she should not
have. I was trying to address the implied guilt in that post, not a
standard of practice in child rearing. My bad.

Danny Colyer

On 23/06/2008 00:46, Adam Lea wrote:
> This is irrelevant. We are examining the case of a cyclist hitting a child.

Has it now been established that the cyclist hit the child? The only
evidence that I've seen for this is a brace of press reports that we
know to have been false in at least one other important respect.

> Yes there was bias in the news report, yes cars may be more hazardous on
> average but it does not alter the fact that the cyclist was careless in
> hitting the child.

/If/ the cyclist hit the child.

--
Danny Colyer <http://www.redpedals.co.uk>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"The plural of anecdote is not data" - Frank Kotsonis

Martin

Dan Gregory wrote:
> Andy Morris wrote:
>> JNugent wrote:
>>>
>>> You are forgetting the main reason why it doesn't count - which is
>>> that cars (and vans, and lorries) don't travel along footways like
>>> (some) cyclists do.
>>>
>>
>> They (the cars) were travelling along the footway, at greater than
>> walking speed speed. Why is it OK for them?
> Like the one outside the Hippodrome in Bristol which hit 5 people.
> I think the TV report said it was the 25th incident in the last year
> including one actor they named ...

Funny thing is that when they redesigned that bit of Bristol [1] a few
years ago, many people predicted that they amount of vehicles hitting
pedestrians would go up. This is also a place where I regularly see
motorists driving on the footpaths, despite the amount of pedestrians
walking along there.


[1] St Augustine's Parade, Anchor road, Colston avenue and the
pedestrianised bits around there.

Alan Braggins

In article <Mo2dnRon9tthecLVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@posted.plusnet>, Danny Colyer wrote:
>On 23/06/2008 00:46, Adam Lea wrote:
>> This is irrelevant. We are examining the case of a cyclist hitting a child.
>
>Has it now been established that the cyclist hit the child? The only
>evidence that I've seen for this is a brace of press reports that we
>know to have been false in at least one other important respect.

There's a police report that they were talking to the cyclist who stopped
and contacted them, and no mention that they were looking for anyone else.
It's possible that the cyclist was a witness to the child being injured
after something like tripping and banging her head on the bollard with no
collision involved at all, but it seems unlikely.


>> Yes there was bias in the news report, yes cars may be more hazardous on
>> average but it does not alter the fact that the cyclist was careless in
>> hitting the child.
>
>/If/ the cyclist hit the child.

Ideally all road users would be prepared for a child to run out of a doorway
and into the road and be able to avoid the child if it happened, but whether
not doing so is criminally careless is arguable.

Squashme

On 24 Jun, 08:42, a...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Alan Braggins) wrote:
> In article <Mo2dnRon9tthecLVnZ2dneKdnZydn...@posted.plusnet>, Danny Colyer wrote:
> >On 23/06/2008 00:46, Adam Lea wrote:
> >> This is irrelevant. We are examining the case of a cyclist hitting a child.
>
> >Has it now been established that the cyclist hit the child? The only
> >evidence that I've seen for this is a brace of press reports that we
> >know to have been false in at least one other important respect.
>
> There's a police report that they were talking to the cyclist who stopped
> and contacted them, and no mention that they were looking for anyone else.
> It's possible that the cyclist was a witness to the child being injured
> after something like tripping and banging her head on the bollard with no
> collision involved at all, but it seems unlikely.
>
> >> Yes there was bias in the news report, yes cars may be more hazardous on
> >> average but it does not alter the fact that the cyclist was careless in
> >> hitting the child.
>
> >/If/ the cyclist hit the child.
>
> Ideally all road users would be prepared for a child to run out of a doorway
> and into the road and be able to avoid the child if it happened, but whether
> not doing so is criminally careless is arguable.

Arguably only criminal if you are car-less. Cars have a good excuse,
unlike cyclists.