Police kill cyclist

"MSeries" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Story on the BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/3884467.stm

I guess it's a bit insensitive, but how did the driver and passenger of the
car sustain injuries? I was a bit surprised to read that.

Nick

Nick Drew said:

"MSeries" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Story on the BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/3884467.stm

I guess it's a bit insensitive, but how did the driver and passenger of the
car sustain injuries? I was a bit surprised to read that.

Nick

At a guess, I can think of two ways - either they hit, swerved, hit
something else, or something went through the windscreen (ick).

--

Velvet

Velvet said:

Nick Drew said:

"MSeries" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Story on the BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/3884467.stm

I guess it's a bit insensitive, but how did the driver and passenger of the
car sustain injuries? I was a bit surprised to read that.

Nick

At a guess, I can think of two ways - either they hit, swerved, hit
something else, or something went through the windscreen (ick).

Hate to be cynical, but read the arcticle more closely.
There are no injuries to the policemen.

The article almost makes it sound like "this cyclist ran into a stationary
police car. The cyclist was killed, and the poor policeman are all shaken
up by the incident"

Due sympathy and respect to this poor fellow, and his family who have now
been left husbandless or fatherless.

John Hearns said:

Velvet said:

Nick Drew said:

"MSeries" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

>Story on the BBC
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/3884467.stm
>

I guess it's a bit insensitive, but how did the driver and passenger of the
car sustain injuries? I was a bit surprised to read that.

Nick

At a guess, I can think of two ways - either they hit, swerved, hit
something else, or something went through the windscreen (ick).

Hate to be cynical, but read the arcticle more closely.
There are no injuries to the policemen.

Reading the article closely, there were minor injuries to the policemen.

Quoted message said:

The article almost makes it sound like "this cyclist ran into a stationary
police car. The cyclist was killed, and the poor policeman are all shaken
up by the incident"

Reading the article closely, it says nothing about the circumstances of
the incident. How is assuming anything about it given the information
in the article helpful? Is it really not possible that, even were the
policement *entirely* to blame, they would not require treatment for shock?
Is it also not possible that they might not have been entirely to blame
for whatever happened? Reading the article partiularly closely, I fail
to see how it could have been more neutral in both content and tone.

Quoted message said:

Due sympathy and respect to this poor fellow, and his family who have now
been left husbandless or fatherless.

Reading the article closely, there is no indication that the man was either
a husband or a father. While this is entirely possible, are you not
perhaps reading more into the facts you have at your disposal than might
be justified by the content of the article you so cynically critique?

--
Trevor Barton

Trevor Barton said:

Reading the article closely, there were minor injuries to the policemen.

Quoted message said:

The article almost makes it sound like "this cyclist ran into a stationary
police car. The cyclist was killed, and the poor policeman are all shaken
up by the incident"

Reading the article closely, it says nothing about the circumstances of
the incident.

I realise that. Let me make try to make this clearer - the words in the
article are slanted in a certain way. It does use the word "accident"
(twice) with no justification if you follow your logic (*). The mental
image they put in my mind is the one I've described.

I'm no good at doing this, but let's say the article said:
"A police car collided with a cyclist on the Rotherham Road.
The cyclist was killed, but the officers escaped with minor injuries"

Sorry, I really don't want to pick a fight with you,
especially over such a tragic story.

(*) the article pre-judges that this was an "accident".

Trevor Barton said:

Quoted message said:

Hate to be cynical, but read the arcticle more closely.
There are no injuries to the policemen.

Reading the article closely, there were minor injuries to the policemen.

"Two officers inside the car were treated for shock and minor
injuries."

I doubt the officers suffered any injury at all. I expect they were
carted off to hospital to be examined as a matter of routine, and a
senior policeman told the press it was for "shock and minor injuries".

I'd like to know a lot more detail about this incident.

Gonzalez said:

Trevor Barton said:

Quoted message said:

Hate to be cynical, but read the arcticle more closely.
There are no injuries to the policemen.

Reading the article closely, there were minor injuries to the
policemen.

"Two officers inside the car were treated for shock and minor
injuries."

I doubt the officers suffered any injury at all. I expect they were
carted off to hospital to be examined as a matter of routine, and a
senior policeman told the press it was for "shock and minor injuries".

I'd like to know a lot more detail about this incident.

There was a piece on local TV this evening, didn't say much more. The victim
has been identified and the police on board camera is being examined to try
to find out what happened.

Gonzalez <[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message said:

On 12 Jul 2004 15:31:22 GMT, Trevor Barton <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Hate to be cynical, but read the arcticle more closely.
There are no injuries to the policemen.

Reading the article closely, there were minor injuries to the policemen.

Quoted message said:

"Two officers inside the car were treated for shock and minor
injuries."

Quoted message said:

I doubt the officers suffered any injury at all. I expect they were
carted off to hospital to be examined as a matter of routine, and a
senior policeman told the press it was for "shock and minor injuries".

Quoted message said:

I'd like to know a lot more detail about this incident.

Just looking at AutoRoute and adding details given on website:

Road is A631, east of Junction with M18(J1). There's a Little Chef and a
couple of petrol stations (oldish AutoRoute so might not still be) on
the roundabout of the junction. If details given in report are correct,
cyclist would have been going west.

Whether he was hit from behind as Police sped towards motorway or
whether he was hit head-on as they sped away is open to conjecture...

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email hidden]
Edgware.

John Hearns said:

Trevor Barton said:

Reading the article closely, there were minor injuries to the policemen.

Quoted message said:

The article almost makes it sound like "this cyclist ran into a stationary
police car. The cyclist was killed, and the poor policeman are all shaken
up by the incident"

Reading the article closely, it says nothing about the circumstances of
the incident.

I realise that. Let me make try to make this clearer - the words in the
article are slanted in a certain way. It does use the word "accident"
(twice) with no justification if you follow your logic (*). The mental
image they put in my mind is the one I've described.

I'm no good at doing this, but let's say the article said:
"A police car collided with a cyclist on the Rotherham Road.
The cyclist was killed, but the officers escaped with minor injuries"

Sorry, I really don't want to pick a fight with you,
especially over such a tragic story.

(*) the article pre-judges that this was an "accident".

Only if the reporter has the same amount of information as you or I.
I'm supposing that isn't the case.

However, common usage of the word accident doesn't imply guilt on any
party, and although you might justifiably argue that most road accidents
are not accidents, your posting seemed to assume that the car drivers
were responsible in your opinion. This is both unfair and unjustified
given the information you have.

There is a spectrum of culpability in any incident, ranging from "one
party being completely in the wrong and the other being unable to do
anything about it" (eg a car driving off a motorway onto a trainline),
to "could have been avoided if the victim was more experienced/paying
more attention" (eg a car coming out of give way sign and running into a
car that has priority), to completely shared responsibility (umm, two
cars coming out of opposing give way signs at the same time??). Most
incidents are not black and white. It's certainly not right to assume
that the coppers were in the wrong based on the information in the
article. They almost certainly share some of the the responsibility,
but you have no way of knowing how much. It does not neccessarily
follow that because they were in the car they are primarily responsible
for what happenned, as you seemed to imply.

But, yes, it's not really a story to pick a fight over.

--
Trevor Barton

Nick Drew [email hidden] opined the following...

Quoted message said:

I guess it's a bit insensitive, but how did the driver and passenger of the
car sustain injuries? I was a bit surprised to read that.

The shock made them choke on their doughnuts?

Jon (Who does insensitive remarkably well!)

Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:
<snip>

Quoted message said:

Whether he was hit from behind as Police sped towards motorway or
whether he was hit head-on as they sped away is open to conjecture...

</snip>

Sorry to delurk like this, but I cannot for the life of me (even with my
cynics glasses on) see any reference to the speed of either party in this
tragedy. Perhaps we ought to wait for further details before leaping to
conclusions?

--
Patrick Mullin,

Email <first name> at AuroraDigitalis dot com

Trevor Barton said:

Only if the reporter has the same amount of information as you or I.
I'm supposing that isn't the case.

However, common usage of the word accident doesn't imply guilt on any
party, and although you might justifiably argue that most road accidents
are not accidents,

This point has been made quite often in this group - that's why I quoted
the word "accident".

your posting seemed to assume that the car drivers

Quoted message said:

were responsible in your opinion. This is both unfair and unjustified
given the information you have.

That's true.
All I'm saying is that the wording of the article is slanted.
Someone has dies here, in an awful accident. Why even COMMENT thet the
drivers have received 'minor injuries and shock' - most probably meaning a
cup of tea.

in message <7tlucc.887.ln@ahahahooey>, Trevor Barton

(') said:

However, common usage of the word accident doesn't imply guilt on any
party, and although you might justifiably argue that most road
accidents are not accidents, your posting seemed to assume that the
car drivers
were responsible in your opinion. This is both unfair and unjustified
given the information you have.

In most car/bike impacts the car driver is indeed primarily at fault.
Whether it is reasonable to induce the fact that the police driver was
at fault in this in this incident is another matter.

Oh, and, AI .sig generator's picked a good one.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

my other car is #<Subr-Car: #5d480>
;; This joke is not funny in emacs.

Patrick said:

Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:
<snip>

Quoted message said:

Whether he was hit from behind as Police sped towards motorway or
whether he was hit head-on as they sped away is open to conjecture...

</snip>

Sorry to delurk like this, but I cannot for the life of me (even with my
cynics glasses on) see any reference to the speed of either party in this
tragedy. Perhaps we ought to wait for further details before leaping to
conclusions?

False conjecture and getting it wrong is what makes news discussion
groups so much fun.

MSeries said:

Story on the BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/3884467.stm

This report supplies some additional details:

<http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3189113>

Cyclist Killed

By Rod Minchin, PA News

A cyclist was killed today in a collision with a police patrol car.

The crash happened shortly after midnight at Rotherham Road, Maltby,
South Yorkshire.

The cyclist, who police are attempting to identify, was pronounced
dead on arrival at Rotherham District General Hospital.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission is investigating the
circumstances surrounding the fatal crash.

The man was riding his bike towards Hellaby when he collided head-on
with a police car.

The two male officers suffered minor injuries and shock, a South
Yorkshire Police spokesman said.

"We are appealing for witnesses and anyone with information about the
incident to come forward," he said.

"We also need help to identify the cyclist. He is a white man, in his
early 40s, of medium build, with brown hair and had tattoos on both
arms.

"He was wearing a black leather waistcoat, dark trousers, and dark
shoes."

Marc Brett said:

The two male officers suffered minor injuries and shock, a South
Yorkshire Police spokesman said.

snipped

Quoted message said:

"We also need help to identify the cyclist.

snipped

Quoted message said:

"He was wearing a black leather waistcoat, dark trousers, and dark
shoes."

Note the cynical attempt to place the blame on the cyclist because he was
wearing dark clothing.
--
Michael MacClancy
Random putdown - "I've just learned about his illness. Let's hope it's
nothing trivial." - Irvin S. Cobb
www.macclancy.demon.co.uk
www.macclancy.co.uk

Michael MacClancy said:

Note the cynical attempt to place the blame on the cyclist because he was
wearing dark clothing.

And why not:
"The police car was travelling in the direction of ??? when
it collided head on with a bicycle"

Michael MacClancy said:

Marc Brett said:

The two male officers suffered minor injuries and shock, a South
Yorkshire Police spokesman said.

snipped

Quoted message said:

"We also need help to identify the cyclist.

snipped

Quoted message said:

"He was wearing a black leather waistcoat, dark trousers, and dark
shoes."

Note the cynical attempt to place the blame on the cyclist because he
was wearing dark clothing.

Un-snipped:

"We also need help to identify the cyclist. He is a white man, in his
early 40s, of medium build, with brown hair and had tattoos on both
arms.

"He was wearing a black leather waistcoat, dark trousers, and dark
shoes."

Note your rampant paranoia. The detail is part of the identifcation.

pk

PK said:

Michael MacClancy said:

Marc Brett said:

The two male officers suffered minor injuries and shock, a South
Yorkshire Police spokesman said.

snipped

Quoted message said:

"We also need help to identify the cyclist.

snipped

Quoted message said:

"He was wearing a black leather waistcoat, dark trousers, and dark
shoes."

Note the cynical attempt to place the blame on the cyclist because he
was wearing dark clothing.

Un-snipped:

"We also need help to identify the cyclist. He is a white man, in his
early 40s, of medium build, with brown hair and had tattoos on both
arms.

"He was wearing a black leather waistcoat, dark trousers, and dark
shoes."

Note your rampant paranoia. The detail is part of the identifcation.

pk

Um, if you don't mind you 'unsnipped' something I hadn't snipped. i.e.

Quoted message said:

We also need help to identify the cyclist

Yes, what he was wearing is relevant to his identification. And it may be
unfair to suggest that the police were trying to place the blame on the
cyclist when they gave such prominence to his dark clothing. On the other
hand it may not be unfair. We don't know, do we? I know quite a lot about
presentation and I don't think it was an accident that the description of
the clothing was placed at the end of the police statement, a very
prominent position.

How many people read the article and were left thinking, "Stupid bugger
wearing dark clothing on a bike at night, he had it coming"?

I hope I'm wrong about their motives.

One thing I know for certain though. I'm not paranoid.
--
Michael MacClancy
Random putdown - "I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter
saying I approved of it." - Mark Twain
www.macclancy.demon.co.uk
www.macclancy.co.uk