Charlie Alliston case - fixie rider accused of causing pedestrian death

[r04DiE]

The Mail is a hate-filled, bigoted pile of steaming poo and it is in everybody's interests to moan about it's coverage when said coverage is there only to stir up hatred toward vulnerable road users like us and make money.

 

[theclaud]

But, as usual on here, many posters have no interest in the story and are only interested in moaning about the Mail's coverage of it.

Stories only exist in the telling.

 

[mjr]

And you are confusing the message with the messenger.

The inquest would have been just the same had the Mail not covered it.

@McWobble takes issue with the coroner's use of the word 'speeding'.

Fair enough, the coroner makes his findings which are there to be criticised if anyone wants to.

But, as usual on here, many posters have no interest in the story and are only interested in moaning about the Mail's coverage of it.

Looks like most are interested in objecting to both. Also, a link to the Fail's coverage was posted here, not merely the coroner's report.

A clue is provided by the cyclist's family, they are not calling for a reform of the Mail, they are calling for a reform of the law relating to pedestrians using the carriageway.

Aren't they? How do you know they're not www.StopFundingHate.org.uk supporters? It's not like the press would report that as much in this context.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

[QUOTE 4949825, member: 9609"]I sometimes take part in a lorry drivers forum and the Mail seems to be even more loathed there than here with its hatred for anything to do with the haulage industry. Presumably the mail just loves car drivers and attacks anything that may slow them down ?[/QUOTE]
The Mail panders to the very prejudices it helps to shape.

 

[Origamist]

It's an inquest report.

The inquest heard evidence the speed was 24mph.

The coroner described the cyclist as 'speeding'.

If you have any beef with that, you need to take it up with the expert who assessed the speed and the coroner who made the remarks.

Coroners - like judges - are fiercely independent and tell it like it is, not how one interested party or another wants it told.

The cyclist's family were not keen on the inquest's conclusions, but they have had their say in the Mail - and probably other - articles.

Where did the coroner use the term 'speeding'? I can see he mentions 'high speed'.

 

[oldstrath]

The Guardian now doing its bit to keep the anti cyclist momentum going with a puff piece on the grieving widower. Complete with the inevitable "I'm not anti cycling" nonsense line. And the interesting news that May has personally expressed her grief to him.

Mind you, if she did this for all road death victims she might not have the time to screw up the rest of the country.

 

[DaveReading]

Where did the coroner use the term 'speeding'? I can see he mentions 'high speed'.

Correct. And the "high speed" judgement is actually that of police vehicle examiner who conducted an assessment following the collision.

The photo of the scene in the DM needs careful interpretation. I cycle through that junction most days (alas, at nothing like 24 mph these days). The photo is taken facing south, the cyclist was travelling north and had crossed the intersection when he hit the pedestrian, who would have been crossing R to L at a point somewhere between the lights and the lamp post.

When waiting at those lights I've seen a few near misses between pedestrians and cars coming from the right and turning left, so you need to cross with care. But a cyclist coming straight across from the south would be clearly visible to anyone who looked before crossing.

 

[bigjim]

"And you are confusing the message with the messenger."
No I'm not! The messenger created the message. Where I am confused, is why a cyclist is an advocate of the dangerously, cyclist hating, Daily Mail.

 

[Pale Rider]

"And you are confusing the message with the messenger."
No I'm not! The messenger created the message. Where I am confused, is why a cyclist is an advocate of the dangerously, cyclist hating, Daily Mail.

The Daily Mail - and what you or I think of it - has nothing to do with either road death.

There is a lot to compare and contrast in both incidents.

In case one, cyclist speeds into pedestrian, the pedestrian dies, and the cyclist faces criminal charges and widespread public criticism.

In case two, cyclist speeds (faster) into pedestrian, cyclist dies, and the pedestrian faces no charges or criticism, apart from 'having just left the pub' - shocking, build the gallows high, I say.

In both cases the pedestrian was jaywalking, and in both cases the grieving families want a change in the law.

All the above is far more interesting - and on thread topic - than tired, repetitive. bleating about the Daily Mail.

 

[Inertia]

And you are confusing the message with the messenger.

The Mail decides how it reports the message and it choose to do so with very emotive language, exaggerates and adds the worst possible scenario for its target of blame.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

I see that a pedestrian injured during the Ride London sportive in July has died.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-41212147

I'm sure the gutter press will latch onto this to fuel yet more anti-cycling sentiment, especially as the press insist on calling it a race. Let's see what tone their reporting takes...

 

[John the Monkey]

[QUOTE 4949825, member: 9609"]Presumably the mail just loves car drivers and attacks anything that may slow them down ?[/QUOTE]
Nick Davies, in Flat Earth News (which has a chapter devoted to the Mail) suggests that it reflects its readers' prejudices back to them[1]. So if Mail readers were reasonable types who understood the pointlessness of shuttling private cars ever more swiftly between inevitable bottlenecks, its reporting would, presumably, reflect that.

[1] Assuming I've remembered that correctly, of course. My apologies to Mr Davies if not.

 

[John the Monkey]

In both cases the pedestrian was jaywalking, and in both cases the grieving families want a change in the law.

Strictly speaking, no - no such offence exists, and pedestrians, iirc, have absolute priority in the UK (although not on motorways and a few A roads, as any fule kno). The situation in which they are, for the most part, bullied off our roads is de facto, not de jure.

 

[John the Monkey]

One of our neighbours households now parks five motor vehicles in the street. If I needed more room to store my property...

We have similar problems, although not as bad as in the last place we lived. Our neighbours there had a car for everyone of driving age in the household (5 vehicles), plus a taxi. When the council put in verge protection along the road to stop the grass from being ruined by people parking on it, the section by their house was mysteriously removed, and their cars reappeared on the grass. I even came home early one day to find them using my drive as a sort of overflow car park. Where we live now, most people have offroad parking for one vehicle, but have two or more per household. I've yet to park my own vehicle in front of my own house as a result, although we do use our drive as long as someone hasn't blocked it for "just a moment".

I wonder if John was being tongue in cheek here?

http://road.cc/content/blog/228327-involved-crash-heres-modest-proposal

Him, & Brant, were always the shop jokers, when they worked in Two Wheels Good, in the early 90's

As one of the commenters points out, the fact that it's title includes "A Modest Proposal" suggests so. If cycling were big enough to have a Mr Loophole, I can imagine that fictitious character giving this advice though.

 

[r04DiE]

[QUOTE 4950814, member: 1314"]

Are you a troll?[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I mean, exactly.

This is like saying "The pedestrian was putting one foot in front of the other, breathing, or eating an ice cream, or anything else that isn't illegal in the UK"

Do me a favour...