Driver clips cyclist, doesn't tweet about it
Discussion
Neonblau said:
T0nup said:
It's just my opinion that if a bicycle is capable of breaking a posted 30 speed limit on a public road,
Speed limit applies to motor vehicles, not bikes.i braked and still got pulled over to get moaned at for not wearing a helmet. when its compulsory they can waste my time not before. idiots
jesta1865 said:
you'd best let Essex police know then as they were stopping people a few months ago at the bottom of Essex way in hadleigh and giving them a telling off for being over 30 past the sign at the bottom of the hill.
i braked and still got pulled over to get moaned at for not wearing a helmet. when its compulsory they can waste my time not before. idiots
what makes you tick you ride a bike around 30mph and dont wear a helmet because its not a legal requirement.i braked and still got pulled over to get moaned at for not wearing a helmet. when its compulsory they can waste my time not before. idiots
What are you 15? Are you some cool rebel, the helmet will only serve to offer protection in an accident.
The reason rpu officers get funny is they have deal with the aftermath of these accidents and go and tell you next and kin that its cancel milk and papers. Not something they enjoy so by simply wearing a helmet you lower your risk of a serious head injury.
Edited by jbsportstech on Tuesday 19th November 15:22
jbsportstech said:
what makes you tick you ride a bike around 30mph and dont wear a helmet because its not a legal requirement.
What are you 15? Are you some cool rebel, the helmet will only serve to offer protection in an accident.
The reason rpu officers get funny is they have deal with the aftermath of these accidents and go and tell you next and kin that its cancel milk and papers. Not something they enjoy so by simply wearing a helmet you lower your risk of a serious head injury.
Devils advocate.What are you 15? Are you some cool rebel, the helmet will only serve to offer protection in an accident.
The reason rpu officers get funny is they have deal with the aftermath of these accidents and go and tell you next and kin that its cancel milk and papers. Not something they enjoy so by simply wearing a helmet you lower your risk of a serious head injury.
Edited by jbsportstech on Tuesday 19th November 15:22
They signed up to deal with these issues. I'd take offence to an officer telling me what to do when it's none of his f
king business.keegs111 said:
I actually feel sorry for this girl, the cyclist caused the 'accident' and she gets to go to court. Tweeting about it was stupid, but I agree with her sentiment. Sadly, we have to keep the obvious injustice here to ourselves for fear of prosecution!
In what way did the cyclist cause the accident? Other than daring to be on the road at the same time as an amoeba-brained self-regarding muppet.The only obvious injustice I can see is that muppet driver kept her licence.
jbsportstech said:
what makes you tick you ride a bike around 30mph and dont wear a helmet because its not a legal requirement.
What are you 15? Are you some cool rebel, the helmet will only serve to offer protection in an accident.
The reason rpu officers get funny is they have deal with the aftermath of these accidents and go and tell you next and kin that its cancel milk and papers. Not something they enjoy so by simply wearing a helmet you lower your risk of a serious head injury.
Do you wear a helmet whenever you travel in a car? Perhaps you should - your chances of brain injury are not insignificant in an accident.What are you 15? Are you some cool rebel, the helmet will only serve to offer protection in an accident.
The reason rpu officers get funny is they have deal with the aftermath of these accidents and go and tell you next and kin that its cancel milk and papers. Not something they enjoy so by simply wearing a helmet you lower your risk of a serious head injury.
Edited by jbsportstech on Tuesday 19th November 15:22
Zuffen said:
o you wear a helmet whenever you travel in a car? Perhaps you should - your chances of brain injury are not insignificant in an accident.
Please give your thoughts, risk assessments and probable outcomes on a head to head 30mph vs 30mph between a seatbelt wearing car driver and a non-helmet wearing pedal-cyclist?E24man said:
Please give your thoughts, risk assessments and probable outcomes on a head to head 30mph vs 30mph between a seatbelt wearing car driver and a non-helmet wearing pedal-cyclist?
With a 60mph combined speed, I'd expect the cyclist to be dead due to major head trauma, plenty of broken bones, internal organs damaged, arteries torn. Car driver not dead.Almost certainly the same outcome if the cyclist is wearing a helmet. Perhaps with slightly less major head trauma.
E24man said:
As an aside what's the Law regarding racing on a public Highway?
Cycle racing is,legal so long as it complies with these regulationshttp://lvrc.org/documents/road_traffic_act_1960.pd...
The details of the regulation a are currently under review.
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/propos...
aizvara said:
E24man said:
Please give your thoughts, risk assessments and probable outcomes on a head to head 30mph vs 30mph between a seatbelt wearing car driver and a non-helmet wearing pedal-cyclist?
With a 60mph combined speed, I'd expect the cyclist to be dead due to major head trauma, plenty of broken bones, internal organs damaged, arteries torn. Car driver not dead.Almost certainly the same outcome if the cyclist is wearing a helmet. Perhaps with slightly less major head trauma.
Aretnap said:
E24man said:
As an aside what's the Law regarding racing on a public Highway?
Cycle racing is,legal so long as it complies with these regulationshttp://lvrc.org/documents/road_traffic_act_1960.pd...
The details of the regulation a are currently under review.
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/propos...
longblackcoat said:
keegs111 said:
I actually feel sorry for this girl, the cyclist caused the 'accident' and she gets to go to court. Tweeting about it was stupid, but I agree with her sentiment. Sadly, we have to keep the obvious injustice here to ourselves for fear of prosecution!
In what way did the cyclist cause the accident? Other than daring to be on the road at the same time as an amoeba-brained self-regarding muppet.The only obvious injustice I can see is that muppet driver kept her licence.
She was found guilty of failing to stop and failing to report an accident, not guilty of dangerous driving.
So it seems to me the court did not consider her to have caused the accident, which leaves the cyclist.
Corpulent Tosser said:
She claims she was as far to the nearside as possible.
She was found guilty of failing to stop and failing to report an accident, not guilty of dangerous driving.
So it seems to me the court did not consider her to have caused the accident, which leaves the cyclist.
Or rather, court wasn't satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that she was driving carelessly. It doesn't follow that it was definitely the cyclist's fault, or even probably his fault. It means they couldn't be certain that it was her fault - no more, no less.She was found guilty of failing to stop and failing to report an accident, not guilty of dangerous driving.
So it seems to me the court did not consider her to have caused the accident, which leaves the cyclist.
Corpulent Tosser said:
She claims she was as far to the nearside as possible.
She was found guilty of failing to stop and failing to report an accident, not guilty of dangerous driving.
So it seems to me the court did not consider her to have caused the accident, which leaves the cyclist.
IIRC from the time, the cyclists (there were two) were also on their left as the car came around the corner (too fast to stop in the distance the driver could see, obviously) and continued to move left as the car approached. IIRC the first cyclist avoided the car but the second was struck by the car as he was trying to ride off the road.She was found guilty of failing to stop and failing to report an accident, not guilty of dangerous driving.
So it seems to me the court did not consider her to have caused the accident, which leaves the cyclist.
Corpulent Tosser said:
She claims she was as far to the nearside as possible.
She was found guilty of failing to stop and failing to report an accident, not guilty of dangerous driving.
So it seems to me the court did not consider her to have caused the accident, which leaves the cyclist.
The article suggests that she was found not guilty of a particular offence. She wasn't found not guilty of causing the accident. And, as far as I can tell, he hasn't been found guilty of anything. Additionally, it's quite possible to be as far to the left as possible, and still cause an accident. In a car anyway, less likely on a bike as it's narrow. She was found guilty of failing to stop and failing to report an accident, not guilty of dangerous driving.
So it seems to me the court did not consider her to have caused the accident, which leaves the cyclist.
Except maybe in Europe, rolling on your bicycle down the left hand side of the road is probably going to end in tears there.
However, that she's 'at fault' in this is unfair, we've all seen the Lycra-clad loons in these races who forget that they don't necessarily have priority, and they often don't help themselves by riding several abreast and occasionally with not insignificant distances involved.
Her crime she was punished for, and that was not stopping. Without a dash can, nobody for sure will ever know the truth as these cycling folks are often utterly oblivious to what they've done wrong (driving up the left-hand side of a filter lane then wondering why the car nearly knocked them off as he tried to go straight on at the junction from that position) and will regularly close ranks.
She's definitely a bit daft, and no doubt played a part in the accident but she's lost her job and had a hefty punishment off the back of it. At that point, the Lycra-loons need to back down. You're already developing large-scale dislike from the majority of road users across all sorts of methods of transport. Prove stuff, it can be acted on, until then you have to accept what can be demonstrated.
However, that she's 'at fault' in this is unfair, we've all seen the Lycra-clad loons in these races who forget that they don't necessarily have priority, and they often don't help themselves by riding several abreast and occasionally with not insignificant distances involved.
Her crime she was punished for, and that was not stopping. Without a dash can, nobody for sure will ever know the truth as these cycling folks are often utterly oblivious to what they've done wrong (driving up the left-hand side of a filter lane then wondering why the car nearly knocked them off as he tried to go straight on at the junction from that position) and will regularly close ranks.
She's definitely a bit daft, and no doubt played a part in the accident but she's lost her job and had a hefty punishment off the back of it. At that point, the Lycra-loons need to back down. You're already developing large-scale dislike from the majority of road users across all sorts of methods of transport. Prove stuff, it can be acted on, until then you have to accept what can be demonstrated.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff