Pregnant woman blames collision with elderly cyclist on kicking from unborn baby

I will start by saying I don't agree with what cyclingDMlondon was saying in the slightest.

That out of the way, there's nothing to be gained in calling someone a troll when they're not actually trolling.

Not trolling, you say?

No, I think he actually believes what he said. He didn't say it for the sole purpose of eliciting a reaction from everyone else. Sad, I know, but no true troll ever sounds so earnest or takes the time to attempt to explain themselves. Also, once a true troll gets a reaction they don't bugger off, they stick around to poke their victims some more.

Also, maybe when he said "unsubscribe" he meant "from this thread"? Just a thought.

IMHO there's too much of a trend these days in online discussion towards branding people trolls when they have odious or unpopular opinons or (as seems to be the case with a growing number of troll accusers) just having an opposing opinion and expressing it in anything other than a deferential manner.

And the golden rule is: if you really, truly, think someone is trolling, then IGNORE, REPORT, IGNORE IGNORE IGNORE. In replying to someone whom you think is a troll, you're only doing yourself a disservice by taking what you yourself have already identified as bait.

Oh, and did I mention IGNORE?

The sad thing about cyclingDMlondon was that he claimed to be a solicitor yet slags off the profession he purportes (?) to represent.

A bit of a walter mitty in my honest opinion.

Just to veer away from the argument for a moment; did anybody else watch the video that accompanied the BBC article?

I was greatly amused to learn that while piercings, dreadlocks and a cardigan (admittedly a horrible cardigan) were supposedly unacceptable for an interview, it is apparently quite normal to wear so much fake tan you look as though you've blacked-up.

There's a nasty odour of misogynism mixed in with some of the comments regarding light sentencing. Try and draw some comfort from the fact that there was a conviction.

Well said Sarah i'm with you 100%.

After some of the comments on the fatalities article i think it shows we need the moderators to be able to delete comments and warn forum users about the content.

If the kicking has been causing such a distraction, then it's a complete error in judgement of hers to carry on driving despite the risks.

No sympathy from me whatsoever.

Just to add to the very good post by tripod regarding an in case of accident panel perhaps we should compose a letter to government departments and MPs asking for concise clarification as to what is and isn't likely to be acceptable to a court where death and injury has been inflicted.

If we are knocked off a bike but find the poor motorist did it accidentally as they were distracted by a really good joke on the radio perhaps then we'd know to wait for the ambulance in a quiet dignified manner rather than risking wasting police time with notions of a complaint.

Preferably wherever this is possible we should make every effort to drag ourselves to a ditch to ensure other motorists aren't inconvenienced by our selfish but temporary blockade, we are after all guests on the roads and shouldn't outstay our welcome.

Of course, if we wish to test the justice system as we were hit by a motorist attempting to use an untested excuse such as 'I simply couldn't be arsed to turn the wheel to avoid you' then the bolder amongst us may wish to consider a complaint, if only to determine if such an excuse needs to be added to the general guidance already acknowledged.

This would save much time for the police and the CPS and define clear boundary between ways to hurt and kill people that are accepted as accidental from alternative excuses that warrant extremely harsh penalty, such as forcing someone to endure the misery and hardship of covering 2 miles without their car to a bus stop.

Such hardship really is intolerable isn't it?

Yeah, +1 to Sarah from me.

I think the baby kicking thing does have an element of plausibility to it, however I do agree with the majority here and think she should have got a ban - even a couple of months would have been ok, especially given that festivals are generally a summer thing, so the ban could be done and dusted before they really kick in so her livelihood shouldn't have been jeopardised disproportionately.

It would have sent out a more positive message too.

Internet shopping, lifts from friends (and the childs father?) and, shock horror, public transport and walking could all get her from A to B and make the inconvenience manageable.

My licence took a 40 day holiday to Swansea back in 2001, for a minor speeding matter. I cycled everywhere or got lifts and it was hard as I needed to travel short distances several times every day for work, but I managed it and there was a lesson learned and I've not been caught speeding since.

From personal experience of working on festivals, any trustifarian with a double barrelled surname will never, ever, suffer from extreme hardship.

Mummy and daddy wouldn't allow it.

A baby can kick you hard like that at 36 weeks pregnant. If she hadn't felt it kick before she should have been in hospital getting checked! She should have known about it as I am sure she will have read all the books about pregnancy/spoken to health visitor/had scans etc.
If you can't see, slow down ffs.
Once again it will be motorists blaming cyclists and vice versa

She has sought legal advice or has been represented by a lawyer at court - the article does not say. It also does not say whether she pleaded guilty or not guilty (but was convicted anyway). She has obviously been advised about legal defences, submission of fact in mitigation, and perhaps things like using Automatism as a defence to the charge (involuntary bodily actions beyond the control of the driver at the time).

Because there's a lack of detail in the article there's also a lot of assumption being made which is fair enough, that is the nature of the beast. I personally feel she's a worm who has tried to wriggle out of a conviction and has lied to the court. Her extreme hardship is a joke, there is no hardship let alone extreme and the courts need to get grip. She should have been banned for a year and fined a £1000. Then when she gets her licence back and drtives again she'll treat cyclists ad other vulnerable road users with a higher level of duty of care and courtesy and not bomb down hill into glaring sun knowing she can't see the fecking road ahead enough. It wouldn't surprise me if she was also checking facebook on her smartphone or talking to a girlie-friend on it, whilst also eating chocolate and checking her facial piercings in the mirror.

If a two-mile walk (or cycle) constitutes 'exceptional hardship' then my childhood (and much of my life) would surly be worthy of the Four Yorkshiremen sketch.

Kind of sick of this idea that people 'need' a car. Don't live in the middle of nowhere if you can't be trusted to drive safely.

I'm getting a bit sick of this 'exceptional hardship' crap - 2 miles is no distance to walk for a fit person, and part of the penalty for bad driving is the 'inconvenience' of being banned from driving.

Solutions abound for people who don't have a driving licence - they can hire a driver (often called a taxi driver), but of course that means you need to plan how you travel a bit more. Maybe the bench should get out a bit and speak to the disabled, the elderly and others who simply cannot hold a driving licence and see how they manage.

It's the very existence of an "exceptional hardship" clause that I have issue with in the law.
Basically it allows people who would otherwise be banned from driving to continue to drive.

Living more than 2 miles from a bus stop constitutes "exceptional hardship" ?

Get a taxi to the bus stop?
Get a lift from someone else?
Walk?
Cycle there on a folding bike??

These are fairly UN-exceptional solutions to me.

I was going to say pregnancy is no excuse, but in fact it was her excuse. Good job it didn't kick and cause her to swerve into wall or a huge truck. But she did say she couldn't have predicted this……
Oh, and there was glare on the windscreen, can't see right, so lets slow down a little: Speed not being a factor ? If he'd been hit at 5 mph, the injuries would be less.

I guess liar or not it's the typically offensive punishment that we object to.

Im off to Downing St to play with my hand gun I think. Whilst aiming it in the general direction of number 10 (can't be too sure as glare from a street light dazzled me) a pigeon flew over at low level and startled me.

Although I knew the gun was loaded I didn't deliberately set out to hurt anyone so I was shocked to find after the accidental discharge that someone had been silly enough to stand in the way of the bullet.

In my defence I would like to point out that the injured party wasn't wearing any body armour and made no effort to alert me as to their presence.

I would strongly object to the loss of my firearms licence as my right to exercise a privilege and great responsibility is more important than that of the British public to travel freely.

Try that on in the old Bailey and see how far your £150 will get you.

I'd like an MP to explain how such punishment aligns with their supposed desire to give people the confidence to buck obesity and get on their bike. Can Road.cc arrange this perhaps?

Pregnant or not pregnant, death or no death. £150 fine at the end of what was probably £0000's on a court case is appalling, as is 3 points, thats no more than a speeding ticket!

I honestly hope the reasons behind the accident were the truth and not used as a get off lightly excuse.

i only know what has been written about this case in the rcc article. Is it not only possible, but also likely, that the accused is telling the truth? how she should be charged and sentenced is another matter. But I find it odd to accuse her of being a liar.

How does 20 mph equate to throwing the poor bloke "some distance"? Take a lot more than that, surely?

Her baby kicked her? so when is Bruce Lee due to come out then love.

'I could not have predicted what happened. It’s never happened to me before. It’s really quite painful.'

It's never happened before and certainly didn't happen in this instance you lying piece of scum!

It's so easy to see how if tables were turned, not even with pregnancy but any excuse we've seen from some drivers would be met with a "well should not have been cycling". Clear bias, shock horror, I know. -_-

Just out of interest, have any of the above comnenters ever been pregnant?