Teenage boy killed by driver in Essex

climber wrote:

Quote:

After an unpromising start, having to be bribed by her parents to learn to ride without stabilisers, Sarah became rather keener on cycling in her university years, and was eventually persuaded to upgrade to proper road cycling by the prospect of a shiny red Italian bike, which she promptly destroyed by trapping a pair of knickers in the rear derailleur. Sarah writes about about cycling every weekend on road.cc.

Sensitive. Why is this stuff shown? Especially after such a sad piece of news. What on earth do you think the lads family would think if they saw this 'signature' at the end of the poor lads obituary? Have a thought, just the one will do. My thoughts are with the family and friends. Ride on mate. X

I disagree with this: these signatures appear after every road.cc article regardless of whether its a death-by-(allegedly)-careless-driving incident or Mr Wiggins's latest career mistake, and I'd imagine that they are automated.

(I've always been more concerned with how a pair of knickers managed to get trapped in a rear derailleur, but, y'know...).

Peowpeowpeowlasers wrote:

Perhaps it's just me but isn't the headline somewhat inappropriate, considering the driver hasn't been found guilty?

By all means go full barrel if the driver is convicted, but until then, perhaps "killed following collision with vehicle" would be more appropriate.

He wasn't "killed following (the) collision", he was killed BY the collision. The headline is a statement of fact. That doesn't necessarily mean the driver was at fault (legally) but if the collision hadn't occurred, the boy would still be riding his bike.

All this pussy-footing around annoys me. Recently in Melbourne, some idiot went careering down the main street/pavement  in a car, deliberately running people over. Half a dozen dead, multiple people seriously  injured. Most of the carnage was caught on CCTV or mobile phone video, and the guy was dragged from the car by police. However, the newsreaders still say that the guy "allegedly" drove down the street targeting pedestrians. Never mind "allegedly", he quite clearly DID!

fat999 wrote:

Peowpeowpeowlasers wrote:

Perhaps it's just me but isn't the headline somewhat inappropriate, considering the driver hasn't been found guilty?

By all means go full barrel if the driver is convicted, but until then, perhaps "killed following collision with vehicle" would be more appropriate.

 

He wasn't "killed following (the) collision", he was killed BY the collision. The headline is a statement of fact. That doesn't necessarily mean the driver was at fault (legally) but if the collision hadn't occurred, the boy would still be riding his bike.

The headline says "killed by driver".  It's a presumptuous statement which may or may not be true.  In this country, we presume innocence unless proven guilty.

Peowpeowpeowlasers wrote:

Perhaps it's just me but isn't the headline somewhat inappropriate, considering the driver hasn't been found guilty?

By all means go full barrel if the driver is convicted, but until then, perhaps "killed following collision with vehicle" would be more appropriate.

arh, driverless car ?

If your offended perhaps get your news from any place other than a cyclist website. they bend over backwards not to ever suggest that a driver did anything wrong, cars just spontaneously flipping on their roofs and driving into wall, not a driver in site anywhere. 

Housecathst wrote:

Peowpeowpeowlasers wrote:

Perhaps it's just me but isn't the headline somewhat inappropriate, considering the driver hasn't been found guilty?

By all means go full barrel if the driver is convicted, but until then, perhaps "killed following collision with vehicle" would be more appropriate.

arh, driverless car ?

If your offended perhaps get your news from any place other than a cyclist website. they bend over backwards not to ever suggest that a driver did anything wrong, cars just spontaneously flipping on their roofs and driving into wall, not a driver in site anywhere. 

Jesus, the knobbery on here is spectacular.  You have absolutely no idea who is to blame and if you think that deciding who is—before a court has pronounced judgement—is useful, you should be routinely ignored.

Peowpeowpeowlasers wrote:

Perhaps it's just me but isn't the headline somewhat inappropriate, considering the driver hasn't been found guilty?

By all means go full barrel if the driver is convicted, but until then, perhaps "killed following collision with vehicle" would be more appropriate.

You've received a number of strong replies, so I won't go overboard on this but car drivers must start to realise that they are controlling a vehicle capable of dealing instant death.

The fact is that a car rarely kills anyone unless it has a driver in it. Often a driver may be filled with remorse after the "accident" and some never get rid of the feelings of guilt whether they are to blame or not. 

That aside the law does seem to give carte-blanche to motorists to get away with flimsy excuses after the event. 

Ramuz wrote:

"Lots of people are returning to cycling and Colchester has the highest problem."

cyclists = problem ?

they are quoting an article from 3 years ago. Colchester had the highest KSI for cyclists across Essex

http://road.cc/content/news/90102-serious-cycling-casualties-rise-colche...