You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Apologies for the daily fail link but someone sent it to me and it is relevant as the chap was/is a mountain biker.
A pensioner died when he was struck by a cyclist doing 25mph along a poorly-lit country lane, an inquest heard.
Gwyn Lloyd Jones, 67, died four days after his was knocked down by Richard Eakins's bike as he walked along the narrow road just yards from his home in Cilcennin, near Lampeter, Wales.
According to the GPS device on his bike, the cyclist, 25, was travelling at 25mph at the time of the collision on November 7, last year.
Cyclist Richard Eakins, 25, (pictured) struck pensioner Gwyn Lloyd Jones while travelling at 25mph along a poorly-lit country lane, an inquest heard. The 67-year-old died four days later
At an inquest into Mr Jones's death, Ceredigion coroner Peter Brunton issued a warning to other cyclists over the dangers of riding at high speed.
Police have confirmed that no charges would be brought against Mr Eakins, but Mr Brunton said there had been 'significant breaches' of the Highway Code and he had never come across a case like it.
'There is no doubt that it was a substantial speed for a pushbike bearing in mind the atrocious conditions,' Mr Brunton told Aberystwyth Coroner's Court.
Summing up the evidence and recording a verdict of misadventure, Mr Brunton said: 'I have never encountered a case like this before.
'This case highlights the dangers of bikes riding at high speed.'
The inquest was told the collision happened as Mr Eakins was cycling back to Ciliau Aeron after finishing work at Summit Cycles in Aberystwyth, at around 7.25pm.
Mr Jones had been walking home from after having dinner at with his daughter, Cara Buswell, who lives nearby.
Police have confirmed that no charges would be brought against Mr Eakins (pictured), but Mr Brunton said there had been 'significant breaches' of the Highway Code and he had never come across a case like it
He was left with 'excruciatingly painful and ultimately fatal injuries', the inquest heard.
The hearing was also told that despite his severe injuries, Mr Jones was then left waiting outside Bronglais Hospital in an ambulance for around 50 minutes as the A&E department was 'full'.
A post-mortem found Mr Jones died of two fractures to the left side of the skull and 'severe' chest injuries, including 11 fractured ribs.
GPS statistics from the bike showed Mr Eakins was travelling at 25.1mph on impact with Mr Jones.
The inquest was also told that the narrow lane was just 3.3m wide and had no footpaths - 'forcing pedestrians to be in the carriageway' - and that the area has 'poor' street lighting.
The hearing was also told that despite his severe injuries, Mr Jones was then left waiting outside Bronglais Hospital (pictured) in an ambulance for around 50 minutes as the A&E department was 'full'
It had also been raining heavily on that November evening.
The inquest heard that Mr Eakins had turned the bar-mounted headlight on the bike off after its battery was running down, but did have a bright headtorch that was 'fully working' and 'very bright'.
A collision between a cyclist and a pedestrian does not have to be reported. The crash was reported to police three days after the incident, but the inquest was told that this delay had compromised the investigation.
Mr Brunton said Mr Eakins 'should have been travelling at a reasonable speed for the conditions' and found that the the 'poor street lighting and the excessive speed for the circumstances' caused the collision.
'Had they [the breaches of the Highway Code] not occurred it could well have meant that the collision would not have occurred,' the coroner said.
I bet cars were gong faster
I wonder how significant the wait outside A&E was.. Obviously way longer than the 1st hour of a life threatening injury...
Should have gone to jail. Was riding too fast for the conditions. Too many cyclists get off with this these days !
Edit - Cloud A&E is irrelevant, the cyclist was in the wrong
[url= http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest-news/pensioner-died-after-collision-with-high-speed-cyclist-inquest-hears-169828 ]Cycling Weekly if you don't want the DM[/url]
It is very sad, but I'd not say 25mph was fast, especially not compared to a car. It sounds more like bad luck that the victim fell in such a way that it caused fatal injuries than anything else.
I wonder what the significant breaches were. The light was not technically correct to the letter of law but sounds like it was plenty bright enough. Not speeding (even if such a law applied to cyclists). If it was a proper mountain bike then tyres, brakes etc likely to be in order.
Poor fella, cyclist must feel awful too.
Sad that there seems to be no such thing as an 'accident' nowadays, there always has to be blame attributed.
Oh Dear. RIP Mr Jones, a sad end.
The hearing was also told that despite his severe injuries, Mr Jones was then left waiting outside Bronglais Hospital in an ambulance for around 50 minutes as the A&E department was 'full'.
Initially was pissed about this but as he got 4 days before passing, it may not have seemed life threatening.
Just a terribly sad occurrence. 🙁
DOn't think you'd break 11 ribs falling over. Like all of things that people like to try and see in black and white there's plenty of grey in this, ultimately though unless it was a suicidal lunge under the wheels by the pedestrian the cyclists got to take his slice of the responsibility
What a terrible story for everyone involved.
[i]The hearing was also told that despite his severe injuries, Mr Jones was then left waiting outside Bronglais Hospital (pictured) in an ambulance for around 50 minutes as the A&E department was 'full'
It had also been raining heavily on that November evening.[/i]
The four hour wait gets another victim...
Tragic and fortunately, rare event.
Whatever the vehicle, the golden rule is that your speed should be such that you can stop in the distance you see to be clear.
However, I do object to the automatic suggestion that 25 mph is excessive on a bike. Non cyclists seem to seem them as 10 mph machines.
DOn't think you'd break 11 ribs falling over.
❓
He was hit by a bike and rider, with all of the sticky out bits that bikes have. Where do you think he got broken ribs from?
Form the impact with the bike, not falling over (was a response to munrobikers post - should have specified)
RIP Sir. I've ridden down steep roads quickly on my mountain bike but always cover both brakes and always with good visibility (light/no tight bends).
I question why he wasn't charged? Did the cyclist have lights? If bright night lights maybe but also- if it was a tight twisting lane when the deceased was hit then its negligence. Why no charge?
So he broke most of his ribs on both sides of his chest. Hmm - there's something not right about that story.
Very sad. 3.3m seems pretty wide. Certainly wide enough for a pedestrian and a cyclist.
What's the stopping distance, do you reckon at 25mp/h for a bicycle? I'd have guessed far shorter than the thinking (reaction) time.
Terrible news. RIP.
bright enough to be seen by others? Or bright enough to see where you are going on a badly lit lane? Consequences tend to suggest not the latter.The light was not technically correct to the letter of law but sounds like it was plenty bright enough.
Comments from the coroner are kinda annoying tho Mr Brunton said: 'I have never encountered a case like this before. You may not have encountered them but I've read about plenty like them, of course they normally involve drivers and excessive speed in bad conditions.
Genuinely surprised at no charges (wouldn't have been surprised if had been a driver). If coroner says he was going too fast for the conditions.....
got some figures? genuinely interested.Too many cyclists get off with this these days !
Hora - Because it's probably just a tragic accident.
Also, I would counter that hitting the ground was more likely to break bones than a bicycle.
RIP Sir. I've ridden down steep roads quickly on my mountain bike but always cover both brakes and always with good visibility (light/no tight bends).I question why he wasn't charged? Did the cyclist have lights? If bright night lights maybe but also- if it was a tight twisting lane when the deceased was hit then its negligence. Why no charge?
Have you even read the piece above? I'd like to see you charged, for terminal gobshitery.
My comment was in respect to the highway code breaches mentioned. Obviously speculation but I would expect a head torch worn by a mountain biker to be significantly brighter than that required by law.bright enough to be seen by others? Or bright enough to see where you are going on a badly lit lane? Consequences tend to suggest not the latter.
Whatever, we're speculating - end result is the bloke's dead and we know f all abut the circumstances. Shame the mail feel the need to make capital out of it but then they're miles hunts every day of the week.
Was the pedestrian wearing a helmet or hi-viz?
It mentions highway code breaches but it doesn't say by whom. The highway code also give advice to pedestrians. However, people often don't distinguish between must do and should do from the highway code.
While in no way trying to avoid blame put at the door of the cyclist, it does sound like the sort of lane where pedestrians should carry a torch - maybe should is the wrong word as in implies compulsion - would be wise to is maybe better. Of course they might have been and it has just not been mentioned or it might have made no difference in this case. I live on a similar lane and it can feel dicey on a dark night.
As to the 25mph, I think I'd need to see a streetview of the location to feel better informed. I'm assuming on an mtb the speed was a least in part gravity induced.
Shame the mail feel the need to make capital out of it
Tragic case and a stark reminder that we're not always the most vulnerable road users out there. Seems like a pretty straight report of an inquest to me though. Unless the damning comments from the coroner have been misreported, of course.
Love how the cyclists nationality is the first word in the headline. How often is that the case when it's "English"?
I guess we don't know enough about the conditions but 25mph isnt exactly slow, I suspect the cyclist knew the road well and rarely saw peds on it.
Whatever the vehicle, the golden rule is that your speed should be such that you can stop in the distance you see to be clear.
You've never met a ninja dog-walker, then? Dark clothes, back to the traffic, maybe listening to their music... No idea if it was the case here, too, but sometimes pedestrians certainly share their part of the blame.
A freak accident. Very unlucky that the rider had had to turn his lights off due to low battery, otherwise he may have seen the pedestrian.
Good call by the judge in the case IMO.
25mph was clearly too fast for the conditions, given that there was an accident. Road bike brakes can be next to useless in heavy rain, so stopping distance can be rather long.
Hopefuly more of us will bear that in mind now.
The cyclist was clearly (IMO) going too fast for the conditions and his vehicle (bike). Cycles have very poor braking relative to cars or motorbikes plus the lights are rubbish by comparison.
As he wasn't breaking the speed limit its tough for him to be convicted
This incident was the subject of a radio interview this morning, the guy representing one of the cycling bodies was pretty hopeless in answering the interviewers tough questions. On the interview it was revealed the cyclist said he was experienced and capable of riding at 50 mph. He also spoke of his expensive light.
Ok lights off and 25mph? Sorry and he wasn't charged?
On the interview it was revealed the cyclist said he was experienced and capable of riding at 50 mph
On the descent down from Snake to Glossop this weekend I was behind a cyclist doing 50mph. I marvelled at his balls but on the many bends wondered what would happen if a car driver tried overtaking another coming the other way and how he'd cope/react.
Such a terrible thing.
But then again I've seen some cyclists hurtling down footpaths and bridleways used by walkers and in the latter case horses during busy periods of the day and have to question if these cyclists use some sort of common sense in such areas.
Just adds to the vilification of cyclists and/or mtb'ers.
I think there is probable case to be answered by the cyclist, his main light failed and he was relying on his helmet light (which we do not know was bright enough or not). Seeing as he rode into someone it looks very much like it was not bright enough. The whole scenario should be tested through a prosecution IMO.
This seems very much like the "blinded by the low sun" excuse given by drivers for not slowing down to a safe speed for the conditions, which is a crime far too often allowed by the legal system.
...A collision between a cyclist and a pedestrian does not have to be reported.
Didn't realise that, if it's true....
Very sad. 3.3m seems pretty wide. Certainly wide enough for a pedestrian and a cyclist.What's the stopping distance, do you reckon at 25mp/h for a bicycle? I'd have guessed far shorter than the thinking (reaction) time.
GPS statistics from the bike showed Mr Eakins was travelling at 25.1mph on impact with Mr Jones
Quite a lot on unknown facts in this but [b]25.1mph at impact[/b] suggests the cyclists didn't brake because he hadn't seen the pedestrian (too fast for the conditions) or had already scrubbed off speed prior to impact so going much faster prior to braking.
3.3m isn't a great deal of space. The man walking would need at least 1m. If the cyclist was hugging the inside of the road to get more speed on left hand bend he would have very little margin for error if he meets a pedestrian like he did.
Tragic loss for the family of the victim and the cyclist who now has to live with what happened.
This thread makes interesting reading, wibble fish stunted pelican.
I winder what percentage read that?
The cyclist turned his lights off now, WTF?
Balls. That's the attitude that lets so many other drivers "get away" with killing people. The limit is an absolute limit no matter the conditions, but [i]you should also take the conditions into account[/i] and adjust your driving/riding. If you drive at 29mph down a foggy snow covered 30mph road, slide, hit and kill some innocent party you deserve to be prosecuted for careless/dangerous driving.As he wasn't breaking the speed limit its tough for him to be convicted
It is very sad for both, the pedestrian that is no longer alive and for the cyclist who has to live with the guilt of killing someone for the rest of his life, I can imgagine, despite no jail time that that is sentence enough.
I often ride down rural lanes very fast but I do usually have a cree bright light on my handlebars though. Thinking about it I probably only look out for cars and wouldn't expect to see a pedestrian, who would have been walking on what is my left side of the road, as the highway code suggests.
https://www.gov.uk/rules-pedestrians-1-to-35/general-guidance-1-to-6
Seeing as he rode into someone it looks very much like it was not bright enough
Utter dog rot
The nature of the pedestrians clothing is a huge factor here - if he was wearing dark or even camouflage clothing while walking down the middle of an unlit/barely lit road late at night, then all the lights in the world would not have made any difference - collisions like this happen regularly between cars and pedestrians, and even more ofrten animals, where the nature of their fur makes them practically invisible to drivers, despite adequate lighting.
This wouldn't even be news if it had of been a car that killed him.
Edit - Actually it probably would be, the Fail would just turn it into an attack on the NHS/A&E.
A tragic accident, though if it had been between a car and pedestrian in the same spot it would not have made the news.
Thankfully, fatal collisions involving cyclists and pedestrians are rare. This is what makes them newsworthy.
Sad for all. However the rider shouldn't have hit him. If you can't stop you are wrong. If you can't see you are wrong. Actual speed isn't a problem. The speed at that moment was.
This seems very much like the "blinded by the low sun" excuse given by drivers for not slowing down to a safe speed for the conditions, which is a crime far too often allowed by the legal system.
I thought this too. We seem to be a bit reluctant to prosecute folk who don't adjust their driving (and now riding) to the conditions if they are still within the road's given speed limit. If as cyclists we (rightly) feel aggrieved at the lack of action for the sun dazzled driver we would be hypocrites if we didn't look for the same level of prosecution for 'one of our own'.
it may be a factor but it's still not the victims fault, pedestrians don't have to wear hi-vis or carry lights, the faster moving vehicles are supposed to watch out for them - same as wild life really. We could get everyone to wear hi-vis vests with flashing leds 24/7 but all that would happen is people would get used to only looking for hi-vis and leds and run into anything that wasn't covered in them.The nature of the pedestrians clothing is a huge factor here
You are supposed to walk on the right facing traffic nearest you, something not many people to - dunno if this was a factor.
Maybe it was just an accident; a collection of circumstances that resulted in a collision.
I wonder what the significant (Highway Code) breaches were
Probably that he didn't have a bell and reflectors. Coz we all do, don't we?
And also move to the outside of bends where practical.You are supposed to walk on the right facing traffic nearest you, something not many people to - dunno if this was a factor.
I've had a few near-misses. Often I approach a walker with their back to me on my side of the road. Move to overtake and as they look back over their right shoulder at the tyre/freewheel noise they also drift out further into the road pushing me further to the right.
I've become very aware of this drifting now (when walkers are going downhill it can be a 2-3m movement) and often have to drop to 5mph or less to pass on country lanes, just to be sure.
i.e. what looks like a safe passing margin, can suddenly become a collision course.
Of course, I don't think I or anyone else knows what happened in this case.
25mph in road and lighting conditions where the rider couldn't see a pedestrian in time to steer round him? What if it was a boulder or a log lying in the road, or a missing manhole cover? If you can't avoid a pedestrian you are going too fast.
Because the risk is small and people can get away with it most of the time doesn't make it OK.
We don't know what happened here but if the ped was walking with his back to the approaching cyclist, unlike with motor vehicles he would have had no warning prior to the crash. Probably in the same place a sober ped would step against the hedge/wall if being passed by a car.
I'm reminded of a fatal crash I went to years ago. A drunk male walking down the center of a road with no footways or streetlighting at night. Facing away from the traffic dressed in black. His was hit by a black hackney at 45-50mph. No charges then either.
everyone is going on about the bike.
what about the man. he shouldn't have been in the road. but he was because no pavement, so was he wearing a hi vis ?. did he have a torch ? it says he was coming back from his daughters dinner party. was he drunk/drinking ??. The cyclist wasn't speeding, conditions or not, legally that does not come into it. common sense though is a different thing.
also Ive had strava say i was doing over 100mph on some segments, and we all no how reliable that is !!!
freak accident imo. right decision.
25mph in road and lighting conditions where the rider couldn't see a pedestrian in time to steer round him? What if it was a boulder or a log lying in the road, or a missing manhole cover? If you can't avoid a pedestrian you are going too fast
Utter rubbish. Many false assumptions there.
A ped is a moving target, what if bike had moved to avoid and pedestrian stepped aside as well? Like that dance you do when you meet someone in a corridor?
What if you are moving to avoid the manhole and then see the pedestrian who is dressed in black with a balaclava?
You don't know; why lay the blame?
Just a freak accident, sad for the chaps family and the cyclist, but also sad for the management of the hospital; who failed to treat him in time.
What a terrible thing to happen for all involved - when it comes to this sort of thing I have to rely on the Police so establish who, if anyone, has a case to answer and the courts to decide guilt - it's all well and good us reading a few scant details in a couple of paragraphs - but I doubt it scratches the surface of what happened.
I don't ride on the road or near pedestrians much, but it's given me something to think about - I would also hope the at least some of the people who seem to enjoy walking / hiking on designated mountain bike trails read this too, I don't get angry with them, sometimes I say 'Hi', occasionally I politely and calmly explain where they are, and that people ride fast and hard, sometimes around blind bends because it's a mountain bike trail, but they just look as me a bit silly like I've told them off or something - but 100kgs of bike and rider hitting you at 25mph (a decent speed off-road) can be fatal it seems.
what about the man. he shouldn't have been in the road. but he was because no pavement, so was he wearing a hi vis ?. did he have a torch ? it says he was coming back from his daughters dinner party. was he drunk/drinking ??. The ****** wasn't speeding, conditions or not,
This thread is quite revealing. Very often here, and in other cyclist friendly places, there is much demonisation of motorists for their attitude of trying to apportion blame at everyonelses doors when bad things happen. Quotes like above could so easily have been written by an 'evil' motorist looking to excuse the driver. Just shows we are all the same really.
project - MemberJust a freak accident, sad for the chaps family and the cyclist, but also sad for the management of the hospital; who failed to treat him in time.
Posted 5 minutes ago # Report-Post
Are you assuming that if he'd been seen in say 5 mins rather than 50 he would be okay now?
Are you also assuming that given limited resources, limited staff and limited capacity that it's possible to provide an unlimited service?
I think that's a bit of a leap A&E departments aren't magic and the coroner didn't mention the wait as being a contributing factor - it was tagged on the end by The Fail.
astonished by all the 'just an accident' comments.
This thread is quite revealing. Very often here, and in other cyclist friendly places, there is much demonisation of motorists for their attitude of trying to apportion blame at everyonelses doors when bad things happen. Quotes like above could so easily have been written by an 'evil' motorist looking to excuse the driver. Just shows we are all the same really.
This.
+1
A tragic accident for sure, and I know the area and roads concerned. I would just like to highlight the shameful hypocrisy of those who are saying the pedestrian should have had a hi-vis and torch, or assuming the pedestrian was at fault. This is exactly the kind of hand-wringing drivers use when they kill or injure cyclists and pedestrians. It is simply manipulating the guilt of one party by putting the onus on the victim to have prevented a collision. Sure, in some instances victims could have mitigated the outcome with certain actions, but to just turn to the default position of victim-blaming is wrong. It's the very thing we cyclist (rightly) hate so much when we are victims, so why so easily employ it when the tables are turned?
I think the only conclusion is that none of us know the facts and are in a position to judge.
Yet we insist on trying to do so.
We can all take something from this- take more care on shared paths/round high hedges/country lanes in bad light.
I'll have this at the back of my mind if I'm ever in a similar situation.
hora - Member
Ok lights off and 25mph? Sorry and he wasn't charged?
Jesus H. Christ. Read the article
I would just like to highlight the shameful hypocrisy of those who are saying the pedestrian should have had a hi-vis
I think they were being deliberately ironic to highlight the same things that you did.
Balls
@Donk, I agree with you, I wish this wasn't the reality
@mrmoosehead, quite a lot of the facts where established at the hearing. Enough for us to form an opinion
[i]Just shows we are all the same really.[/i]
Not [b]all[/b].
[quote=craigxxl ]Quite a lot on unknown facts in this but 25.1mph at impact suggests the cyclists didn't brake because he hadn't seen the pedestrian (too fast for the conditions) or had already scrubbed off speed prior to impact so going much faster prior to braking.
Have you used a GPS? That info tells us nothing at all about how much the cyclist braked - it's clearly incorrect to suggest that the GPS shows 25.1mph at impact as the resolution of GPS speed data isn't sufficiently good to tell, so that is either poor reporting or dodgy evidence. All you can say is that he was travelling at 25mph just before the impact.
Coroner Peter Brunton found that the poor street lighting and excessive speed for the circumstances caused the collision.
I'll bet the coroner has never blamed excessive speed for a pedestrian death when hit by a car doing 25mph.
Perhaps rather than everyone making assumptions we should leave the decision to the person who had all of them. The Coroner, who has decided that this wasn't a criminal act and therefore 'misadventure'. Unless people know something the coroner didn't?
That's the attitude that lets so many other drivers "get away" with killing people. The limit is an absolute limit no matter the conditions, but you should also take the conditions into account and adjust your driving/riding.
The speed limit does not apply to bicycles. Regardless, he hit the pedestrian so was going too fast.
Legend - back off. I'd relooked at it after that comment was posted and then my subsequent ones. Ya Village fool 🙄
czthompson - Member
Perhaps rather than everyone making assumptions we should leave the decision to the person who had all of them. The Coroner, who has decided that this wasn't a criminal act and therefore 'misadventure'. Unless people know something the coroner didn't
Blimey. Get you, coming along being all sensible!
I marvelled at his balls but on the many bends wondered what would happen if a car driver tried overtaking another coming the other way and how he'd cope/react.
I doubt there's much difference between a closing speed of 110 mph vs 80 mph when it comes to a soft squishy human being mashed by a car overtaking on a blind corner.
What led you to draw that comparison?
[quote=czthompson ]Perhaps rather than everyone making assumptions we should leave the decision to the person who had all of them. The Coroner, who has decided that this wasn't a criminal act and therefore 'misadventure'. Unless people know something the coroner didn't?
I know that he wouldn't have made similar comments about a car going too fast if it was travelling at the same speed as the bicycle, which tends to discredit much of what he says.
Perhaps rather than everyone making assumptions we should leave the decision to the person who had all of them. The Coroner, who has decided that this wasn't a criminal act and therefore 'misadventure'. Unless people know something the coroner didn't
Agreed..
I think we should be applying the same principles to when a car hits a cyclist however. The double standards on here are all to evident.
Too many cyclists get off with this these days !
Please supply some more examples, unless you're too busy organising Top Gear petitions or canvassing for UKIP today.
I think we should be applying the same principles to when a car hits a cyclist however. The double standards on here are all to evident.
The strict liability law that many of us would like to see enacted would take care of this.
Sad story.
Strangely enough someone rang my work yesterday complaining that a cyclist was going too fast along the lane before turning into my work. Receptionist knew it was me straight away as I'm the only cyclist. I checked strava and I was doing 25.6m/h. Speed limit is 30.
[i]Strangely enough someone rang my work yesterday complaining that a cyclist was going too fast along the lane before turning into my work[/i]
some people will complain about anything. Bloody weirdos.
I know I was more pointing out the attitude that aslong a person wasn't breaking a hard and fast rule (like a speed limit) then "it was just an accident", while ignoring the more woolly "don't be a dick" rules which is more open to interpretation and abuse.The speed limit does not apply to bicycles.
Like AlexSimon I've been passing a walker at a "safe" distance and he heard me approaching and blindly run across my path, I hit him, walker apologised profusely for running into my path but I had to (and did) accept the blame.
We don't know all the facts but as I said I'm surprised at the no charges bit, as coroner had already pointed the finger at the cyclist I wonder what opposing factors there could have been. If the victim had done nothing wrong and was just unlucky to be there at that point in time then "it was all just a terrible accident" doesn't really cut it.
We don't know enough to judge, and the people that do have made their judgement
Very sad to hear though
I admire your faith in the judicial process but there are some errors in that summing up (the speed on gps taken as impact speed for example) as well as a judge who says he's never seen anything like it (seriously?!) and the police telling the inquest that the investigation was compromised by delays. Seems to me like there was almost as much speculation in the courtroom as there has been on here.We don't know enough to judge, and the people that do have made their judgement
I'm always amazed that people take media reports as gospel. I'm sure that there is no selective reporting of what was said by the Coroner. That's not something the press would do, is it?
And I'm saddened at the double standards made evident on this thread - this has already been explained by others above so I won't rehash it.
Bottom line, a person has lost his life. 🙁
Si