Biased?

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
User avatar
bigjim
Posts: 3244
Joined: 2 Feb 2008, 5:08pm
Location: Manchester

Biased?

Post by bigjim »

User avatar
NUKe
Posts: 4161
Joined: 23 Apr 2007, 11:07pm
Location: Suffolk

Re: Biased?

Post by NUKe »

Why are you disgusted Jim ?
It seems a pretty straight forward account. Hopefully the cyclists makes a full recovery. It neither seeks to exonerate or damn ms Piper
NUKe
_____________________________________
User avatar
Redvee
Posts: 2465
Joined: 8 Mar 2010, 8:58pm

Re: Biased?

Post by Redvee »



It's the DM, what did you expect?
Grandad
Posts: 1451
Joined: 22 Nov 2007, 12:22am
Location: Kent

Re: Biased?

Post by Grandad »

Would a helmet have avoided the shoulder injury???
reohn2
Posts: 45158
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Biased?

Post by reohn2 »

Usual DM inflammaTory tripe.
Why am I not surprised :?
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
User avatar
ArMoRothair
Posts: 351
Joined: 20 Jun 2013, 10:55am
Location: Londinium

Re: Biased?

Post by ArMoRothair »

bigjim wrote:Disgusted at this so called journalism.



You should not look at the DM, and never under any circumstances read the comments!
User avatar
Si
Moderator
Posts: 15191
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 7:37pm

Re: Biased?

Post by Si »

Indeed - the more clicks they get on their website the more they will print more of the same.
Edwards
Posts: 5982
Joined: 16 Mar 2007, 10:09pm
Location: Birmingham

Re: Biased?

Post by Edwards »

I now refuse to click on any link to the aforementioned supposed news thing.

I am puzzled why other people look at it in the first place?

This is not a dig at the OP but something I have noticed with other posters. They seem to hunt for stuff to get upset about.
Keith Edwards
I do not care about spelling and grammar
User avatar
bigjim
Posts: 3244
Joined: 2 Feb 2008, 5:08pm
Location: Manchester

Re: Biased?

Post by bigjim »

NUKe wrote:Why are you disgusted Jim ?
It seems a pretty straight forward account. Hopefully the cyclists makes a full recovery. It neither seeks to exonerate or damn ms Piper

If you can't see it I can't be bothered explaining.
Bicycler
Posts: 3400
Joined: 4 Dec 2013, 3:33pm

Re: Biased?

Post by Bicycler »

It could have been worse. At least it's clear to everyone who must take the majority of the responsibility for hitting another vehicle on the other side of the road whilst u-turning. I am at a loss as to how helmets are relevant.
User avatar
Spinners
Posts: 1678
Joined: 6 Dec 2008, 6:58pm
Location: Port Talbot

Re: Biased?

Post by Spinners »

The Mail on Sunday understands that the cyclist was not wearing a helmet.

:roll:
Cycling UK Life Member
PBP Ancien (2007)
TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: Biased?

Post by TonyR »

Bicycler wrote:It could have been worse. At least it's clear to everyone who must take the majority of the responsibility for hitting another vehicle on the other side of the road whilst u-turning.


It sure is and in case you still don't get it the Daily Wail spells it out for you:

"But there were also calls last night for cyclists to take greater responsibility for their actions and to ensure they wear helmets."
User avatar
gentlegreen
Posts: 1373
Joined: 23 Aug 2010, 1:58pm
Location: Bristol
Contact:

Re: Biased?

Post by gentlegreen »

"cyclist who was travelling downhill at a significant speed"

That sounds like more blame placed on the cyclist too.
User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 19793
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Biased?

Post by [XAP]Bob »

Spinners wrote:The Mail on Sunday understands that the cyclist was not wearing a helmet.

:roll:

Unserstands? I doubt it...
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
User avatar
NUKe
Posts: 4161
Joined: 23 Apr 2007, 11:07pm
Location: Suffolk

Re: Biased?

Post by NUKe »

bigjim wrote:
NUKe wrote:Why are you disgusted Jim ?
It seems a pretty straight forward account. Hopefully the cyclists makes a full recovery. It neither seeks to exonerate or damn ms Piper

If you can't see it I can't be bothered explaining.

Have it your way I only asked


I never thought I'd fined myself defending the Daily Mail, but except for a a couple of misplaced comments around the wearing of helmets the article is fairly balanced for a change, and even the helmet comments are balanced by the comment from London Cycling . If your only gripe are the helmet comments then why didn't you place this in the helmet sub forum. There is no rant, no blaming of the cyclists, If you read the article it does describe how the CPS has to make a decision and describes quite well the antagonism between cycling and non cycling groups.
NUKe
_____________________________________
Post Reply