This sort of thing seems to be gettting more common.

dondare

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/textbased/ne ... d-her.html

dang65

Wow.

So it's completely unclear whether he was even riding on the pavement? And the girl may well have stepped out in front of him at the last moment? Yet another weird cycling story from the Mail.

fury21

Headline...

Cyclist killed teenage girl on pavement 'after refusing to swerve to avoid her'

Article text...

The teenager, granted anonymity by the judge, said the group had been drinking. But although Rhiannon had drunk two cans of Stella lager, she was 'absolutely fine'.

Other members of the group gave conflicting accounts of where Rhiannon was when she was hit. One said she was on the pavement. But another said in a police statement that she believed the accident could have been avoided if Rhiannon had not stepped into the path of the cyclist.

When asked if that was what she still believed, she said: 'The cyclist was speeding down and there were a lot of young people on the road. She could have moved out of his way.'

Obviously some conflicting opinions as to what exactly happened, so why does the headline put all the blame on the cyclist?

Gavin Gilbert

fury21 wrote:

Obviously some conflicting opinions as to what exactly happened, so why does the headline put all the blame on the cyclist?

Because the Daily Mail is written by smug small-minded middle class idiots for smug small-minded middle class idiots?

gandhi

It's in the Daily Mail, so it's probably rubbish. However, if the cyclist was in the wrong, the worst that could happen is a £2000 fine. That's not a lot for killing some one (though I guess parents could try for compensation, which would be a lot).

SmellTheGlove

Sad that there are more lives in shreds because of this accident.

Impeccable factual reporting from the Mail - I quote:

"The hearing was adjourned until today. It is illegal to cycle on the pavement."

As for the headline, usual comments about the Mail apply.

Clever Pun

yep underage binge drinking is rife

number9

This thread has a jolly misleading headline.

The story is full of holes, it sounds very much like kids were blocking the way, I can't blame the cyclist for not stopping given the rise in cyclist assaults.

Sad story though.

Greg T

A young life tragically cut short.

A sweet young girl was yesterday slain by a speed obsessed cycling monster. Laura Jane Smith, out of her head on alcopops and who knows what, ran into the road, leaving the terrified cyclist no chance to take avoiding action. She was struck by the muscle bound murderer through no fault of her own and will never grow old unlike the cyclist who despite all his efforts could not avoid hitting her and her gaggle of pished up excited friends. Cycling on the pavement is illegal, not taking care when crossing roads isn't but is stupid....

We hate everything equally and reserve the right to flip flop our positions on anything even mid sentence.

number9

Loving your work Greg!

dirk_van_gently

Another gem from the "Daily Hate".

I have my doubts that you could even believe the date on the front of said rag.

Sad story, just highlights what depth we have sunk to as a nation.

dang65

gandhi wrote:

It's in the Daily Mail, so it's probably rubbish. However, if the cyclist was in the wrong, the worst that could happen is a £2000 fine. That's not a lot for killing some one (though I guess parents could try for compensation, which would be a lot).

Is that £2000 thing really the case? I'd have thought that if the guy really had deliberately ploughed into a group of pedestrians at 20mph whilst illegally riding on a pavement (as implied by the article) then he could be put away in jail for quite a while for, I dunno, manslaughter? Where does the £2000 figure come from?

always_tyred

I'm not sure I agree with the headline to the thread, either.

It is probably true to say that reporting of this sort of thing is more common. But is it actually more common? Given that the general trend is of cycling in decline (as opposed to shorter term spikes in London, or due to fuel inflation) I wonder if this isn't just a function of increased media volume sucking in news stories.

Whereas this is tragic, no matter what the circumstances, how many people were killed by cars yesterday? Indeed, how many cyclists were hit by cars yesterday? Obesity related deaths this morning, or during the course of writing this post? What page of the Mail are these stories on?

This sort of reporting is equivalent to a "dog bites man" story taking front page on a given day. Dogs always bit men, but it just became popular to demonise dog owners. Now we have a generation of children who grew up about as afraid of a domestic dog as the average Australian is of any number of lethal arachnids.

Similarly, we have a generation of the general public who have distorted opinions on cyclists.

gandhi

dang65 wrote:

gandhi wrote:

It's in the Daily Mail, so it's probably rubbish. However, if the cyclist was in the wrong, the worst that could happen is a £2000 fine. That's not a lot for killing some one (though I guess parents could try for compensation, which would be a lot).

Is that £2000 thing really the case? I'd have thought that if the guy really had deliberately ploughed into a group of pedestrians at 20mph whilst illegally riding on a pavement (as implied by the article) then he could be put away in jail for quite a while for, I dunno, manslaughter? Where does the £2000 figure come from?

It comes from the second to bottom paragraph of the Daily Mail article, making it a fact.

downfader

Saw this article yesterday and immediate thoughts were of the conflicting accounts and the drink. I'm presuming they were mostly underage, by the way the article was worded. :?

I dont think this type of article is getting more common as a whole, but in the Mail there has been a concerted anti-cyclist theme lately. I sometimes get put onto stories like this from another forum... and yes, most are Mail articles.

dondare

The latest news is that he was found guilty and fined £2200. It seems that he had been riding on the road and shouted to a bunch of teenagers who were in front of him to warn them that he was not stopping, they all stepped back but then she then stepped forward again..

Would you have stopped? A group of drunken teenagers moving to block your path could be very menacing and to keep going would seem to be the safest thing to do. If a 17 year old girl with two cans of Stella inside her goes one way and then the other and you hit her who's to blame? If he had been riding on the road but was on the path at the moment of impact; which is the most likely, that he swerved in attempt to avoid her or that he mounted the pavement deliberately in order to hit her?

It's a pity that this guy wasn't better represented in court, maybe there'll be an appeal.

dondare

This gets worse. "The carbon fibre titanium bicycle was built to Howard's specifications.

Despite its cost, the court heard it did not comply with the Highway Code because it had no reflectors on the pedals or on the back. "

Good job it wasn't dark....

always_tyred

Hang on - if this was a child and a car, would you be saying the same thing?

I don't know about you, but when I was learning to drive, I was taught to "cover" the brake when I could see upcoming hazards. Honking the horn and slaming past was not suggested as being a good idea. Its no different on a bike. We all do it completely naturally out of a sense of self preservation normally.

I'm not changing my stance regarding the Mail's motivation for picking the story out, but it strikes me that this may have been a fairly ignorant and self entitled piece of riding that had had a dreadful consequence.

So what if she was a drunk teenager? I was a teenager once, and I used to get paralytic. I don't think that this meant I should be rutually run over as punishment - any more so than I don't think that using a car as a weapon to rebuke a cyclist who's just run a red light is reasonable.

dondare

Always Tyred wrote:

Hang on - if this was a child and a car, would you be saying the same thing?

I don't know about you, but when I was learning to drive, I was taught to "cover" the brake when I could see upcoming hazards. Honking the horn and slaming past was not suggested as being a good idea. Its no different on a bike. We all do it completely naturally out of a sense of self preservation normally.

I'm not changing my stance regarding the Mail's motivation for picking the story out, but it strikes me that this may have been a fairly ignorant and self entitled piece of riding that had had a dreadful consequence.

So what if she was a drunk teenager? I was a teenager once, and I used to get paralytic. I don't think that this meant I should be rutually run over as punishment - any more so than I don't think that using a car as a weapon to rebuke a cyclist who's just run a red light is reasonable.

The difference is that in a car you've got more chance of getting away if a group of teenagers decide to ambush you. Once you've stopped on a bike then you're hung out to dry. There's no real indication that this particular crowd were up to mischief but they could have been and more to the point they could have appeared to have been.

always_tyred

You've read the rest of the Daily Mail, haven't you?

JoeSoap76

Now I'm all for a bit of Daily Mail bashing but some of you are getting as bad as the hacks writing the articles. So she might have had a couple of drinks. So she was a teenager. So she was out with friends. So she deserved to be knocked down by a bike and killed? FFS, get a grip!

According to the report on the BBC site (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds ... 496370.stm) the cyclist shouted "move because I'm not stopping" before he hit her. As did Always Tyred, I wonder what would the reaction be if this girl were killed by a car? Would her character have been assassinated in quite the same way? Would you all be trying to pin the blame on her?

Reading this thread has left a pretty bitter taste in my mouth.

rustychisel

wash your mouth out, Joe.

andrewjoseph

If the rider has got time to shout 'get out of my way, I'm not stopping', (which is guaranteed to antagonise drunk kids in the street), then he has time to take avoiding action.

Sounds to me (without the benefit/hindrance of all the facts), that's it's a mix of drunk kids with attitude and an irresponsible cyclist with attitude.

She possibly moved into his way, he didn't/wouldn't take avoiding action.

He is partly responsible.

dondare

I don't ride dangerously, illegally or inconsiderately myself and I wouldn't accept the excuses of someone who did. But if a group of teenagers seemed intent on blocking my path then I'd certainly try to keep going just to get away from them. It might be that this group were harmless and he could have slowed down to let them cross with no risk to himself, or it might be that they would have kicked the crap out of him and nicked his bike which is what any Daily Mail reader would expect from "feral youths". No mention was made (in any account that I've read so far) of why he chose to keep going; did he feel threatened or was he being an ass?

Docsavage

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds ... 496757.stm

The story is on the BBC also.
only at the end is the bit about her being in the road.

The loss of life is tragic, but the snide implication of this and the mail 'reporting' just serves to harden already poisoned opions about cycling in the UK.

I've just returned from a visit to Holland. cycling around Den Haag made me once again remember the vast gulf that exists between cycling provision in the UK and europe.

Sad on all fronts this one.

always_tyred

Look guys - this was a cul de sac he was cycling in. She was drifting across the road, by the sounds of it, but about to get to the pavement, in a residential area.

This is a tragic incident, similar to a multidude of incidents where irresponsible driving causes death (not least of cyclists) without any consequence to the driver.

For sure the press has leapt on this because its unusual and because cyclists are easy targets. I'm saddened that no one (except the mother!) has emphasised that this is a loophople in the law specific to cycling and that it makes no difference which vehicle was involved. Amongst the irrelevant or incorrect statements I've heard are that he was "cycling too fast". He was not - but he aimed his vehicle through a small gap in a group of people. This was dangeous and stupid and although he could do this 10 times and get away with it, or 100 times and do no more than knock someone over, he actually killed someone.

The law on death by dangerous driving has no equivalent for cyclists (I understand). I also seem to recall that the similar loophole for drivers has not long been closed. That's the point.

This is a story about an idiot.

He happened to be on a bike.

Just because he was on a bike I do not think he is worthy of our defense. After all, his actions are likely to lead to a number of us experiencing some new and ill informed venom from the rest of the pedestrian and motoring public for perceived "irresponsible cycling" below the speed limit.

always_tyred

Another quick pioint - where does it say that there was alcohol involved on the part of the teenagers?

dondare

Always Tyred wrote:

Another quick pioint - where does it say that there was alcohol involved on the part of the teenagers?

The original news reports, before the verdict was announced, describe how the teenagers had been "drinking in a park" and that the girl who died had drunk "two cans of Stella, but was alright".
The same links now lead to the latest account of the sentencing and the family's outrage that he wasn't done for manslaughter, plus other details designed to make the cyclist look bad.
Perhaps the cyclist was being an inconsiderate oaf but the reporting is totally biased.

boybiker

Ive had a similar situation, drunk girls pratting about and walking into the road as I rode past, I have had to tell them to 'get out of the f**!!***ing road!' but I didn't say I wasn't going to stop.
It sounds to me like the cyclist involved is an arsehole and was quite possibly riding on the pavement.

dang65

boybiker wrote:

It sounds to me like the cyclist involved is an arsehole and was quite possibly riding on the pavement.

Trouble is, we really don't know the facts at all. I'd be quite impressed if someone got up to 17mph on a pavement in a cul-de-sac, but I suppose it is possible. I'd've thought that someone that fast wouldn't really be the sort to ride on a pavement though, especially on a posh bike.

Two cans of Stella can easily make you do things you wouldn't normally do - suddenly stepping the wrong way being one of them.

We only have the word of the girl's father that the cyclist is "an arrogant, vile little man". I haven't seen a single quote from the cyclist himself (apart from "move because I'm not stopping"!). He may be filled with remorse for all we know, or he may feel that he has been very unfairly treated and portrayed, which would make him appear arrogant.

Cyclists are perceived as arrogant. I was cycling in to work yesterday and was trying to keep my momentum up and undertook a car that had slowed right down due to a car pulling out in front of him from a side turning on the right. Technically, I shouldn't have done the undertake, but it was on a straight stretch of road, plenty of room for everyone, and I didn't want to jam the brakes on. Next thing I know, the guy's revving past me in a rage and beeping his horn.

I guess, from his point of view, I was being an arrogant cyclist in just sailing past him on the inside. Understandable impression (thought the rage was a bit over the top).

Yeah, so anyway, we don't know what the real story was.

s.ammo

I dont know all the facts in regards to this story, and Im sure that much that has been printed in regards to it to be highly biased, but I would imagine it is safe to assume that the owness of blame on the cyclist is minimal; as driving a vehicle with intent directly at a minor resulting in the death of the minor would carry a far stiffer sentance than a 2 grand fine. There are many micro details that will have been taken into account before this gentleman was sentanced, and stick by my belief that the judges decision is equivical and proportionate to his blame.