Page 2 of 3

Re: Cyclists demonised in paper, todays metro

Posted: 6 Jan 2017, 6:56pm
by Mattyfez
Absolutely not trying to be funny.

One man challenged another who pushed him and he sadly dies. The man had a temper problem obviously.

The fact he was on a cycle before the altercation, and the paper put 'CYCLIST' in caps and in the first sentence headline I think is inappropriate and inflammatory, and is no more relevance than his choice of diet.

By all means mention that it was due to a complaint about his cycling behaviour, to to headline with that? Sorry but I disagree.

Re: Cyclists demonised in paper, todays metro

Posted: 6 Jan 2017, 7:13pm
by reohn2
Mattyfez wrote:Absolutely not trying to be funny.

One man challenged another who pushed him and he sadly dies. The man had a temper problem obviously.

The fact he was on a cycle before the altercation, and the paper put 'CYCLIST' in caps and in the first sentence headline I think is inappropriate and inflammatory, and is no more relevance than his choice of diet.

By all means mention that it was due to a complaint about his cycling behaviour, to to headline with that? Sorry but I disagree.


TBH the word 'CYCLIST' in capitals didn't register with me.

Cyclists demonised in paper, todays metro

Posted: 6 Jan 2017, 7:20pm
by Heltor Chasca
reohn2 wrote:
Mattyfez wrote:Absolutely not trying to be funny.

One man challenged another who pushed him and he sadly dies. The man had a temper problem obviously.

The fact he was on a cycle before the altercation, and the paper put 'CYCLIST' in caps and in the first sentence headline I think is inappropriate and inflammatory, and is no more relevance than his choice of diet.

By all means mention that it was due to a complaint about his cycling behaviour, to to headline with that? Sorry but I disagree.


TBH the word 'CYCLIST' in capitals didn't register with me.


This is how you write and design columns in newspapers to 'capture' the readers' attention. Look at the adjoining articles and how their typeface/font/case is set: DRIVER and WAR. Coincidence I think.

Either way. I don't think this incident should be our stage. Very sad.

Re: Cyclists demonised in paper, todays metro

Posted: 6 Jan 2017, 7:20pm
by John-D
Look at the other items; it's the newspaper 'style'.

I'm a trendy consumer. Just look at my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Re: Cyclists demonised in paper, todays metro

Posted: 6 Jan 2017, 7:45pm
by thirdcrank
As media reports go, this one seems OK to me. Here's the Daily Mail with an earlier report after the death of the victim.

Royal Navy veteran, 69, out with his wheelchair-bound wife dies of head injuries following 'a row with cyclist over a one-way system'


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

Something briefer in a local paper

Man jailed for three years and four months for manslaughter


For anybody checking every word for anticyclism how about this from the police: (My emphasis)

I’d like to thank the motorists and local residents who came forward to help our witness appeals at the time. Today’s sentence and the comments from the Judge underline just how serious the consequences of this assault were.


http://www.saferportsmouth.org.uk/news/ ... slaughter/

Re: Cyclists demonised in paper, todays metro

Posted: 6 Jan 2017, 8:28pm
by MikeF
reohn2 wrote:TBH the word 'CYCLIST' in capitals didn't register with me.
But the non/anti cyclist community will read it differently from you and that's what the paper is targeting. Cyclist = bad/nuisance/shouldn't be tolerated. Navy veteran = very good - implies fought for his country and a stalwart. That is the headline to make people read the article.

However an equally good headline might have been "Assailant receives only 40 months prison sentence for killing Navy veteran"? :wink:

Re: Cyclists demonised in paper, todays metro

Posted: 6 Jan 2017, 8:46pm
by reohn2
MikeF wrote:
reohn2 wrote:TBH the word 'CYCLIST' in capitals didn't register with me.
But the non/anti cyclist community will read it differently from you and that's what the paper is targeting. Cyclist = bad/nuisance/shouldn't be tolerated. Navy veteran = very good - implies fought for his country and a stalwart. That is the headline to make people read the article.

However an equally good headline might have been "Assailant receives only 40 months prison sentence for killing Navy veteran"? :wink:

I take your point.

Re: Cyclists demonised in paper, todays metro

Posted: 6 Jan 2017, 9:11pm
by andrewk
The utility cyclist wrote:
This type of reporting will always fan the flames, we already know that people liken people on bikes to devils spawn.


And some (on this forum even) liken motorists to devils spawn.

Both positions are equally mistaken.

Re: Cyclists demonised in paper, todays metro

Posted: 6 Jan 2017, 9:25pm
by 661-Pete
Mattyfez wrote:The aggressor could have been vegetarian for all we know, but sadly the headline didn't read 'vegetarian kills veteran'.

So we'll never know the full extent of how aggressive vegetarians can be.
If the assailant had been in the middle of eating a (presumably overcooked) veggie pasty, and had bashed his victim over the head with it, then it would have been quite appropriate to headline the story "Vegetarian Attacks Pedestrian". The point is, a bicycle was involved in the incident, so the assailant has to be referred to as a 'cyclist'. I don't see any other option. Live with it.

I am no happier than you, about the bad press that cyclists get in general. Another thing we've had to live with, for years. No doubt the usual trolls will have sprung up beneath this article (if it exists online) with the usual 'Lycra Lout" comments: "They don't pay road tax", "They jump red lights", etc. etc. But we get a crop of those trolls (even the good old Grauniad is not immune) even after a positive article about cyclists.

That's the real world for you....

Re: Cyclists demonised in paper, todays metro

Posted: 7 Jan 2017, 9:31am
by Steady rider
Not defending the chap, but it looks to be a one way system. There is a cycle lane heading east that could have been used I expect. In one way systems cyclists may be more inclined to use a pavement if it saves them from going most of the way around a system. Still illegal but probably more understandable.

Re: Cyclists demonised in paper, todays metro

Posted: 7 Jan 2017, 9:45am
by Heltor Chasca
Steady rider wrote:Not defending the chap, but it looks to be a one way system. There is a cycle lane heading east that could have been used I expect. In one way systems cyclists may be more inclined to use a pavement if it saves them from going most of the way around a system. Still illegal but probably more understandable.


In a way I think you've hit the nail on the head. Poor infrastructure creates conflict.

Re: Cyclists demonised in paper, todays metro

Posted: 7 Jan 2017, 11:38am
by Mattyfez
Heltor Chasca wrote:
Steady rider wrote:Not defending the chap, but it looks to be a one way system. There is a cycle lane heading east that could have been used I expect. In one way systems cyclists may be more inclined to use a pavement if it saves them from going most of the way around a system. Still illegal but probably more understandable.


In a way I think you've hit the nail on the head. Poor infrastructure creates conflict.


Poor infrastructure can, yes, and if a person is doing something wrong, they can expect, hopefully for someone to call them out on it, and not to get into a physical fight as a consequence.

My point is that the guy was acting like a xxxx.
Xxxx's come from all walks of life. Some are in cars, some are in bikes.

For example, if I had a similar altercation, on foot, how would they write the article? PEDESTRIAN kills war veteran?

It may only be semantics to people who can critically analyse an article, but lets face it most peopr who read tabloids don't analyse, they just see 'CYCLIST kills pedestrian'.

It's irresponsible journalism.

Re: Cyclists demonised in paper, todays metro

Posted: 7 Jan 2017, 12:36pm
by reohn2
Mattyfez wrote:For example, if I had a similar altercation, on foot, how would they write the article? PEDESTRIAN kills war veteran?

It would most likely read "Man kills pensioner" followed by a description and age of the assailant and a description of the victim explaining in the next sentence his past service career,and how he was pushing his disabled wife in a wheelchair.

But could it be described as irresponsible journalism to mention the victim's previous service career?
After all it's totally irrelevant to the facts of the case,is it not?

It may only be semantics to people who can critically analyse an article, but lets face it most peopr who read tabloids don't analyse, they just see 'CYCLIST kills pedestrian'.

It's irresponsible journalism.

People read all sorts of things into "news"paper reports sometimes things that aren't there,one thing's for sure though,in this case the assailant was a cyclist.
That's an inescapable fact.

Re: Cyclists demonised in paper, todays metro

Posted: 7 Jan 2017, 1:28pm
by 661-Pete
I feel I need to endorse what others have already pointed out, that the capitalisation of the word "CYCLIST" signifies nothing whatsoever. It is a common printing practice to capitalise the first few words of an article, or a chapter in a book. I do so, myself, some of the time.

WRITING AN ENTIRE ARTICLE IN CAPITALS, on the other hand, is generally regarded as pushy and over-emphatic. But that's not what happened here.

Re: Cyclists demonised in paper, todays metro

Posted: 7 Jan 2017, 4:38pm
by The utility cyclist
reohn2 wrote:
The utility cyclist wrote:If the victim had been wearing a helmet surely they would still be alive, only got themselves to blame... :roll:
crass in the extreme :? :evil:

This type of reporting will always fan the flames, we already know that people liken people on bikes to devils spawn.

To some people that's true,but then some people will consider any other groups of 'outsiders' to be "devils spawn",including pensioners and the disabled.

This isn't even a cycling statistic is it, the act did not happen whilst the person was actually cycling but the media will use any opportunity to bash cycling and people on bikes and yes the general public do take this on board and paint 'us' all with the same brush.

It's a cycling story,someone's cycling on the pavement causing an obstruction is tackled for it by someone more vulnerable than them and this is how they react.
Does the story sound familiar if you substitute cyclist for motorist and pedestrian for cyclist?

RIP to the victim and his family, no way to die.

You got there in the end.

No, it really isn't crass, it's highlighting the massive differential in how people on bikes are treated compared to others, it's very relevant.

When the person struck the victim he was no longer cycling, ergo it isn't a cycling statistic.

Wrong again, people on bikes are treated as third class citizens with no rights and are particularly targetted every day by the thousand some resulting in death and serious injury, if this was happening to 'pensioners' and the disabled there would be a massive outcry, but because it's people on bikes, 'cyclists', there is none. This article perpetuates all the negatives that we experience and it is true that we are ALL put into the same basket, to not acknowledge that is crass and ignorant.
It certainly isn't up to you to validate or police who says what with respect to a persons death, if I had left it off it still wouldn't have being any of your business to comment on such, maybe you'll get there one day...