Death of a cyclist

patombr

Just reading the article regarding the cyclist who was killed by a motorcyclist who it seems was overtaking cars on the wrong side of the road lost control and hit the cyclist head on killing them both. The paper reads as though the cyclist hit the motorbike, it goes onto read the motorcyclist was a back to motorcycling Enthusiast after some time off. The article doesn't seem to even mention the cyclist, which is annoying to say the least.
I've been riding cycles and motorcycles for 30 years now and I think it's about time these People who jump back on big horse power bikes after a long time off should be made to ride very low powered machines or even better made to relearn and take another test.

White Line

Link?

Lowride

I`ve had it happen to me once or twice when a car will overtake another and is now coming straight at me on the wrong side of the road. It`s not nice, some/most car drivers are SO bloody impatient

kingrollo

patombr wrote:

Just reading the article regarding the cyclist who was killed by a motorcyclist who it seems was overtaking cars on the wrong side of the road lost control and hit the cyclist head on killing them both. The paper reads as though the cyclist hit the motorbike, it goes onto read the motorcyclist was a back to motorcycling Enthusiast after some time off. The article doesn't seem to even mention the cyclist, which is annoying to say the least.
I've been riding cycles and motorcycles for 30 years now and I think it's about time these People who jump back on big horse power bikes after a long time off should be made to ride very low powered machines or even better made to relearn and take another test.

Sensible suggestion. Should apply to car as well. kids are passing there test in a 1.0 ltr fiesta - then driving 3.0 land rovers.....

Sadly any hope of legislation of this type is out of the question - whilst we hav the current spivs in charge.

unixnerd

I`ve had it happen to me once or twice when a car will overtake another and is now coming straight at me on the wrong side of the road. It`s not nice, some/most car drivers are SO bloody impatient

I've had that too, scary. Now I run a Knog Frog on flash mode even in daylight, not happened since. It's very bright for it's size.

Bozman

It's not just motorcycles, all road vehicles do it.
If somebody hadn't ridden a bike for 25 yrs and jumped on a 190bhp BMW 1000rr(purely an example) they wouldn't believe how easy they are to ride, well balanced, smooth power delivery, fantastic brakes and tyres that keep you glued to the road, exactly the opposite to what they used to ride.

unixnerd

Should apply to car as well. kids are passing there test in a 1.0 ltr fiesta - then driving 3.0 land rovers.....

Putting the least experienced drivers in the smallest cars with the fewest safety features may explain the amount of dead young drivers in the UK. Insurance should be based more on power / weight ratio.

MattC59

unixnerd wrote:

Should apply to car as well. kids are passing there test in a 1.0 ltr fiesta - then driving 3.0 land rovers.....

Putting the least experienced drivers in the smallest cars with the fewest safety features may explain the amount of dead young drivers in the UK. Insurance should be based more on power / weight ratio.

Why ?
How would that work ?

oldhairylegs

Bozman wrote:

It's not just motorcycles, all road vehicles do it.

Sadly this is very true. I was minding my own business having an evening ride last week when some muppet in one of those pick up trucks decided to overtake a bus parked on his side of the road. He clearly didn't give a crap that by doing this, he almost put me into a brick wall on my side of the road.

I gave the usual outburst of expletives and he responded by stopping and banging his stupid vehicle into reverse, no doubt to come and have another go at killing me. Luckily another car came up behind him so he had to stop.

Just wish I had my camera mounted......

amaferanga

If you're referring to the article in the Sheffield Star then it's disgraceful how they barely mention the cyclist (Matthew Hook) and fail to take account of the fact that all the eye witness reports point to the motorcyclist being 100% to blame for the death of the cyclist. The death of the motorcyclist is incidental to me - he killed himself through riding like a f@cking idiot. I feel for the family of the poor innocent cyclist.

patombr

Yes the accident was near Sheffield. I totally agree, the paper was going on about the motorcyclist been a keen rider and will be mist etc etc, there wasn't any real mention about that poor chap on his bike minding his own business and been totally legal, I. E riding within the speed limit and on the right side of the road. I mean the cyclist couldn't be identified, god knows what mess he must have been in. I truly think even though the motorcyclist is dead I think he should be prosecuted.
I heard the family of the motorcyclist want a mass turn out to pay respect for him, which I think ia disgusting, again no repect for the chap he killed.

woodywmb

patombr wrote:

... the cyclist couldn't be identified, god knows what mess he must have been in. I truly think even though the motorcyclist is dead I think he should be prosecuted.
I heard the family of the motorcyclist want a mass turn out to pay respect for him, which I think ia disgusting, again no repect for the chap he killed.

There is no information about the cyclist because the police have not been able to identify him - therefore no input could possibly be available from the poor victim's family and friends. Also, the paper cannot impute blame hence the expression that the cyclist and the biker had collided. The paper can follow this up with a statement from the family when his indentification is known or released - or at the time of his funeral - but may feel that this would further injure their feelings and report no more about it.

The Star has followed the correct legal procedure here.

MattC59

patombr wrote:

I truly think even though the motorcyclist is dead I think he should be prosecuted.

And how would that work ?
:roll:

gilesjuk

MattC59 wrote:

patombr wrote:

I truly think even though the motorcyclist is dead I think he should be prosecuted.

And how would that work ?
:roll:

Put his offence on his grave stone?

gilesjuk

unixnerd wrote:

Putting the least experienced drivers in the smallest cars with the fewest safety features may explain the amount of dead young drivers in the UK. Insurance should be based more on power / weight ratio.

Or the fact that they drive like complete idiots because they still have very little life experience?

There's plenty of people who drive small cheap cars who seem to manage okay.

Even if a car is safe for the driver, it doesn't mean they won't mow down a queue of people at the bus stop.

Anonymous

I learned to drive in a 3.0 land rover and I can assure you the 1.4 Astra my driving instructor had was a hell of a lot faster and scary to drive.

Its the small, light cars with souped up engines which are the danger, as the type of drivers in them (you only soup up your car of you want to go fast, I presume) are prone to drive faster and more recklessly. They are weak when they crash as the chassis isn't designed to take a high speed impact, and the drivers tend to be more of a show off.

That aside, it is pretty sickening to hear about the above in any case. To not be able to identify someone after a collision like that is going to be fairly disturbing for the family and friends.

As for prosecution, will his insurance make a posthumous payout to the cyclists family once the legal details have been settled?

amaferanga

Woodywmb wrote:

patombr wrote:

... the cyclist couldn't be identified, god knows what mess he must have been in. I truly think even though the motorcyclist is dead I think he should be prosecuted.
I heard the family of the motorcyclist want a mass turn out to pay respect for him, which I think ia disgusting, again no repect for the chap he killed.

There is no information about the cyclist because the police have not been able to identify him - therefore no input could possibly be available from the poor victim's family and friends. Also, the paper cannot impute blame hence the expression that the cyclist and the biker had collided. The paper can follow this up with a statement from the family when his indentification is known or released - or at the time of his funeral - but may feel that this would further injure their feelings and report no more about it.

The Star has followed the correct legal procedure here.

The story was published after the cyclist was identified as Matthew Hook.

Doesn't matter that the Star followed the correct legal procedure - the story is still a disgrace.

ga1

I don't think the issue about identification was in connection with his injuries, but about not having identification on him.

It is a terrible thing to happen, and whilst the accident clearly appears to be the motorcyclists fault his family will be equally as devastated as that of the cyclists.

I have driven cars fast for years, with no real thought for cyclists, or the potential consequences of my actions, and now I am ultra carfeul around blind corners etc in case half way round I meet a cyclist, horse, tractor or anything else.

My sympathies go out to the families of both parties as they are innocent parties

Hinzy9

I cycled past the crash site on Saturday, very sad indeed!

Over the years the road has become notorious for motorcycle crashes and although this was obviously a massive slice of bad luck for the cyclist it just goes to show how vulnerable we can be on fast open roads like this.

Pross

unixnerd wrote:

Should apply to car as well. kids are passing there test in a 1.0 ltr fiesta - then driving 3.0 land rovers.....

Putting the least experienced drivers in the smallest cars with the fewest safety features may explain the amount of dead young drivers in the UK. Insurance should be based more on power / weight ratio.

Some of the safest cars on the road are small. People naturally assume that bigger = safer which just isn't the case (just as smaller = less powerful is often not true).

HoHoHoBlueGiant

I go up and down that round most Saturday mornings when it's early and quite quiet, I've been 'buzzed' by guys on motorbikes a number of times. A motorbike coming close seems to be more unnerving to me than a car.

I stopped and paid my respects for a moment this Saturday morning to the cyclist.

There were two seperate groups of flowers, the second obviously of the motorbiker as it showed his picture. I know a life is still a life but I couldn't bring myself to feel any compassion towards him :oops:

All very sad.

Hinzy9

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-15085157

BBC article for anyone whos interested

woodywmb

amaferanga wrote:

[Doesn't matter that the Star followed the correct legal procedure - the story is still a disgrace.

In what way? How else could the information be presented?

brettjmcc

Lowride wrote:

I`ve had it happen to me once or twice when a car will overtake another and is now coming straight at me on the wrong side of the road. It`s not nice, some/most car drivers are SO bloody impatient

Too true!! I was trying out my new TT bike yesterday and was flying through a 30mph village at 27mph, so I positioned myself about a 1/3 into the road.

A car came up and beeped his horn as I was holding him up in a 30 zone!!!! He then proceeded to then try to swerve into me, to get me to move in! All just so he could turn right about 50m ahead...

patombr

It could have better presented by saying what had actually happened I.e the eye witnesses who watch the accident happen said the motorcyclist going way beyond the speed limit and on the wrong side of the road when he lost control and hit the cyclist.
Can I just say only today I cycled over the strines and joined the mosca road coming back into sheffield and a chap on a ducati came past me at a speed which must have been up there in the 90s plus. One word w--k-r they will never learn.

woodywmb

None of this can be proved hence the reason it can't be reported. Statements from eye witnesses are not reliable and a claim for defamation would be the outcome if the paper was to apportion blame.

patombr

Far point

ooermissus

Woodywmb wrote:

None of this can be proved hence the reason it can't be reported. Statements from eye witnesses are not reliable and a claim for defamation would be the outcome if the paper was to apportion blame.

The dead can't sue for defamation

sfichele

This is an awful and shocking story - especially as this is one of the local routes I sometimes take in to the Peak District.

The coverage by the Star is no less an absolute F@xkI#g disgrace!.

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/local/born_again_biker_killed_in_smash_with_cyclist_just_seven_months_after_reigniting_motorbike_passion_1_3818976

The scum on the motorbike is treated like a martyr while the innocent cyclist is practically glossed over consuming no more than one sentence in the entire article

kayakerchris

news@thestar.co.uk

Dear sir

I am writing to complain about your coverage of the death of Matthew Hook the young cyclist killed by the motorcyclist recently and reported by yourselves.

Whilst it is sad that anybody died, the facts are that the motorcyclist drove in a deliberately illegal and dangerous fashion and by his carelessness killed an innocent bystander.

I wonder if you would take the same attitude in your reporting if the motorcyclist had shot the cyclist with a gun. Essentially there is no difference between someone playing with a gun and killing a bystander and the actions of the motorcyclist.

Yours sincerely

C Bainbridge

sfichele

@kayakerchris - I borrowed a little from your letter....

To: news@thestar.co.uk

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to complain about your coverage of the death of Matthew Hook the young cyclist
killed recently by the a reckless motorcyclist on the A621 near Sheffield.

Whilst it is sad that anybody died, the facts are that the motorcyclist drove in a deliberately
illegal and dangerous fashion and by his carelessness killed an innocent bystander.

Your article is most unbalanced to say the least. Only *one* sentence is attributed to the innocent
cyclist, and your coverage spares no thoughts for his friends or family. Instead the entire
article is centred around the negligent motorcyclist and his family's loss.

This is shocking piece of journalism, and I wonder if you would take the same attitude in your reporting
if he had killed a person/family travelling in a *car* instead of a cyclist.

Yours sincerely

S Fichele