Emma Way found guilty on 2 of 3 counts in #bloodycyclists case

alronald wrote:

dp24 wrote:

arfa wrote:

So what does constitute careless driving ?

"A person is to be regarded as driving without due care and attention if (and only if) the way he drives falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver."

More proof if any was needed that knocking cyclists off their bikes is seen as acceptable behavior by the courts

Not at all. Just that proving that she was any more careless than him is not easy. It is more a point of proof and law, rather than it being acceptable 'to knock cyclists off their bikes'.

People seem to think that it 'us versus them'. But really it is the burden of proof which is the thing which makes most traffic incidences hard to prove fault on.

Once you remove the two main protagonists evidence (that will be a matter of 'he said, she said') you need reliable witnesses who can provide impartial evidence. In this case only the cyclist's friend was privvy to it, and his friend may never have seen the point of impact. The fact that they tried to prosecute means that they took the collision seriously, they just couldn't prove it to a sufficient level required (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof#Beyond_reasonable_doubt).

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

Jimbonic wrote:

colinth wrote:

Proving the careless driving was probably the hardest bit, her word against the cyclists I suppose. I'm actually suprised and delighted that it got this far, I expected the usual can't be bothered approach from the CPS.

She hit a cyclist. How is that not driving without due care and attention? She didn't give enough room. It's not someone's word against the other's. In fact, she even said "I hit a cyclist today"!!!!

I agree, though, that it is pleasantly surprising to see it get taken this far. Even if the conviction is disproportionately low.

Colinth is right. Proving the careless driving is not easy. Her word against his. He has nothing to indicate how fast she was going, and had not made an effort to report the incident himself from what I remember. It was also not a head-on collision which suggests that she at least left some room for someone to move passed her (even if it was an inch). I'm not saying she wasn't careless or anything else - but that proving it is not possible. Who is to say he was not cycling without due care and attention down a hill? I'm sure that is the defence.

Ultimately, she has seen British justice and will likely have learned something from all of this.

Gkam - sorry to hear of your incident. That seems a little unfair.

Unless he was riding on the right hand carriage way, I don't see your point. The cyclist is entitled to use the road. What does her speed have to do with it? She passed unsafely, if she hit the cyclist. The Highway Code quite clearly states that you have to give at least the same room as you would a motor vehicle when passing a cyclist. Of course, we rarely see that. Your example of "an inch" is closer! I would hardly say that is safe or driving with due care.

What does his not reporting it have to do with it? I'm sure there many people on this very forum (even the most militant) who have been the victim of some sort of accident (or worse) and haven't reported it. It doesn't make the driving any safer. It doesn't absolve her of her duty to report the accident, or absolve her of driving without due care and attention.

arfa wrote:

And we wonder why HGV'S have been on a bit of a kill fest in the last couple of weeks.

That's a bit steep don't you think!? They couldn't prove bad driving in the case which is why they haven't removed her license. You can't punish her arbitrarily. Lord knows why they did it to Gkam though.

Jimbonic wrote:

colinth wrote:

Proving the careless driving was probably the hardest bit, her word against the cyclists I suppose. I'm actually suprised and delighted that it got this far, I expected the usual can't be bothered approach from the CPS.

She hit a cyclist. How is that not driving without due care and attention? She didn't give enough room. It's not someone's word against the other's. In fact, she even said "I hit a cyclist today"!!!!

I agree, though, that it is pleasantly surprising to see it get taken this far. Even if the conviction is disproportionately low.

Because I'm sure her defence was "he was on the wrong side of the road". "no I wasn't you were", "I wasn't you were" etc

Jimbonic wrote:

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

Jimbonic wrote:

colinth wrote:

Proving the careless driving was probably the hardest bit, her word against the cyclists I suppose. I'm actually suprised and delighted that it got this far, I expected the usual can't be bothered approach from the CPS.

She hit a cyclist. How is that not driving without due care and attention? She didn't give enough room. It's not someone's word against the other's. In fact, she even said "I hit a cyclist today"!!!!

I agree, though, that it is pleasantly surprising to see it get taken this far. Even if the conviction is disproportionately low.

Colinth is right. Proving the careless driving is not easy. Her word against his. He has nothing to indicate how fast she was going, and had not made an effort to report the incident himself from what I remember. It was also not a head-on collision which suggests that she at least left some room for someone to move passed her (even if it was an inch). I'm not saying she wasn't careless or anything else - but that proving it is not possible. Who is to say he was not cycling without due care and attention down a hill? I'm sure that is the defence.

Ultimately, she has seen British justice and will likely have learned something from all of this.

Gkam - sorry to hear of your incident. That seems a little unfair.

Unless he was riding on the right hand carriage way, I don't see your point. The cyclist is entitled to use the road. What does her speed have to do with it? She passed unsafely, if she hit the cyclist. The Highway Code quite clearly states that you have to give at least the same room as you would a motor vehicle when passing a cyclist. Of course, we rarely see that. Your example of "an inch" is closer! I would hardly say that is safe or driving with due care.

.

I think they were travelling in opposite directions weren't they ? Even if they were heading in the same direction, she could have said she was passing safely and the bike moved out suddenly without warning across the lane etc. Not saying that's what happened, it's just very difficult to prove in court without multiple witnesses or cctv

colinth wrote:

Jimbonic wrote:

colinth wrote:

Proving the careless driving was probably the hardest bit, her word against the cyclists I suppose. I'm actually suprised and delighted that it got this far, I expected the usual can't be bothered approach from the CPS.

She hit a cyclist. How is that not driving without due care and attention? She didn't give enough room. It's not someone's word against the other's. In fact, she even said "I hit a cyclist today"!!!!

I agree, though, that it is pleasantly surprising to see it get taken this far. Even if the conviction is disproportionately low.

Because I'm sure her defence was "he was on the wrong side of the road". "no I wasn't you were", "I wasn't you were" etc

Was it a head on, then? I thought she was passing in the same direction.

Not sure to be honest, same direction would have been a bit easier to prove but any decent lawyer would be able to create enough doubt I'd say

oozaveared wrote:

I cannot believe the leniency of this sentence. Had she not tweeted she would have gotten away completely with a hit and run.

Can this be appealed as too lenient?

I think a custodial sentence even a short one and a ban would have been more appropriate in getting across the illegality of what she did. Points and fines are just not seen in the same light.

All this says to bad drivers is that you can bang into cyclists so long as you don't tweet about it afterwards and get caught.

This sentence, means it's a bad day for road safety.

It's an excellent day for road safety. A stupid, silly girl got what she deserved. And this IS what she deserved. Let's not get carried away at making her out to be Ted (or even Al) Bundy. She was involved in a minor accident. What she did later inflated it. Rightly so because tweeting about it was dull.

But, in terms of what she was convicted of she has been sentenced in a manner entirely proportionate with similar offences and the sentencing guidelines.

Perhaps others will think twice about using social media to glorify cycle hatred.

"Her word against his. He has nothing to indicate how fast she was going, and had not made an effort to report the incident himself from what I remember."

That remark annoyed me no end. I bet loads of cyclists don't report stuff like this because they know it's a waste of time even if they did have the number plate and a description of the driver. If it was a head on (as the article describes) and she merely drove on then he's unlikely to have had either.

I wouldn't have reported it either because I'd be wasting the time of the police. I'd have had no licence plate, no description. Unless you knew an exact model about all you could say was that a (insert colour) car clipped you and drove off.

What the hell could they do with that! Even if you had a number plate it would still be her word against his and she could even deny being the driver or be confused as to who was.

Not reporting it doesn't mean it wasn't serious or potentially fatal. It's merely a recognition that there was not much factual / identity stuff to report.

However, if someone subsequently admits the offence albeit inadvertantly that's a different matter.

So her next conviction will driving without insurance!

gazzaputt wrote:

At least without work and 7 points I'd doubt she'll be able to afford her next insurance renewal.

To be honest I never knew that failing to stop was taken so serious. Some arse ran into me and failed to stop. The police are taking action so I'm hopeful he'll be buggered.

As he says, at her age, with this on her record, her chosen career is completely knackered and she won't be able to afford to insure a car to drive, so she is effectively banned for the next 2-3 years at least anyway. Probably fair punishment for what she has done.

Yes I know she is a car driver and therefore has to take responsibility, but we've all done bloody stupid things when we were younger and mostly got away with them. She's an idiot but we can hope she and others might learn from this.

hairyairey wrote:

Hardly her word against his - the tweet incriminated Ms Way.

She twatted (not under oath) that she "Definitely knocked a cyclist off his bike earlier". She did not tweet that the collision was her fault.

Overall, I think the result is fair given the obvious difficulty in proving careless driving in such circumstances.

But it is very annoying that she seems to be more upset by the repercussions of her tweet than the accident itself!

It seems to me that these days, so many people consider it to be totally unacceptable to be held accountable for their own speech and actions.

Either that or I am getting old.

This is not a normal case my friend. The tweet indicates a certain malice. She knocked a cyclist into a hedge (happens accident fair enough might not have even been her fault ??), didn't stop or report it (bad stuff avoiding any insurance claims or taking responsibility, an implied admission of guilt and criminal 5- 10 points and up to £5000 fine just for that). Then bragged about it indicating that she thought she had the right to do that or that she was proud of it. (de facto admission of guilt on both the previous counts and indicating no remorse indeed jubilation). That's what I'd make custodial.

She got off very lightly. Punished only in line with offence two and not taking into account her "mens rea" state of mind or attitude.

Puncheur-David wrote:

She really is stupid - I mean too still be seen to be saying "I wish I hadn't tweeted it" (ie. if I hadn't tweeted I wouldn't be in this mess) rather than if only I could have turned back the clock and done the right thing by a more vulnerable road user.

Also I don't buy the argument that she's already suffered a loss (potentially her intended career cut short) and so should be exempt from further punishment. Following that logic if you have a crap job you could face bigger fines/prison terms to make up for your lack of punitive loss?

No-one's said that. But, by the same margin, tweeting about it doesn't mean she should be punished more than other drivers guilty of the same offence.

oozaveared wrote:

This is not a normal case my friend. The tweet indicates a certain malice. She knocked a cyclist into a hedge (happens accident fair enough might not have even been her fault ??), didn't stop or report it (bad stuff avoiding any insurance claims or taking responsibility, an implied admission of guilt and criminal 5- 10 points and up to £5000 fine just for that). Then bragged about it indicating that she thought she had the right to do that or that she was proud of it. (de facto admission of guilt on both the previous counts and indicating no remorse indeed jubilation). That's what I'd make custodial.

She got off very lightly. Punished only in line with offence two and not taking into account her "mens rea" state of mind or attitude.

Which of the offences she's charged with require that mens rea?

oozaveared wrote:

This is not a normal case my friend. The tweet indicates a certain malice. She knocked a cyclist into a hedge (happens accident fair enough might not have even been her fault ??), didn't stop or report it (bad stuff avoiding any insurance claims or taking responsibility, an implied admission of guilt and criminal 5- 10 points and up to £5000 fine just for that). Then bragged about it indicating that she thought she had the right to do that or that she was proud of it. (de facto admission of guilt on both the previous counts and indicating no remorse indeed jubilation). That's what I'd make custodial.

That is a good case for the prosecution. On the other hand ....

My client is guilty of nothing other than being an attention seeker who tweeted a regrettably immature, exaggerated comment after a minor incident, only intended for the amusement of her friends, while in a state of shock.

My client did stop after the incident but admits that she did leave the scene once she had established to her own satisfaction that the cyclist was not hurt. At the time, she thought it was a minor incident and regrets not reporting Cyclist No. 2 to the police for 'wanton and furious' riding. She understands that she didn't do the right thing in terms of her statutory duties but she is 100% certain that the collision was the fault of Cyclist No. 2 going too fast for his talent on an unsuitable road for road racing.

A load of crap, I know, but lawyers are paid to come up with this sort of crap for their clients every day .... In any case, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution not the defence. No independent witnesses, no CCTV, how are you going to convict her for careless driving in good conscience?

Jimbonic wrote:

Was it a head on, then? I thought she was passing in the same direction.

I've found the quote from Road.cc for people:

"I was riding on a country B-road with a friend, and descending a hill on a blind right hand corner", Toby told us. "I was sticking to the left as the corner was blind. A car came round in the opposite direction going much too quickly to make the corner safely. It missed the rider in front of me but hit me, my right leg caught the front right wing. I was thrown up onto the bonnet, I hit the side of windsrceen and the wing mirror. I bounced back off the car and went through a hedge for about 20 metres. I managed to keep control of the bike; the back brake had locked on but I managed to rejoin the road and stop in the middle of it"

Amazingly Toby made it through the incident with only minor damage to himself and the bike. "I have a sore elbow, a bruised knee, nettle stings from riding through the hedge, but nothing serious", he told us. "The headset of the bike is loose from the collision, one of the levers got knocked round the bars and there's bits of nettle in the chain, but I think the bike is intact."

"Myself and my friend burst out laughing when we finally came to a stop, more out of shock than anything else", he said. "You count your limbs and carry on".

bendertherobot wrote:

Dumb summing up there as admitting she failed to report etc would lead to the guilty plea

True. Though I have no idea why she pleaded Not Guilty to the failing to stop and report charge. She was never going to win that one.