Not a Good News Story

spen666

City chief dies after being hit by cyclist


A top City fund manager has been knocked down and killed in a collision with a cyclist on his way to work.


Nick Bancroft was a year away from retirement and about to become a grandfather when the accident happened just yards from his £2million Holland Park home.


He suffered fatal head injuries and died three days later. Mr Bancroft, 63, who was married with three adult children, was a respected investment manager who had worked in the City since graduating from Oxford and Stanford universities in the sixties.


He was crossing the road at 7.50am at the junction of St Ann's Villas and Royal Crescent as the cyclist turned into Royal Crescent.


Police have launched an investigation and are appealing for witnesses. The cyclist was interviewed by police but not arrested.

Mr Bancroft's son, Giles, said: "This is a terrible loss for the whole family, especially for our mother. Dad was an absolute rock for us and extremely kind and generous to all who knew him."


The family, who have lived in Holland Park for 30 years, have had hundreds of letters of condolence from friends and colleagues.


Mr Bancroft and two friends founded their own firm, Ely Fund Managers, in 1985, which invested hundreds of millions of pounds of clients' money. In 2001, they sold Ely to a continental bank which was itself taken over last year by Rathbones, the 265-year-old Mayfair wealth management company.


Mr Bancroft still worked for Rathbones as an investment director and was on his way to work in New Bond Street when the accident happened on Wednesday last week.


Rollo Duckworth, a friend and colleague for 14 years, said: "Ely was as close as a family firm and prided itself on staff loyalty. His secretary had been with him for 25 years. We are all devastated."


Last year there were more than 200 accidents involving pedestrians and cyclists in Britain, three of them fatal. Last month cyclist Chico Mwamba was convicted of careless cycling and fined £160 for knocking down a pedestrian at a crossing in Lewisham. The 76-year-old man subsequently died.


Careless cycling is not an imprisonable offence, though cyclists can be jailed for wanton and furious driving.


Any witnesses to the Holland Park accident are asked to call Sergeant Don Simpson on 020 7388 6806.

To me on rerading this, the key wording is the first phrase I have highlighted. If the police had evidence or even a realistic suspicion that cyclist was guilty of an offence, I would have expected him to be arrested.


The second piece I have highlighted is a clear attempt to besmirch the name of cyclists. The implication is that the reader should think the cyclists were responsible for those 200 accidents

chrisjsmith

The fuckers shouldn't have walked out in front of the bike!

Is it just me or are people no longer responsible for their own actions?

This is darwin's theory of evolution coming into force (but unfortunately after the prat reproduced).

spen666

chrisjsmith wrote:

The idiots shouldn't have walked out in front of the bike!

Is it just me or are people no longer responsible for their own actions?

This is darwin's theory of evolution coming into force (but unfortunately after the prat reproduced).

You are prejudging the issue.

There is no evidence to make such a conclusion at this stage

chrisjsmith

spen666 wrote:

You are prejudging the issue.

There is no evidence to make such a conclusion at this stage

Hardly - there is no controlled or marked pedestrian crossing:

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl=en ... &z=18&om=1

the pedestrian had no right of way over road travelling vehicles if he was crossing St Ann's Villas and should have been exercising more caution.

Nigel-YZ1

The idiots shouldn't have walked out in front of the bike!

Is it just me or are people no longer responsible for their own actions?

This is darwin's theory of evolution coming into force (but unfortunately after the prat reproduced).

What if it had been a car instead of a bike? The car driver would be a murderer I suppose?

When I turn into a junction for some funny reason I tend to be looking that way too. I look for pedestrians, I look to see if they glance my way and know I'm there.

All these events have circumstances the press won't go into the detail of. But what the hell, it makes a good story.

spen666

chrisjsmith wrote:

spen666 wrote:

You are prejudging the issue.

There is no evidence to make such a conclusion at this stage

Hardly - there is no controlled or marked pedestrian crossing:

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl=en ... &z=18&om=1

the pedestrian had no right of way over road travelling vehicles if he was crossing St Ann's Villas and should have been exercising more caution.

You are making judgements without evidence. You do not know for example whether cyclist was on correct side of road.

You may be correct, but at this stage it is too early to say who was to blame.

Knee jerk pointing the finger does not assist anyone

furthermore, should not the cyclist be able to steer his vehicle so as to avoid hitting a pedestrian who steps out into the road?

chrisjsmith

spen666 wrote:

chrisjsmith wrote:

spen666 wrote:

You are prejudging the issue.

There is no evidence to make such a conclusion at this stage

Hardly - there is no controlled or marked pedestrian crossing:

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl=en ... &z=18&om=1

the pedestrian had no right of way over road travelling vehicles if he was crossing St Ann's Villas and should have been exercising more caution.

You are making judgements without evidence. You do not know for example whether cyclist was on correct side of road.

You may be correct, but at this stage it is too early to say who was to blame.

Knee jerk pointing the finger does not assist anyone

furthermore, should not the cyclist be able to steer his vehicle so as to avoid hitting a pedestrian who steps out into the road?

a) It's a one-way system. Check the road layout/markings. They would have arrested the cyclist if they were on the wrong side of the road as it would have been careless.

b) The cyclist was probably looking out for traffic merging from the right according to the give way sign on the road. He was most likely adhering to the highway code. I'd assume the pedestrian approached from the left in a logical perception hole in the cyclist's mind.

c) The cyclist may have been able to steer around, but wouldn't that have happened due to instinctive self preservation? I doubt that was an option at the time.

Plenty of evidence.

spen666

there is no evidence in what you are saying.

firstly- without witnesses other than the cyclist what evidence would police have to arrest cyclist

secondly if pedestrian is crossing street at a junction then it may well be that he had priority over traffic turning across his path- it is not clear from story where accident precisely took place- so this is a point that can't be determined on the basis of the info

your theory has cyclist being diligent and pedestrian not- there is no evidence of this

Porgy

the first i heard of this was an evening standard placard shouting it out (metaphorically) to everyone who passed by.

In that case why isn't there an Evening standard placard for everyone killed on the roads?

Or are only cyclists to be trialled by media for alleged negligence on the roads?

chrisjsmith

There is evidence therefore I drew a hypothesis, not theory.

spen666

chrisjsmith wrote:

There is evidence therefore I drew a hypothesis, not theory.

What evidence?

Its all speculation and theory

chrisjsmith

spen666 wrote:

chrisjsmith wrote:

There is evidence therefore I drew a hypothesis, not theory.

What evidence?

Its all speculation and theory

The road layout and the comments by the news source all classify as evidence to support the hypthesis.

spen666

chrisjsmith wrote:

spen666 wrote:

chrisjsmith wrote:

There is evidence therefore I drew a hypothesis, not theory.

What evidence?

Its all speculation and theory

The road layout and the comments by the news source all classify as evidence to support the hypthesis.

The road layout - is a matter of fact


The comments of some journalist spoinning a story for his own purposes is hardly evidence any more than your or my random outpourings are evidence.

jedster

what the heck is the difference between "theory" and "hypothesis"? They mean the same thing - a possible but unproven explanation.

we don't know who was at fault in this case.

Personally I'm more confident in the theory certain slices of the media are trying to use it as a stick to beat cyclists than I am in the theory that the ped was mainly at fault. Both could be true or false.

penugent

FWIW, I used to make a living by dealing with High Court litigation. I don't see anything in the original post that would constitute evidence of any sort. I wouldn't in a 100 years try to draw any conclusion from the report.

My feeling is that the case was reported because of the high profile position of the unfortunate pedestrian - my sympathies are with his family. The comments about cyclists seem to me to be nothing more than the usual padding that goes with such press reports.

A sad tale - I hope that I never get involved in any such scenario, whilst on foot or on my bike.

Porgy

penugent wrote:

My feeling is that the case was reported because of the high profile position of the unfortunate pedestrian.

I feel the media is trying to manipulate me into feeling sympathy for this person, who I've never met, to the detrement of all the thousands and thousands of other victims on the road - and trying to score points against cyclists at the same time.

This wasn't a special person - except to his friends and family - no more special than anyone else anyway.

penugent

Porgy wrote:

penugent wrote:

My feeling is that the case was reported because of the high profile position of the unfortunate pedestrian.

This wasn't a special person - except to his friends and family - no more special than anyone else anyway.

Agree 100%. Problem is, I think my feeling is correct.

I can't say I thnk that that is how it should be though!!

mick_cornick

I feel that the press report certainly seems to have an anti cycling spin to it, but I don't think it is right to blame the poor man for the way his death is reported.
A little bit of care and sympathy would be the human response not an angry posting describing all pedestrians who are misfortunate enough to have an accident as idiots!

markyboy2005

Mick, I agree.

I was really surprised to see the stance adopted by some posters. There was a real them and us blame culture which caught me off guard.

Personally I may be naiive, but I didn't really see that much spin in the story. The main point is that someone has died and that is a sad event no matter how you transport yourself.

Show some humanity people......

PhilofCas

chrisjsmith wrote:

The idiots shouldn't have walked out in front of the bike!

Is it just me or are people no longer responsible for their own actions?

This is darwin's theory of evolution coming into force (but unfortunately after the prat reproduced).

Very poor comment to make, are you completely heartless ?, i just hope it never happens to you or your family, would you say the same then ??

chrisjsmith

PhilofCas wrote:

chrisjsmith wrote:

The idiots shouldn't have walked out in front of the bike!

Is it just me or are people no longer responsible for their own actions?

This is darwin's theory of evolution coming into force (but unfortunately after the prat reproduced).

Very poor comment to make, are you completely heartless ?, i just hope it never happens to you or your family, would you say the same then ??

Not quite like that actually. I am what's known as a realist.

Some background: I spent 4 years working in hospitals doing emergency equip support and saw some quite horrific things, before relegating myself to software development (as it pays better and allows me to do the following):

Just to show I'm not a complete heartless bastards: I'm commencing an access to medicine course next year so in approximately 7 years I will be able to actively help people in situations like that. I remain detached from the emotional side completely. I have a desire to help people but that does not mean I need to get emotionally attached to every little incident or media-driven sympathetic lull out there like the general populous does. See the big picture.

On the same subject, people die in unfortunate accidents due to their own stupidity. That is evolution. If we preserve every bit of humanity by not holding people accountable for their own actions, preventing natural disasters and preventing every disease out there, we're in for much more serious problems in a number of years.

Think famine via overpopulation, various pandemic conditions etc.

We're just animals at the end of the day (albeit a little more sentient than some other species). Stop separating yourselves from them and riding the self-importance wave.

Sorry - rant over.

mick_cornick

You have certainly proved yourself to be an animal!

chrisjsmith

Sue me.

jedster

<i>This wasn't a special person - except to his friends and family - no more special than anyone else anyway</i>

Hmm, well yes at one level you are right - we are all just human beings - this guy's death is no more newsworthy than yours or mine or Diana's....

You see the problem - more high profile people ARE more news worthy, aren't they?

This guy was an established leader in his industry, had set up a company, created jobs, developed staff built a wode network of business contacts over a long career. He's done more than I have, he was better known than I am, is it really shocking that his death would draw more attention than mine? In this narrow way he was "more special" than me.

Of course he didn't have more right to life than you or I but none has argued that, have they?

Porgy

jedster wrote:

Of course he didn't have more right to life than you or I but none has argued that, have they?

I wasn;t aware that I was arguing - merely stating my opinion regarding the press reports.

Or have I broken some unwritten rule?

PhilofCas

chrisjsmith wrote:

PhilofCas wrote:

chrisjsmith wrote:

The idiots shouldn't have walked out in front of the bike!

Is it just me or are people no longer responsible for their own actions?

This is darwin's theory of evolution coming into force (but unfortunately after the prat reproduced).

Very poor comment to make, are you completely heartless ?, i just hope it never happens to you or your family, would you say the same then ??

Not quite like that actually. I am what's known as a realist.

Some background: I spent 4 years working in hospitals doing emergency equip support and saw some quite horrific things, before relegating myself to software development (as it pays better and allows me to do the following):

Just to show I'm not a complete heartless bastards: I'm commencing an access to medicine course next year so in approximately 7 years I will be able to actively help people in situations like that. I remain detached from the emotional side completely. I have a desire to help people but that does not mean I need to get emotionally attached to every little incident or media-driven sympathetic lull out there like the general populous does. See the big picture.

On the same subject, people die in unfortunate accidents due to their own stupidity. That is evolution. If we preserve every bit of humanity by not holding people accountable for their own actions, preventing natural disasters and preventing every disease out there, we're in for much more serious problems in a number of years.

Think famine via overpopulation, various pandemic conditions etc.

We're just animals at the end of the day (albeit a little more sentient than some other species). Stop separating yourselves from them and riding the self-importance wave.

Sorry - rant over.

What ??? You've really convinced people that you're not heartless and that you are a caring person by coming out with rubbish like that - hello, my name is Chrisjsmith - i packed in working in hospitals cause i wanted to earn more money in IT, I'm now studying medicine because i want to help, in your words, "idiots and prats".
Good help us in 7 years to come, "Hi, i'm Chrisjsmith, i've just tried saving the life of your loved one, minst you, if they wouldn't have been so bloody stupid they'd still be here now".

Yes, we are little more than a collection of atoms/molecules or whatever and one day we'll become pieces of dust blowing in the wind, i think you've forgotton the bit between birth and death is that little thing called life, real people with real families.

chrisjsmith

A sensationalist!

I'm entitled to my opinions, but at the end of the day, everyone will get equal treatment which is the best I can give.

That is why I'm emotionally detached from things. When you get "involved", your judgement can be affected and your mind can subconciously play favourites. That's even less acceptable now isn't it?

PhilofCas

A twistedheartlessloner!

Absolutely everyone is entitled to their opinion, but when you come out with cruel remarks it may upset some people and your only defence is that you are 'emotionally detached from things', perhaps you wouldn't be so 'big' confronted face to face by the poor persons relatives.

sylvanus

Come on guys ignore him. The death of this poor man is a tragedy regardless of who is at fault. I don't suppose his family much care what we think given how miserable and desperate they must feel but I'm sure most of us feel real sympathy.

Please lets not be silly and partisan where death or serious injury is concerned. If the cyclist is at fault then they should be severely punished. If not then they deserve sympathy too.

Its an odd place for a crash to occur since the junction has good visibility and lots of speedbumps around. Its possible that they cyclist was moving fast since St Ann's Villas is a narrow road where traffic always pushes cyclists to move faster.

Apparently (I heard tonight) the death itself was caused by him falling after being hit and striking his head on the corner of kerb. Didn't hear any more about the speed / nature of the cyclist though - I'm sure he/she is feeling awful tonight regardless of who is at fault.

thedaffodilfish

I hadn't heard of that particular case, however one that caught my attention recently as "Man killed by Cyclist" was: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cornwall/7098383.stm

While both are tragic cases involving loss of life, the thing that really stuck with me and made me fume was the use of the word "cyclist". "Man on Bike kills pedestrian" would've been more appropriate. (as innappropriate as my comments may be).

I understand that as a "cyclist" (someone who rides a bike?) I may be a bit prejudiced and going over the top here. When I hear the word Cyclist it has a slightly vocational ring to it. A "cyclist" would be someone who chooses to use a bike either recreationally or for their transport needs. There's an element of responsibility involved (am I alone in thinkng this?) The guy in the article above, as I understand it, was "having a shot" on a borrowed bike and in all likelyhood propbably doesn't ride a bike very often.

I'm fed up of hearing about "bloody cyclists this, bloody cyclists that". I tell people I cycle to work and am informed that cyclists are a menace and get a description of 14 year old kids on bmx's who harrass passers by outside the local shop...

If I'm walking down the street with a, whatever, a guitar for example and attack someone, I hardly think the news would report "guitarist attacks public".

Stephen

sylvanus

That really is a silly point of view. Whether you like it or not you're a cyclist as am I as is anyone on a bike. When I get into a car I'm a motorist (which I hate and therefore seldom do). I regard myself as a cyclist but if I killed someone whilst driving a car then the headline should say "Man killed by motorist" although in truth at the moment it will say "Man killed in road accident". By all means try to persuade the newspapers to be balanced but don't waste your time trying to redefine words to suit your meaning. That is the behaviour of authoritarian nutters and pc "semiotic" types world wide and it should not be allowed!