[OldRidgeback]

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-years-for-knocking-a-cyclist-off-her-bike-but-still-believe-i-shouldn-t-have-been-punished/ar-AAWGsZw?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=9e34bae56cc542e6bc51c419987a4e81

 

 

Topic

[AlsoSomniloquism]

She did……. for the

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. 

[Secret_squirrel]

Career criminal complains

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.

[chrisonabike]

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

Suerly this article is satirical and not a genuine journalism piece? The standard of writing is terrible for a start.

*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?

[hawkinspeter]

brooksby wrote:

https://www.henleystandard.co.uk/news/emergency-services/86044/woman-is-cleared-over-death-of-cyclist.html

“I can’t pre-empt everything that’s going to happen. If everybody had stayed upright there wouldn’t have been any issue.”

…and that’s why 1.5m is considered the minimum space to leave when overtaking cyclists

[brooksby]

https://www.henleystandard.co

https://www.henleystandard.co.uk/news/emergency-services/86044/woman-is-cleared-over-death-of-cyclist.html

“I can’t pre-empt everything that’s going to happen. If everybody had stayed upright there wouldn’t have been any issue.”

[hawkinspeter]

That’s the problem with

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”.

[Jimmy Ray Will]

Suerly this article is

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. 

[hawkinspeter]

Creakingcrank wrote:

Adding the words “Dr Helen Measures” may assist your Google search here.

Isn’t Dr Helen Measures that killer driver?

[Creakingcrank]

Adding the words “Dr Helen

Adding the words “Dr Helen Measures” may assist your Google search here.

[OnYerBike]

chrisonatrike wrote:

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 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. 

chrisonatrike wrote:

… this often then means a need to prove that the cyclist didn’t throw themselves under the driver’s wheels. 

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).

[chrisonabike]

This is a commonly observed

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.

[IanMSpencer]

An interesting take on
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.

[mdavidford]

20% of his speed was over the

20% of his speed was over the limit.

[Rendel Harris]

I was just using the name the

I was just using the name the tabloids gave her, no judgement of her veracity implied – I wouldn’t sully these fair pages with the name I’d give her.

[jh2727]

I think calling her a school

I think calling her a school-run mum is a bit of a stretch, given that the location of the protest is nowhere near the route between her home address (where she has her business registered with companies house) and her son’s school address (as evidenced by his uniform). One could argue that she had gone out of her way to drive into the protesters.

[Author]

Replies