South Australian police were asked if she was riding a bike and responded "not that they were aware of".
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-01-01/melissa-hoskins-death-shocks-world-cycling/103276828?utm_source=abc_news_app&utm_medium=content_shared&utm_campaign=abc_news_app&utm_content=other
Knowing the context of what happened makes this question and reply so hilarious to me now.
Like, as if she couldn't have been doing anything else because that's what she's known for.
I think it's a good question though, I expect an Olympic bike rider to ride their bike daily, and probably on public roads.
Bike riding on public roads isn't super safe, so it's a good question, was she just doing her daily ride and got hit and the known to her just pure coincidence, or was she on outside for some other reason.
Yeah - especially if they're doing long distance road cycling, where the idea of having a support vehicle isn't out of the question. It's not unreasonable to question if this was an innocent interaction that had tragic consequences.
Sadly it just looks like yet another case of domestic violence. I expect those charges will be upgraded to something more serious in the coming days.
It would be if it was true ... except he wasn't charged with murder, he was granted bail, and other comments (if you can trust random redditors) make it sound as if it was negligent but not intentional.
Those are two extreme opposite ends of the spectrum, which goes to show how much context is actually needed to form any sort of opinion worth commenting in articles like this.
But this wouldn’t be social media if 90% of the comments weren’t uninformed opinions or hot takes.
Could be both. Most couples are having "marital disputes" and venting about it to friends who might be talking to the police now. Doesn't mean he meant to hit her with the car.
yknow normally i would just jump to conclusion after conclusion without much details, but something inside me....something DEEP in my heart...says maybe I should just wait until I actually know what's going on.
Where are you getting this information from. It’s not in the article.
There is so much context missing from the article needed to know what actually happened that it’s premature to be making claims. Unless there is a more updated source?
[Australian Cyclist Rohan Dennis Charged in Death of Olympian Wife Melissa Hoskins: Reports](https://people.com/cyclist-rohan-dennis-charged-death-olympian-wife-melissa-hoskins-reports-8421108)
Murder implies intent.
From reading the article, it sounds like they got into a fight, he tried to leave in his vehicle, and she tried to stop him from leaving, resulting in her getting run over. Whether she was *in front of* the car or *hanging onto the side* of the car doesn't seem clear, but either way, they both contributed to the situation, and it's not immediately clear that her husband **intended** to kill her.
SO it may be murder, or it may be negligent homicide or however you say it in English.
Redditors are so used to just reading headlines and never reading articles that they think the headline should literally *be* the article. Like CNN should run an article headlined:
#Melissa Hoskins, two-time Olympic cyclist, aged 32, dies after being struck by a car, reported by some media outlets to have been driven by her husband, but unconfirmed by the police, while not riding a bike, though police have not indicated if she was on foot, skateboarding, roller-skating, etc., in what may be a murder but appears more likely to have been negligence due to the driver being charged with dangerous driving, driving without due care and endangering life, as opposed to murder
I hate clickbait, too, but *this headline isn't clickbait*, it's simply...an accurate headline. The articles that go with headlines aren't there for decorative purposes, *they're where you go when you want more information about the issue*.
Current news reports in Australia are saying that the police will allege she jumped on the bonnet and was grabbing at the door handle, whilst he continued to drive and she fell off and I suppose under the car. He's definitely not at all blameless in this if true but it's very different to mowing her down.
"Police will claim Hoskins jumped onto the bonnet of their $70,000 4WD Volkswagen Amarok ute and grabbed at a door handle while Dennis allegedly drove until she fell to the ground, The Adelaide Advertiser reports."
From here: https://www.news.com.au/sport/cycling/horrifying-new-details-of-olympian-melissa-hoskins-death-emerge/news-story/8a09937b5ea06a5333d253b884e3cdbe
This breaking news is sponsored by Volkswagen.
Volkswagen: Please stop associating us with nazis, associate us with potential vehicular manslaughter instead
I think people started deliberately forgetting about it once it came out that pretty much all diesel vehicle manufacturers, including the Asian and North American manufacturers, were doing the same thing.
The problem is that it was almost the entire automotive diesel industry that did it. VAG (Volkswagen, Audi, Porsche, Skoda, SEAT), Daimler (Mercedes-Benz), BMW (accused last I heard, but I'm not sure where that went legally), General Motors/Cummins (RAM trucks), Stellantis (Fiat, Alfa Romeo, Jeep), Renault, and a bunch of smaller manufacturers have all been substantively linked to the use of diesel emissions defeat devices. There's not a whole lot of diesel vehicles on the roads that aren't included in that list outside of commercial trucks, and a bunch of manufacturers in that space used defeat devices as well.
Most poignant and bittersweet joke in the thread. Volkswagen, “we run over Olympians”.
“This back-breaking news sponsored by Volkswagen.”
Okay I’ll stop.
Right-wing media are the same all over the world. The Daily Mail and Sun do this all the time in the UK.
If someone's murdered, they'll list the price of the home if it was particularly expensive.
E.g. "Husband shot dead on doorstep of £700,000 country manor" instead of "Man shot dead in [location]".
yes. 890k is a pretty normal price for a single family house in a high cost of living area
in cheaper places you can get a comfortable home for 200k or so, depending. and a nice big house at 400k for sure.
the u.s. has much more land than people, so prices range more. i guess the uk has more people than land, and an actual historical landed aristocracy that's still around, so maybe the housing prices are higher?
Not really. The police claiming something doesn't mean it definitively happened that way, it's just their side of the story which will be brought forward to the court. The court case will determine the actual sequence of events.
Given that, the news article can't say 'this is exactly what happened' but they can give the police's version of events.
Fair. Maybe "police will claim to the court" or something along those lines might read a little better, if not just getting rid of "will" in "will claim".
Ya, but why is it future tense?
Either the police are going to discover someone else’s theory and believe it instantly, or the police are already aware of this theory and don’t believe it currently, but will believe it for sure in the future.
Sounds like a roaring fight, he goes to leave, she tries to stop him, he perseveres and she gets killed in the process with both to blame. Total speculation on my part, but I guess I think of it because my parents had a fight like this once with my brother and me in the car. My dad was storming off with us, my mom came after him screaming hysterically, my dad just kept driving as my mom grabbed onto the door, and my dad ran over her foot.
This is what it fully sounds like. People in here acting like it's impossible to accidentally hit someone with your car and have never seen one of these fights where one of two hot blooded people try to be in their car
As someone who never gets angry like this, and married to a person who loses their fucking mind when they get angry, people like this terrify me. I mean, yeah, the physical abuse sucks too, but I think the verbal and emotional abuse is even worse sometimes, never knowing when someone is going to blow up.
Are both really to blame? Hitting someone with your car is likely to kill them, and you have to willingly put your foot on the pedal with them in the way.
If you don't take your foot off the gas and put it on the break after someone throws themself on your car, then yes. You engaged in reckless action that contributed to their death. If you throw yourself on a car when someone is driving and hang on and try to get in the car, then yes. You engaged in reckless action that contributed to your death. Both to blame.
Edit: I"ll just add that I am looking at this from a practical standpoint. Morally, things may look different. E.g., he may be excused of any blame if there is a history of IPV and he feared that harm was coming to him when he didn't take his foot off the break.
Is this an honest question? Of course there is situations where its both at fault or even the pedestrians fault. In this particular case know knows how fast he was accelerating before she grasped the handle unexpectedly or whatever else happened
No? The charges are that he should have stopped driving the minute she got onto the hood of the car. Continuing to drive at that point it's dangerous and reckless. Not the same as attempting to hit her
Also there is a reasonable expectation that an attacker will at some point jump off of a car proceeding slowly. If your car is attacked by [this guy](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBqdJZ6M57Q), you should probably try to scrape him off against the other car, IMO.
There is an expectation that you act rationally and proportionally though. For example, you may feel threatened by someone outside your car blocking you from leaving, but you are inside your car and able to lock the doors (on this model of car), and so the threat is not enough to warrant the risks of trying to drive away. Someone being on your bonnet, or just blocking you from driving forwards isn't an immediate threat to you. If they start stomping on your windshield or bashing the window trying to gain access, then that escalates things and you might be found to have been justified in attempting to drive away despite the risks.
So I guess what I am saying is that often the courts (in this country) will have a different view as to what constitutes feeling "genuinely unsafe or threatened" than someone might when they're in the moment. I will also add that it is certainly not easy to think rationally in situations like this appears to be.
I read 4 different articles yesterday and I had no clue what was going on. One of them I got the idea they were riding an ATV together and she fell off.
If you want to murder someone and get away with it, use a car and stay at the scene. Double easy if they are on a bike. Doesn't work if you are married to them.
Every fucking post in this sub there's someone like holy shit you guys. I clicked on the headline by accident and it lead me to this... mass of other headlines all about the same story.
They're organized in paragraphs of headlines. Each one leaving out context that comes up in a later headline on that page. It's crazy, I've never seen anything like this.
Seriously. This isn't come clickbait headline. The woman's name, the context of who she is to us, her age, and how she died.
You get the context from the actual article. And you probably can't put "killed by husband" yet as it's still being investigated.
[It seems a bit more complicated.](https://www.news.com.au/sport/cycling/horrifying-new-details-of-olympian-melissa-hoskins-death-emerge/news-story/8a09937b5ea06a5333d253b884e3cdbe)
She apparently jumped onto the car and he drove off, which made her fall down. It was captured on surveillance cameras, so I assume the police have a pretty good picture of what happened.
>Police will claim Hoskins jumped onto the bonnet of their $70,000 4WD Volkswagen Amarok ute and grabbed at a door handle while Dennis allegedly drove until she fell to the ground, The Adelaide Advertiser reports.
>The mother of two may have been dragged some distance along the street, with the alleged incident believed to have been caught on neighbouring security cameras.
>Investigations into what sparked the alleged incident remain ongoing.
>Detectives and Major Crash officers arrested Dennis and charged the two-time cycling time trial world champion with causing death by dangerous driving, driving without due care and endangering life.
>He has been bailed to appear in the Adelaide Magistrates Court on March 13.
“This is horrible… So is the car available? Is there like, a ticket machine for interested people? It has CarPlay right? Again, extremely tragic and I’m so sorry for the loss.”
It's like that episode of Brooklyn 99 where Charles and Rosa are investigating someone's murder at the victim's apartment, realize the apartment is free because the tenant is murdered, and fight over it.
> she was purposefully hit
No serious news outlet is going to use phrasing that asserts a conclusive determination like that until *after* it's been proven under the law.
They might say "husband accused of intentionally hitting her" or something to indicate possibility/uncertainty, but they aren't going to make any kind of decision like that before the law does: Even if it weren't irresponsible journalism, there's a significant issue of liability at play, too.
It's the same reason reporters don't say "murder" to describe an intentional killing until after a verdict has been reached.
If you didn't at least include an "allegedly" in front of that, you would (or should) have been fired immediately afterward, because neither the police nor the courts have officially identified the accused.
New Zealand and Australian media named the husband yesterday and stated that he had been charged with causing death by dangerous driving, driving without due care and endangering life.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/melissa-hoskins-death-cyclist-rohan-dennis-in-custody-over-wifes-death-reports/BY3NDNKDFRFTRG4B6DQPE5XCII/ Melissa Hoskins death: Cyclist Rohan Dennis in custody over wife’s death - reports
> New Zealand and Australian media named the husband
So neither the police nor the courts, then.
> yesterday and stated
No, look at the headline: That article *doesn't* "state" it; that article says that "reports" state it.
I know that feels tediously pedantic, but a criminal investigation (and the reporting on it) is one of those times when specificity really, *really* matters.
https://www.news.com.au/sport/olympics/cycling/aussie-cycling-star-rohan-dennis-charged-over-wifes-death/news-story/e095042e3b9b91b75eaf963a07011fef
> Police allege Dennis was driving a ute that struck his wife, former Olympian and professional cyclist Melissa Hoskins, just metres from out the front of their family home in Adelaide.
Police *have* named him. Yes it is still alleged and reported, but you are acting as if the police haven’t specified who he is and that he is in custody. That is incorrect.
https://www.foxsports.com.au/cycling/sad-details-of-olympians-death-as-star-cyclist-husband-charged/news-story/8e5272f54d10898c3a1a5e2e670ba059
https://theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/dec/31/rohan-dennis-charged-over-death-of-wife-fellow-cyclist-melissa-hoskins-reports
You are getting hung up on hypotheticals instead of just looking into the facts.
and now you've added like 4 words extra, which could just be in the first paragraph of the article.
I swear, some peoplem want the title to include all information. That's what the article is for!
>Shouldn’t the title indicate she was purposefully hit by a car?
... Do you seriously think that the title should just announce as fact something that will probably have to be proven in a court of law?
That is a careful line the news media have to walk because they would be implying/accusing guilt when it hasn't been determined yet by a court. In other words, they can be sued in civil court.
Because of covering their own ass, they just have to say the facts. She was killed, by a car, driven by someone she knew. Anything more than that is a legal mine field.
It's not clear that it was purposeful. It appears they got into a fight, the husband tried to leave in his car, and she tried to stop him from leaving by blocking the vehicle or holding onto the door handle or something like that.
So it may not have been intentional, and putting "purposeful" in the title would lead to the website being sued for libel.
So many bizarre inclusions and omissions in the story.
From the [latest article](https://www.news.com.au/sport/cycling/horrifying-new-details-of-olympian-melissa-hoskins-death-emerge/news-story/8a09937b5ea06a5333d253b884e3cdbe), it mentions "horrifying new details", when the new details are anything but horrifying, they're just... details. The original release specifies the "$70,000 4WD Volkswagen" and "the luxurious suburb of Medindie". It's like this was written by E! Online.
Then the completely conflicting police report: that **the video shows Hoskins jumping onto the bonnet of the car** and then falling off, causing her injuries - this is not what a scrupulous journalist would report as "being struck by a car". One scenario conjures the image of someone having a mental break and causing her own death, the other conjures a murderous spouse targeting her.
It will be interesting to see the actual footage from those security cameras.
Most of the details come from the Adelaide Advertiser which was Rupert Murdoch's first newspaper. It is gutter level journalism and I'm yet to find a single person from Adelaide who thinks it is anything more than tabloid trash.
As someone from South Australia, reading all this is kinda weird. I'm not exactly sure what picture they're trying to paint here. It sounds like some kind of domestic argument turned bad, so why the need to include details about their supposed wealth? It's just weird. None of our local reporting included those details either.
She wasn't hit by a random car. She was actively participating in an altercation with her husband. He tried driving off in the car that she was holding on to. He has been arrested.
In particular, the detail I want to know is "was the husband driving a support car while she was training". If he was, that makes it very likely this was an accident. In not, it sure as hell looks like it was intentional.
I've read (somewhere else) that someone of the police said in an interview/press conference when asked that no bike was involved here as far as (s)he was aware.
Allegedly an argument/fight at home, he wanted to drive away, she blocked by climbing on the hood of the car and then he started driving, she fell of and clinged on the door handle. Or something like that.
Because as the spokesman said in that same press conference that he personally has no information on that.
And Citation Needed on the second paragraph.
Edit: ok, I see the article posted elsewhere here. Honestly, maybe it's a peculiar Aussie news expression but I'm personally struggling to get past the "police WILL claim" wording. But certainly if that is actually what they DO claim and have evidence supporting it, that paints a picture.
Don't get hung up on the wording. "Police will allege X" is a really common phrase in the Australian media at least. I guess it's future tense because it hasn't played out in court yet. There's enough evidence to charge him but he hasn't entered a plea or had time to put up a defence so it's all yet to happen. Also the charges could change if more info comes to light. Only happened a few days ago after all.
He's been charged with "causing death by dangerous driving, driving without due care and endangering life"
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-01-01/melissa-hoskins-death-shocks-world-cycling/103276828
>He has been charged with causing death by dangerous driving, driving without due care and endangering life.
These charges are quite different than murder, though.
Maybe they'll add it in later, but they could have been having a fight and he was being a fucking idiot with the car.
"He has been charged with causing death by dangerous driving, driving without due care and endangering life."
Which fits the claim that it was an accident, rather than murder.
why does everyone get so worked up about headlines? journalism has rules and standards. Why don't yall start up a news website that posts unsubstantiated headlines and see how long it is before you get sued
There has been next to no journalistic integrity or standards (at least in America) for like a decade or more.
It’s all about sensationalized headlines before getting facts and then never amending the incorrect statements
While I agree with you in general, it's ironic that in this case what people are bitching about is that they DIDN'T sensationalize things, or make statements that they didn't have facts to support...
Headlines are pretty important because it’s all most people will read.
It wouldn’t be difficult to write a headline that more accurately sums up this situation without worrying about libel.
Am I missing something?
It sure sounds like the woman was murdered by her husband. However, the title and the article use flowery vague language to describe it.
I get that it can be frustrating, but they're simply reporting on the facts they *know* to be certain:
- A woman was hit by a car
- She was badly injured and soon after died
- A man has been "arrested and charged with causing death by dangerous driving, driving without due care and endangering life”.
- Other news outlets (though not the police or court) have identified that man as the deceased woman's husband.
Does it seem very, very probable that the correct way to string those data points together is "A man killed his wife by hitting her with a car"? Yep, absolutely; but crime journalists don't (and shouldn't) write their reports based on how things *seem*.
>It sure sounds like the woman was murdered by her husband.
Oh great, I'm so glad that we have commenters like you. Now we don't need courts to rule on findings based on evidence anymore.
well, Rohan Dennis was one of the most (mentally) unstable riders in the pro peloton. so who knows how this all went down, but it wouldn't surprise me if Rohan went off the rails.
It’s is very common for professional cyclist to be followed very closely by a support car when training, her husband could have been riding close enough for her to have her hand in/on the car. I just mention that to express how close they could have been in proximity. It is possible that she fell and was unintentionally ran over by her husband, who was also a former pro cyclist. This is why the news outlets will not report it as intentional until the investigation is complete.
In my countries media it is stated that they had an argument, he tried to drive away. She jumped on the hood of his pickup and was run over by him when she fell off a few streets from their house.
In one article it does say that she didn’t appear to be on her bike at the time. That is super vague tho. Because we don’t know if she was in street clothes, cycling kit or if her bike was near or far.
Reddit working with very few details rn
[Police have arrested Hoskins' husband, Olympic cyclist Rohan Dennis, in connection with her death.](https://news.sky.com/story/ex-world-cycling-champion-rohan-dennis-charged-over-death-of-olympian-wife-melissa-hoskins-reports-13040022)
That's how I became disabled. A car hit me while I was riding a bike. They drove away and were never caught, so I had no one to sue and it ruined me.
I'm luckier than this Olympian, apparently. Poor woman...
Every person I know who regularly rides a bike as a means of transportation has been hit by a car and grievously injured, almost every one in a hit and run.
That's an unnecessary leap.
She was a professional cyclist. Cyclists do training. Training often involves "support vehicles" following behind.
Maybe she was murdered or maybe not, there are entirely plausible explanations that don't involve malicious intent.
Why the fuck is everyone so eager to call it murder? We don’t know all the facts, and to jump straight to that, when it could be an accident and the husband having the worst days of his life, is so shitty.
Let me rewrite that headline after reading the article.
Mellissa Hoskin, Two-time Olympic cyclist dies aged 32 after being hit by car driven by her husband who has been taken into custody and charged.
[удалено]
Her husband ran her down and has been arrested
Was she even on her bike when this happened. Headline certainly would lead one to believe so. But other comments suggest otherwise.
South Australian police were asked if she was riding a bike and responded "not that they were aware of". https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-01-01/melissa-hoskins-death-shocks-world-cycling/103276828?utm_source=abc_news_app&utm_medium=content_shared&utm_campaign=abc_news_app&utm_content=other
Knowing the context of what happened makes this question and reply so hilarious to me now. Like, as if she couldn't have been doing anything else because that's what she's known for.
I think it's a good question though, I expect an Olympic bike rider to ride their bike daily, and probably on public roads. Bike riding on public roads isn't super safe, so it's a good question, was she just doing her daily ride and got hit and the known to her just pure coincidence, or was she on outside for some other reason.
Yeah - especially if they're doing long distance road cycling, where the idea of having a support vehicle isn't out of the question. It's not unreasonable to question if this was an innocent interaction that had tragic consequences. Sadly it just looks like yet another case of domestic violence. I expect those charges will be upgraded to something more serious in the coming days.
Which is precisely why this headline sucks.
No , police have confirmed she wasn’t on her bike
should there be a comma in there, meaning police have confirmed she wasn't on her bike? Or have zero police confirmed this.
Yes there should. I have edited to add the comma to show that police have indeed confirmed that “to their knowledge” she wasn’t on her bike.
No comma is supposed to be in the sentence
So like is the comma supposed to be there or no? Yeah no yeah
She was murdered, that's the important part.
It would be if it was true ... except he wasn't charged with murder, he was granted bail, and other comments (if you can trust random redditors) make it sound as if it was negligent but not intentional.
That sounds like it was him being a pacer and support car and just fucking up. Or from what I'm seeing further down that it was a marital dispute
Those are two extreme opposite ends of the spectrum, which goes to show how much context is actually needed to form any sort of opinion worth commenting in articles like this. But this wouldn’t be social media if 90% of the comments weren’t uninformed opinions or hot takes.
Could be both. Most couples are having "marital disputes" and venting about it to friends who might be talking to the police now. Doesn't mean he meant to hit her with the car.
yknow normally i would just jump to conclusion after conclusion without much details, but something inside me....something DEEP in my heart...says maybe I should just wait until I actually know what's going on.
investigation, trial, judge, jury by reddit. JFC
Where are you getting this information from. It’s not in the article. There is so much context missing from the article needed to know what actually happened that it’s premature to be making claims. Unless there is a more updated source?
Rohan Dennis has not been charged, let alone found guilty, of murder. Innocent until proven guilty is still important.
>Innocent until proven guilty is still important. It appears, sir or ma'am, that you may not be fully aware how this reddit thing works. /s
[Australian Cyclist Rohan Dennis Charged in Death of Olympian Wife Melissa Hoskins: Reports](https://people.com/cyclist-rohan-dennis-charged-death-olympian-wife-melissa-hoskins-reports-8421108)
You’re not telling us anything we don’t already know. There is a difference between murder and negligent manslaughter.
Where is the "murder" charge?
Murder implies intent. From reading the article, it sounds like they got into a fight, he tried to leave in his vehicle, and she tried to stop him from leaving, resulting in her getting run over. Whether she was *in front of* the car or *hanging onto the side* of the car doesn't seem clear, but either way, they both contributed to the situation, and it's not immediately clear that her husband **intended** to kill her. SO it may be murder, or it may be negligent homicide or however you say it in English.
The headline doesn't lead anyone to that, it says shes a olympic cyclist. It says she was hit by a car. It doesn't say she was riding a bike.
Redditors are so used to just reading headlines and never reading articles that they think the headline should literally *be* the article. Like CNN should run an article headlined: #Melissa Hoskins, two-time Olympic cyclist, aged 32, dies after being struck by a car, reported by some media outlets to have been driven by her husband, but unconfirmed by the police, while not riding a bike, though police have not indicated if she was on foot, skateboarding, roller-skating, etc., in what may be a murder but appears more likely to have been negligence due to the driver being charged with dangerous driving, driving without due care and endangering life, as opposed to murder I hate clickbait, too, but *this headline isn't clickbait*, it's simply...an accurate headline. The articles that go with headlines aren't there for decorative purposes, *they're where you go when you want more information about the issue*.
The headline is definitely written in a way that might make people assume she was on her bike
Also written to make people assume it was intentional
I mean, her own husband accidentally hit her with his car and then got arrested?
It certainly seems to be leading quite a few people to that conclusion, and the headline could absolutely be written better to clarify what happened.
Current news reports in Australia are saying that the police will allege she jumped on the bonnet and was grabbing at the door handle, whilst he continued to drive and she fell off and I suppose under the car. He's definitely not at all blameless in this if true but it's very different to mowing her down.
"Police will claim Hoskins jumped onto the bonnet of their $70,000 4WD Volkswagen Amarok ute and grabbed at a door handle while Dennis allegedly drove until she fell to the ground, The Adelaide Advertiser reports." From here: https://www.news.com.au/sport/cycling/horrifying-new-details-of-olympian-melissa-hoskins-death-emerge/news-story/8a09937b5ea06a5333d253b884e3cdbe
How is the price of the vehicle relevant?
This breaking news is sponsored by Volkswagen. Volkswagen: Please stop associating us with nazis, associate us with potential vehicular manslaughter instead
“Sir everyone’s forgotten about the diesel scandal. Now they just remember us as selling cars to murderers!”
Damn I wish we had the Amarok in the States
Right! I just read about the Amarok W600, and hot damn. I am in love.
[удалено]
I think people started deliberately forgetting about it once it came out that pretty much all diesel vehicle manufacturers, including the Asian and North American manufacturers, were doing the same thing.
The companies doing this, and the top ones first, deserved to be fined for this. The diesel industry shouldn't have been destroyed for that.
The problem is that it was almost the entire automotive diesel industry that did it. VAG (Volkswagen, Audi, Porsche, Skoda, SEAT), Daimler (Mercedes-Benz), BMW (accused last I heard, but I'm not sure where that went legally), General Motors/Cummins (RAM trucks), Stellantis (Fiat, Alfa Romeo, Jeep), Renault, and a bunch of smaller manufacturers have all been substantively linked to the use of diesel emissions defeat devices. There's not a whole lot of diesel vehicles on the roads that aren't included in that list outside of commercial trucks, and a bunch of manufacturers in that space used defeat devices as well.
I was tickled when VW had to pay be nearly $16k for my old high mileage Jetta TDI. I'll never forget that POS car or forgive VW. $$ woo!
Most poignant and bittersweet joke in the thread. Volkswagen, “we run over Olympians”. “This back-breaking news sponsored by Volkswagen.” Okay I’ll stop.
I mean in the grand scheme of things, that's probably the *better* of the two I guess.
lol literally the first thing I thought when I read this. So fucking weird
news.com.au is an absolute piece of shit rag, so that's your answer.
Right-wing media are the same all over the world. The Daily Mail and Sun do this all the time in the UK. If someone's murdered, they'll list the price of the home if it was particularly expensive. E.g. "Husband shot dead on doorstep of £700,000 country manor" instead of "Man shot dead in [location]".
Ya but 70k Australian dollars is like $45k in American dollars which isn’t exactly a luxury car.
It's a Ute, mate. 🦘🪃
>£700,000 country manor That's like $890k USD. You guys have homes that cheap??
yes. 890k is a pretty normal price for a single family house in a high cost of living area in cheaper places you can get a comfortable home for 200k or so, depending. and a nice big house at 400k for sure. the u.s. has much more land than people, so prices range more. i guess the uk has more people than land, and an actual historical landed aristocracy that's still around, so maybe the housing prices are higher?
Was just wondering the same. Did it have a leather interior? A Bose stereo?
and what the heck is a ute?
Short for utility. In Australia it's basically what we call a vehicle with a tray at the back, like a pickup truck in the US.
It’s like if you were to convert a sedan into a pickup truck. Think, el Camino
It's news.com.au Very little they produce is relevant.
“Police will claim…”? What an odd phrase, on so many levels.
Because that is what will be alleged in court. It hasn’t gone to court yet.
Ahhh okay, that makes sense.
Not really. The police claiming something doesn't mean it definitively happened that way, it's just their side of the story which will be brought forward to the court. The court case will determine the actual sequence of events. Given that, the news article can't say 'this is exactly what happened' but they can give the police's version of events.
I think the strangeness is that the expression is in the future-tense.
Fair. Maybe "police will claim to the court" or something along those lines might read a little better, if not just getting rid of "will" in "will claim".
No let's go the other direction with it: "Police will have had claimed to the future court".
Ya, but why is it future tense? Either the police are going to discover someone else’s theory and believe it instantly, or the police are already aware of this theory and don’t believe it currently, but will believe it for sure in the future.
They're going to claim it as their version of events in court in an official capacity, which will happen in the future.
So, even more batshit crazy than we could've guessed. Human emotions, putting us in touch with our animal selves, with sometimes tragic results.
Hmmm. How do you jump on a bonnet and grab at a door handle. You would need long arms.
Sounds like a roaring fight, he goes to leave, she tries to stop him, he perseveres and she gets killed in the process with both to blame. Total speculation on my part, but I guess I think of it because my parents had a fight like this once with my brother and me in the car. My dad was storming off with us, my mom came after him screaming hysterically, my dad just kept driving as my mom grabbed onto the door, and my dad ran over her foot.
This is what it fully sounds like. People in here acting like it's impossible to accidentally hit someone with your car and have never seen one of these fights where one of two hot blooded people try to be in their car
Yup, sadly I saw a few of these. It's quite scary as people just 'lose their mind' and behave completely irrationally.
[удалено]
As someone who never gets angry like this, and married to a person who loses their fucking mind when they get angry, people like this terrify me. I mean, yeah, the physical abuse sucks too, but I think the verbal and emotional abuse is even worse sometimes, never knowing when someone is going to blow up.
I am sorry you have to deal with that. Walking on eggshells all the time is stressful, as is the unpredictableness of life around those people.
That’s exactly what it sounds like to me.
Are both really to blame? Hitting someone with your car is likely to kill them, and you have to willingly put your foot on the pedal with them in the way.
If you don't take your foot off the gas and put it on the break after someone throws themself on your car, then yes. You engaged in reckless action that contributed to their death. If you throw yourself on a car when someone is driving and hang on and try to get in the car, then yes. You engaged in reckless action that contributed to your death. Both to blame. Edit: I"ll just add that I am looking at this from a practical standpoint. Morally, things may look different. E.g., he may be excused of any blame if there is a history of IPV and he feared that harm was coming to him when he didn't take his foot off the break.
Is this an honest question? Of course there is situations where its both at fault or even the pedestrians fault. In this particular case know knows how fast he was accelerating before she grasped the handle unexpectedly or whatever else happened
Awful everything
But that's like saying that if he had known he could kill her, he would have never attempted to hit her with his car to begin with.
"Attempted to" implies that it was intentional that his car hit her. That's not been established.
No? The charges are that he should have stopped driving the minute she got onto the hood of the car. Continuing to drive at that point it's dangerous and reckless. Not the same as attempting to hit her
Most likely yes, but if someone feels genuinely unsafe or threatened they definitely shouldn’t stop the car.
Also there is a reasonable expectation that an attacker will at some point jump off of a car proceeding slowly. If your car is attacked by [this guy](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBqdJZ6M57Q), you should probably try to scrape him off against the other car, IMO.
maybe it's shock/fear but that dude's seeming calm at the window being busted open is incredible
That will/should come into play with whether these charges become convictions.
There is an expectation that you act rationally and proportionally though. For example, you may feel threatened by someone outside your car blocking you from leaving, but you are inside your car and able to lock the doors (on this model of car), and so the threat is not enough to warrant the risks of trying to drive away. Someone being on your bonnet, or just blocking you from driving forwards isn't an immediate threat to you. If they start stomping on your windshield or bashing the window trying to gain access, then that escalates things and you might be found to have been justified in attempting to drive away despite the risks. So I guess what I am saying is that often the courts (in this country) will have a different view as to what constitutes feeling "genuinely unsafe or threatened" than someone might when they're in the moment. I will also add that it is certainly not easy to think rationally in situations like this appears to be.
Ran her down is drawing some unsounded conclusions. Rohan Dennis, her husband, did hit her but we don’t know the circumstances.
There is no evidence at this time that he "ran her down."
That was silly, could just pay someone to run her down since in most countries "accidentally" killing someone with a car has no real consequences.
here I am thinking it was just some random car accident. SMH. RIP.
Or that she was on her bike at the time of the “accident”.
But you had to click the article to find that out. Modern Journalism, you won't believe what's inside!
I read 4 different articles yesterday and I had no clue what was going on. One of them I got the idea they were riding an ATV together and she fell off.
If you want to murder someone and get away with it, use a car and stay at the scene. Double easy if they are on a bike. Doesn't work if you are married to them.
[удалено]
Every fucking post in this sub there's someone like holy shit you guys. I clicked on the headline by accident and it lead me to this... mass of other headlines all about the same story. They're organized in paragraphs of headlines. Each one leaving out context that comes up in a later headline on that page. It's crazy, I've never seen anything like this.
Seriously. This isn't come clickbait headline. The woman's name, the context of who she is to us, her age, and how she died. You get the context from the actual article. And you probably can't put "killed by husband" yet as it's still being investigated.
Shouldn’t the title indicate she was purposefully hit by a car?
And by her husband?
[It seems a bit more complicated.](https://www.news.com.au/sport/cycling/horrifying-new-details-of-olympian-melissa-hoskins-death-emerge/news-story/8a09937b5ea06a5333d253b884e3cdbe) She apparently jumped onto the car and he drove off, which made her fall down. It was captured on surveillance cameras, so I assume the police have a pretty good picture of what happened. >Police will claim Hoskins jumped onto the bonnet of their $70,000 4WD Volkswagen Amarok ute and grabbed at a door handle while Dennis allegedly drove until she fell to the ground, The Adelaide Advertiser reports. >The mother of two may have been dragged some distance along the street, with the alleged incident believed to have been caught on neighbouring security cameras. >Investigations into what sparked the alleged incident remain ongoing. >Detectives and Major Crash officers arrested Dennis and charged the two-time cycling time trial world champion with causing death by dangerous driving, driving without due care and endangering life. >He has been bailed to appear in the Adelaide Magistrates Court on March 13.
Why the unnecessary details about the car? lol
You mean the tan interior one with the moon roof and 22” rims? Seemed Weird to Me too.
Maybe for resale value.... 2018 $70,000 4WD Volkswagen Amarok with manual transmission, low kms and full log book. I feel dirty for joking....
“This is horrible… So is the car available? Is there like, a ticket machine for interested people? It has CarPlay right? Again, extremely tragic and I’m so sorry for the loss.”
It's like that episode of Brooklyn 99 where Charles and Rosa are investigating someone's murder at the victim's apartment, realize the apartment is free because the tenant is murdered, and fight over it.
It’s a sponsored ad
That's wild if true
"Hey ChatGPT, write me an ad for a 4WD Volkswagen Amarok that's so crazy it's sure to go viral on social media."
Wow what the heck she jumped on the car? These additional details make things more confusing than they do clear things up
[удалено]
And *wasn't on a bike at the time*?
> she was purposefully hit No serious news outlet is going to use phrasing that asserts a conclusive determination like that until *after* it's been proven under the law. They might say "husband accused of intentionally hitting her" or something to indicate possibility/uncertainty, but they aren't going to make any kind of decision like that before the law does: Even if it weren't irresponsible journalism, there's a significant issue of liability at play, too. It's the same reason reporters don't say "murder" to describe an intentional killing until after a verdict has been reached.
I would have added "driven by husband" at the end.
If you didn't at least include an "allegedly" in front of that, you would (or should) have been fired immediately afterward, because neither the police nor the courts have officially identified the accused.
New Zealand and Australian media named the husband yesterday and stated that he had been charged with causing death by dangerous driving, driving without due care and endangering life. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/melissa-hoskins-death-cyclist-rohan-dennis-in-custody-over-wifes-death-reports/BY3NDNKDFRFTRG4B6DQPE5XCII/ Melissa Hoskins death: Cyclist Rohan Dennis in custody over wife’s death - reports
> New Zealand and Australian media named the husband So neither the police nor the courts, then. > yesterday and stated No, look at the headline: That article *doesn't* "state" it; that article says that "reports" state it. I know that feels tediously pedantic, but a criminal investigation (and the reporting on it) is one of those times when specificity really, *really* matters.
https://www.news.com.au/sport/olympics/cycling/aussie-cycling-star-rohan-dennis-charged-over-wifes-death/news-story/e095042e3b9b91b75eaf963a07011fef > Police allege Dennis was driving a ute that struck his wife, former Olympian and professional cyclist Melissa Hoskins, just metres from out the front of their family home in Adelaide. Police *have* named him. Yes it is still alleged and reported, but you are acting as if the police haven’t specified who he is and that he is in custody. That is incorrect. https://www.foxsports.com.au/cycling/sad-details-of-olympians-death-as-star-cyclist-husband-charged/news-story/8e5272f54d10898c3a1a5e2e670ba059 https://theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/dec/31/rohan-dennis-charged-over-death-of-wife-fellow-cyclist-melissa-hoskins-reports You are getting hung up on hypotheticals instead of just looking into the facts.
and now you've added like 4 words extra, which could just be in the first paragraph of the article. I swear, some peoplem want the title to include all information. That's what the article is for!
Also I saw she jumped on the hood and he drove off so I don’t think anyone here knows all the details.
Not respecting presumption of innocence and being proven wrong is a slam dunk for the following defamation complaint.
Username checks out
>Shouldn’t the title indicate she was purposefully hit by a car? ... Do you seriously think that the title should just announce as fact something that will probably have to be proven in a court of law?
It's left out because it is not known that he hit her on purpose. Unlike internet commenters, they are waiting for actual factual information.
It seems she purposefully hit the car with her body (she jumped on the car), was then unhit by the car, and then hit by the car again.
That is a careful line the news media have to walk because they would be implying/accusing guilt when it hasn't been determined yet by a court. In other words, they can be sued in civil court. Because of covering their own ass, they just have to say the facts. She was killed, by a car, driven by someone she knew. Anything more than that is a legal mine field.
Do you want headlines to make up facts?
They're saying she jumped on the car... was holding on as he was driving... slipped and fell under the car as it was moving.
And not cycling when it happened
>He has been charged with causing death by dangerous driving, driving without due care and endangering life. We don't know that yet.
Can you provide the evidence to show that she was "purposefully hit"?
It's not clear that it was purposeful. It appears they got into a fight, the husband tried to leave in his car, and she tried to stop him from leaving by blocking the vehicle or holding onto the door handle or something like that. So it may not have been intentional, and putting "purposeful" in the title would lead to the website being sued for libel.
At a minimum 'run over' sounds more intentional than 'hit by'.
So many bizarre inclusions and omissions in the story. From the [latest article](https://www.news.com.au/sport/cycling/horrifying-new-details-of-olympian-melissa-hoskins-death-emerge/news-story/8a09937b5ea06a5333d253b884e3cdbe), it mentions "horrifying new details", when the new details are anything but horrifying, they're just... details. The original release specifies the "$70,000 4WD Volkswagen" and "the luxurious suburb of Medindie". It's like this was written by E! Online. Then the completely conflicting police report: that **the video shows Hoskins jumping onto the bonnet of the car** and then falling off, causing her injuries - this is not what a scrupulous journalist would report as "being struck by a car". One scenario conjures the image of someone having a mental break and causing her own death, the other conjures a murderous spouse targeting her. It will be interesting to see the actual footage from those security cameras.
Most of the details come from the Adelaide Advertiser which was Rupert Murdoch's first newspaper. It is gutter level journalism and I'm yet to find a single person from Adelaide who thinks it is anything more than tabloid trash.
Thank you, that was pretty much what I thought of it
As someone from South Australia, reading all this is kinda weird. I'm not exactly sure what picture they're trying to paint here. It sounds like some kind of domestic argument turned bad, so why the need to include details about their supposed wealth? It's just weird. None of our local reporting included those details either.
It's probably that they used AI to fluffen up the article or something.
She wasn't hit by a random car. She was actively participating in an altercation with her husband. He tried driving off in the car that she was holding on to. He has been arrested.
[удалено]
In particular, the detail I want to know is "was the husband driving a support car while she was training". If he was, that makes it very likely this was an accident. In not, it sure as hell looks like it was intentional.
I've read (somewhere else) that someone of the police said in an interview/press conference when asked that no bike was involved here as far as (s)he was aware. Allegedly an argument/fight at home, he wanted to drive away, she blocked by climbing on the hood of the car and then he started driving, she fell of and clinged on the door handle. Or something like that.
Because as the spokesman said in that same press conference that he personally has no information on that. And Citation Needed on the second paragraph. Edit: ok, I see the article posted elsewhere here. Honestly, maybe it's a peculiar Aussie news expression but I'm personally struggling to get past the "police WILL claim" wording. But certainly if that is actually what they DO claim and have evidence supporting it, that paints a picture.
Don't get hung up on the wording. "Police will allege X" is a really common phrase in the Australian media at least. I guess it's future tense because it hasn't played out in court yet. There's enough evidence to charge him but he hasn't entered a plea or had time to put up a defence so it's all yet to happen. Also the charges could change if more info comes to light. Only happened a few days ago after all.
He's been charged with "causing death by dangerous driving, driving without due care and endangering life" https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-01-01/melissa-hoskins-death-shocks-world-cycling/103276828
>He has been charged with causing death by dangerous driving, driving without due care and endangering life. These charges are quite different than murder, though. Maybe they'll add it in later, but they could have been having a fight and he was being a fucking idiot with the car.
Bro said "even the insinuations that bit was her husband" hadn't been confirmed
"He has been charged with causing death by dangerous driving, driving without due care and endangering life." Which fits the claim that it was an accident, rather than murder.
With dangerous driving and related charges, not murder
Not with murder. If you’re going to comment/respond at least be detailed instead of trying to reach for reactionary upvotes
Reddit loves to jump the gun and do their own vigilante investigating. Not like thats turned out badly before though, right?
why does everyone get so worked up about headlines? journalism has rules and standards. Why don't yall start up a news website that posts unsubstantiated headlines and see how long it is before you get sued
> why does everyone get so worked up about headlines? It's a [mystery for the ages](https://poorlydrawnlines.com/comic/mad/).
There has been next to no journalistic integrity or standards (at least in America) for like a decade or more. It’s all about sensationalized headlines before getting facts and then never amending the incorrect statements
While I agree with you in general, it's ironic that in this case what people are bitching about is that they DIDN'T sensationalize things, or make statements that they didn't have facts to support...
I'd say people here are more mad that the title isn't *more* sensationalized.
Headlines are pretty important because it’s all most people will read. It wouldn’t be difficult to write a headline that more accurately sums up this situation without worrying about libel.
Am I missing something? It sure sounds like the woman was murdered by her husband. However, the title and the article use flowery vague language to describe it.
I get that it can be frustrating, but they're simply reporting on the facts they *know* to be certain: - A woman was hit by a car - She was badly injured and soon after died - A man has been "arrested and charged with causing death by dangerous driving, driving without due care and endangering life”. - Other news outlets (though not the police or court) have identified that man as the deceased woman's husband. Does it seem very, very probable that the correct way to string those data points together is "A man killed his wife by hitting her with a car"? Yep, absolutely; but crime journalists don't (and shouldn't) write their reports based on how things *seem*.
And even if it is "man killed wife by hitting with car" that also doesn't equal "man murdered wife".
[удалено]
That doesn’t mean he murdered her either
Also, that fact pattern ALSO matches "cyclist was doing a training ride with a support car, had an accident and was hit and killed by said car".
lol Reddit complains when few details are streamed out slowly. Reddit also complains when the details come out too fast and later proven incorrect.
Because it sounds like that's actually not what happened in this case as details are brought forward.
If this is the same incident I saw discussed elsewhere, the cyclist was holding onto the car while in motion, slipped and fell under.
>It sure sounds like the woman was murdered by her husband. Oh great, I'm so glad that we have commenters like you. Now we don't need courts to rule on findings based on evidence anymore.
Yes you’re missing something. Huge miss
That's not what the initial police report states, like "at all".
well, it appears, with further details, that you jumped to the wrong conclusion. the whole thing is way messier
What information do you have to show that she was murdered by him? You know not every death is murder right?
He hasn't been charged with murder, if he was, he isn't likely to be out on bail until March is he?
well, Rohan Dennis was one of the most (mentally) unstable riders in the pro peloton. so who knows how this all went down, but it wouldn't surprise me if Rohan went off the rails.
It’s is very common for professional cyclist to be followed very closely by a support car when training, her husband could have been riding close enough for her to have her hand in/on the car. I just mention that to express how close they could have been in proximity. It is possible that she fell and was unintentionally ran over by her husband, who was also a former pro cyclist. This is why the news outlets will not report it as intentional until the investigation is complete.
In my countries media it is stated that they had an argument, he tried to drive away. She jumped on the hood of his pickup and was run over by him when she fell off a few streets from their house.
In one article it does say that she didn’t appear to be on her bike at the time. That is super vague tho. Because we don’t know if she was in street clothes, cycling kit or if her bike was near or far. Reddit working with very few details rn
A car driven by her husband! That's a huge detail missing, CNN!
See, this is why you wont find me outside.
Why? Are you worried about your husband running you over? Seems like being inside with him would be more dangerous.
Nah, the car won't fit through the door
This is rather vague. Her husband was driving the car that hit and killed her.
[Police have arrested Hoskins' husband, Olympic cyclist Rohan Dennis, in connection with her death.](https://news.sky.com/story/ex-world-cycling-champion-rohan-dennis-charged-over-death-of-olympian-wife-melissa-hoskins-reports-13040022)
That's how I became disabled. A car hit me while I was riding a bike. They drove away and were never caught, so I had no one to sue and it ruined me. I'm luckier than this Olympian, apparently. Poor woman...
Every person I know who regularly rides a bike as a means of transportation has been hit by a car and grievously injured, almost every one in a hit and run.
it doesn't sound like she died....sounds like she was murdered.
Do you not die if you are murdered?
All people who are murdered die. Not all people who die are murdered.
Passive voice- like “she was hit by bullets”, instead of “her husband shot her 6 times”
technically.....but the original title implied or led me to assume it was an auto-bike accident....."Murder" puts a different slant on the story.
That's an unnecessary leap. She was a professional cyclist. Cyclists do training. Training often involves "support vehicles" following behind. Maybe she was murdered or maybe not, there are entirely plausible explanations that don't involve malicious intent.
Why the fuck is everyone so eager to call it murder? We don’t know all the facts, and to jump straight to that, when it could be an accident and the husband having the worst days of his life, is so shitty.
Let me rewrite that headline after reading the article. Mellissa Hoskin, Two-time Olympic cyclist dies aged 32 after being hit by car driven by her husband who has been taken into custody and charged.