Woman struck by hit-and-run cyclist in Dalston dies - BBC

[Cugel]

This thread reminds me of Stonehenge
We know almost nothing so we speculate

What do the abbreviations mean?

Indeed - everyone must have an opinion on everything, seemingly "by-law" as members of a voter democracy. The opinions may be as bald as coots and arrived at via a pot-boil of prejudice, stereotype, unwarranted assumption and crazy theories by wild-eyed Yankees spewing lunacy on 4chan for the lulz .... but not only are we allowed to have them but MUST have them or be thought uncaring, uncool or just plain stupid.

Many of these opinions can be bought by the llb via purchase of The Daily Hate Mail, The Daily Frightener or The Toryguff. Other can be got for nowt down The Dog & Bone, from Wally The Walloper when in his cups.

Cugel uninterested & disinterested.

[Graham]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-45497026

Batten down the hatches . . . . .

[robing]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-45497026

Cue mass hysteria from the likes of the Daily Mail.
Don't get me wrong this is a terrible incident, but look at the figures quoted.
In 2016 448 pedestrians were killed on the roads. Just 3 of these cases involved cyclists.

[mjr]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-45497026

Cue mass hysteria from the likes of the Daily Mail.

The BBC too, and by consequence, the headline of this topic.

It says the walker was "struck by" the cyclist - something that they normally refuse to do when a motorist hits a cyclist, preferring at best something like "cyclist killed in collision with van" (making the cyclist the lead actor and ignoring any driver's involvement).

It puts "hit-and-run" in the headline and calls it "a suspected hit-and-run" in the first paragraph when there's no such criminal offence for cycling.

Moreover, it makes no mention of the CCTV showing the walker crossing against the lights into the path of plainly-visible approaching cyclists and it mentions the barely-related Alliston case - so far, there's no official mention that this bike wasn't road-legal IIRC.

It continues the implications that law becomes bad merely by being old and that dangerous driving is a good offence.

The press loves cars. Hates cyclists.

[Cunobelin]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-45497026

Cue mass hysteria from the likes of the Daily Mail.

The BBC too, and by consequence, the headline of this topic.

It says the walker was "struck by" the cyclist - something that they normally refuse to do when a motorist hits a cyclist, preferring at best something like "cyclist killed in collision with van" (making the cyclist the lead actor and ignoring any driver's involvement).

It puts "hit-and-run" in the headline and calls it "a suspected hit-and-run" in the first paragraph when there's no such criminal offence for cycling.

Moreover, it makes no mention of the CCTV showing the walker crossing against the lights into the path of plainly-visible approaching cyclists and it mentions the barely-related Alliston case - so far, there's no official mention that this bike wasn't road-legal IIRC.

It continues the implications that law becomes bad merely by being old and that dangerous driving is a good offence.

The press loves cars. Hates cyclists.

Cyclists really need to have a realistic view of the public opinion.... and defending inappropriate behaviour does not help at all.

It is reported as a "suspected hit and run" for a very simple reason. The cyclist hit the pedestrian and ran away.

Arguing that there was no offence committed is an absurd situation that places cyclists above reasonable behaviour and merely fuels the current argument to bring legislation into force that make s a cycling offence the same as for a vehicle

[brooksby]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-45497026

Cue mass hysteria from the likes of the Daily Mail.

The BBC too, and by consequence, the headline of this topic.

It says the walker was "struck by" the cyclist - something that they normally refuse to do when a motorist hits a cyclist, preferring at best something like "cyclist killed in collision with van" (making the cyclist the lead actor and ignoring any driver's involvement).

It puts "hit-and-run" in the headline and calls it "a suspected hit-and-run" in the first paragraph when there's no such criminal offence for cycling.

Moreover, it makes no mention of the CCTV showing the walker crossing against the lights into the path of plainly-visible approaching cyclists and it mentions the barely-related Alliston case - so far, there's no official mention that this bike wasn't road-legal IIRC.

It continues the implications that law becomes bad merely by being old and that dangerous driving is a good offence.

The press loves cars. Hates cyclists.

Cyclists really need to have a realistic view of the public opinion.... and defending inappropriate behaviour does not help at all.

It is reported as a "suspected hit and run" for a very simple reason. The cyclist hit the pedestrian and ran away.

Arguing that there was no offence committed is an absurd situation that places cyclists above reasonable behaviour and merely fuels the current argument to bring legislation into force that make s a cycling offence the same as for a vehicle

Except that the pedestrian hit the e-bike, if anything.

The cyclist did leave the scene, but some stuff I've read reckons he was a bit concussed. Its not like he went home to let his blood alcohol reduce or anything, afaik.

[Cunobelin]

The BBC too, and by consequence, the headline of this topic.

It says the walker was "struck by" the cyclist - something that they normally refuse to do when a motorist hits a cyclist, preferring at best something like "cyclist killed in collision with van" (making the cyclist the lead actor and ignoring any driver's involvement).

It puts "hit-and-run" in the headline and calls it "a suspected hit-and-run" in the first paragraph when there's no such criminal offence for cycling.

Moreover, it makes no mention of the CCTV showing the walker crossing against the lights into the path of plainly-visible approaching cyclists and it mentions the barely-related Alliston case - so far, there's no official mention that this bike wasn't road-legal IIRC.

It continues the implications that law becomes bad merely by being old and that dangerous driving is a good offence.

The press loves cars. Hates cyclists.

Cyclists really need to have a realistic view of the public opinion.... and defending inappropriate behaviour does not help at all.

It is reported as a "suspected hit and run" for a very simple reason. The cyclist hit the pedestrian and ran away.

Arguing that there was no offence committed is an absurd situation that places cyclists above reasonable behaviour and merely fuels the current argument to bring legislation into force that make s a cycling offence the same as for a vehicle

Except that the pedestrian hit the e-bike, if anything.

The cyclist did leave the scene, but some stuff I've read reckons he was a bit concussed. Its not like he went home to let his blood alcohol reduce or anything, afaik.

That is the point..... you are on a cycling website that has discussed the minutiae of the case.

Joe Public sees a case where a cyclist hits (and now kills) a pedestrian, and leaves the scene. Press reports this as a "suspected" hit and run. clearly showing there is doubt.


Then someone comes along and says..... "He didn't need to stop because he is a cyclist."


Joe Public says... "How very, very outrageous, and bizarre...... that is stupid, he has killed someone and gets away with leaving the scene? A driver wouldn't get away with that, it's time to bring cyclists into line with vehicle drivers"

That is the reality that brings in the Allison case..... there is no current law to deal with tis. The public sees prosecuting under an archaic law that predates the bicycle and car as unacceptable and arguing exemption.....(that doesn't apply to cyclists) , merely supports the argument for new legislation to resolve what Joe Public sees as loopholes and unacceptable

[robing]

I wasn't defending the cyclist at all. Just making the point this sort of incident pales into insignificance compared with the numbers of pedestrians killed by vehicles - which of course get zero news coverage.

Then on the basis of these extremely rare cases they want to change the law for cyclists whereas some motorists get off Scot free for severe and often serial offences.

Let's face it vehicles pose a far more real threat to cyclists and pedestrians alike than cyclists will to anyone.

[mjr]

Cyclists really need to have a realistic view of the public opinion.... and defending inappropriate behaviour does not help at all.

It is reported as a "suspected hit and run" for a very simple reason. The cyclist hit the pedestrian and ran away.

Arguing that there was no offence committed is an absurd situation that places cyclists above reasonable behaviour and merely fuels the current argument to bring legislation into force that make s a cycling offence the same as for a vehicle

I'm neither defending inappropriate behaviour, nor arguing that there was no offence committed. I am simply pointing out the biased reporting. When one person bumps into another person and runs away, that is not normally called "hit and run". As far as I can tell from searches, the BBC usually refer to that as "fleeing", as they do further down the article - the leading use of "hit and run" seems clearly intended to invoke in the reader's mind the hatred of the criminal offence frequently committed by motorists.

I see you pick at only that one point, so do you agree that the BBC is biased to claim the walker was "struck by" the cyclist when they will not use that language when anyone (walker or cyclist) is run over?

[mjr]

Joe Public sees a case where a cyclist hits (and now kills) a pedestrian, and leaves the scene. Press reports this as a "suspected" hit and run. clearly showing there is doubt.

And why do they see it that way? Because the press misreport it.

[Cunobelin]

Joe Public sees a case where a cyclist hits (and now kills) a pedestrian, and leaves the scene. Press reports this as a "suspected" hit and run. clearly showing there is doubt.

And why do they see it that way? Because the press misreport it.

... or because it is a simple expectation of morality and decency?

[Cunobelin]

Cyclists really need to have a realistic view of the public opinion.... and defending inappropriate behaviour does not help at all.

It is reported as a "suspected hit and run" for a very simple reason. The cyclist hit the pedestrian and ran away.

Arguing that there was no offence committed is an absurd situation that places cyclists above reasonable behaviour and merely fuels the current argument to bring legislation into force that make s a cycling offence the same as for a vehicle

I'm neither defending inappropriate behaviour, nor arguing that there was no offence committed. I am simply pointing out the biased reporting. When one person bumps into another person and runs away, that is not normally called "hit and run". As far as I can tell from searches, the BBC usually refer to that as "fleeing", as they do further down the article - the leading use of "hit and run" seems clearly intended to invoke in the reader's mind the hatred of the criminal offence frequently committed by motorists.

I see you pick at only that one point, so do you agree that the BBC is biased to claim the walker was "struck by" the cyclist when they will not use that language when anyone (walker or cyclist) is run over?

No I don't agree..... simply because it is an untrue statement

A 21-year-old woman died when she was struck by a car in south-west London.

A pedestrian has been seriously hurt after being hit by a car.

A pedestrian has died after being hit by a car.

[fastpedaller]

do you agree that the BBC is biased to claim the walker was "struck by" the cyclist when they will not use that language when anyone (walker or cyclist) is run over?

I believe they and others have a bias (either intentional or otherwise). For many years I have seen reports of 'cyclist injured when he collided with a vehicle' and have contacted the press involved to point out that the incident should have been reported as 'injured when a vehicle and cyclist were involved in a collision'. The former seems to be the 'way' to report, even though the cause hasn't yet been established it appears the cyclist is at fault. Our local paper (Eastern Daily Press) were so fed up with my moaning about such headlines (which shouldn't have been necessary - I'm probably on their 'grumpy old men' list ) that they have altered their headlines.

[Cunobelin]

do you agree that the BBC is biased to claim the walker was "struck by" the cyclist when they will not use that language when anyone (walker or cyclist) is run over?

I believe they and others have a bias (either intentional or otherwise). For many years I have seen reports of 'cyclist injured when he collided with a vehicle' and have contacted the press involved to point out that the incident should have been reported as 'injured when a vehicle and cyclist were involved in a collision'. The former seems to be the 'way' to report, even though the cause hasn't yet been established it appears the cyclist is at fault. Our local paper (Eastern Daily Press) were so fed up with my moaning about such headlines (which shouldn't have been necessary - I'm probably on their 'grumpy old men' list ) that they have altered their headlines.

YOU "believe" does not make it the unequivocal statement that you asked me to agree to, and I evidenced to be untrue.

[thirdcrank]

Assuming that the CCTV footage which was circulating is pukka, then there seems little prospect of the rider being prosecuted for anything to do with the crash. The deceased appeared to run out into the road unexpectedly and with no obvious attempt to look out for approaching traffic and the rider seemed to be riding in a normal manner. There's a suggestion that the bike wasn't street-legal but I'm unclear of the extent to which that might have made a difference.

Drawing weak analogies with the Alliston case may raise the expectations of the bereaved in this case and we could see yet another campaign for "justice."

The scarpering needs to be explained, even though it's not an offence for a cyclist. There could be several reasons for this with avoiding detection being an obvious possibility. An angry group of bystanders might be another. etc.

I'd agree that the reporting by the BBC is poor: not an iota of investigative reporting, just a cobbled together few bits and pieces of waffle.