Biased?

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
User avatar
661-Pete
Posts: 10593
Joined: 22 Nov 2012, 8:45pm
Location: Sussex

Re: Biased?

Post by 661-Pete »

The DM has 'history' - the fact that this article, according to what has been posted on this thread, does not 'blame' the cyclist is to their credit - but nevertheless they have 'form' for anti-cyclist bias in general and I avoid their website like the plague whenever I can.

In the rare instances where a cycling-related story, worthy of discussion, appears in the DM and nowhere else, I reluctantly visit the DM site and usually copy-and-paste the relevant parts of the article (excluding the girlie sidebar that is :shock: ) - so that others may apprise themselves of the article's content without visiting the site...

But that is not necessary in this case. A bit of googling shows that the story has been published in several newspapers, so there is no need to visit the DM. For example:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/peopl ... 45013.html
So there!

As to the circumstances of this collision - well doing a U-turn (or a 3-point turn) without making absolutely sure there are no approaching vehicles which might be unable to stop - well that counts as Careless Driving at the very least. Why are the police unwilling to charge? The celebrity status of the perpetrator surely ought to make not an atom of difference....? :roll:
Suppose that this room is a lift. The support breaks and down we go with ever-increasing velocity.
Let us pass the time by performing physical experiments...
--- Arthur Eddington (creator of the Eddington Number).
TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: Biased?

Post by TonyR »

NUKe wrote: 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 .


Really? First its much more concerned about the mental trauma to the driver and her missing her appearance that evening than the severe physical trauma of the victim. In fact the seriously injured cyclist gets hardly a mention in the story.

Second it contrasts her low speed at the time with the cyclist's "significant speed" as if that were an excuse.

It cites unattributed calls for cyclists to take more responsibility for their actions as if being hit by a U-turning car is their responsibility. Who made those calls - a DM "journalist"? And why cite them if you are not prepared or able to attribute them?

And there are the gratuitous helmet comments but they are minor compared.
AlaninWales
Posts: 1626
Joined: 26 Oct 2012, 1:47pm

Re: Biased?

Post by AlaninWales »

661-Pete wrote:The DM has 'history' - the fact that this article, according to what has been posted on this thread, does not 'blame' the cyclist is to their credit - but nevertheless they have 'form' for anti-cyclist bias in general and I avoid their website like the plague whenever I can.

In the rare instances where a cycling-related story, worthy of discussion, appears in the DM and nowhere else, I reluctantly visit the DM site and usually copy-and-paste the relevant parts of the article (excluding the girlie sidebar that is :shock: ) - so that others may apprise themselves of the article's content without visiting the site...

But that is not necessary in this case. A bit of googling shows that the story has been published in several newspapers, so there is no need to visit the DM. For example:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/peopl ... 45013.html
So there!

As to the circumstances of this collision - well doing a U-turn (or a 3-point turn) without making absolutely sure there are no approaching vehicles which might be unable to stop - well that counts as Careless Driving at the very least. Why are the police unwilling to charge? The celebrity status of the perpetrator surely ought to make not an atom of difference....? :roll:

Does it say whether the cyclist was in view when she started the U-turn?
If so, then (probably) the driver's fault.
If not, then (probably) the cyclist's fault (not being able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear is somewhat careless).
Without the full details it is not possible to who was to blame; presumably that's why there will be some investigation...
Bicycler
Posts: 3400
Joined: 4 Dec 2013, 3:33pm

Re: Biased?

Post by Bicycler »

There's no mention of an investigation into any offence being committed by the cyclist. The police investigation is to ascertain whether her driving was illegal, not to apportion blame.
User avatar
661-Pete
Posts: 10593
Joined: 22 Nov 2012, 8:45pm
Location: Sussex

Re: Biased?

Post by 661-Pete »

AlaninWales wrote:Does it say whether the cyclist was in view when she started the U-turn?
If so, then (probably) the driver's fault.
If not, then (probably) the cyclist's fault (not being able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear is somewhat careless).
Without the full details it is not possible to who was to blame; presumably that's why there will be some investigation...

You have a point there. However U-turns are a rather grey area in motoring law - correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that many years ago U-turns were illegal on all roads. This is not the case now, although they are still illegal where prohibited by a specific sign, or where there are double white lines. Certainly a lot of cases where I've witnessed U-turns (and they can be most disconcerting to the cyclist!) are where the driver is simply too lazy to make it as far as the next roundabout, where they can reverse their direction of travel quite legally and safely. Most irksome driving behaviour, I'd call it...

Myself, if I want to do a 180° turn when driving, I prefer to find a quiet side road or driveway on the left which I can reverse into. With due care, naturally. :roll:
Suppose that this room is a lift. The support breaks and down we go with ever-increasing velocity.
Let us pass the time by performing physical experiments...
--- Arthur Eddington (creator of the Eddington Number).
Bicycler
Posts: 3400
Joined: 4 Dec 2013, 3:33pm

Re: Biased?

Post by Bicycler »

661-Pete wrote: However U-turns are a rather grey area in motoring law - correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that many years ago U-turns were illegal on all roads. This is not the case now, although they are still illegal where prohibited by a specific sign, or where there are double white lines. Certainly a lot of cases where I've witnessed U-turns (and they can be most disconcerting to the cyclist!) are where the driver is simply too lazy to make it as far as the next roundabout, where they can reverse their direction of travel quite legally and safely. Most irksome driving behaviour, I'd call it...

First I've heard of it ever having been illegal. If you think about it, a three point turn is permitted and deemed important enough to be a required part of driver training. So how could a U-turn (which manages the same manoeuver in a single turn) have been illegal? How could anybody legally turn round where there was no side road, roundabout or turning circle? You could reverse into a driveway or farm entrance but that itself would be a trespass and therefore unlawful.

I have no problem with u-turns or 3-point turns as long as they are done with care. I probably do them on my bike much more frequently than in the car.
TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: Biased?

Post by TonyR »

AlaninWales wrote:Does it say whether the cyclist was in view when she started the U-turn?
If so, then (probably) the driver's fault.
If not, then (probably) the cyclist's fault (not being able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear is somewhat careless).


AIUI it happened on Goods Way round the back of Kings Cross near the filling station. If she didn't have a view of the cyclist there when she started the turn she can't have been looking. Its a wide road with a slight curve and good sight lines. And despite some reports there isn't a steep hill there to come racing down. Its pretty flat thereabouts.
Flinders
Posts: 3023
Joined: 10 Mar 2009, 6:47pm

Re: Biased?

Post by Flinders »

I used to live in the Kings Cross area and cycled round there. The nearest 'hills' I recall were quite a long way away. Like at Highgate, the Zoo, and Holloway. And even they wouldn't get called hills where I come from.
Is there really a hill in King's Cross? :?:
User avatar
661-Pete
Posts: 10593
Joined: 22 Nov 2012, 8:45pm
Location: Sussex

Re: Biased?

Post by 661-Pete »

Flinders wrote:I used to live in the Kings Cross area and cycled round there. The nearest 'hills' I recall were quite a long way away. Like at Highgate, the Zoo, and Holloway. And even they wouldn't get called hills where I come from.
Is there really a hill in King's Cross? :?:

Of course there is! :lol:
kings x hill.jpg
Suppose that this room is a lift. The support breaks and down we go with ever-increasing velocity.
Let us pass the time by performing physical experiments...
--- Arthur Eddington (creator of the Eddington Number).
Post Reply