Police kill cyclist

MSeries

Story on the BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/...ire/3884467.stm

Nick Drew

"MSeries" <usenet-forum@cyclingforums.com> wrote in message
news:RprIc.5571$Hb4.4132@fe10.usenetserver.com...
> Story on the BBC
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/388-
> 4467.stm
>

I guess it's a bit insensitive, but how did the driver and
passenger of the car sustain injuries? I was a bit surprised
to read that.

Nick

Seamus

Heard about this incident, just up the road from where I live, on local BBC news on Sunday.

I thought about having Monday off just to see if any of my colleagues thought it was me dead but decided it would be in poor taste.

When I came in this morning my HOD said, "I thought you were dead."

So far I've had similar comments from three other people.

The road it happened on is big and wide with wide, clear verges on either side. The police station is off to one side up a side road. Clear views all around. I wonder what happened and who's fault it was?

__________________
Seamus
Byke Kultuur Never at...
http://uk.geocities.com/bykekultuur/never.html
Cycling Movies Big List at...
http://uk.geocities.com/mikstar123/films.html

Velvet

Nick Drew wrote:
> "MSeries" <usenet-forum@cyclingforums.com> wrote in
> message news:RprIc.5571$Hb4.4132@fe10.usenetserver.com...
>
>>Story on the BBC
>>
>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/388-
>>4467.stm
>>
>
>
> I guess it's a bit insensitive, but how did the driver and
> passenger of the car sustain injuries? I was a bit
> surprised to read that.
>
> Nick
>
>

At a guess, I can think of two ways - either they hit,
swerved, hit something else, or something went through the
windscreen (ick).

--

Velvet

Jon Senior

Nick Drew spam@nickdrew.com opined the following...
> I guess it's a bit insensitive, but how did the driver and
> passenger of the car sustain injuries? I was a bit
> surprised to read that.

The shock made them choke on their doughnuts?

Jon (Who does insensitive remarkably well!)

John Hearns

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 15:31:22 +0000, Trevor Barton wrote:

>
>
> Reading the article closely, there were minor injuries to
> the policemen.
>>
>> The article almost makes it sound like "this cyclist ran
>> into a stationary police car. The cyclist was killed, and
>> the poor policeman are all shaken up by the incident"
>
> Reading the article closely, it says nothing about the
> circumstances of the incident.

I realise that. Let me make try to make this clearer - the
words in the article are slanted in a certain way. It does
use the word "accident" (twice) with no justification if you
follow your logic (*). The mental image they put in my mind
is the one I've described.

I'm no good at doing this, but let's say the article said:
"A police car collided with a cyclist on the Rotherham
Road. The cyclist was killed, but the officers escaped with
minor injuries"

Sorry, I really don't want to pick a fight with you,
especially over such a tragic story.

(*) the article pre-judges that this was an "accident".

Gonzalez

On 12 Jul 2004 15:31:22 GMT, Trevor Barton <tmb@Xisotek.co.uk> wrote:

>> Hate to be cynical, but read the arcticle more closely.
>> There are no injuries to the policemen.
>
>Reading the article closely, there were minor injuries to
>the policemen.

"Two officers inside the car were treated for shock and
minor injuries."

I doubt the officers suffered any injury at all. I expect
they were carted off to hospital to be examined as a matter
of routine, and a senior policeman told the press it was for
"shock and minor injuries".

I'd like to know a lot more detail about this incident.

Mseries

Gonzalez wrote:
> On 12 Jul 2004 15:31:22 GMT, Trevor Barton
> <tmb@Xisotek.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> Hate to be cynical, but read the arcticle more closely.
>>> There are no injuries to the policemen.
>>
>> Reading the article closely, there were minor injuries to
>> the policemen.
>
> "Two officers inside the car were treated for shock and
> minor injuries."
>
> I doubt the officers suffered any injury at all. I expect
> they were carted off to hospital to be examined as a
> matter of routine, and a senior policeman told the press
> it was for "shock and minor injuries".
>
> I'd like to know a lot more detail about this incident.

There was a piece on local TV this evening, didn't say much
more. The victim has been identified and the police on board
camera is being examined to try to find out what happened.

Helen Deborah V

Gonzalez <speedy.gonzalez@nospam.basher.com>typed

> On 12 Jul 2004 15:31:22 GMT, Trevor Barton
> <tmb@Xisotek.co.uk> wrote:

> >> Hate to be cynical, but read the arcticle more closely.
> >> There are no injuries to the policemen.
> >
> >Reading the article closely, there were minor injuries to
> >the policemen.

> "Two officers inside the car were treated for shock and
> minor injuries."

> I doubt the officers suffered any injury at all. I expect
> they were carted off to hospital to be examined as a
> matter of routine, and a senior policeman told the press
> it was for "shock and minor injuries".

> I'd like to know a lot more detail about this incident.

Just looking at AutoRoute and adding details given on
website:

Road is A631, east of Junction with M18(J1). There's a
Little Chef and a couple of petrol stations (oldish
AutoRoute so might not still be) on the roundabout of the
junction. If details given in report are correct, cyclist
would have been going west.

Whether he was hit from behind as Police sped towards
motorway or whether he was hit head-on as they sped away is
open to conjecture...

--
Helen D. Vecht: helenvecht@zetnet.co.uk Edgware.

Trevor Barton

John Hearns wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 15:31:22 +0000, Trevor Barton wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Reading the article closely, there were minor injuries to
>>the policemen.
>>
>>>The article almost makes it sound like "this cyclist ran
>>>into a stationary police car. The cyclist was killed, and
>>>the poor policeman are all shaken up by the incident"
>>
>>Reading the article closely, it says nothing about the
>>circumstances of the incident.
>
>
> I realise that. Let me make try to make this clearer - the
> words in the article are slanted in a certain way. It does
> use the word "accident" (twice) with no justification if
> you follow your logic (*). The mental image they put in my
> mind is the one I've described.
>
> I'm no good at doing this, but let's say the article said:
> "A police car collided with a cyclist on the Rotherham
> Road. The cyclist was killed, but the officers escaped
> with minor injuries"
>
> Sorry, I really don't want to pick a fight with you,
> especially over such a tragic story.
>
>
> (*) the article pre-judges that this was an "accident".

Only if the reporter has the same amount of information as
you or I. I'm supposing that isn't the case.

However, common usage of the word accident doesn't imply
guilt on any party, and although you might justifiably argue
that most road accidents are not accidents, your posting
seemed to assume that the car drivers were responsible in
your opinion. This is both unfair and unjustified given the
information you have.

There is a spectrum of culpability in any incident, ranging
from "one party being completely in the wrong and the other
being unable to do anything about it" (eg a car driving off
a motorway onto a trainline), to "could have been avoided if
the victim was more experienced/paying more attention" (eg a
car coming out of give way sign and running into a car that
has priority), to completely shared responsibility (umm, two
cars coming out of opposing give way signs at the same
time??). Most incidents are not black and white. It's
certainly not right to assume that the coppers were in the
wrong based on the information in the article. They almost
certainly share some of the the responsibility, but you have
no way of knowing how much. It does not neccessarily follow
that because they were in the car they are primarily
responsible for what happenned, as you seemed to imply.

But, yes, it's not really a story to pick a fight over.

--
Trevor Barton

Patrick

Helen Deborah Vecht wrote: <snip>
> Whether he was hit from behind as Police sped towards
> motorway or whether he was hit head-on as they sped away
> is open to conjecture...
</snip>

Sorry to delurk like this, but I cannot for the life of me
(even with my cynics glasses on) see any reference to the
speed of either party in this tragedy. Perhaps we ought to
wait for further details before leaping to conclusions?

--
Patrick Mullin,

Email <first name> at AuroraDigitalis dot com

Gonzalez

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 20:30:32 +0100, "Patrick"
<killersquid2002@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>Helen Deborah Vecht wrote: <snip>
>> Whether he was hit from behind as Police sped towards
>> motorway or whether he was hit head-on as they sped away
>> is open to conjecture...
></snip>
>
>Sorry to delurk like this, but I cannot for the life of me
>(even with my cynics glasses on) see any reference to the
>speed of either party in this tragedy. Perhaps we ought to
>wait for further details before leaping to conclusions?

False conjecture and getting it wrong is what makes news
discussion groups so much fun.