Cyclist hits woman

[Piemaster]

Story in my local paper. Comments on it as you would expect.

 

[hackbike 666]

Hmmmm hate all that.Whoevers fault it was.

 

[Crankarm]

Journos in hull aren't famed for their accuracy in reporting. "Hit" could mean all sorts of things from an assault to a collision.

The correct way to report this would have been:

....this afternoon there was a collision in Analby Road involving a pedestrian and cyclist which caused the road to be closed.

But Hull seems to have it's own unique species of pond life:

hope she will be ok,cyclists are a mennace on the roads,no doubt weaving in nd out of trafic on nd off the pavement, they are all idiots as are truck drivers taxi drivers and especially bus drivers
paul, mn

 

[hackbike 666]

hope she will be ok,cyclists are a mennace on the roads,no doubt weaving in nd out of trafic on nd off the pavement, they are all idiots as are truck drivers taxi drivers and especially bus drivers
paul, mn

What a halfwit.

 

[Sheffield_Tiger]

"the cyclist probably was on the road,probably left the pavement to cross the road without looking, and run into this poor women"

Lost on this one, is "Paul" complaiing that the bike was ON the road, OFF the road or what?

Quality reporting again from the Hull Daily Fail, who only put any effort into any story unless its about the Hull KR/FC egg-chasing derby, since Porter Street never actually meets Anlaby Road so the location of the collision is even flawed.

I presume they mean Midland Street, or why not just "close to the railway station"

Anyway, if Phil Brown were there, he'd have talked the woman out of walking into the road.....

 

[HLaB]

Nobody has mentioned Road Tax yet

 

[Cab]

Its amazing that we get people hurt or killed by cars across the country day in, day out and its barely news, but when theres a pedestrian hurt by a cyclist every loony seems to home in on the story and turns up to add their own crazed ramblings in to the mix.

 

[hydridmatt]

Hang on, people hang on...

When a car or truck hits a cyclist and we don't know what happens, we are all quick to condemn the car or truck. We (correctly) say that our experience on the road means that we have a strong idea what happened – the bigger vehicle was not paying attention to the damage they can easily cause weaker road users. We are all quick to offer our thoughts to the cyclist.

But when a woman is seriously injured in a collision with a cyclist, (and we don’t yet know the facts) the best we can come up with is ‘look how mean the commenters are to us cyclists’.

I wish her well

 

[Cab]

But when a woman is seriously injured in a collision with a cyclist, (and we don’t yet know the facts) the best we can come up with is ‘look how mean the commenters are to us cyclists’.

If the comments were defensible I'd have no problem with them, but they're not. I would no more condone 'all bloody motorists are terrible' in response to a cyclist being hurt than I condone similar generalisations about cyclists. The point here is that when a motorist injures someone its barely even news, and if it is reported its not treated the same way as when a cyclist does.

 

[SavageHoutkop]

When a car or truck hits a cyclist and we don't know what happens, we are all quick to condemn the car or truck. We (correctly) say that our experience on the road means that we have a strong idea what happened – the bigger vehicle was not paying attention to the damage they can easily cause weaker road users. We are all quick to offer our thoughts to the cyclist.

But when a woman is seriously injured in a collision with a cyclist, (and we don’t yet know the facts) the best we can come up with is ‘look how mean the commenters are to us cyclists’.

I wish her well as well.

But, it doesn't say 'there was a collision' it says that the woman was 'struck' by a cyclist. Struck in my mind has connotations to intent; thus immediately putting the cyclist in the wrong. 'a pedestrian and a cyclist were involved in a collision' perhaps?

Other than that the reporting is factual and unbiased, if a little short on detail. As for the comments, it seems 'paul' is the only real nut and he's getting a shouting down.

 

[Arch]

If the comments were defensible I'd have no problem with them, but they're not. I would no more condone 'all bloody motorists are terrible' in response to a cyclist being hurt than I condone similar generalisations about cyclists. The point here is that when a motorist injures someone its barely even news, and if it is reported its not treated the same way as when a cyclist does.

Well, I guess its the old "dog bites man/man bites dog" thing isn't it?

 

[Cab]

Well, I guess its the old "dog bites man/man bites dog" thing isn't it?

Kind of. Except that the news story 'man bites dog' is not usually followed by a tirade of 'bloody men, always acting irresponsibly' rants.

 

[ChrisKH]

Well I've left my comment. At best all you can say is there was a collision. But then collisions don't invoke as many comments (or nutters )

 

[ComedyPilot]

Would it still be 'struck by cyclist' if the woman had stepped in front of the cyclist at the last second without looking?

Of course, that sort of thing never happens, does it?

Too few details.

 

[earth]

Did the cyclist stop or did they ride away? The report is so thin that it is questionable why it was reported.