On 30/06/2020 15:18, Simon Mason wrote:

On Monday, June 29, 2020 at 6:19:53 PM UTC+1, Simon Mason wrote:
Pedestrian was crossing the road and was hit by a passing cyclist.

"A passing cyclist"?

What does that mean that would not apply to a passing HGV or army tank?

QUOTE:
Police in Manchester are searching for a cyclist who collided with a pedestrian who later died in hospital.

There is some debate about the way the MEN has reported this incident.

Really?

QUOTE:
MEN draws criticism for coverage of fatal collision between cyclist and pedestrian.

The Manchester Evening News has been criticised for the way it covered the collision in Didsbury that we reported on earlier. Or, more accurately, the newspaper's been criticised for the way it covers other collisions, involving motorists and cyclists. The news editor replied to say people should email him with complaints.

Yeah, but #cyclists, let's play spot the difference at how @MENnewsdesk
report road traffic incidents.

Why does assumed guilt apply to cyclists while motorists are allowed to hide behind the anonymity of a vehicle?

Your reporter said "Man dies after cyclist crashes into him as he crossed Wilmslow Road"

"Cyclist", eh?

OK...

That's not what the police said. How come you changed the police statement?

Hmmm...

*POLICE* SAYS
At around 4.35pm on Saturday 20 June 2020 a pedestrian and a *cyclist* were involved in a collision, close to Didsbury Library.

It is believed that the pedestrian was crossing the road when the incident occurred.

The pedestrian – a 56-year-old man – suffered serious head injuries and sadly passed away in hospital a week later, despite the best efforts of medical staff.

It is believed the *cyclist* remained at the scene when emergency services arrived, but police were not initially informed of the incident and so officers are now appealing to the *cyclist* to make contact with them to help with their enquiries.
ENDS

You do not identify the source of your quoted material, but it seems to
be claiming that the word "cyclist", used by the Manchester Evening News
in a prior report, had been used instead of some more ... er ...
"neutral" word used by the police.

But that is plainly incorrect, because the police are quoted as using
the exact same word - "cyclist" - *three times* (see above).

The media love doing this. They publish inaccurate or deliberately divisive material but refuse to respond publically when called out. One local reporter round my way accuses any critics of trolling.

It's such an unintelligent claim that the odds are that it has to be
from road.cc (where the writers are semi-literate at best).

But apart from that, what's the problem?

Did the Manchester Evening News, by reporting a story that should have
been hushed-up, fail to maintain the fiction that cyclists cannot harm
pedestrians when they run them down, whether on the footway,
carriageway, pedestrian-crossing or any other pedestrian-only area?

PS: Has the cyclist come forward voluntarily yet?

I bet you're not holding your breath on that one.