Balanced cycling article shock!

Wrath Rob

Following on from the Death by Dangerous Cycling debate in HoP, the BBC have put this article up. Surprisingly balanced for once.

shm_uk

Sort of balanced.

Except for this massively incorrect paragraph:

She cites the case of Rhiannon Bennett, who was 17 when she was killed by a speeding cyclist in 2007. The cyclist - who, the court heard, had shouted at Rhiannon to "move because I'm not stopping" - was fined £2,200 and avoided jail.

I believe the girl had been drinking with some friends, and they deliberately stepped into the road in front of the cyclist, who ended up on the pavement after trying to avoid a collision.

He then put Rhiannon into the recovery posistion & called an ambulance. Hardly the actions of a dangerous 'lycra lout' that he's been made out to be.

dhope

In 1842, a newspaper report describes "a gentleman from Dumfries-shire bestride a velocipede of ingenious design" who knocked over a little girl in Glasgow's Gorbals area and was fined five shillings

More descriptions like this.

nation

Comments are the usual quagmire of RLJ accusations.

The rules against RLJing are enforced about as stringently as 30mph speed limits, in my experience.

I suppose it's good to see actual statistics about the relative risk posed by cyclists relative to drivers getting some attention. Not that anyone's likely to change their minds as a result, but you would hope that those proposing legislation will take them into account.

pangolin

Some hilarious comments, as long as you take them in the good humour they are no doubt intended.

gwndaff wrote:

11 MINUTES AGO
Although it will be vigorously protested, there is an argument for not having cyclists on the roads at all. Their level of acceleration, average speed and level of physical protection in the event of an accident is inferior to cars, motor-cycles, lorries etc.

On busy roads, they can hold other traffic up if other vehicles cannot overtake easily.

There should be many more cycle lanes to fix this.

There speaks someone who has never cycled in London then. Lucky he didn't let his lack of information stop him sharing his views!

gtvlusso

The whole thing smells of an MP with f*ck all else to think about - How about a recovery plan for the economy love, or is that a bit tricky at the moment?

prj45

The BBC is normally fantastically anti cycling in the vein of "DON'T DO IT, YOU'LL GET KILLED", so stars only know what's gone on here.

Still, having spent a good deal of time there I do know they spend more time arguing over who gets what spot in the BBC car park than they do actually making programmes, fact.

Jay dubbleU

The MP responsible is described as 'a keen cyclist' :shock:

nation

Jay dubbleU wrote:

The MP responsible is described as 'a keen cyclist' :shock:

Bear in mind that in news-speak this seems to mean "has owned a bicycle at some point in their adult life".

walkingbootweather

Sorry couldn't get past the first line

BBC wrote:

There is little that divides UK public opinion more sharply than cyclists.

Really?
How about the various wars going on at the moment?
Are we cutting too quickly or not quickly enough?
What should DDD get his mrs for her birthday?

asprilla

prj45 wrote:

The BBC is normally fantastically anti cycling in the vein of "DON'T DO IT, YOU'LL GET KILLED", so stars only know what's gone on here.

Still, having spent a good deal of time there I do know they spend more time arguing over who gets what spot in the BBC car park than they do actually making programmes, fact.

The weird thing is that there are so many cyclists here, the cycle park areas are constantly rammed.

spen666

shm_uk wrote:

Sort of balanced.

Except for this massively incorrect paragraph:

She cites the case of Rhiannon Bennett, who was 17 when she was killed by a speeding cyclist in 2007. The cyclist - who, the court heard, had shouted at Rhiannon to "move because I'm not stopping" - was fined £2,200 and avoided jail.

I believe the girl had been drinking with some friends, and they deliberately stepped into the road in front of the cyclist, who ended up on the pavement after trying to avoid a collision.

He then put Rhiannon into the recovery posistion & called an ambulance. Hardly the actions of a dangerous 'lycra lout' that he's been made out to be.

The piece you quoted from the BBC is 100% correct


I have had the good fortune to have actually seen the police/ prosecution file in this case and read the endorsements as to what was said in evidence in the trial.

Your version of events is an attempt to spin the truth. If what you claim was correct, then there was no offence made out.

The fact the cyclist was convicted and did not appeal the conviction (ie he accepted it) shows there was an offence committed

notsoblue

spen666 wrote:

I have had the good fortune to have actually seen the police/ prosecution file in this case and read the endorsements as to what was said in evidence in the trial.

Interesting, could you tell us what happened?

prj45

spen666 wrote:

I have had the good fortune to have actually seen the police/ prosecution file in this case and read the endorsements as to what was said in evidence in the trial.

Are these type of documents public? I've always thought they are the right place to go when discussing such incidents, but I've never been able to find them.

mroli

Spen666 - I'd be interested in getting the proper facts of the case too - I've been told conflicting stuff (about whether the accident happened on the pavement or on the road, whether the cyclist speeded up or aimed for the pedestrian and what was shouted).

If you can - please share...

dondare

"She cites the case of Rhiannon Bennett, who was 17 when she was killed by a speeding cyclist in 2007. The cyclist - who, the court heard, had shouted at Rhiannon to "move because I'm not stopping" - was fined £2,200 and avoided jail."

This is not balanced.
A 17 yr old girl who had been drinking strong lager is knocked down by a cyclist as she crosses the road. The cyclists was not "speeding", the term is meaningless when applied to cyclists. To say that he killed her is not accurate, she died from head injuries resulting from the fall. People who have been drinking are more likely to step into the path of moving vehicles, more likely to fall over and more likely to bang their heads when they do fall. The Stella probably played a bigger part in her death than the cyclist.

spen666

mroli wrote:

Spen666 - I'd be interested in getting the proper facts of the case too - I've been told conflicting stuff (about whether the accident happened on the pavement or on the road, whether the cyclist speeded up or aimed for the pedestrian and what was shouted).

If you can - please share...

I will have to access my old notes on the case. It may take me a couple of days but I will do what I can.

shm_uk

dondare wrote:

This is not balanced.
A 17 yr old girl who had been drinking strong lager is knocked down by a cyclist as she crosses the road. The cyclists was not "speeding", the term is meaningless when applied to cyclists. To say that he killed her is not accurate, she died from head injuries resulting from the fall. People who have been drinking are more likely to step into the path of moving vehicles, more likely to fall over and more likely to bang their heads when they do fall. The Stella probably played a bigger part in her death than the cyclist.

Yes, but the truth wouldn't have got this attention-seeking MP her 15 minutes of fame, would it?

thisischris

Im not really against the idea of introducing laws about dangerous cycling, infact its not such a bad idea......BUT it does seem to be case of misguided attention. It terms of scale the big problem is making it safe on the roads for cyclists. 2 cyclists have been killed on a single roundabout in Bristol and i nearly lost a leg in 12 months!!!!

Once everyroad has a deadicated 2 way cycle lane... i'll stop there; never going to happen.

dondare

thisischris wrote:

Im not really against the idea of introducing laws about dangerous cycling, infact its not such a bad idea......BUT it does seem to be case of misguided attention. It terms of scale the big problem is making it safe on the roads for cyclists. 2 cyclists have been killed on a single roundabout in Bristol and i nearly lost a leg in 12 months!!!!

Once everyroad has a deadicated 2 way cycle lane... i'll stop there; never going to happen.

Laws to prosecute dangerous cyclists already exist. Laws to prosecute and imprison cyclists who are genuinely culpable exist and have been applied quite recently. Laws that could be applied to send a death-dealing cyclist to jail for life already exist.
The proposal for a new one is either a sop to the dead girl's parents, populist rabble-rousing or a bit of both.

avoidingmyphd

dondare wrote:

The proposal for a new one is either a sop to the dead girl's parents, populist rabble-rousing or a bit of both.

Another option: rabble rounsing and exploitation of a dead girl's parents.

thisischris

RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE

dondare

thisischris wrote:

Once everyroad has a deadicated 2 way cycle lane...

...then cyclists will be forced to use them and every junction will be a nightmare.

bails87

I saw your comments Dondare, goot effort.

Unfortunately the majority of them, despite the not entirely objecitonable article, are the typical ill informed rubbish. So far I've learnt that:

-Most cyclists ride on the pavement
-Most cyclists jump red lights (presumably this is a different 'most' from the ones on the pavement)
-Riding 2 abreast is illegal
-Mobility scooters aren't allowed on the roads
-Bikes cause more traffic and tailbacks than cars. (Funny, I could have sworn I passed 5 miles of stationary cars this morning)
-Cyclists are allowed to kill people because we're subject to different/no laws
-Treating something that kills thousands each year differently from something that kills one per year is nonsensical.
-Every time a driver breaks the law they will be immediately and brutally punished because they've got number plates on their car.
-It's a cyclist's fault if a van overtakes them on a blind bend, almost causing a collision with a car coming the other way

:roll:

dondare

bails87 wrote:

I saw your comments Dondare, goot effort.

Unfortunately the majority of them, despite the not entirely objecitonable article, are the typical ill informed rubbish. So far I've learnt that:

-Most cyclists ride on the pavement
-Most cyclists jump red lights (presumably this is a different 'most' from the ones on the pavement)
-Riding 2 abreast is illegal
-Mobility scooters aren't allowed on the roads
-Bikes cause more traffic and tailbacks than cars. (Funny, I could have sworn I passed 5 miles of stationary cars this morning)
-Cyclists are allowed to kill people because we're subject to different/no laws
-Treating something that kills thousands each year differently from something that kills one per year is nonsensical.
-Every time a driver breaks the law they will be immediately and brutally punished because they've got number plates on their car.
-It's a cyclist's fault if a van overtakes them on a blind bend, almost causing a collision with a car coming the other way

:roll:

I've wasted half a day posting on this one, too:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... f-comments

notsoblue

FYI, was an interesting bit on You and Yours about this. Great contribution from Roger Geffen of CTC imo. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0105vtw#p00g866q

prj45

Is wondering what would have happened in this case had the girl been struck by a car.

bails87

prj45 wrote:

Is wondering what would have happened in this case had the girl been struck by a car.

The DM would have been up in arms about "Feral Yoof" and the whole thing will have been ignored. Possibly led to a clampdown on teenage drinking. Maybe.






Definitely.

tarquin_foxglove

prj45 wrote:

Is wondering what would have happened in this case had the girl been struck by a car.

Compare & contrast...

"John Howard was cycling on the road doing 17 mph in a 30 mph zone. Howard was convicted of dangerous cycling & fined £2200 and had to pay £750 costs."

"Ronald Powell was doing 44mph in a 30mph zone. Billy Convoy, 11, stepped off the pavement into the path of the car and was struck and thrown into the air and on to the kerb. He died the next day.

Powell was convicted of careless driving and fined £1,000 and banned from driving for 12 months."

Billy Convoy article on Daily Mail...

jds_1981

bails87 wrote:

I saw your comments Dondare, goot effort.

Unfortunately the majority of them, despite the not entirely objecitonable article, are the typical ill informed rubbish. So far I've learnt that:

-Most cyclists ride on the pavement
-Most cyclists jump red lights (presumably this is a different 'most' from the ones on the pavement)
-Riding 2 abreast is illegal
-Mobility scooters aren't allowed on the roads
-Bikes cause more traffic and tailbacks than cars. (Funny, I could have sworn I passed 5 miles of stationary cars this morning)
-Cyclists are allowed to kill people because we're subject to different/no laws
-Treating something that kills thousands each year differently from something that kills one per year is nonsensical.
-Every time a driver breaks the law they will be immediately and brutally punished because they've got number plates on their car.
-It's a cyclist's fault if a van overtakes them on a blind bend, almost causing a collision with a car coming the other way

:roll:

Heh, saw those comments too.

With regards to the numberplates, came across one of Mr Origamist's videos today which is somewhat pertinent

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lE1PkWhXUck