That woman who boasted about hitting a cyclist has been done. Good!

Spuff said:
In all the interviews she denied she hit the cyclist
Click to expand...



Precisely, after she had been charged by the police, and after she had been coached by her solicitor.
Please do not try to defend the indefensible, just because you dislike cyclists.
I used to cycle, ride a motorbike and drive a car, as well as walking, and the majority of car drivers look on everyone else as an inconvenience.
Sure, there are careless cyclists, but if I had a pound for every car driver who doesn't indicate or tailgates, then I would be rich.

There was also another tweet from this young lady, where she had filmed her speedo, showing herself speeding.

No sympathy for her whatsoever, I think that she was let off lightly.
 
andy700 said:
Please do not try to defend the indefensible, just because you dislike cyclists.
Click to expand...

If you struggle to understand my post properly i.e. the bit where I say I am pro cyclist, then it's not surprising you haven't grasped the detail of this case and have joined the "throw the book at her" mob mentality.
 
The one thing I would like explained is that round where I live there are cycle paths along nearly all the main routes in the area but a lot of cyclists ignore then and still go on the road. Does anyone know why? I just don't understand the logic?
 
So, there's a good chance she's come out better off from this then. Not sure how "justice has been done".

She got a few points on her licence - which are basically irrelevant if she doesn't make a habit of breaking the law in future; along with a small fine plus costs, and a TV contract which would have paid for that and then some. (What's the law supposed to be about profiting from crime?)

Then a bunch of people use it as another launching pad for some irrelevant and misinformed ranting online about completely unrelated people who ride bikes.

The system works.
 
Last edited:
Tough call this one. One the one hand it is good that a driver has been convicted in relation to a accident with a cyclist. On the other hand it appears that the conviction was really due to leaving the scene of an accident. In reality not many cyclist/ vehicle accidents result in a conviction for either party due to liability being difficult to prove.

I'm not only pro cyclist, i'm pro car too. I have to drive to get to work and for social reasons. I also cycle and feel that having covered more than seven thousand miles on my bike this year i am more than qualified to have have a BALANCED opinion.

Basically 98% of drivers are understanding law abiding people. They give room to all road users and realise that if they don't give other road users time and space bad things could happen. Then there are the remaining 2% of drivers. Some of these are impatient, impulsive and show disregard for anything else on the road. Others within this 2% are indecisive, tentative and generally an obstruction on the roads. Both are equally as dangerous to ALL road users.

Cyclists are the same. 98% are normal, courteous people. There are however 2% who are either impatient and ignorant or slow and stupid. In cities though the proportions of both bad drivers and bad cyclists is higher. And by law of averages the chances of accidents happening is going to be higher.

As a cyclist i realise that if i make contact with a vehicle at 30mph it is going to hurt. It's probably going to break something and there is a good chance that it is going to cost me money. So i do my upmost to avoid said contact with vehicles.
Car drivers though are protected, hitting another vehicle at 30mph will probably dent their cars or break a light. The chances of physical injury are relatively low, therefore the survival mentality is not quite as sharp.

I personally would be in favour of cyclists needing to pass a test and be licensed to be on the road. As a full UK Driving License holder i am aware of the highway code and have road craft for want of a better expression. There are a large number of cyclists though who do not have driving licenses, particularly in urban areas, and do not have a full understanding of the roads. Therefore having to pass an offical test would create a base line standard of cyclist. Having a cyclist license would also allow regulation and punishment (points/ fines) to be administered easier. 3rd party insurance (which i have) should be a minimum requirement and helmets compulsary.

This would align cyclists with other road users. Make them accountable for their actions and hopefully ease the attitude of drivers that cyclists are getting a free ride.
 
Last edited:
Jayst84 said:
So, there's a good chance she's come out better off from this then. Not sure how "justice has been done".

She got a few points on her licence - which are basically irrelevant if she doesn't make a habit of breaking the law in future; along with a small fine plus costs, and a TV contract which would have paid for that and then some. (What's the law supposed to be about profiting from crime?)

Then a bunch of people use it as another launching pad for some irrelevant and misinformed ranting online about completely unrelated people who ride bikes.

The system works.
Click to expand...

She also lost her job
 
Jayst84 said:
Yea I'd be surprised if that's legal.
Click to expand...

I'm going to guess there was a clause about "bringing the firm into disrepute".

Given that the cyclist appears to have still been standing at the end of the "impact" I can't help thinking she might have had a little too much punishment. The trial quite properly wouldn't have taken the Twitter comment into consideration in determining if she was guilty but I'm sure they did for the sentence. I'm pretty sure the judge can also consider that she lost her job and has been pilloried in the media.

So the question becomes "is driving off after an accident and then mentioning it on Twitter really that much worse than driving off after an accident?"
 
JonathanRyan said:
So the question becomes "is driving off after an accident and then mentioning it on Twitter really that much worse than driving off after an accident?"
Click to expand...

Driving away after an accident is cowardly ... in this case she did not know if the cyclist was seriously injured, or if he required urgent medical assistance, she may have been the only person at the scene able to contact emergency services or render life saving assistance.

Personally I think 'driving away' should carry a long ban, despicable offence in my opinion.
 
Martyn... said:
Driving away after an accident is cowardly ... in this case she did not know if the cyclist was seriously injured, or if he required urgent medical assistance, she may have been the only person at the scene able to contact emergency services or render life saving assistance.
Click to expand...

Except that, by the cyclist's own admission, she didn't knock him off his bike, there was another cyclist with him (that had already warned him there was a car coming) and the cyclist didn't feel the incident warranted reporting either.

She did stop but I suspect by not getting out of the car and engaging with the cyclist didn't fulfil the requirements of stopping at the scene of an accident (and subsequently reporting).

But of course, that doesn't make a good story in the press who pilloried her even further when they found out she'd signed an exclusive deal with ITV (which is sometimes suggested in order to get the media off your back) and for which she didn't receive a fee!
 
SimonBalaam said:
The one thing I would like explained is that round where I live there are cycle paths along nearly all the main routes in the area but a lot of cyclists ignore then and still go on the road. Does anyone know why? I just don't understand the logic?
Click to expand...

Often cycle lanes just don't work.

They are typically in the side of the road where glass, litter and leaves get push aside to by the traffic or because of water washing down drains making them dangerous. They have cars parked in them. They stop and start intermittently. They're sometimes shared with buses and taxis.

There's also a problem with cars turning left and cutting across immediately in front of a cyclist who wishes to carry straight on.

Just google or search youtube for stupid cycle lanes to see some of the ridiculous implementations of them there are around the country. It's laughable really that someone somewhere has decided to have the markings made for a 20 yards stretch of lane the leads directly into a bollard or other such ludicrous design!
 
Spuff said:
Except that, by the cyclist's own admission, she didn't knock him off his bike, there was another cyclist with him (that had already warned him there was a car coming) and the cyclist didn't feel the incident warranted reporting either.

She did stop but I suspect by not getting out of the car and engaging with the cyclist didn't fulfil the requirements of stopping at the scene of an accident (and subsequently reporting).

But of course, that doesn't make a good story in the press who pilloried her even further when they found out she'd signed an exclusive deal with ITV (which is sometimes suggested in order to get the media off your back) and for which she didn't receive a fee!
Click to expand...


Please keep digging Paul - are you really "pro cyclist"?
 
TriggerHappy said:
Often cycle lanes just don't work.

They are typically in the side of the road where glass, litter and leaves get push aside to by the traffic or because of water washing down drains making them dangerous. They have cars parked in them. They stop and start intermittently. They're sometimes shared with buses and taxis.

There's also a problem with cars turning left and cutting across immediately in front of a cyclist who wishes to carry straight on.

Just google or search youtube for stupid cycle lanes to see some of the ridiculous implementations of them there are around the country. It's laughable really that someone somewhere has decided to have the markings made for a 20 yards stretch of lane the leads directly into a bollard or other such ludicrous design!
Click to expand...

The cycle lanes around here are pretty good. I have used them and they are part of extra wide pavements not the road. I could almost cycle round the whole town without touching the road!
 
SimonBalaam said:
The cycle lanes around here are pretty good. I have used them and they are part of extra wide pavements not the road. I could almost cycle round the whole town without touching the road!
Click to expand...

Some of the ones in London are terrible \ have cars parked in them \ taxis pulling into them \ buses stopped in them etc never mind potholes galore.
 
I lived in Central London almost 30 years ago and I got around by bicycle, including regular excursions around Hyde Park Corner. Thinking back makes me wonder how the bloody hell I'm still alive!

Artics weren't so much the problem, coaches on the other hand!!!!
 
I see a lot of idiot cyclists, weaving in and out of traffic and all sorts, not giving way at all at traffic lights - or rather acknowledging they exist at all. I've also seen several go past traffic stopped at traffic at lights and pull in front of the first car, essentially kills movement of that lane. Some also don't use the cycle lanes (good ones I'll add, not damaged or otherwise poor ones that could be unsafe).
But, I also could have plowed into the side of a car driver who carried straight out onto a roundabout I was already on a week ago, she had a shock that I was there, have been cut up by people. And of course have had somebody go up my rear end at a roundabout a few years ago (I was stopped due to traffic, wasn't even lack of space and an emergency stop, just not watching where she was going). On standard A roads have seen people driving over the white line all the way.

I think if you're on the road, the safest thing to do is assume nobody else is safe to be around. Because sadly, there's a lot of idiots out there.
 
littlemonster said:
I think if you're on the road, the safest thing to do is assume nobody else is safe to be around. Because sadly, there's a lot of idiots out there.
Click to expand...

That's what I do, when walking, cycling, in the car or back when I had a motorbike. Difference of course is you are a lot more vulnerable in 3 of those modes of transport.
 
A couple of months ago, I got hit by a cyclist on the pavement. He didn't stop either, although I was knocked to the ground.
So are all cyclists bad? No, some are, some aren't. Same with car drivers. Although in both cases the standards of road craft are very poor.

Anyway, back to the point. The RT Acts require that a driver involved in an accident where there is injury to a person or animal, or damage to another vehicle or roadside property is caused then the driver must stop.
Stop mean more than just pulling up and pulling away.
The driver is required to exchange details with the other party. If they do not then they must report to Police as soon as practicable, and in any case within 24 hours.

So that is what she was convicted of. There is no conviction over the cause of the accident, so while I understand there's a desire to use this to prove pro cycles or anti cars, I'm sorry but it's evidence of neither. The only offence was failing to stop. And that is really pushing the point.
 
Bernie174 said:
The driver is required to exchange details with the other party. If they do not then they must report to Police as soon as practicable, and in any case within 24 hours.
Click to expand...

Is there any requirement for a cyclist to report an accident in a similar way to a motorist Bernie?
 
Spuff said:
Is there any requirement for a cyclist to report an accident in a similar way to a motorist Bernie?
Click to expand...

Mmmm, i can see which direction that comment is going in....

Why has the cyclist not been charged as they did not report the accident either??
 
She lied about not knocking him off his bike

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-22602141

There were witnesses who clearly saw this happen.
She also lied about stopping to see if he was alright.
The only reason that she is sorry, is because she has been caught out through her own stupidity.
She has also netted a rather lucrative TV deal, which will more than pay for her fine and court costs - proving that crime does pay.
 
Spuff

I originally thought no, as the older RTA's refered to a Motor Vehicle.

It has now been changed to a mechanically propelled vehicle, so although logic says yes, a cycle is, the only definitions I can in refer to a vehicle with sort sort of engine, rather than powered by a human.


MG TF 135
Even if it is, it isn't an indication of where the subject goes. If the cyclist reported it to police within 24 hours then no offences. There's no point in him stopping in those circumstances if the vehicle has driven off for example.

In any case, unless it's changed the requirement to stop isn't there if the damage was to your own vehicle only. (applies to injury too, but seems thats not relevant here).

But if it was, the principle of law is that it should be applied equally, so if the cyclist had committed the offence then why should he not be charged?
 
Last edited:
General comment on cyclists:-

I work on the busiest junction in Cambridge [Hills Road and Gonville] and cannot believe how there aren't more accidents with cyclists.
They have a total disregard for others, cars and Traffic lights, if you sit and watch them it is unbelievable. I don't believe that they are the norm but they are unbelievable!!!
 
I used to commute to Cambridge on the A14 and the amount of crap cyclists are in equal proportion to rubbish car drivers, good and bad in both user groups

I still think this case get everyones hackles up because she came across as a stroppy little madam and representative of a group that is generally disliked i.e. lairy prats on social media
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top