Does the Daily Mail hates Cyclists?

Squashme

On 17 Jun, 18:21, JNugent <J...@NPPTG.com> wrote:
> Alan Braggins wrote:
> > In article <HPydnWMyXZm9UcvVnZ2dnUVZ8vKdn...@bt.com>, PK wrote:
> >> "Andy Leighton" <an...@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...-tells-terrifyi...
>
> > If the cyclist was really on that very narrow pavement, why take a photo
> > of the bollard in the road?
>
> Perhaps it has blood and other forensic evidence on it?

And as the bollard is in the road, so could the cyclist have been. And
the child.

JNugent

Squashme wrote:

> JNugent <J...@NPPTG.com> wrote:
>> Alan Braggins wrote:
>>> PK wrote:
>>>> "Andy Leighton" <an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:

>>>>> 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...-tells-terrifyi...

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

>> Perhaps it has blood and other forensic evidence on it?

> And as the bollard is in the road, so could the cyclist have been. And
> the child.

Anything is possible.

But only one set of evidence will be shown to be true.

Squashme

On 17 Jun, 18:59, JNugent <J...@NPPTG.com> wrote:
> Squashme wrote:
> > JNugent <J...@NPPTG.com> wrote:
> >> Alan Braggins wrote:
> >>> PK wrote:
> >>>> "Andy Leighton" <an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
> >>>>> 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...-tells-terrifyi...
> >>> If the cyclist was really on that very narrow pavement, why take a photo
> >>> of the bollard in the road?
> >> Perhaps it has blood and other forensic evidence on it?
> > And as the bollard is in the road, so could the cyclist have been. And
> > the child.
>
> Anything is possible.
>
> But only one set of evidence will be shown to be true.

Not all things are possible. No motorists were involved, so:-

1. It can't be just a tragic accident
2. The mother will not be blamed for her negligence
3. Speed may be a factor

NewRiderPS

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 11:41:36 -0700 (PDT), Squashme
<squashme@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 17 Jun, 18:59, JNugent <J...@NPPTG.com> wrote:
>> Squashme wrote:
>> > JNugent <J...@NPPTG.com> wrote:
>> >> Alan Braggins wrote:
>> >>> PK wrote:
>> >>>> "Andy Leighton" <an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
>> >>>>> 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...-tells-terrifyi...
>> >>> If the cyclist was really on that very narrow pavement, why take a photo
>> >>> of the bollard in the road?
>> >> Perhaps it has blood and other forensic evidence on it?
>> > And as the bollard is in the road, so could the cyclist have been. And
>> > the child.
>>
>> Anything is possible.
>>
>> But only one set of evidence will be shown to be true.
>
>Not all things are possible. No motorists were involved, so:-
>
>1. It can't be just a tragic accident
>2. The mother will not be blamed for her negligence
>3. Speed may be a factor

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'.

Still, sad event, and sympathy to the family.

David Lloyd

"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.
>
Didn't I see it reported recently that cyclists can't speed, as the relevant
speeding regulations apply to motor vehicles only?

--
David Lloyd
Time flys when you're having fun.
Your luggage flys only after you've left Terminal 5.

Ian Smith

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008, David Lloyd <dldl11345@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Didn't I see it reported recently that cyclists can't speed, as the
> relevant speeding regulations apply to motor vehicles only?

Cyclists can't break the speed limit, except in rare situations.
Royal parks are one such situation, it is also possible for bylaws or
local acts to impose speed limits on bicycles.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

JNugent

David Lloyd 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.
>>
> Didn't I see it reported recently that cyclists can't speed, as the relevant
> speeding regulations apply to motor vehicles only?

The word "speed" as a verb, meaning to travel swiftly and without delay
(past participle: "sped") has been in use in English for centuries.
Shakespeare used it. It does not require an Act of Parliament to define
the word or to validate or justify its use. A cyclist can certainly speed.

Adam Lea

"NewRiderPS" <rider01@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:k62g549qiehrabj4qtaalm52kse8haqh5i@4ax.com...
>>
> 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.

Rob Morley

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:48:19 +0100
"David Lloyd" <dldl11345@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> Didn't I see it reported recently that cyclists can't speed, as the
> relevant speeding regulations apply to motor vehicles only?
>
While speed limits don't apply to cyclists on normal roads that
obviously doesn't mean that they have no liability for harm
caused by inappropriate speed in particular situations, e.g failing to
give way to pedestrians on crossings because they can't stop in time.

Squashme

On 18 Jun, 00:24, "Adam Lea" <asr...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> "NewRiderPS" <ride...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> news:k62g549qiehrabj4qtaalm52kse8haqh5i@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > 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.


Doubtless, but it is in response to original mis-reporting of the
collision as hit and run. The blame seems to have needed some
reduction.

"Police wish to state that their enquiries have revealed that she did
remain at the scene" (Gloucestershire Constabulary)

"Cyclist hit & run leaves little girl fighting for her life" (Sunday
Mirror)

And the folk-memory of this incident will remain overwhelmingly as
that of a hit and run pavement cyclist, who had to be traced by the
police, despite the newspapers' gradual alteration on their websites.
The Sunday Mirror and the Daily Mail leave a tiny group like urc dead
in the water. And yes, I know that this is partly the result of the
actions of a relative minority of cyclists. But this ignorant anger
builds into "knowledge" which does translate into road behaviour by
motorists, when they see one of us stereotypes wobbling along.

I begin to have some understanding of the experience of UK muslims.
Mind you, don't get me started on them ...

Mark

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 12:18:11 -0400, NewRiderPS <rider01@verizon.net>
wrote:

>On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 19:22:43 +0100, Steve C <sc99cs@googlemail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>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
>
>What is the possibility that the cyclist did not 'hit' the child at
>all? Sounds like all the injuries were caused by the fall onto the
>bollard.
>
>In addition the mother adds information that is unnecessary to the
>story, invoking the comment about someone fixing the doorbell.
>
>>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.
>
>In my experience, when someone adds info not related to the incident
>they are lying, or assuaging their own guilt/involvement.

Guilt != Culpability

>Sounds to me like the mother allowed the child out on her own, when
>she should not have (thus the extraneous comment), the child then
>skipped or ran out into the street/road and when she saw the cyclist
>coming, jumped back and tripped.
>
>I'd suggest they examine the child for injuries related to the 'hit'
>by the cyclist. If no abrasions or cuts or bruises are found then I'd
>suspect the cyclist didn't hit anybody, but was just in the proximity.
>Of course that can't happen b/c the mother would have no one to blame.

Judging from the standard of journalism related to this event, I
wouldn't be suprised if it subsequently turned out there was no
cyclist involved!

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org

Just zis Guy, you know?

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 10:46:51 +0100, "Dave Larrington"
<smert.spamionam@privacy.net> said in
<6bpfj2F3dl5qhU1@mid.individual.net>:

>http://www.qwghlm.co.uk/toys/dailymail/

And for the first para, the twat-o-tron will probably do the rest:
http://ifyoulikeitsomuchwhydontyoug...he-twat-o-tron/

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

Just zis Guy, you know?

On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 19:22:43 +0100, Steve C <sc99cs@googlemail.com>
said in <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?

As per others, the Daily Mail has an entirely /un/secret agenda
against anyone who is Not One Of Us; in their case One Of Us means a
white middle class middle aged male who drives too fast, is divorced
and bitter about it, lives in London and votes BNP while saying he
votes Tory. Which means that the Daily Mail hates most things, and
the better they are the more they hate them.

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

Paul George

On 18 Jun, 00:24, "Adam Lea" <asr...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> 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.

We are just trying to get at the truth. The initial report painted a
picture
of a cyclist riding recklessly along the footway, knocking down a
child and disappearing. We now the cyclist stayed at the scene and
given the narrowness of the footway, the fact that there was
apparently a workman standing on it and the road will have very
little motor traffic, it is unlikely the cyclist was on the footway.