Pedestrian dies following collision with cyclist near Harrogate

Robert Hardy wrote:

A great deal is made of these cyclist kills pedestrian stories, but rarely is it pointed out that the pedestrian is usually in the carriageway, often having failed to adaquately perform the observational checks necessary when crossing the road. That is no defense for that tiny minority of cyclists who assert their perceived right of way to the abandonment of their duty to do everything in their power to avoid a collision, but it does seem that cyclists are being held to a much higher standard than motorists. And are their no cases where the pedestrian's actions have killed the cyclist?

Equally it's a hell of a lot easier to perform an emergency stop in a vehicle with a seatbelt on than it is on a bike. An emergency stop on a bike comes with a good chance of crashing.

Robert Hardy wrote:

A great deal is made of these cyclist kills pedestrian stories, but rarely is it pointed out that the pedestrian is usually in the carriageway, often having failed to adaquately perform the observational checks necessary when crossing the road. That is no defense for that tiny minority of cyclists who assert their perceived right of way to the abandonment of their duty to do everything in their power to avoid a collision, but it does seem that cyclists are being held to a much higher standard than motorists. And are their no cases where the pedestrian's actions have killed the cyclist?

Not aware of any fatalities, but certainly life-changing injuries can result. Bloke I used to work with was knocked off by a ped (this was 20-odd years ago so before smartphone zombies) and broke his arm in so many places he only had partial use of it afterwards. Which kind of sucked as he was a computer programmer.

srchar wrote:

Funny how "the news" describes someone who steps out of a car as a pedestrian, but someone who steps off a bike is usually still a cyclist.

Not funny at all! At the time of the incident he was walking not driving, the reporter is merely stating the facts.

Griff500 wrote:

srchar wrote:

Funny how "the news" describes someone who steps out of a car as a pedestrian, but someone who steps off a bike is usually still a cyclist.

Not funny at all! At the time of the incident he was walking not driving, the reporter is merely stating the facts.

I agree. It's the double standards I was commenting on. See also: racing bicycle. Surely it's only a racing bicycle if it's being raced? And let's not speculate on how a 79 year old man who can't see a bicycle when he's out of the car at walking pace would see the same bicycle when he's at the wheel of his car at speed.

It's unfortunate that someone has died - and I feel just as sorry for the cyclist, who will have to live with it - but looking at the road, this is how a SMIDSY turns out without the protection of a ton of metal.

srchar wrote:

And let's not speculate....

This!

Griff500 wrote:

srchar wrote:

Funny how "the news" describes someone who steps out of a car as a pedestrian, but someone who steps off a bike is usually still a cyclist.

Not funny at all! At the time of the incident he was walking not driving, the reporter is merely stating the facts.

But if 'cyclists' who arrive at that Velolife place by car or on foot are still 'cyclists' (according to the council's proposed injuction) then the same logic means a driver who gets out of their car remains a driver?

Reminds me of readingl a newspaper report of a punch-up between two motorists, that described the defensive party as a 'motorist', but not the aggressor.  And a number of reports about a US road death that called the killer driver a 'surfer' because they went surfing a lot when not driving.

[I have nothing to say about the event in the article.  But the media does seem in general to make strenuous efforts to not call anyone who does something bad a 'motorist']

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

[I have nothing to say about the event in the article.  But the media does seem in general to make strenuous efforts to not call anyone who does something bad a 'motorist']

So would you have preferred the headline to read "motorist dies after collision with cyclist"? Not sure that would help our cause.

Griff500 wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

 

[I have nothing to say about the event in the article.  But the media does seem in general to make strenuous efforts to not call anyone who does something bad a 'motorist']

So would you have preferred the headline to read "motorist dies after collision with cyclist"?

I'd say "touche" except, on reflection, that point doesn't actually relate to what I said.  Indeed, in the case of the motorist-vs-motorist violence, my point was the media _did_ refer to the victim as a motorist, even though neither party was driving at the moment of fisticuffs.  But not the perpetrator.  I'm merely asking for consistency.  Are you opposed to consistency?

  Face it, if a gang of bank robbers arrived and fled a bank job using bicycles, some of the media would almost certainly have headlines about 'cyclists rob bank', but will never say 'motorists rob bank'. 

And even when a motorist does something bad while actually driving a car, they usually won't be referred to as a motorist (as with the case of the 'surfer').  I'm saying there's a double-standard and the media doesn't like calling perps 'motorists' even when they clearly are.

Griff500 wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

 

[I have nothing to say about the event in the article.  But the media does seem in general to make strenuous efforts to not call anyone who does something bad a 'motorist']

So would you have preferred the headline to read "motorist dies after collision with cyclist"?

A person has died after a collision with a bicycle, the cyclist also suffering grevious injuries. The person who died was crossing the road after exiting their car.

No paper ever says "pedestrian/cyclist killed/injured after collision with driver". The manner in which any incident involving a bicycle is referred to as 'cyclist' is intentionally done so to direct focus on the person riding the bike whereas any incident involving a vehicle is referred to as a vehicle to focus on the inanimate object away from the driver.

Muddy Ford wrote:

No paper ever says "pedestrian/cyclist killed/injured after collision with driver". The manner in which any incident involving a bicycle is referred to as 'cyclist' is intentionally done so to direct focus on the person riding the bike whereas any incident involving a vehicle is referred to as a vehicle to focus on the inanimate object away from the driver.

 

So what you are saying is no paper would ever say something like this newspaper quote from a recent incident:

“Motorist drove away from crash after cyclist knocked off bike” (Aug 2nd)

or this:

“Driver kills 3 in head on collision” (Apr 14th)

or this:

“UK driver not wearing seatbelt crashes into oncoming traffic” 

srchar wrote:

Funny how "the news" describes someone who steps out of a car as a pedestrian, but someone who steps off a bike is usually still a cyclist.

Now I'm totally confused; what am I when I get off my bike and drive a car?

burtthebike wrote:

srchar wrote:

Funny how "the news" describes someone who steps out of a car as a pedestrian, but someone who steps off a bike is usually still a cyclist.

Now I'm totally confused; what am I when I get off my bike and drive a car?

A Nazi?

Rick_Rude wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

srchar wrote:

Funny how "the news" describes someone who steps out of a car as a pedestrian, but someone who steps off a bike is usually still a cyclist.

Now I'm totally confused; what am I when I get off my bike and drive a car?

A Nazi?

Shouldn't trolls be banned?