- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
forum
Penalised driver complains....
One driver penalised for causing a cyclist to fall off her bike complains he has been penalised too heavily....
‘I was banned from driving for three years for knocking a cyclist off her bike but still believe I shouldn’t have been punished’ (msn.com)
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/i-was-banned-from-driving-for-three...
If you're new please join in and if you have questions pop them below and the forum regulars will answer as best we can.
Latest Forum Topics
Latest Comments
- brooksby 2 sec ago
You should see the cost of a motorway junction...
- kingleo 7 min 39 sec ago
I believe that straight forks that are used on carbon frames are more dangerous than the old steel forks because they are more rigid, the old steel...
- S.E. 9 min 22 sec ago
Sliding doors are the rule on many US delivery vehicles, US postal... when you need to open the door dozens of times in the day, it might be a...
- Rendel Harris 25 min 26 sec ago
That was my thought exactly, surely a business opportunity for someone to set up fitting centres in major city centre bike shops and just sell the...
- S.E. 39 min 40 sec ago
Yes, sleep apnea produces more CO... I'm not aware of any doping effect but what do I know....
- Gd29 2 hours 47 min ago
That's true enough. But doesn't address my point that the chainset you get as a replacement will not physically fit chainrings from the chain set...
- brooksby 3 hours 18 min ago
In all fairness, it almost certainly NEVER happened…
- mitsky 3 hours 38 min ago
1) I'd love to see anyone tell an EV driver that they shouldn't be on the road or move out of the way because they pay less VED....
- wtjs 7 hours 48 min ago
Many of my fellow Tories sincerely hate bike schemes, and our friends sincerely hate these schemes, and road changes create enormous noise on...
Add new comment
45 comments
why, now with this? incident was 2018, so joy upon joy, he's presumably driving again?
We're really getting into the mindset of arguing about and justifying the obviously wrong - tone from top, I guess. I'm starting to notice the sort of response discussed upthread on local Facebook - pavement parking? "guy's got to earn a living", fly tipping "well, it's £15 to use the tip, so y'know..."
Wondering what I'd get back if I Facebooked this picture "people have got to park somewhere; sit sideways"?
Obviously they need to have somewhere to put their shopping bags while they open the boot. Do you want local businesses to die - do you?
No, please make it stop, I don't want local businesses to die. We must do everything we can to allow drivers convenient access.
Maybe they thought it was a buffer to help them in their parking (like at the end of the line in major railway stations)?
Career criminal complains that laws are being enforced.
I'm shocked I tells ya shocked!
In other news ursines do defecate in tree covered areas and the bloke with the pointy hat in Rome is a catholic.
I was quite shocked at the BBC coverage of Becker getting sent down for 2 years for diddling his bankruptcy by a couple of million.
They made actual mention of the case, then had a sports reporter eulogising him, telling us what a great guy he was, what a character and he would bounce back.
The guy had effectively stolen a couple of million from other people and the BBC were praising him.
We do have selective vision about the blameworthiness of people. Steal £2m - still a tennis hero, you kill a cyclist, how terrible for you, must have been a shock, ride a bike on the pavement - "Lock 'em up! They are killers in waiting."
Suerly this article is satirical and not a genuine journalism piece? The standard of writing is terrible for a start.
I personally believe this is a spoof piece written to stimulate comments from knuckle-dusting motorists... the premise; how outlandish and ridiculous does the described scenario be, before people stop defending motorist behaviour.
The answer (based on the comments); more outlandish than this example.
I don't believe this is a real event (although I accept it is reflective of real attitudes), and is not worth our time.
*grumpy old man voice* This is exactly the problem of recent times - wild opinionating and "reporting" converge. And thanks to churnolism proofreading-free reproduction of press releases or social media is the norm. Apart from here on road.cc of course! Complaining that something is not "genuine journalism" starts to sound like "no true Scotsman". News, adverts, satire, trolling - what's the difference?
An interesting take on driving guilt: SMIDSY absolves a driver of any legal responsibility for an accident.
Pepipoo forums are full of people on 9 points who have just received what they acknowledge is a legitimate speeding ticket. Very rarely does it dawn on them that the solution was in their own hands. I forget the last time I took an interest in a speed camera or felt distracted by the need to check my speed (a common complaint about the effect of cameras). These people clearly never have tried moderating their driving because they still clearly believe that their journey times are significantly extended by sticking to the speed limits rather than simply increasing their time spent behind the next vehicle they catch up with. Once you've adapted, driving at or below the speed limit isn't less engaging - you are rarely driving slower than the majority of road users around you and you still need all your skills in play.
This is a commonly observed topic - it's an instance of the incompetence paradox where saying you didn't drive competently becomes a defence. I'm pleased our courts put the burden of proof on the prosecution but this often then means a need to prove that the cyclist didn't throw themselves under the driver's wheels. And at that point the driver may be the only witness. I wouldn't say they'd be encouraged to lie by their defence but it might be suggested that they didn't see the moment of collision or moments leading up to it, without hurting their case.
Agree about speed.
I would add in a healthy dose of the Dunning–Kruger effect. The law makes reference to the standard of a "careful and competent" driver. Members of the jury overestimate their own ability and believe they are a careful and competent driver and therefore anything that they might do cannot fall below that standard. So if tailgating a cyclist is routine behaviour for the jury, then they cannot convict someone else for doing the same thing.
I'm sure there was a relatively recent case where this defence was used - unfortunately I can't remember enough of the details for an effective Google search but IIRC a couple were out cycling (relatively inexperienced cyclists) and the women just "happened" to fall off at the exact moment a poor helpless driver was overtaking very closely and at speed (unfortunately resulting in the death of the cyclist).
Adding the words "Dr Helen Measures" may assist your Google search here.
Isn't Dr Helen Measures that killer driver?
https://www.henleystandard.co.uk/news/emergency-services/86044/woman-is-...
...and that's why 1.5m is considered the minimum space to leave when overtaking cyclists
She did....... for the cyclists she decided to overtake on the blind bend. It was the oncoming cyclists she didn't "care about" giving space to.
If only the Highway Code had recommendations about that:
Before overtaking you should make sure:
Again - overtaking on a blind bend would be a fail on a driving test - surely experienced drivers should be expected to not make such an obvious mistake. Quite why it doesn't count as careless/dangerous is beyond me.
The defending barrister blaming death on the boyfriend for getting her to ride a bike is the stunning take away quote from that article for me.
I can understand a defense barrister trying their utmost to get justice for their client, but I'd consider that kind of blame to be trying to pervert the course of justice, myself. You might as well blame her mum for giving birth to her - "she would never have been driven over and killed if she hadn't been born at a very early age".
The Helen Measures case is up there alongside the Gail Purcell case for making you pull your hair out...
Fixed that for you
Especially as Denise's "inexperience as a cyclist" were all lies as mentioned by her Parents.
It did come across as British Posh Church Going Senior Doctor and young foreign coffee shop waitress dating somone 15 years her senior was always going to end up one way in court, cyclist or not.
Exactly. If that cyclist fell over sideways RIGHT NOW, would you run over them? If the answer is yes, then you are too close to them.
Why, yes, yes she is.
That's the problem with relying just on a jury's opinion of careful driving and why I think we need driving cases to require expert testimony from driving instructors/examiners.
Tailgating a cyclist would fail a driving test, so it can't be acceptable as "careful driving".
I'm not sure that it is - someone pleading "SMIDSY" doesn't even realise that they are admitting their own incompetence. Try accusing someone, anyone, of being an incompetent driver. You are very likely to get a robust response; most people think they are excellent drivers and take offence if someone suggests that they are not.
You are right but it's a question of semantics. They don't realise or the system encourages them to use defenses which by external standards effectively amount to confessions of incompetence.
The question is what people think is justifiable as showing "I was driving competently and carefully". Or at least not recklessly. So in the article driver say "I did not think I was that close" - but they hit the cyclist. Speeding and being too close might not be judged competent by everyone. However this was not judged as unusually poor driving. Why? Because of our driving bias (it's not seen as a choice, everyone does it, non-drivers on the roads are already part to blame for any issue) and how the law is framed (essentially "compare them to yourself - your examplar of a good driver")
I think the appropriate way to judge driving is by reference to external standards. In the UK that means the road laws, highway code and / or not failing a driving test. By these standards lots of people drive at least some of the time in a substandard or incompetent manner. This is sometimes dangerous and / or illegal. However ask the majority of people and as you say their own judgement is that they're fine, if not excellent.
Ergo most people are not fit to make judgements in these cases even if they are drivers and the notion that the current system's fit for purpose is unjustified.
"I was found guilty and it was true, I did it - but I still don't think I should have been done for this". Apparently this is a very popular attitude...
It was the same one shown by the Range Rover vs Insulate Britain protestors school-run mum, wasn't it - but I thought her case was extra special because she actually pleaded guilty to dangerous driving and then said her driving ban was a "huge injustice"!
No shortage of folks who think that confessing a crime is actually worthy of a medal. Or at the very least "no punishment I can impose will outweigh the burden you have of knowing that you have done wrong... so let that be all".
It's quite a common trope in human affairs. Indeed our own courts separate the finding of guilt or innocence from sentencing. Maybe we should dispense with the second part and save money!
Pages