Zombie cyclist response lettters

downfader

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 945895.ece

Feel free to comment on there.

Gordon Stokey's letter seems to miss the point about being in a box of glass, plastic and metal with windows up and music on. I have seen drivers with headphones on just the once, but frankly I'd imagine it would be largely ignored. Much like mobiles.

Is this a concerted effort by the MML* to make cycling less enjoyable, or even push it off the roads all together? Anything positive I ever read about cycling is generally off-road in the papers. Everything on-road is negative lately :?

*MML is the Mental Motoring Lobby - a group of idiots making motorists look stupid, campaigning for speeding etc.

number9

downfader wrote:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article6945895.ece

Feel free to comment on there.

Gordon Stokey's letter seems to miss the point about being in a box of glass, plastic and metal with windows up and music on. I have seen drivers with headphones on just the once, but frankly I'd imagine it would be largely ignored. Much like mobiles.

Is this a concerted effort by the MML* to make cycling less enjoyable, or even push it off the roads all together? Anything positive I ever read about cycling is generally off-road in the papers. Everything on-road is negative lately :?

*MML is the Mental Motoring Lobby - a group of idiots making motorists look stupid, campaigning for speeding etc.

The Mail ran similar articles.

They basically slagged off a dead cyclist.

The Mail speculated as did the coroner that Abigail Haythorne MAY have been listening to her ipod when killed by the motorist. Then they insensitively and crassly write underneath a photograph of her accompanying the fact free and unsubstantiated article that, quote, "Abigail Haythorne was killed as she listened to her MP3 player".

Is this an error or intentional twisting of the "facts"?

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z0YuXvOqR9


"It is not known how many of these cases were caused by people listening to music"

"her earphones were tucked inside her neck scarf. He said it was possible she was wearing them when she was struck by the car"

And who needs so-called 'proof', eh? Thanks for the outrage.

downfader

number9 wrote:

downfader wrote:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article6945895.ece

Feel free to comment on there.

Gordon Stokey's letter seems to miss the point about being in a box of glass, plastic and metal with windows up and music on. I have seen drivers with headphones on just the once, but frankly I'd imagine it would be largely ignored. Much like mobiles.

Is this a concerted effort by the MML* to make cycling less enjoyable, or even push it off the roads all together? Anything positive I ever read about cycling is generally off-road in the papers. Everything on-road is negative lately :?

*MML is the Mental Motoring Lobby - a group of idiots making motorists look stupid, campaigning for speeding etc.

The Mail ran similar articles.

They basically slagged off a dead cyclist.

The Mail speculated as did the coroner that Abigail Haythorne MAY have been listening to her ipod when killed by the motorist. Then they insensitively and crassly write underneath a photograph of her accompanying the fact free and unsubstantiated article that, quote, "Abigail Haythorne was killed as she listened to her MP3 player".

Is this an error or intentional twisting of the "facts"?

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z0YuXvOqR9


"It is not known how many of these cases were caused by people listening to music"

"her earphones were tucked inside her neck scarf. He said it was possible she was wearing them when she was struck by the car"

And who needs so-called 'proof', eh? Thanks for the outrage.

Haythorne's earbuds were said to be wrapped around her scarf in another older article (I forget where from) - I failed to see how she could have been listening when the buds wouldnt reach her ears. Had they been on loud and away from her ears (which again there is no evidence) I think she'd still have been able to hear traffic. I've tried this myself walking near busy roads.

It makes me feel sick in the stomach the way her name has kind of been tarnished without any real evidence. IMO in this instance the coroner should have kept that opinion to himself and relied on what the facts actually were. :?

shouldbeinbed

Personally I wouldn't wipe my a**e on either of these rags, the transfer of waste material would be the wrong way.

The Times have developed an exceedingly negative agenda towards cyclist and the Daily Heil just likes a minority to pick on. I'm waiting for either of them to offer a free hi viz yellow star for cyclists to wear at all times so we can be singled out from the rest of the population. maybe it could be allied to the name of a luminary of the cycling scene, possibly Chris Juden

a yellow star and the word Juden by it would probably make them very happy.

number9

shouldbeinbed wrote:

Personally I wouldn't wipe my a**e on either of these rags, the transfer of waste material would be the wrong way.

The Times have developed an exceedingly negative agenda towards cyclist and the Daily Heil just likes a minority to pick on. I'm waiting for either of them to offer a free hi viz yellow star for cyclists to wear at all times so we can be singled out from the rest of the population. maybe it could be allied to the name of a luminary of the cycling scene, possibly Chris Juden

a yellow star and the word Juden by it would probably make them very happy.

Case in point:

The original source has a habit of distorting the truth:




Daily Mail- Evil hit-and-run cyclist leaves pretty tousle-haired girl for dead:


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... clist.html

Google cache still has the previous version before the story was hurriedly ammended:


Quote:
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 1:26 PM on 16th June 2008

Millie Harrop, 5, was left for dead after being hit by a cyclist .



"A mother has told of her horror after watching her five-year-old daughter being knocked down by a cyclist and left for dead.

Millie Harrop lay fighting for her life on the pavement on St Paul's St South after the hit and run accident."

---

Hang on though.


This Is Gloucester- the cyclist remained on the scene, gave her version of events and has not been arrested or charged:


http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/ ... ticle.html

How very odd.

shouldbeinbed

downfader wrote:

Haythorne's earbuds were said to be wrapped around her scarf in another older article (I forget where from) - I failed to see how she could have been listening when the buds wouldnt reach her ears. Had they been on loud and away from her ears (which again there is no evidence) I think she'd still have been able to hear traffic. I've tried this myself walking near busy roads.

It makes me feel sick in the stomach the way her name has kind of been tarnished without any real evidence. IMO in this instance the coroner should have kept that opinion to himself and relied on what the facts actually were. :?

No 9 it was a Times article last week, (Ipod zombies blah blah) they were detailed as tucked inside her scarf and it's interesting thet neither article states if the Ipod was switched on or not, neither did the psychic coroner before leaping to his assumption.

downfader

shouldbeinbed wrote:

Personally I wouldn't wipe my a**e on either of these rags, the transfer of waste material would be the wrong way.

The Times have developed an exceedingly negative agenda towards cyclist and the Daily Heil just likes a minority to pick on. I'm waiting for either of them to offer a free hi viz yellow star for cyclists to wear at all times so we can be singled out from the rest of the population. maybe it could be allied to the name of a luminary of the cycling scene, possibly Chris Juden

a yellow star and the word Juden by it would probably make them very happy.

Used to be a massive fan of the Times but now I've slowly been going off them. The telegraph and guardian have been showing more positive articles on cycling imo. Theres still the polarisation but atleast the cycling-journos arent cow-cowing to the myths that we're all bad.

Even The Sun and Mirror have been more positive than The Times of late iirc. Found a Mail at work the otherday and scanned the letters pages, some really nasty anti-cyclist remarks in there and I think you're right - it wont be long before we have that little star, LOL!

number9

I think the Telegraph have started a cycling blog. The Guardian definitely has.

spen666

downfader wrote:

..... Found a Mail at work the otherday and scanned the letters pages, some really nasty anti-cyclist remarks in there and I think you're right - it wont be long before we have that little star, LOL!

You are making a big mistake as are all of the others on here and elsewhere that rant against the Daily Mail.

It is a newspaper. It sells issues because its provides what people want to read. The letters are the views of the readership.

Attacking thenewspaper and the views of its readership is not going to do anything to change their views for the better. All you will do is entrench their pro self views. Thus making them more, not less, inxclined to view cyclists etc are a nuisance.

We need to stop attacking people for holding different views and get them to change their views.

You won't get people to change their views by attacking them. We need to educate, persuade etc- not just attack

number9

"Twenty minutes into my test drive I pulled round a leafy bend, enjoying the birdsong - and spotted those damned Spider-Man cyclists. Knowing they wouldn't hear me coming, I stepped on the gas, waited until the split second before I overtook them, then gave them an almighty blast on the horn at the exact same time I passed them at speed.
The look of sheer terror as they tottered into the hedge was the best thing I've ever seen in my rear-view mirror. I think this could be the car for me."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive ... z0R4KgQ9Nw"

Cyclists, in an unco-ordinated, spontaneous campaign, forced the hasty editing of the Mail article to leave out the boasts of assaulting cyclists. The Mail apologised, complaints to the PCC were made, Martin himself issued a grovelling apology and the issue was resolved.

Never let the Mail or anyone else get away with this kind of rabid sociopathy. They're well known for printing lies, when these lies place cyclists in danger they must be countered.

Sigurd

The agenda of the Mail isn't anti-cyclist per se, rather it's pro-outrage. I recently had the interesting experience of leafing through a copy. Progressing from the front page and through to the letters and opinion pages, the tone was one of increasing outrage. The intent of the editors and writers was very clear: confirm to their readers just how appalling the world is out there. Every article should be seen as part of a crescendo ('...and another thing...') moving inexorably to outrage.

What's interesting is that the effect on readers and non-readers is very similar: blood pressure sent soaring. Perhaps all should try a little cycling to alleviate it...

number9

"If you've read a Mail from cover to cover and haven't ended up hating someone, they haven't done their job properly".

Daily Mail has clearly decided cycling – or rather its abolition - will be its new cause-celebre. We'll be saddled with this subject for a while then as the paper pedals it's unique brand of... ok, I'll stop with the cycling puns.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... crazy.html

Robert Hardman offers up an incoherent rant against cycling in which he also criticises arguments which are “either naive or deliberately misleading”. And so the irony begins:



“This weekend, the Government's chief cycling quango demanded that, henceforth, cyclists should be treated as blameless Kings of the Road…”

…er, no they didn’t.


“Philip [sic] Darnton, the chairman of something called Cycling England, has insisted that, in future, the car driver should be deemed the guilty party in any accident involving a car and a bicycle - or a pedestrian for that matter…”

…er, no he didn’t.


Darnton said he would like to see measures such as a “legal onus placed on motorists when there are accidents; speed limits reduced to 20mph on suburban and residential roads; cycling taught to all schoolchildren; and cycling provision included in major planning applications”, but he will doubtless be aware of the need to draw a line in the sand and then begin ceding ground – such is the nature of negotiation.

Fortunately the horse-trading that goes on when drafting new laws and legislation doesn’t begin and end with the Daily Mail’s point of view being universally accepted.

Hence we have a multicultural society.


http://themediablog.typepad.com/the-med ... rnton.html

greg66_tri_v2.0

downfader wrote:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article6945895.ece

Feel free to comment on there.

Gordon Stokey's letter seems to miss the point about being in a box of glass, plastic and metal with windows up and music on. I have seen drivers with headphones on just the once, but frankly I'd imagine it would be largely ignored. Much like mobiles.

Is this a concerted effort by the MML* to make cycling less enjoyable, or even push it off the roads all together? Anything positive I ever read about cycling is generally off-road in the papers. Everything on-road is negative lately :?

*MML is the Mental Motoring Lobby - a group of idiots making motorists look stupid, campaigning for speeding etc.

Errr, what's your point though?

Is it that cyclists should not be criticised for riding with headphones in? Or that riding with headphones is just as safe as riding without headphones?

There are plenty of riders here who ride with headphones on and see nothing wrong with it. I don't ride with them on; well, I did once, but I had the worst of both worlds. The wind roar meant I couldn't hear the music very well, but at the same time the noise distracted me from listening to the traffic.

I find it pretty vital to be able to listen to traffic around me. Again, others here disagree that headphones interfere with their ability to hear traffic. Not really my experience.

FWIW though, I'd've thought that trying to persuade the Great British Public that cycling whilst plugged into headphones is no more dangerous that cycling without them is going to be as easy as pushing water uphill.

So good luck with the campaign, but I'll sit this one out.

ETA: I enjoyed Celia Robinson's contribution in the Times article though!

number9

Daily Mail readers are letting off steam on the paper’s message boards after it was announced that… wait for it… cyclists would be allowed to cycle both ways down one-way streets in order to shorten their journey time, and thus increase the appeal of cycling and reduce the inclination to illegally mount pavements.

“The lunacy just goes on and on and on ad infinitum. There will be more to come,” prophesises one reader.

“Why not go the whole hog and make them immune to all traffic laws and have done with it?” asks another reader before adding: “Many cyclists are utterly lawless…”

yes, like pirates, Vikings and serial killers. When they’re not reducing carbon emissions by cycling to work I hear cyclists are invariably raping, pillaging and looting.



“Does that mean I'm allowed to run them over if they cycle at me in the middle of the road as I turn into a one-way street? Presumably the English courts would side with the cyclist and deem it the cars fault?”


Yes, presumably those crazy courts would indeed side with the cyclist, given the suggestion there would be some intent and fore-thought with this act. It’s terribly unfair that whole murder law when the so-called victim is a cyclist.



“I personally hate ALL cyclists... GET RID OF THEM,”


writes frothy-mouthed loon Liz from Brussels, promoting some kind of mass genocide of anybody with a bicycle. As an avid - or possibly rabid - Mail reader, Liz has clearly moved to Brussels just to tell the city how much she hates it and all it stands for.

“Hope they like the taste of my bumper,”

writes Alan from Warrington, another reader with apparent murderous intent and a +8 approval rating from other Mail readers. Way to go Alan, hope you kill a young mother first!

Another Alan writes:

“I have been thinking this might be a good idea at least they might get spattered over the roads.”


That would be brilliant... though presumably the job of cleaning up the human chum would be given to 'some ethnic'.

You get the picture.

Ibid. That's an interesting blog.

MonkeyMonster

Nice post G66, hope the back is improved.

spen666

Number 9

What point are you trying to make?

you cut n paste huge extracts from elsewhere on the net, but I and I suspect others have no idea what you are trying to say?

Without cutting and pasting numerous extracts, whay point(s) are you trying to make re this story?

PBo

shouldbeinbed wrote:

Personally I wouldn't wipe my a**e on either of these rags, the transfer of waste material would be the wrong way.

The Times have developed an exceedingly negative agenda towards cyclist and the Daily Heil just likes a minority to pick on. I'm waiting for either of them to offer a free hi viz yellow star for cyclists to wear at all times so we can be singled out from the rest of the population. maybe it could be allied to the name of a luminary of the cycling scene, possibly Chris Juden

a yellow star and the word Juden by it would probably make them very happy.

WWMD? (what would Mosely do?)

perhaps we would get less aggro for being ninja cyclists, 'cos at least they have black shirts on......

number9

MonkeyMonster wrote:

Nice post G66, hope the back is improved.

spen's and greg's posts are the same old same old straw men.

spen decries "attacks" on the Mail, I'm sure accidently failing to notice nobody's done any such thing, and greg opts to sit out a campaign to convince people that listening to Ipods whilst cycling is safe, a campaign that doesn't exist outside his fevered imagination.

Everyone else is wrong and they're right, a position made much easier if they invent arguments nobody's made, guffaw!


It is terribly easy to pander to prejudice. The Mail invent a story, lie about a young cyclist killed on the roads, twist the facts to suit their agenda and provoke the usual meat head responses. Terribly easy, and terribly unwise, and can backfire spectacularly:

"Tour de France sprinting ace Robbie McEwen urged everyone to "either key [Martin's] car or punch him in the face"; Taylor Phinney, the US world champion, called him a "douche bag". Most bruisingly of all, Bradley Wiggins, the Olympic gold medallist, tweeted

that he had always preferred rival cooking show Something For The Weekend anyway.

Telsa, which loaned Martin the car, wasn't happy either.

"In this case, we're not even using it [linking to the review from our site]. It is really odd. I have to sadly admit this is not the first time a journalist in the UK has brought up this issue of wheatgrass-eating hippies riding bikes. [But] this is definitely the most extreme version of it,"

Rachel Konrad, Tesla's communications manager, told the FredCast cycling podcast.

Before long, Martin's Wikipedia entry had been hacked, the Daily Mail website had removed the facility to comment on the story so that no one else could call him a moron and cyclists' organisation the CTC had waded in, urging the cyclists terrorised by Martin to contact the organisation's accident line. An inevitable Facebook group was formed, with over 1,000 people signing up to declare I Hate James Martin, and dozens of angry cyclists began to bombard his agent and publisher with emails.

Wiggins' wife, Cath, announced she had written to the Press Complaints Commission and urged everyone else to do the same until Martin apologised. She might have some success: when the Times columnist Matthew Parris fantasised about decapitating cyclists with piano wire a few years back, he was forced to say sorry by the PCC.

When the Guardian contacted Martin yesterday, he declined to comment, but a source close to him said he was only joking – it was "a humorous piece like Clarkson and caravans" apparently."

greg66_tri_v2.0

Number9, what on earth are you on?

The OP is about criticisms of riding whilst wearing headphones. You appeared to get this in your first post, which had some relevance to the point in issue.

But since then, you've hijacked this thread by quoting large tracts of general cycling-hating press material.

If you want to start a thread about how badly cyclists are treated in the press, do so. But try to stick to the point raised in this thread, and stop hijacking it to push your grievances.

spen666

Number9

I'll repeat my question

What is your point

You can cut n paste pieces from elsewhere on the net- I can understand that much.

However, what is the relevance of that in relation to a thread about wearing of headphones and the Daily Mail

WITHOUT posting huge tracts from other website, what is your point


Here is a challenge to you, can you do it without launching attacks on people's character.

spen666

number9 wrote:

MonkeyMonster wrote:

Nice post G66, hope the back is improved.

spen's and greg's posts are the same old same old straw men.

spen decries "attacks" on the Mail, I'm sure accidently failing to notice nobody's done any such thing, and greg opts to sit out a campaign to convince people that listening to Ipods whilst cycling is safe, a campaign that doesn't exist outside his fevered imagination.

....."

So lets just review this thread shall we?

The 1st rely to op was by number 9 and read

...The Mail ran similar articles.

They basically slagged off a dead cyclist.

The Mail speculated as did the coroner that Abigail Haythorne MAY have been listening to her ipod when killed by the motorist. Then they insensitively and crassly write underneath a photograph of her accompanying the fact free and unsubstantiated article that, quote, "Abigail Haythorne was killed as she listened to her MP3 player".

Is this an error or intentional twisting of the "facts"?

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z0YuXvOqR9


"It is not known how many of these cases were caused by people listening to music"

"her earphones were tucked inside her neck scarf. He said it was possible she was wearing them when she was struck by the car"

And who needs so-called 'proof', eh? Thanks for the outrage....

Looks like an attack on the Daily Mail to be

3rd reply by shouldbeinbed read

Personally I wouldn't wipe my a**e on either of these rags, the transfer of waste material would be the wrong way.

Given the "twpoo rags" referred to were the Times and the Daily Mail, this looks like another attack on the Daily Mail to me

Then we get a post from Downfader

Found a Mail at work the otherday and scanned the letters pages, some really nasty anti-cyclist remarks in there and I think you're right - it wont be long before we have that little star, LOL!

Equating the Daily Mail to a Nazi paper- again looks to me like an attack on the paper



So I think number 9 is obviously right that no one has attacked the Daily Mail.


However, the point I made has not been addressed. I care nothing for the Daily Mail or anyother paper. However if you attack someones views head on, you are simply going to cause them to defend their views. You arenot going to change someone by attacking thier views.

number9

In both the articles there is an implicit acceptance that cyclists are under threat from vehicles.

As you read you're left under no doubt that motorists cannot be held fully responsible for collisions with these 'zombies', like Abigail, who may not have done anything wrong.

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of cycling with ear phones, there's something wrong with a culture that every year forgives almost 3000 deaths and over 200, 000 serious injuries on our roads almost all caused by the actions of drivers. What's more, I can see such arguments being presented by insurance companies to mitigate guilt and reduce insurance payouts, and if the standard of proof is the same as for Abigail (owning an Ipod means the Ipod killed her, according to The Mail), then we're in trouble.


Appealing to the lowest common demoninator, whipping up resentment and hostility, it's what they do best.

Don't let them get away with it.

The main reason people hate cyclists is because we live in a car dominated culture, lots of people read rags like the Daily Mail and are fed anti cycling messages fairly regularly. They have no understanding of what it's like to ride a bike on the road and see cyclists as an annoyance, in their way, preventing them from getting where they want to be.


Cycling is inherently pretty safe! Lets not put the blame on the victim!

spen666

number9 wrote:

.... Regardless of the rights and wrongs of cycling with ear phones, there's something wrong with a culture that every year forgives almost 3000 deaths and over 200, 000 serious injuries on our roads almost all caused by the actions of drivers.


...

your figures are quite simply not correct here


there are approximately 3000 killed or seriously injured each year, not 300 killed and 200,000 seriously injured.

The 200,000 figure relates to all injuries.


If you are going to quote figures, then please make an effort to get the right figures.

You simply give more ammunition to those who disagree with you. Any pro motorist/ anti cyclist willhave a field day when you quote such inaccurate figures.

See for example the BBC story at this link
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7475893.stm

spen666

number9 wrote:

....

Appealing to the lowest common demoninator, whipping up resentment and hostility, it's what they do best.

Don't let them get away with it.

...!

Change "they" to "he" and "them" to "him"

Now could that apply to anyone who posts on bike radar anywhere?

number9

From your own link:


Just over 2,940 people died in 2007

2,940 can fairly be described as almost 3000.

spen, I'm asking you politely, give it a rest. You're like a fourteen year old schoolgirl following me around with notes saying "I hate you". Grow up and stop acting like a big baby.

number9

spen666 wrote:

number9 wrote:

....

Appealing to the lowest common demoninator, whipping up resentment and hostility, it's what they do best.

Don't let them get away with it.

...!

Change "they" to "he" and "them" to "him"

Now could that apply to anyone who posts on bike radar anywhere?

Oh, for goodness sake!

Reported.

downfader

FFS wish I'd never posted now..

jesus lads, cool it.

spen666

number9 wrote:

From your own link:


Just over 2,940 people died in 2007

2,940 can fairly be described as almost 3000.

spen, I'm asking you politely, give it a rest. You're like a fourteen year old schoolgirl following me around with notes saying "I hate you". Grow up and stop acting like a big baby.

Where do you get that figure from.
the figure for killed AND seriously injured is circa 3000


You may note, I gave you a link to the source of my figures. I don't simply quote figures with no supporting evidence

So what is the source of your 3000 killed and 200000 seriously injured.

I dispute both figures, and it seemsfrom the link I gave,that so do the DTI

shouldbeinbed

spen666 wrote:

3rd reply by shouldbeinbed read

Personally I wouldn't wipe my a**e on either of these rags, the transfer of waste material would be the wrong way.

Given the "twpoo rags" referred to were the Times and the Daily Mail, this looks like another attack on the Daily Mail to me

bang on, well spotted but you forgot the attack on The Times too
_________________________________________________________________


to further quote from my same post

The Times have developed an exceedingly negative agenda towards cyclist and the Daily Heil just likes a minority to pick on.

you seem to have missed that bit

It's an opinion on both of them. If anything I'd say that I'm more critical of the Times, should you look at any other of my posts, you'll see I've criticised The Times attitude to cycling before directly, but not the Mail, however reporting assumption as fact as they do in the linked article doesn't really float my boat.

I've noticed you're very good at selective quoting , why do you need to pick up on something I actually stated myself and use it to spuriously support whatever agenda you're runnng in hijacking this thread to harangue everyone again?
and yes I did call it the Daily Heil. You also seem to have missed this first time round as a personal reference to the historical editorial of the paper that was a touch right wing leaning throughout the 30's and is somewhat more right wing in its thinking than I tend to be.

The Chingford Skinhead

spen666 wrote:

Where do you get that figure from.
the figure for killed AND seriously injured is circa 3000


You may note, I gave you a link to the source of my figures. I don't simply quote figures with no supporting evidence

So what is the source of your 3000 killed and 200000 seriously injured.

I dispute both figures, and it seemsfrom the link I gave,that so do the DTI

If you are going to lecture someone on the correct use of figures and give a link, you should at least get your own figures to match with your source.
"the figure for killed AND seriously injured is circa 3000" - Wrong. The figure for killed is 2,940 (almost three thousand). The figure for killed AND seriously injured is 30,720 (over Thirty thousand - not the three thousand you quote (and admittedly not the 200,000 Number 9 quotes but then he could have been referring to the 247,780 road casualties in Great Britain in 2007).

Wallace1492

number9 wrote:

In both the articles there is an implicit acceptance that cyclists are under threat from vehicles.

As you read you're left under no doubt that motorists cannot be held fully responsible for collisions with these 'zombies', like Abigail, who may not have done anything wrong.

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of cycling with ear phones, there's something wrong with a culture that every year forgives almost 3000 deaths and over 200, 000 serious injuries on our roads almost all caused by the actions of drivers. What's more, I can see such arguments being presented by insurance companies to mitigate guilt and reduce insurance payouts, and if the standard of proof is the same as for Abigail (owning an Ipod means the Ipod killed her, according to The Mail), then we're in trouble.


Appealing to the lowest common demoninator, whipping up resentment and hostility, it's what they do best.

Don't let them get away with it.

The main reason people hate cyclists is because we live in a car dominated culture, lots of people read rags like the Daily Mail and are fed anti cycling messages fairly regularly. They have no understanding of what it's like to ride a bike on the road and see cyclists as an annoyance, in their way, preventing them from getting where they want to be.


Cycling is inherently pretty safe! Lets not put the blame on the victim!

No9, you have some pretty good points here. However, there are a few issues I have.
I agree that the media does have a biased opinion, and the Daily Mail seems to have it in for cyclists (though I do not read, so unaware if they have any pro-cycling stories, not that anyone would post them on here).

You seem keen on blaming drivers for most crashes, 136 cyclists killed in 2007 is 136 more than anyone would like. But I wonder how many of those contributed to their demise. How many was the vehicle driver wholly responsible for? We simply do not have those figures, but I would think that there would be a fair split there.
In the case of the girl tragically killed while allegedly listening to her iPod, it does seem that she veered across the road in front of a car, no blame seems to be attached to the driver who tried his best to stop. Her mother even suggested it was very likely that she would have been listening to music. Therefore is this not a lesson we can learn from?

I agree that cycling is inherently safe, but only in the context of having no other road users!! In the presence of other vehicles I find it is inherently dangerous, but that danger can be effectively managed by the rider in order to reduce it to acceptable levels.