Home

Why can't I comment directly on this story?

Headline on earlier snippet on this story was

Quote:

“Good luck finding me on foreign plates” says driver after he knocks off cyclist - but is he a Premier League footballer?

But now cyclist admits he rode into the back of the driver's vehicle, and the story appears to have subtly changed... Mistaken assumption road.cc?

27 comments

Avatar
farrell [1946 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

I think it's in case people start naming or speculating on the identity of the driver involved.

It's a smart move as it gets proven time and time again that the internet is rammed to the gills with idiots. My only complaint is that I'd prefer it if when the Road.cc team do choose to delete comments from a story could they also delete the start of the comment in the 'recent comments' section?

Also Flobble, you do realise there are two stories regarding this incident on Road.cc dont you? This may explain the 'subtle changes' you speak of.

http://road.cc/content/news/93039-good-luck-finding-me-foreign-plates%E2...

http://road.cc/content/news/93155-cyclist-good-luck-finding-me%E2%80%9D-...

Avatar
bendertherobot [1366 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

There are two. But, the most recent had comments, until recently.

There were about 5, including mine, until a short while ago and I hadn't seen any naming the driver.

Most, including my own, has questioned why the cyclist had driven into the back of an admittedly poorly parked car.

Avatar
flobble [113 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes
farrell wrote:

I think it's in case people start naming or speculating on the identity of the driver involved.

It's a smart move as it gets proven time and time again that the internet is rammed to the gills with idiots. My only complaint is that I'd prefer it if when the Road.cc team do choose to delete comments from a story could they also delete the start of the comment in the 'recent comments' section?

And make a note in the story that says "we've had to block comments on this story because of x,y,z"

bendertherobot wrote:

There are two. But, the most recent had comments, until recently.

There were about 5, including mine, until a short while ago and I hadn't seen any naming the driver.

Most, including my own, has questioned why the cyclist had driven into the back of an admittedly poorly parked car.

Indeed. The first story (Saturday) asserts that driver knocked off cyclist. The second story (today) reports cyclist admitting he rode into the back of the car, but makes no reference to the error (made seemingly without supporting evidence) in the first story. Tsk.

Avatar
dave atkinson [6287 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes
bendertherobot wrote:

There are two. But, the most recent had comments, until recently.

There were about 5, including mine, until a short while ago and I hadn't seen any naming the driver.

Most, including my own, has questioned why the cyclist had driven into the back of an admittedly poorly parked car.

the article should have been published without commenting enabled. just a mistake, nothing more sinister than that really.

we've published the rider's account of events because he asked us to. and yes, they're a bit different to what was originally reported.

Avatar
DrJDog [395 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

why did he ask anyone to chase up the owner's identity? So that he could pay for damage to their car?

Avatar
bashthebox [752 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

He didn't ask for anything. Clubmates tweeted about it when Rob was on holiday over the weekend.
That's not to say the driver wasn't in the wrong. Failure to stop at the scene of an accident is a crime, punishable by fuck all unfortunately, but a crime nonetheless.
Apportioning blame in this case might be hard, but with three witnesses to say the driver was in the wrong it doesn't seem too hard, does it?

Avatar
Leviathan [2442 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

He says that social media has been a great help, well the drivers identity has been reported online, if not here.

I do find it funny that he would think that someone could not be easily identified from their licence plate, which is a code attached to cars for identification purposes... or his face perhaps.

Avatar
northstar [1107 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes
bikeboy76 wrote:

He says that social media has been a great help, well the drivers identity has been reported online, if not here.

I do find it funny that he would think that someone could not be easily identified from their licence plate, which is a code attached to cars for identification purposes... or his face perhaps.

Indeed, as for the "not being able to trace foreign number plates" excuse from the BiB, that is complete nonsense as i'm sure one call to the french police would identify him - regardless he has been identified so I expect the police to pursue him..... won't hold my breath.

Avatar
chadders [89 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

Think its time for a Europe wide registration system, where the cars country of origin and a number linked to that car. Did we know if the Audi was insured or road worthy or can that not be checked either!!

Avatar
Fixie Girl [125 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes
bendertherobot wrote:

There are two. But, the most recent had comments, until recently.

There were about 5, including mine, until a short while ago and I hadn't seen any naming the driver.

Most, including my own, has questioned why the cyclist had driven into the back of an admittedly poorly parked car.

Certainly the 180 by the cyclist/road.cc is not going to help our cause. A bit embarrassing for the parties involved.. Hopefully the cyclist was insured so he can pay for any damage  19

The law in the US is same as UK: Rear-End Collisions

If someone hits you from behind, it is virtually never your fault, regardless of why you stopped. A basic rule of the road requires a vehicle to be able to stop safely if traffic is stopped ahead of it. If it cannot stop safely, the driver is not driving as safely as the person in front.

Avatar
Tony Farrelly [2883 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

@Some Fella - Yes, you could be sued and so could we. That's why we've deleted your comment. That's also why if you look around the internet you'l find that no news site has named him - as yet - and no-one will until his name is officially confirmed. Some football sites named him on Friday night and pretty rapidly got rid.

@Fixie Girl Don't see any reason for anyone to be embarrassed certainly not us. As for the law over here, if you're involved in a collision in the UK as far as I know it is an offence to leave the scene without exchanging details - especially if somebody has been injured.

Avatar
Fixie Girl [125 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

Hi Tony

How it reads to me is the cyclist now admits he rode into the back of the vehicle and was not knocked off as he first claimed. We only have his word that he was injured and given his lack of early transparency how reliable is that now?

No-one from road.cc has updated the Facebook Post to reflect the change in the cyclists story.

I think that this story highlights a lack of balance and checking of basic facts before posting .. You are better than this guys

FG

Avatar
Some Fella [890 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes
tony_farrelly wrote:

@Some Fella - Yes, you could be sued and so could we. That's why we've deleted your comment. That's also why if you look around the internet you'l find that no news site has named him - as yet - and no-one will until his name is officially confirmed. Some football sites named him on Friday night and pretty rapidly got rid.

Fair do's
Its political correctness gone mad
(its not really)

Avatar
Leviathan [2442 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes
tony_farrelly wrote:

Some football sites named him on Friday night and pretty rapidly got rid.

Ha! So you admit he is a footballer? Young male european with own car in Cheshire.  39

The game is a foot!

Avatar
Low Speed Wobble [156 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes
tony_farrelly wrote:

especially if somebody has been injured.

Was he injured? Where's the evidence?

In the original story his bike was said to have been 'smashed'. Bike in the photo doesn't look smashed to me. That is the cyclist and bike this story refers to, isn't it?

There's no legal obligation to exchange details if no one got hurt and there's no damage.

The driver's attitude (if indeed he said what he is reported to have said) was unpleasant. But it's not yet against the law to be an arsehole.

As bad as this appeared at first to be for the image of the driver, I'm feeling it may end up the same for the cyclist.

Avatar
OldRidgeback [2714 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes
chadders wrote:

Think its time for a Europe wide registration system, where the cars country of origin and a number linked to that car. Did we know if the Audi was insured or road worthy or can that not be checked either!!

The Pan-European agreement on vehicle data sharing comes into force on 7th November of this year. David Cameron did try to scupper this as a piece of political gerrymandering but wiser heads prevailed. The agreement means police forces within the EC will be able to exchange vehicle information so that drivers can be traced and charged for offences committed in other EC countries. Some limited data exchange agreements are already in place between some countries but this further step will cover the whole of the EC.

Police in the UK will most likely focus their attention (due to insufficient resources) on the most serious offences and Eastern European registered HGVs however. There is a DfT report into the number of crashes Eastern European trucks are involved in on UK roads and it makes frightening reading. A worrying percentage of Eastern European trucks are driven by people under the influence, exceeding their hours behind the wheel, not competent and many vehicles are also unroadworthy.

As regards the driver of the Audi, he has been identified by name on some websites that appear not to understand the laws of libel or the potential legal issues they could face for doing so. RoadCC has taken the wise step of not allowing comments mentioning the driver's name. Just because someone is ignorant of the law (of libel), this does not constitute a defence in court. Naming someone can also wreck legal cases. One newspaper report stays that the police are investigating though whether any case will be pursued remains to be seen.

Avatar
fullfat [5 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

I respect everyone's views on here. Some haven't read the whole story which is obvious from a couple of comments.

As far as I'm aware I haven't changed my story. The driver erratically pulled across to the kerb to stop on double yellow lines, this is an offence. 6 points and £1000 fine. If he hadn't driven in this way the incident wouldn't have happened. 3 impartial witnesses came out telling me it was his fault and the police suggested to me that from my account of events that the driver was in the wrong. But it's not for me to decide who is to blame, it's the police and insurers. And yes I am insured! He then also committed an offence of leaving the scene of the incident without giving his details. I was frustrated with the police's response that they couldn't trace foreign plates. I took to my local friends to see if we could find out if anyone recognised the distinctive vehicle so that maybe we could get any more info that would help enquiries. Even though there have been many positives with social media that has provided the police with some lines of enquiries, it has been a very stressful experience.
There have been many negative comments towards me and the usual trolls that hide behind their keyboards. To me this is a lot of fuss about a minor road incident and it’s only because the alleged driver might be a premier league footballer. It has been totally blown out of proportion I really don’t consider it to be news. I totally underestimated the power of social media and I have inadvertently opened myself up to some criticism and judgment. Twitter restricts people to the amount of characters users can type. A detailed account of what happened cannot be said in a Tweet, so I found people started speculating and twisting the story. I was away at the weekend and I came back to find some news publications started to write stories based on these Tweets, sensationalising the story, and I was concerned at what people would be reading. Terms like ‘hit and run’ were being said and maybe that is technically correct but most people read this as something a lot worse than what happened.
I’m very concerned that people will think this is a witch hunt because of the alleged high profile of the driver involved. This all started as an attempt to resolve an issue in a road traffic incident and, despite the stress and some negativity, I feel obliged to stand up for the lack of respect towards cyclists on the road by some people out there and the dangerous driving of the driver involved here.

Hopefully this can be resolved quickly and I can get back to riding my bike again.

Avatar
dave atkinson [6287 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

a lot of people are saying that if you go into the back of someone it's automatically your fault; it's worth pointing out that that isn't true.

many of us as cyclists are campaigning for strict liability in collisions: in the absence of any independent testimony to the contrary the liability is held to be with the driver in a driver-cyclist collision, and with the cyclist in a cyclist-pedestrian collision: chain of liability based on potential to do harm. this is *liability* and not *blame*, which is important.

the same assumption of liability exists in rear-end collisions as it's the responsibility of the following vehicle to keep enough distance to be able to stop safely. however that doesn't mean the driver who rear ends is 'to blame', although they are liable for the damages. and if there's independent evidence to show fault from the driver in front, then they can be held liable. there's three independent witnesses here.

So while Rob went into the back of a car he hasn't necessarily commited an offence by doing so. the driver has commited two: parking on a double yellow line and failure to stop.

the law on stopping is that "the driver of the motor vehicle must stop and, if required to do so by any person having reasonable grounds for so requiring, give his name and address, the name and address of the owner of the vehicle and the identification marks of the vehicle. The duty to stop means to stop sufficiently long enough to exchange the particulars above". i'd say it's fairly clear in this instance that Rob has 'reasonable grounds' for requiring the driver's details. He doesn't have to 'prove' to the driver that he's injured or the bike is damaged.

Avatar
Yorkshie Whippet [571 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

I watched a cyclist ride into the back of a car yesterday. Quite surprised how easily he went down. No sympathy for the rider as he was in the wrong lane, looking over his shoulder notto the front.

There again, I nearly ran into the back of said car on several occasions as he braked for no apparent reason.

Still, both went merrily on their way the car travelling nice and safely at 35mph in a 70 zone.

Avatar
Low Speed Wobble [156 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

@fullfat - kudos to you for writing today. I'd say if you'd have had control of this story throughout it might not have run away from you in the manner that it has. I'm sure we're all keen to hear how this plays out. Your story has thrown up a number of disturbing (and not exclusively cycling related) concerns. Here's hoping for clarification and a satisfactory resolution.

Avatar
fullfat [5 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

@Low Speed Wobble - Thanks. Lessons learnt about social media! There are both positives and negatives in how this has played out.

Avatar
edster99 [338 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

Assertions in social media do not equal facts.

Avatar
Fixie Girl [125 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes
Low Speed Wobble wrote:
tony_farrelly wrote:

especially if somebody has been injured.

Was he injured? Where's the evidence?

In the original story his bike was said to have been 'smashed'. Bike in the photo doesn't look smashed to me. That is the cyclist and bike this story refers to, isn't it?

There's no legal obligation to exchange details if no one got hurt and there's no damage.

The driver's attitude (if indeed he said what he is reported to have said) was unpleasant. But it's not yet against the law to be an arsehole.

As bad as this appeared at first to be for the image of the driver, I'm feeling it may end up the same for the cyclist.

+1

Cue lots of back pedalling all around!  1

Avatar
atlaz [217 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes
Quote:

Apportioning blame in this case might be hard, but with three witnesses to say the driver was in the wrong it doesn't seem too hard, does it?

The original story suggested people said he was in the wrong for his behaviour but didn't say if that was stopping or for refusing to give his details

Quote:

The driver erratically pulled across to the kerb to stop on double yellow lines, this is an offence. 6 points and £1000 fine.

Nobody is arguing that, but it sounds like you pulled out and weren't looking where you were going. Admittedly the whole furore isn't your fault but it's certainly not that easy to ride into a stationary car when you're pulling out of a junction unless either a) he pulls right across you or b) you're not bothering to look where you're going. It may be a bit of both, but I guess when we're expecting car drivers to be held to a standard, we should expect to be held to the same standard. If the story was a car driver pulling out of a junction and hitting a stationary cyclist, there would be pitchforks and flaming torches.

Avatar
shopgirl [2 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

If the cyclist was following the car out of the junction it makes perfect sense that he would look right as he did so- it would be rather foolish to assume he could just follow the car without looking first. So, while looking right and moving out of the junction he then finds the car in front has suddenly stopped on the corner leaving him nowhere to go. I can't see how anyone would have avoided hitting a car in that situation. Anyone who says he was too close to the car is being ridiculous- you have no choice but to be close to other vehicles when slowing down at a junction.
Anyway, I don't think it's fair of anyone here to pass judgement on this incident. We were not there, we don't know the junction where the incident occurred and we don't know what happened. Real life is not as black and white as a lot of people are making it out to be.

Avatar
smaryka [18 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes
shopgirl wrote:

So, while looking right and moving out of the junction he then finds the car in front has suddenly stopped on the corner leaving him nowhere to go. I can't see how anyone would have avoided hitting a car in that situation. Anyone who says he was too close to the car is being ridiculous- you have no choice but to be close to other vehicles when slowing down at a junction.

Looking right and looking left before exiting a junction aren't mutually exclusive. Surely drivers and cyclists should be doing both? Or do you turn left out of a junction by looking to the right, and never looking left again before you start moving? If you did that in a driver's test you would fail.

It seems some people are looking with both hands and a flashlight to find reasons why a cyclist shouldn't have to pay attention to the road in front of him and not hit a parked car. If this were one car hitting another we'd never even have heard about this story, and the rear-ender's insurance company would be paying up without another word.

Avatar
shopgirl [2 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes
smaryka wrote:
shopgirl wrote:

So, while looking right and moving out of the junction he then finds the car in front has suddenly stopped on the corner leaving him nowhere to go. I can't see how anyone would have avoided hitting a car in that situation. Anyone who says he was too close to the car is being ridiculous- you have no choice but to be close to other vehicles when slowing down at a junction.

Looking right and looking left before exiting a junction aren't mutually exclusive. Surely drivers and cyclists should be doing both? Or do you turn left out of a junction by looking to the right, and never looking left again before you start moving? If you did that in a driver's test you would fail.

It seems some people are looking with both hands and a flashlight to find reasons why a cyclist shouldn't have to pay attention to the road in front of him and not hit a parked car. If this were one car hitting another we'd never even have heard about this story, and the rear-ender's insurance company would be paying up without another word.

Well you can't look both ways at exactly the same time (unless you've got wonky eyes!)and when you are turning left wouldn't you look right again as you set off that there isn't any traffic? I know I would. I assume this was when the car braked. Also by saying "parked car" you are suggesting a car that has been stationary all along and yet from the account we can see this was not the case.
But this is all by the by. The only reason this has made news is because the car driver may have been a footballer. If it had been any other car driver we wouldn't be arguing about it now either. It seems to me the cyclist wants nothing more than for all this to die down yet here we all are trying to lay blame. As far as I can see none of us will ever know why this incident happened, I was merely trying to show how it could easily have happened to any of us through no fault of our own! I certainly don't expect anyone to just stop on the corner of a junction.
It's not about trying to find a reason why a cyclist shouldn't have to pay attention, it's about everyone being aware of their surroundings. The driver overtook the cyclist, he therefore knew he was there and yet he seemed to forget the cyclist was behind him when he decided to do an emergency dash to the cash machine.
I don't wish to continue this argument as it's not helpful in this situation. The cyclist wanted to exchange details (having insurance himself) and was treated like he didn't count because he was on a bike. This makes me angry, not the actual incident. It's not for the cyclist, the car driver or any of us to decide who was at fault, that can be decided by the police and solicitors with the help of any witnesses.