Driver clips cyclist, doesn't tweet about it

[heebeegeetee]

I think we can safely say that because the cyclist was a) a cyclist, and b) perceived to be on some sort of competitive event - then in the minds of every numpty car driver out there (and there are tens of millions of them) then the cyclist was certainly guilty of causing the accident.

[Randomthoughts]

Not necessarily, but you can't turn around and say it was categorically the car driver's fault because she's a she and she didn't stop and because biking is fun and we're all perfect.

I'm going with the bicyclist being a bit of a self-righteous plank and her being a bit dense in equal quantities.

[MrTrilby]

Randomthoughts said:

Not necessarily, but you can't turn around and say it was categorically the car driver's fault because she's a she and she didn't stop and because biking is fun and we're all perfect.

I'm going with the bicyclist being a bit of a self-righteous plank and her being a bit dense in equal quantities.

I'd say she's more than a bit dense. She's unpleasant. When a cyclist crashed into my car, my first thought wasn't to drive off, or gloat about the stupidity of the cyclist, or to worry about any damage to my car. My first thought was to call an ambulance for the human lying in the road screaming in pain and to prevent them from being hit by any following cars.

[Corpulent Tosser]

heebeegeetee said:

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.

Using the same logic that the driver was goingtoo fast to stop in the distance she could see the riders were also going too fast to stop in the distance they could see.

Seems driver and cyclist could be deemed at fault, which is perhaps why she was found not guilty of dangerous driving.

[heebeegeetee]

Corpulent Tosser said:

Using the same logic that the driver was goingtoo fast to stop in the distance she could see the riders were also going too fast to stop in the distance they could see.

Unless they were trying to get off the road, because I imagine it smarts when a stationary cyclist gets hit by a car.

At the time I recall the cyclist saying he was trying to ride (and indeed did) through the hedge because they realised the car was going to hit them.

[Corpulent Tosser]

heebeegeetee said:

Corpulent Tosser said:

Using the same logic that the driver was goingtoo fast to stop in the distance she could see the riders were also going too fast to stop in the distance they could see.

Unless they were trying to get off the road, because I imagine it smarts when a stationary cyclist gets hit by a car.

At the time I recall the cyclist saying he was trying to ride (and indeed did) through the hedge because they realised the car was going to hit them.

So like I said, he was unable to stop in the distance he could see, just like the driver, anything else is conjecture.

[heebeegeetee]

Corpulent Tosser said:

So like I said, he was unable to stop in the distance he could see, just like the driver, anything else is conjecture.

What isn't conjecture is that a vulnerable road user is just as vulnerable, if not more so, when stationary in the road, unlike the driver in a tin box in danger of being struck by bicycles, so the option to not stop and try to get out of harms way is a viable and often preferable one.

The cyclists may well have been able to stop, but they would still have been struck by the car.

[Randomthoughts]

You think. From forming an opinion based on her running her mouth on the internet. Ever seen her drive? Ever seen the cyclist ride? Ever heard the saying 'never had an accident, seen loads'?

You're so blind to the fact that the cyclist could be just as culpable that you're making stuff up to try and come up with an idea of what happened that suits your lycra-clad ideals. The simple fact is that if she was entirely at fault for the accident then DWDCA wouldn't have been too hard. That wasn't the case. Suggests to me that it could quite easily have been a joint venture.

[heebeegeetee]

Randomthoughts said:

You think. From forming an opinion based on her running her mouth on the internet. Ever seen her drive? Ever seen the cyclist ride? Ever heard the saying 'never had an accident, seen loads'?

You're so blind to the fact that the cyclist could be just as culpable that you're making stuff up to try and come up with an idea of what happened that suits your lycra-clad ideals. The simple fact is that if she was entirely at fault for the accident then DWDCA wouldn't have been too hard. That wasn't the case. Suggests to me that it could quite easily have been a joint venture.

I'm not a cyclist.

I'm simply recounting the cyclists comments from the time.

Another point I found interesting from his comments was that he wasn't going to bother reporting the accident (not much point, it has to be said) and felt it was all part of normal cycling. I thought it interesting that the 'lycra clad warriors' take being struck by cars as a matter of course, whereas as we see clearly on this site, car drivers go apoplectic if anyone damages their precious cars or paintwork in any way shape or form.

Not being a cyclist myself though I've no idea how many times a cyclist would need to be struck by a car before he started to consider things being above the norm.

[budgie smuggler]

Corpulent Tosser said:

heebeegeetee said:

Corpulent Tosser said:

Using the same logic that the driver was goingtoo fast to stop in the distance she could see the riders were also going too fast to stop in the distance they could see.

Unless they were trying to get off the road, because I imagine it smarts when a stationary cyclist gets hit by a car.

At the time I recall the cyclist saying he was trying to ride (and indeed did) through the hedge because they realised the car was going to hit them.

So like I said, he was unable to stop in the distance he could see, just like the driver, anything else is conjecture.

So actually you need to be able to stop in half the distance you can see to be clear to account for some twartus coming round a blind corner on your side of the road?

[deltashad]

How many 'near misses' happen on a daily basis?

I don't see the big deal here, nobody was hurt.
Girl mouthes off on the internet with thumb in bum and brain in neutral.
Militant biker feelings are hurt and takes her to court.

There's no real proof either way of what really happened.

With the way these events are being highlighted now between cyclists and motorists on a daily basis surely its time that changes are made.
We're all forced to evolve whether driving a car or wiring a house or drilling an oil well or having sexual intercourse with a random stranger etc for safety reasons.


I don't believe in road tax, but they need to get themselves insured, also with the speeds some of these people are capable of acheiving I also believe suitable protective clothing needs to be enforced.

Edit: and mirrors, and bells and lights. How safe are these cyclists travelling at 40 odd mph? maybe they should be limited to 15mph?

Edited by deltashad on Wednesday 20th November 09:39

[Randomthoughts]

heebeegeetee said:

Another point I found interesting from his comments was that he wasn't going to bother reporting the accident (not much point, it has to be said) and felt it was all part of normal cycling. I thought it interesting that the 'lycra clad warriors' take being struck by cars as a matter of course, whereas as we see clearly on this site, car drivers go apoplectic if anyone damages their precious cars or paintwork in any way shape or form.

Either that, or he's trying to play down his role in the accident and play up the sympathies by trying to sound all innocent.

[heebeegeetee]

deltashad said:

How many 'near misses' happen on a daily basis?

I don't see the big deal here, nobody was hurt.
Girl mouthes off on the internet with thumb in bum and brain in neutral.
Militant biker feelings are hurt and takes her to court.

There's no real proof either way of what really happened.

With the way these events are being highlighted now between cyclists and motorists on a daily basis surely its time that changes are made.
We're all forced to evolve whether driving a car or wiring a house or drilling an oil well or having sexual intercourse with a random stranger etc for safety reasons.


I don't believe in road tax, but they need to get themselves insured, also with the speeds some of these people are capable of acheiving I also believe suitable protective clothing needs to be enforced.

Edit: and mirrors, and bells and lights. How safe are these cyclists travelling at 40 odd mph? maybe they should be limited to 15mph?

Edited by deltashad on Wednesday 20th November 09:39

Here's the militant biker: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-22602...

[NH1]

heebeegeetee said:

Here's the militant biker: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-22602...

I thought they only wore that daft lycra to feel like they are winning in the tour de france. It would appear he also wears it for formal occasions as well. Nice militant earings as well

[deltashad]

Dizzy blonde,
I'm more inclined to go with her story, she nearly cries in her interview.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-22636...

[Corpulent Tosser]

budgie smuggler said:

So actually you need to be able to stop in half the distance you can see to be clear to account for some twartus coming round a blind corner on your side of the road?

If you say so, but whatever applies to the driver must surely apply to the cyclist.

[rohrl]

deltashad said:

Dizzy blonde,
I'm more inclined to go with her story, she nearly cries in her interview.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-22636...

Well if she nearly cries in the interview the she must be telling the truth. Or something.

[anonymous-user]

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.

Having seen both the participants in this farrago interviewed, I very much doubt we have even got close to knowing what really happened.

They both came across as st for brains, vapid, mouth breathers and each deserves what they got IMO.

[Neonblau]

keegs111 said:

Quite right. If he came around a corner, scratched my car then wound up in a ditch, I'd stop and finish the tt off!

Bet you wouldn't.

[longblackcoat]

REALIST123 said:

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.

Having seen both the participants in this farrago interviewed, I very much doubt we have even got close to knowing what really happened.

They both came across as st for brains, vapid, mouth breathers and each deserves what they got IMO.

I've not seen them interviewed, and I'm prepared to take your word for it that the cyclist's as much of a muppet as the driver. Then again, if the rider really did have to take avoiding action (including riding off the road), it's a logical assumption that he may not be the main cause of the accident. We'll never know for sure. But it's not the accident that angers me - bad things happen from time to time, and sometimes they can't be avoided.

It's the behaviour of the driver tham makes me furious - genuinely, how empty must your life be if you really feel it necessary to post up something about an altercation you had with a cyclist? And how stupid do you have to be to not realise that this might come back and bite you. Above all, however, what sort of a human being leaves another in the road?