Media demonisation of cyclists, there's more.

number9 · June 2008

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

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

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.

ChrisLS · June 2008

...motorists, ofcourse are totally blameless :roll: ...anyway, I agree, cyclists, unless they are young children, should never be on the pavement...

number9 · June 2008

I reckon that cyclist, haveing been accused in print of "speeding" (no such offence) and leaving the scene of an accident may well have a claim for libel, the PCC at the very least!

spen666 · June 2008

number9 wrote:

I reckon that cyclist, haveing been accused in print of "speeding" (no such offence) and leaving the scene of an accident may well have a claim for libel, the PCC at the very least!

Cyclist can be properly accused of sppeding

They cannot properly be accused of a criminal offence of speeding though.

There is a difference between the two

Speeding in ordinary language is simply going too fast for the conditions

Similarily if cyclist did leave the scene of the accident ( factual issue- not legal offence) then publication would also have defence to any libel action

number9 · June 2008

Similarily if cyclist did leave the scene of the accident

Um, how about you read the link mate?

The cyclist is the one who called the cops and ambulance. She didn't "leave the scene" as The Mail claimed.

number9 · June 2008

http://www.gloucestershire.police.uk/La ... leases/2...

"The cyclist involved has been formally interview by CID and Road
Policing Officers and Police wish to state that their enquiries have
revealed that she did remain at the scene and subsequently made
contact with the Police. She has assisted Police with their ongoing
enquiries."

dang65 · June 2008

Gosh. Amazing contrast, though neither seems to give the full story. I mean, from the Daily Mail photo of the police at the scene, it kind of looks like that is a (presumably legal)cycle cut through where the bollards are, rather than a "pavement".

Google satellite pic of St Paul's Street and High Street junction

Looks like one of those raised sections with bollards at either end, though I can't be sure.

CyclingBantam · June 2008

Firstly, I hope the little girl recovers well.

Secondly, I was amazed by reading some of the comments under the Mail article. The following comment in particular:

Here in Norwich city centre, areas which are designated as pedestrian only, are plagued by arrogant anti-social cyclists who ride - at speed - directly at pedestrians.

Now, does that person not realise how ridiculous they sound? Cyclists rampaging round towns aiming at poor defencles motorists!! :roll:

redddraggon · June 2008

Cyclists don't ride on pavements, pedestrians (who at that point are riding a bike) do.

mrchrispy · June 2008

have they changed the story on the daily hate?
no mention of the cyclist leaving the scene at all, infact hardly any details at all.
i hope the girl is okay thoguh, sounds nasty

dav1 · June 2008

Thing here is the cyclist shount have been on the pavement, im sure we can all agree that.

Thing about this that fires me up is that the cycling community as a whole takes a bashing because one individual was not observing the rules as is usually the case on these cycle hate articles.

iainment · June 2008

redddraggon wrote:

Cyclists don't ride on pavements, pedestrians (who at that point are riding a bike) do.

A cyclist is anyone riding a bike - there is no difference between a pompous pedant riding a bike and a psychopath riding a bike and looking for trouble. They are both cyclists cycling.

number9 · June 2008

If the cyclist was on the pavement, she'd have been arrested.

The Mail have changed their story but blocking all comments.

number9 · June 2008

Google cache still has the previous version:

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.

dang65 · June 2008

Dav1 wrote:

Thing here is the cyclist shouldn't have been on the pavement, I'm sure we can all agree that.

Yeah, I'm sure we will all agree on that once we've established whether the cyclist was on the pavement or the child was on the road.

redddraggon · June 2008

iainment wrote:

redddraggon wrote:

Cyclists don't ride on pavements, pedestrians (who at that point are riding a bike) do.

A cyclist is anyone riding a bike - there is no difference between a pompous pedant riding a bike and a psychopath riding a bike and looking for trouble. They are both cyclists cycling.

No I disagree, a cyclist is someone who takes pride in cycling, not someone who rides a crappy bike on the pavement.

Just because kids do scientific experiments in Schools, it doesn't mean they are scientists.

beverick · June 2008

number9 wrote:

If the cyclist was on the pavement, she'd have been arrested. /quote]

I'm pretty certain she'd have been arrested for more serious offences.

Assuming any had been committed of course.

Bob

robmanic1 · June 2008

On the road they go through lights and get in between cars. Nothing is ever done about them.

Says everything about their readers, doesn't it! What the hell does that mean exactly? I wish I hadn't read the comments now, just made me really angry. I hope the kids ok, and the cyclist burns in hell with the rest of us! :roll:

chubbos · June 2008

"How about a campaign to make bicycles more pedestrian friendly. Some sort of crumple zone in front of the front wheel for a start, and enclosed spokes on the wheels."

Jeez. It's as if Daily Haters know nothing about cycling. Commuters with disc wheels are clearly going to be faster. And the front wheel is the crumple zone - http://youtube.com/watch?v=c0dzMp61G5w

iainment · June 2008

redddraggon wrote:

iainment wrote:

redddraggon wrote:

Cyclists don't ride on pavements, pedestrians (who at that point are riding a bike) do.

A cyclist is anyone riding a bike - there is no difference between a pompous pedant riding a bike and a psychopath riding a bike and looking for trouble. They are both cyclists cycling.

No I disagree, a cyclist is someone who takes pride in cycling, not someone who rides a crappy bike on the pavement.

Just because kids do scientific experiments in Schools, it doesn't mean they are scientists.

No you're wrong, in the same way that drivers are drivers and not pedestrians, cyclists are cyclists whatever their shortcomings.
People walking are pedestrians.
Kids doing an experiment could be scientisits whilst experimenting inasmuch as they are expanding their knowledge.

karl j · June 2008

Hmmm, Daily Wail story says "...last updated at 10:39 AM on 17th June 2008", now that wouldn't mean "Last Changed at..." would it ?

As for the ridiculous comment from Gill about Norwich cyclists, they seem to have blocked my reply which was that she's talking complete bollikz (or words to that effect)

CJ Bill · June 2008

This country seems to be good at creating groups of people who can seemingly do no wrong and cyclists are one of these.

- Trevor, Birmingham, England, 16/6/2008 16:37

What complete c**k given the rest of the remarks on the page. Let's see if they publish my (toned down) comment to that effect.

As to Angry of Tunbridge Wells, the chances of the police arresting the driver two weeks after an accident with a bike? Pretty bloody minimal in my experience!

always_tyred · June 2008

iainment wrote:

redddraggon wrote:

Cyclists don't ride on pavements, pedestrians (who at that point are riding a bike) do.

A cyclist is anyone riding a bike - there is no difference between a pompous pedant riding a bike and a psychopath riding a bike and looking for trouble. They are both cyclists cycling.

Ouch!

I agree with RedDragon here - and not simply because I gave him a hard time about puncture prevention once -

I like to distinguish myself and other regular cyclists from people, I don't know, wearing their helmets on their bars, or the wrong way round, balancing some shopping (say, from the off licence) and generally proceeding in a manner obvlivious to all road furniture, or, indeed, roads, wearing the best urban camoflage available (don't mind my spelling).

The reason I like to distinguish myself is that as a regular cyclist, I suffer from the aggression (sometimes justifiably) directed at people on bikes who really haven't a clue.

I don't think the intention (according to my interpretation) was to somehow put "cyclists" on a pedestal above people not wearing lycra, travelling in excess of 15mph, propelled by rocket powered sunglasses.

Crapaud · June 2008

First, I hope that the wee lass make a full recovery - physically and psycologically.

Am I missing something here? Look at the width of the pavement, it can't be much more than two feet wide! Why would anyone be cycling on it unless it was to nip round the bollards? Even then it'd be easy enough to pass between the other 2 on the road.

There's not a lot of info in the article, but something doesn't seem right.

redvee · June 2008

Just left a comment with a link to the Gloucester Citizen version of the story. Somehow doubt my comment will get posted as it says all comments by members are moderated, 1 I'm not a member, and 2 my comment goes against the DM.

Squaggles · June 2008

There are quite a few morons driving cars , it would be pretty surprising if their were none at all riding bikes . As for the Daily Mail , well , if they think you can make heroin out of cannabis then they really don't have that much credibility do they ?

beverick · June 2008

Crapaud wrote:

First, I hope that the wee lass make a full recovery - physically and psycologically.

Am I missing something here? Look at the width of the pavement, it can't be much more than two feet wide! Why would anyone be cycling on it unless it was to nip round the bollards? Even then it'd be easy enough to pass between the other 2 on the road.

There's not a lot of info in the article, but something doesn't seem right.

I thought that initially but you can't see what's at this side of the bollards; passing to the left hand side may be the logical route (assuming the cyclist was coming towards us of course). Also, we don't know the specific conditions at the time of the crash, there could have been a logical reason for the woman to mount the kerb.

Regarding the width of the gap, it appears to be wider than the others and if you imagine the track of the wheels passing roughly where the officer's (left?) foot is placed there's more than enough room to cycle wholly on the footpath.

My second thought was that the woman was one of those cyclists who only cycles on the road to get to the opposite pavement.

Bob

redddraggon · June 2008

iainment wrote:

No you're wrong, in the same way that drivers are drivers and not pedestrians, cyclists are cyclists whatever their shortcomings.
People walking are pedestrians.

No I'm not wrong. I'm a cyclist whether or not I'm on the bike. I bet if you asked these pavement riders if they are a "cyclist" when they are sitting in front of the TV, I bet they wouldn't say they are.

Yes, by dictionary definition a cyclist may be "someone who is riding a bike", but we know that being a "cyclist" is more than that. You don't have to be a lycra wearing carbon road bike riding cyclist to be proper cyclist, you could be a serious all year commuter on a hybrid wearing baggies, or an MTBer (even though the bikes seem to spend more time on the back of the car than being ridden).

dang65 · June 2008

beverick wrote:

Crapaud wrote:

My second thought was that the woman was one of those cyclists who only cycles on the road to get to the opposite pavement.

Bob

I'm surprised at all the comments from cyclists on here condemning this woman for "riding on the pavement" when we're can't even be sure that she was. I posted a link before to the Google maps view of this section of road:

Google satellite pic of St Paul's Street and High Street junction

I'd rather give the cyclist the benefit of the doubt till she's been proved guilty. It looks to me like that bollarded section is a legitimate and legal cut through for bicycles. Also, the original media story says that the little girl stepped out for a second while a workman was fixing her front door. She may well have stepped off the narrow pavement outside her house and into the path of the cyclist who was unable to avoid her.

But she seems to have been damned by pretty much everyone, including fellow bike riders who must surely have plenty of personal experience of pedestrians suffering from SUMS (Sudden Unexpected Movement Syndrome).

robmanic1 · June 2008

[ or an MTBer (even though the bikes seem to spend more time on the back of the car than being ridden).[/quote]

Oooooh, you won't let it lie!

lost_in_thought · June 2008

Red Draggon, calm yourself.

If you define yourself wholly by your method of transport you lead a slightly empty life.

And the dictionary definition of a cyclist is as stated, as ianment wrote, people walking are pedestrians.

Media demonisation of cyclists, there's more.

Comments

Categories