Porsche driver broke skull of man riding Boris bike on her way to Harvey Nichols

don simon fbpe wrote:

Dear courts,

The cyclist didn't appear from nowhere, unless they could defy physics or some other sciency bollocks. So please stop accepting this as any form of defence, in fact, why not add on a few quid to the fine as they attempt to insult your intelligence. If they do believe sincerely that the cyclist did appear from nowhere, might I suggest that removal of driving licence would be a good idea as they will need time away from the pressures of the road to assess their thought processes and priorities in life.

Irrespective of whatever vehicle they drive.

Yours sincerely.

The don.

Or take them at their word. They have just self-diagnosed either defective vision or a lack of aptitude for driving. They should be required to take an eye test and then resubmit to a driving test to make make sure both possibilites have been dealt with and remedied, before a new licence is issued.

SMIDSY should be taken at face value and dealt with rigorously - it is not acceptable to have drivers who can not - by their own admission - see other road users. It's fundamental.

Sriracha wrote:

don simon fbpe wrote:

Dear courts,

The cyclist didn't appear from nowhere, unless they could defy physics or some other sciency bollocks. So please stop accepting this as any form of defence, in fact, why not add on a few quid to the fine as they attempt to insult your intelligence. If they do believe sincerely that the cyclist did appear from nowhere, might I suggest that removal of driving licence would be a good idea as they will need time away from the pressures of the road to assess their thought processes and priorities in life.

Irrespective of whatever vehicle they drive.

Yours sincerely.

The don.

Or take them at their word. They have just self-diagnosed either defective vision or a lack of aptitude for driving. They should be required to take an eye test and then resubmit to a driving test to make make sure both possibilites have been dealt with and remedied, before a new licence is issued. SMIDSY should be taken at face value and dealt with rigorously - it is not acceptable to have drivers who can not - by their own admission - see other road users. It's fundamental.

Any accident that causes an injury/damage to property should require the driver to take a retest to prove that they are still capable of driving correctly. They only had to perform to the minimum standard required for one hour once in their life, if they had to go through the inconvenience of a retest and the potential embarrassment maybe drivers would take a little more care.

HowardR wrote:

growingvegtables: "- YOU drive a wank-panzer." ........ Erm!?.... Could you let me know where one might obtain such a vehicle? I am of course asking on behalf of a friend.

Here https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/SINCLAIR-C5-VEHICLE-CIRCA-1985-MANY-ACCESSORI...

ktache wrote:

brooksby, tell us more about the Tardis thing.

What is it called these days?

I assumed it was still the Tardis, though my interest in Dr WHO has declined since Tom Baker, who incidentally is the voiceover on the BBCs american football shows.

Its just the styling - since the early seventies it has to be TARDIS, all upper case. No biggy

ktache wrote:

Yes A440, I'm suprised it wasn't an Audi urban tank too.

Technically it could be argued it still is...Porsche are owned by the Volkswagen group,who also own & make Audis

The one thing perhaps other than the usual gripes in these cases that stood out for me is they reported in the Standard she was driving from her home in Chelsea to Harvey Nichols in Knightsbridge...thats a journey 1 to 2 miles at most,why would you even consider driving that distance in London ?

Awavey wrote:

... they reported in the Standard she was driving from her home in Chelsea to Harvey Nichols in Knightsbridge...thats a journey 1 to 2 miles at most,why would you even consider driving that distance in London ?

"Because, 'Daaarling', when one has a Porsche, one must be seen in one's Porsche, yes ? 'Daaarling, otherwise one's frightfully expensive clothing might get dirty from all those horrible fumes out there"
 

Awavey wrote:

ktache wrote:

Yes A440, I'm suprised it wasn't an Audi urban tank too.

Technically it could be argued it still is...Porsche are owned by the Volkswagen group,who also own & make Audis

The one thing perhaps other than the usual gripes in these cases that stood out for me is they reported in the Standard she was driving from her home in Chelsea to Harvey Nichols in Knightsbridge...thats a journey 1 to 2 miles at most,why would you even consider driving that distance in London ?

Oh, that's an easy one. Because the roads are too dangerous to cycle in London. (Yes, the roads darling - it's the roads that are dangerous, that's why I use my Porsche, to make things safer).

A440 wrote:

I fail to see the relevance of the kind of car that was being driven in this incident, other than to incite hatred toward those who can afoord to drive nice cars. It tends to elicit comments like "...£5k sounds a lot, but is probably chickenfeed to Papachristophorou..." and other such ignorant jests, while the commenter is entirely ignorant of the facts regarding the financial wherewithal of the driver. People who make such comments are stupid.

The incident is about the driving and the offense, not the vehicle involved, nor your personal sentiment regarding drivers of said vehicles.

Interesting that you do not mention that the report details that Mr Tann was riding a Santander hire bike. Maybe trying to imply that he was inexperienced and not familiar with controlling the bicycle?

Or maybe it was just a fact about the incident along with location, names of those involved, injuries caused, punishment from the court etc.

A440 wrote:

I fail to see the relevance of the kind of car ...

Lord forbid that I get cynical in my old age.   But I'll hazard a guess.

- YOU drive a wank-panzer.

- I ride a bike

Bottom line - I DO see the relevance of the kind of driver who buys and drives that car, with utter disregard for other (let alone, vulnerable) road-users?

growingvegtables wrote:

A440 wrote:

I fail to see the relevance of the kind of car ...

Lord forbid that I get cynical in my old age.   But I'll hazard a guess.

 

- YOU drive a wank-panzer.

- I ride a bike

 

 

Bottom line - I DO see the relevance of the kind of driver who buys and drives that car, with utter disregard for other (let alone, vulnerable) road-users?

Yup. They buy a car like that knowing that them and theirs will be safe inside and damn the rest of you...

A440 wrote:

I fail to see the relevance of the kind of car that was being driven in this incident, other than to incite hatred toward those who can afoord to drive nice cars. It tends to elicit comments like "...£5k sounds a lot, but is probably chickenfeed to Papachristophorou..." and other such ignorant jests, while the commenter is entirely ignorant of the facts regarding the financial wherewithal of the driver. People who make such comments are stupid.

The incident is about the driving and the offense, not the vehicle involved, nor your personal sentiment regarding drivers of said vehicles.

Such a vehicle has very good visibility due to the height and design, so any bollocks about not seeing 'it' is, well bollocks.

hirsute wrote:

A440 wrote:

I fail to see the relevance of the kind of car that was being driven in this incident, other than to incite hatred toward those who can afoord to drive nice cars. It tends to elicit comments like "...£5k sounds a lot, but is probably chickenfeed to Papachristophorou..." and other such ignorant jests, while the commenter is entirely ignorant of the facts regarding the financial wherewithal of the driver. People who make such comments are stupid.

The incident is about the driving and the offense, not the vehicle involved, nor your personal sentiment regarding drivers of said vehicles.

Such a vehicle has very good visibility due to the height and design, so any bollocks about not seeing 'it' is, well bollocks.

Depends on the height of the driver - high belt-lines and low seating affect visibility in those things if you're short

kil0ran wrote:

Depends on the height of the driver - high belt-lines and low seating affect visibility in those things if you're short

Not really. Driver's seats can be adjusted up and down, seat belt points can be adjusted up and down, so that isn't an excuse. If she also was unable to see out of the side window, she should not be driving.

A440 wrote:

I fail to see the relevance of the kind of car that was being driven in this incident, other than to incite hatred toward those who can afoord to drive nice cars. It tends to elicit comments like "...£5k sounds a lot, but is probably chickenfeed to Papachristophorou..." and other such ignorant jests, while the commenter is entirely ignorant of the facts regarding the financial wherewithal of the driver. People who make such comments are stupid.

The incident is about the driving and the offense, not the vehicle involved, nor your personal sentiment regarding drivers of said vehicles.

I think it's the fact that it's an off-roader, which is clearly the wrong type of vehicle for travelling one or two miles anywhere other than off road. Some people may need these vehicles for accessing certain locations or towing trailers, but most are stupid people sold entirely the wrong vehicle for their needs.

Where's a Martin Lewis campaign when you need one?

A440 wrote:

I fail to see the relevance of the kind of car that was being driven in this incident, other than to incite hatred toward those who can afoord to drive nice cars. It tends to elicit comments like "...£5k sounds a lot, but is probably chickenfeed to Papachristophorou..." and other such ignorant jests, while the commenter is entirely ignorant of the facts regarding the financial wherewithal of the driver. People who make such comments are stupid.

The incident is about the driving and the offense, not the vehicle involved, nor your personal sentiment regarding drivers of said vehicles.

The financial wherewithal of the driver? Pull the other one. A Porsche cayenne (most likely candidate, given its described as a 4x4) costs £60k and the article says the driver's house is worth £5m so you don't need to be a chartered accountant to figure out she's wadded.

A440 wrote:

I fail to see the relevance of the kind of car that was being driven in this incident, other than to incite hatred toward those who can afoord to drive nice cars. It tends to elicit comments like "...£5k sounds a lot, but is probably chickenfeed to Papachristophorou..." and other such ignorant jests, while the commenter is entirely ignorant of the facts regarding the financial wherewithal of the driver. People who make such comments are stupid.

The incident is about the driving and the offense, not the vehicle involved, nor your personal sentiment regarding drivers of said vehicles.

You are not telling me that someone living in a £5million home who drives such a vehicle and shops at Harvey Nicks (oh, and is a 'property investor') is some penniless pleb, reliant on foodbanks.  We are not 'entirely ignorant of the facts regarding the financial wherewithal of the driver' because there's enough information given to make it clear they are likely to be very well-off.

Of course, the biggest reason to suspect that someone is a bad-driver is not their level of wealth, it's the fact that they are a driver.  (Lock 'em all up as a precautionary measure.  Sort 'em out later.)

ktache wrote:

I am also guessing there is a possibility of there might just be a further civil proceding, what with a lawyer being injured by a seemingly rich, innatentive driver, and already with a driving offence convicted."

Unfortunately the civil proceedings will be covered by the driver's insurance so their only hit will be an increased premium, along with increased premiums for the rest of us to cover any settlement.

nniff wrote:

Santander Tardis - what will they think of next?

Two objects on a converging course that remain on a constant bearing to each other will inevitably collide.  Put another way, you will collide with a moving object behind your A-pillar, so best move your head and look around your A-pillar, especially if you're rolling onto a roundabout or crossing a T junction.

Tut-tut: everyone knows it should be TARDIS... Hasn't been "Tardis" since the Target novelizations in the seventies.

(I'll get my coat...   )