Impartial media coverage?
 

Just been watching the 10 o'clock news, where the story of the cyclist killed by a driver using a mobile phone has resulted in her being convicted of death by dangerous driving and she now awaits sentencing. Full story here.

What I object to is the fact that, on the TV coverage at least:

a) only one mention was made to the fact that the cyclist had ridden through a red light and into the path of the driver, who was admittedly not paying full attention.
b) the family of the victim was given airtime to make a statement applauding the sentence, saying how much they missed the family member, their lives had been ruined and so on.
c) a police spokeswoman hoped that this would serve as a warning to motorists, and the BBC referenced a new campaign being launched to combat driving with mobiles.
d) no warning was given to cyclists to obey the law
e) no implication was given that the driver was perhaps not 100% responsible for the accident

Do you feel this is impartial media coverage?

I welcome any and all views, either on this particular case, or any other pertinent cases in the media of late.

Re: Impartial media coverage?
 

Whether she was paying attention / texting or what, IMHO the cyclist is just as guilty as she is for jumping the red light in the first place.

Re: Impartial media coverage?
 

i thought this was a bit off, i use that bit of road very frequently and it's not slow at all, all two or three lanes and no place to be jumping red lights on a push bike, it's obviously tragic but even if you were paying attention you don't expect cyclists to suddenly cross your path at that junction. both equally to blame IMO...


however, that wouldn't fit with the current drive to push walking/cycling and discourage personal transport use, so it's a good excuse to go after someone flouting the law and make an example of them...

Re: Impartial media coverage?
 

what suprises me is that you think ANY mainstream media news is impartial or unbiased.

yes i know they all say they are but they simply aint.

A great example of this was shown recently when Israel and Lebonan had their little spat last year.
Everyone knew the name of the Isreali soldier who was "kidnapped" (you're probably saying it in your heads right now) yet not once did any mainstream news media announce the names of those killed in Lebanon.

This man makes the point about biased media much better than i ever could...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbEv0T2rwgo

Re: Impartial media coverage?
 

oh yes, but you're forgetting that highlighting brutal terrorist atrocities and oppressing the native people of land ocupied illegally is antisemitism, apparently...

still not figured that one out:rolleyes:

Re: Impartial media coverage?
 

Oh yes i've been called that by ignorant people in the past simply cos i discuss what i see as a bias.
But we digress i dont want this turning into a pro/anti israeli thread but its just such an obvious bias in all mainstream media that its easy to point out.

Re: Impartial media coverage?
 

If a car driver had gone through the red light would it have been the same verdict?

If a car driver had gome through the red light and killed a cyclist going through the green, but whilst the cyclist was texting on his phone, what would the outcome be?

Personally I'm a cyclist, a motorist,a pedestrian and a motorcyclist at different times, and currently I feel like the law is being spun again by politics.

Re: Impartial media coverage?
 

I don't care because I support the message. I do care that someone had to die to give the message some punch, instead of the law being enforced in the first place.

Re: Impartial media coverage?
 

I have to admit that I was a touch suprised at the level of charge.

Death by Dangerous Drive was discussed a while ago on here and the fact that gaol is an option when sentencing someone who is found guilty of it.

I am not sure that the charging standard has been met for this woman to be brought to court for D by D, it sounds more like Death by Careless which can also have a prison sentence handed down. However, as has been mentioned, the spin has been put on this story and we are not in full possesion of the facts of the case.

I heard the report on the news last night and was also shocked by the coverage given. There was only a fleeting mention of the cyclist going through a red light, the rest of the piece was about the driver and the sins of phone use.

Maybe this was being used as a way to further the message about phone use and the penalties it can bring. Obviously, no-one should text whilst driving, but dangerous? If it was, the eveyone caught using a phone would face a dangerous driving charge, not an FPN and that aint gonna happen.

Re: Impartial media coverage?
 

They did mention on "South Today" that she admitted speeding to catch the lights while they were on green, supposedly she was doing 45mph in the 30 limit, however, if anyone has ever used that stretch of dual carriageway you'll know how ridiculous the 30 limit is there, 40mph would be far more appropriate and just tens of yards or so up the road from where this happened the limit jumps to 50mph

for anyone interested the coordinates on google maps are as follows:

50.906808,-1.419373

the car was joining the three lane road from the SE toward the W, the cyclist had jumped the red light coming from the E, crossed the first two lanes of moving traffic going from the W down West Quay road to the SE (if her lights were green, so were theirs) and then cycled into her path. there is no way you'd expect traffic to be coming from your right there, and the acute angle at which you join the road makes it much harder to see anything that might be coming

the more i think about this the more i think she was probably just in the wrong place at the wrong time...