An unrepentant driving instructor who left a cyclist with life-changing injuries after clattering into her at 55mph on a rural road has earned support from a portion of the Daily Mail’s readership, who have criticised the grandmother for failing to wear high-visibility clothing, while accusing her “dicking about in the way like the rest of them”.
Rebecca Tanton was left with a range of horrifying injuries, including a broken pelvis, fractured eye socket, and host of other broken bones when driving instructor Jon Dick struck her from behind in Lincolnshire two years ago.
Dick was handed a suspended prison sentence and banned from driving for two years following the sickening collision, but insists he did nothing wrong and is allegedly yet to apologise to the cyclist.
Tanton, a grandmother in her late 50s, was riding on Manby Road towards the Lincolnshire town of Louth, just after 4pm on 7 October 2024 when she was struck by Dick.
Dashcam footage from the driving instructor’s car, published by the Daily Mail, shows him approaching the cyclist at speed, before sending her flying into the air and clattering to the ground face-first, as a following motorist swerves to avoid the stricken rider.
In footage from inside the car, Dick can be seen driving with one hand on the steering wheel at 55mph, while he glances at his rearview mirror a second before hitting Tanton. Shortly after the impact, the startled driving instructor can be heard shouting, “f***ing a***holes”.
Tanton’s pelvis was “smashed to pieces” in the crash, while she also suffered fractures along the entire right side of her body. A fractured eye socket also caused a huge hole in her face, which was haemorrhaging so much blood that she was forced to undergo surgery that night.
She spent several weeks in intensive care, during which seven metal plates were screwed into her pelvis, hip, and shoulder.
“I remember very little of the aftermath, but I heard someone say I wouldn’t make it if they put me in the air ambulance,” Tanton told the Mail.
“The paramedics wanted to take me to Hull, but realised I would have to go to Grimsby first by road to be stabilised. I needed an emergency blood transfusion because I was losing so much.
“From the moment Jon Dick carelessly drove his car into me, he took away my freedom, independence, and love of life.”
> Driving instructor who forced cyclist off the road, causing him to break his arm, loses job
Five months after the crash, in March 2025, as her wounds were beginning to heal, Tanton contracted sepsis, due to infection taking hold around the plates. During her subsequent surgery, her bladder was accidentally torn, forcing her to use a catheter for three months.
In yet another terrible turn of events, Tanton woke from her surgery to discover that her son Josh, a 33-year-old marine pilot, had died suddenly from a rare brain tumour.
“The funeral of my beloved son had to be postponed until I was in a stable condition to attend,” she said. “Which I did with a catheter, and barely able to walk, because of the injuries caused in this collision.”
While her sepsis cleared, doctors later discovered that the infection was still clinging to the plates, which could not be removed because her bones had not properly fused, leaving her with what she describes as a “ticking time bomb”.
In December 2025, Dick was sentenced to 26 weeks in prison, suspended for 18 months, and disqualified from driving for 24 months.
According to Tanton, the driving instructor has never apologised for the crash, while always insisting he did nothing wrong prior to the collision.
However, Dick told the Mail that he had asked police to pass on his apologies and best wishes to Tanton, but was unsure whether the message had been relayed.
“My helmet saved my life, there is absolutely no doubt about that,” the cyclist said, reflecting on the crash.
“But my life is changed completely. I am simply existing in constant pain, while Jon Dick is still walking around freely – and he has shown no remorse whatsoever.”
However, despite telling her story to the Dail Mail, Tanton won’t receive much sympathy from a substantial portion of the newspaper’s readership, if the comments in response to the article are anything to go by.
In fact, a large number of those commenting accused Tanton of “being in the way” on the rural road, while arguing that her dark clothing made her difficult to see.
“It’s awful, but in his defence, he clearly didn’t see her as he was driving up hill directly into sun and she’s wearing dark clothing,” Matt Hill wrote on Facebook.
“Please will cyclists wear hi-vis clothing of some sort when they ride, for their own sakes. They can be very hard to see,” added one reader in the Mail’s own comments section.
“Flashing red rear lights in sunlight or shade caused by overhanging trees make a massive difference to viability,” said Terry Nye.
“I’m not blaming anyone as I’m a cyclist. Just info to hopefully make people aware how much strong sunlight can alter visibility. Many clubs now seem to run flashing lights in daytime now. I hope the lady makes a good recovery.”
> 20 of the most hysterical Daily Mail anti-cycling headlines
Meanwhile, Susan Elwood suggested that Tanton may have been “out to prove a point” before the sickening crash.
“The problem is many cyclists are out to prove a point and they deliberately get in the way, especially on country lanes,” she said, while Sam Down asked: “Was she dicking about in the way like the rest of them?”
And another Mail reader said: “She was swaying from left to right with each turn of her pedals. She was an accident waiting to happen.”
Thankfully, not every Mail reader was eager to blame the cyclist for the collision.
“In the video she was clearly visible long before he hit her,” said Sue. “Arrogant driver who should NEVER be allowed behind the wheel again, let alone teach others to drive!”
And Natalie wrote: “So he didn’t see her because he took his eyes off the road ahead of him – you can see he turned and looked out the passenger window then turned back, then tried to miss her.
“Yet you can clearly see her way before he hit her. This just shows that within a couple of seconds of taking your eyes off the road you can quite easily kill or serious injury someone.”
104 thoughts on ““Many cyclists are out to prove a point and deliberately get in the way”: Daily Mail readers rush to defend unrepentant driving instructor who struck grandmother from behind at 55mph before shouting “f***ing a***holes””
Should we be comforted that not all DM readers are insufferable fools with no empathy? The people making the comments blaming the cyclist and absolving the driver should be stripped of their licence to drive and be forced to ride a bike until they realise that they are totally, completely, utterly wrong. It beggars belief that they can make such comments when someone has been so seriously injured and affected by a driver. To be honest, I literally can’t understand how another human being can be so callous, so totally uncaring about someone who was injured through no fault of their own.
The driver, a driving instructor! admitted no fault: it was clearly his fault and his alone. Should be banned for life or until his victim is returned to full health, which unfortunately won’t be any time soon.
I thought motornormativity had peaked: I was wrong.
Best wishes to Rebecca.
@eburtthebike Probably the “best” way to fix all these issues would be to force the council persons to ride these routes solo (& with nothing to identify them as ‘anybody special’)! When any council person rides a bike, there are street closures (or at least barricades) security people and a whole entourage. When I “get in the way” it’s usually because there is a car or truck parked in the cycle lane!
@Geoff H they’d have to do so regularly. Not because it would take more than one or two rides to come across issues (usually vehicles parked in / across entrances to cycle infra) but so they could see that this isn’t just a “once every so often” affair but a near constant inconvenience.
OTOH we’ve all become so conditioned to “just go round” (those who can…) and otherwise changing our behaviour for the benefit of those in motor vehicles (saving them a tiny modicum of thought and energy) …
… that perhaps they simply wouldn’t *see* any issue, even then?
Dick by name…
So Dickhead will be free to drive again in just over a year from now. Hopefully a) his instructor credentials will never be renewed and b) Ms.Tanton’s lawyers have soaked his insurers for so much (got to be in the high six figures minimum, hasn’t it?) that it will be financially impossible for him to return to the road as the premiums will be astronomical.
@Rendel Harris Hopefully the fat cunt will be dead before then.
How on earth is that only a 2 year driving ban?!?! What is wrong with this country?
Tanton’s selfish point making gesture was not limited to deliberately getting in the way on her bike, she presumably caused further delays by lying on the road with multiple fractures while being tended to by the ambulance.
It makes my blood boil!
I would like to think that the Daily Mail reader comments were ironic. But sadly they probably weren’t.
Horrible people, horrible newspaper.
For that, a two year driving ban. And the man is a driving instructor. An Actual Driving Instructor. A. Driving. Instructor. Someone whose job it is to instruct other people how to drive.
If he ever, ever even thinks about working again as a driving instructor, then I hope that the DVLA tells him in no uncertain terms that this is out of the question.
@the little onion I suspect the DSA doesn’t give a shit and in some instances may be behind the anti-cyclist attitude being cultivated in new drivers. There was a video shown here last year where an instructor filmed themselves overtaking into the path of an oncoming cyclist who was forced to take evasive action, and the DSA said that they saw no problem with this when a complaint was raised.
It’s ironic that the same police force prosecuted a cyclist for daring to pass close to oncoming vehicles (while even remaining in his lane) six months later.
A substantial proportion of DM readers really are scum/ vermin (Bevan was right!), aren’t they? There’s even an IACM among them. I’m disgusted that it was a suspended sentence – even though he would have been released after a couple of months, a real sentence would have conveyed the message that it wasn’t considered just a minor misdemeanor. We’re all in line for a tragedy like this – it’s just a matter of chance.
@wtjs He was not on his phone, not drunk, not speeding and it was not an illegal manoeuvre so there were no grounds for an immediate jail sentence. Not least as the government is currently releasing some offenders for all but the worst crimes as there isn’t room in prison for them all now. Maybe a longer driving ban and compulsory retest would have been more appropriate for this offence
@SVXY ah yes, it’s a good job that someone has appeared again to remind us that the outcome – equivalent to assault occasioning serious bodily harm is not real crime! Or at least shouldn’t be taken so seriously.
Of course they weren’t also “taking the mick” by eg. being drunk. They didn’t mean it! It was an accident! They’ll never do it again!
(The fact they literally added insult to injury afterwards is just down to shock! Perhaps… but interesting what was on their mind, waiting to come out. Mens rea? Plus see lack of remorse before.)
This is by someone who not only should have been driving the car with the alertness and care appropriate to operating dangerous machinery in a public space … but who might be expected to be able to drive at a high standard. Indeed they are also responsible for training others.
There appears to be a lack of the customary plea of remorse here also, you’ll note.
@chrisonabike It was not assault occasioning serious bodily harm though was it as he had no mens rea and intention to knock her off her bike. As you state he was not drunk and he stopped at the scene. I agree though he should lose his driving instructor registration. Dick did pass on an apology to the cyclist
@SVXY
Shurely some feeble attempt at humour here!
Or are you saying that a person on a bicycle in daylight is invisible from behind unless wearing hi-vis (and perhaps that’s contributory negligence or recklessness?) but 4 persons (not sure where you get that from?) are … also invisible?
Because per previous comments about no mens rea you couldn’t possibly be suggesting that this amounts to provocation, because that wouldn’t apply if it was an accident. And careful competent trained driving instructors (no doubt fully in command of their emotions and committed to safe road use) wouldn’t be provoked?
Also: presumably 4 persons sharing the back seat in a car or bus are exempt from this “abreast” rule, even if the conveyance is not moving at all?
Unless they’re … wearing sandals??
@SVXY At night a cyclist not in high viz will be hard to see and 4 persons cycling abreast are not only near impossible to overtake but cycling against the highway code which states you should not cycle more than 2 abreast.
There may not have been provocation from the cyclist but there was no evidence of mens rea from the driver either.
No cyclist should of course ever ride in sandals unless say a track over fields, even on a 20 or 30mph limit road that would be dangerous let alone a 60mph one
@SVXY
Feel free to come back when any of that relates to this case.
Or indeed makes sense by itself *.
Actually, don’t, if you would be so kind.
* As you don’t need reminding: hi-viz has little to do with night visibility, what you’re after is reflectives; although those have also proved of zero guarantee of effectiveness in some other “the cyclist was there to be seen…” cases.
And if you can safely overtake a car and certainly a bus (4 abreast seating – with an aisle!) you should have no difficulty overtaking said group of cyclists (you appear to have an abreast-fixation – FWIW I’ve never encountered more than a momentary 3-some). Assuming you were a competent driver. Or indeed waiting until they had turned off / moved over. Your reminded that another thing the Highway code doesn’t say is “you MUST overtake slower-moving traffic…”
@SVXY
You’re almost correct – it does say – specifically in Rule 53
However, this applies to horses. For clarification, horses are not bicycles.
@SVXY Section 66
‘This section explains what cyclists should and should not do when riding on the road….You should not:
Ride more than two abreast.
Ride close behind another vehicle.
Carry anything that will affect your balance or get tangled up in your wheels or chain.’
https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/changes-and-answers/highway-code-for-cyclists
If you don’t even know the highway code for cyclists should you really be cycling on the road?
@SVXY It does not say you can’t ride three or more abreast. It does not say that to do so would be inconsiderate. I’m afraid your opinion that it would be has no particular legal status.
mdavidford It says you can ride 2 abreast and must have consideration for other road users. So if you ride three or more abreast you could be prosecuted for careless cycling with your inconsideration for other road users under the highway code used as evidence by the CPS
@SVXY Again, it doesn’t say that riding three or more abreast is inconsiderate. That’s just your opinion, which counts for nothing.
@chrisonabike
Add reflectives to high viz too then. You can’t safely overtake a bus unless it has stopped, certainly not on a rural road and nor can you safely overtake 3 or more cyclists riding abreast. You would not be able to see what was ahead, hence it is forbidden in the highway code. People in cars on Sunday mornings might be taking their kids to their football game, going to church, seeing family for lunch etc, they also don’t have time to be stuck behind cyclists all day
@SVXY Curiouser and curiouser.
It seems strange that it’s simultaneously only a minor failing for a driving instructor to drive into a road user ahead of them (an instructor who at best was not looking where he was driving – I don’t know whether he also deployed “the sun was in my eyes” admission in the court case) …
… and yet you (rightly) also highlight “not being able to see what is ahead” as reason for not being able to overtake cyclists or buses?
(If you’re driving so close behind a bus or group of cyclists that you can’t see anything ahead, you probably shouldn’t overtake, and possibly shouldn’t be driving at all).
I’m wondering what “code” you are invoking?
Could it be the same one regularly made up by impatient people not operating their vehicles in accordance with the conditions of their licence who “don’t have time to be stuck behind cyclists all day”? 🤔
@SVXY The driving instructor was prosecuted for careless driving causing injury and got a suspended sentence and driving ban so clearly did not escape punishment. You could also be prosecuted if trying to overtake a group of cyclists or a bus while not clearly being able to see the road ahead, at least for careless driving, maybe even dangerous driving.
So drivers must comply with the highway code but so should cyclists, the highway code makes clear cyclists can ride 2 abreast not 3 or 4 abreast. Cyclists riding 3 or 4 abreast could therefore also be prosecuted for at least careless cycling on the road
@SVXY
Ah, so it *is* the “flood the zone with shit” argumentation technique then?
Or perhaps … you are genuinely unclear about the difference between the Highway code and the law (and perhaps the difference between cyclists, drivers and indeed horse riders? And rusty on safe practice?
As mdavidford notes you appear to be confusing rule with Rule 66 (for cyclists, which doesn’t say anything about not riding x abreast) with Rule 53 (for horse riders which gives guidance not to more than double up – I don’t think this is a direct summary of any law since “should” not “must”).
Charitably I’m going with “*i* know what it says!” which as I noted many of people feel they do.
Anyway away with you, I feel you’ve had your fill of attention for today.
@SVXY Rule 66 of the highway code says you can ride two abreast but to also ‘be considerate of the needs of other road users when riding in groups.’ It does not say you can ride three or four abreast which would not be considerate of the needs of other road users. As the highway code is used by prosecution lawyers as evidence to convict in Road Traffic Act offences cases you certainly could therefore be prosecuted and convicted for careless cycling if cycling three or four abreast
@chrisonabike Riding 3 or more abreast blocks most traffic on a carriageway getting past. I cannot think of a jury or a magistrate who would not convict cyclists doing that of lack of consideration of other road users and careless driving
@SVXY I cannot think of a jury or a magistrate who would not convict cyclists doing that of lack of consideration of other road users and careless driving
He was doing OK for the first three words, but then slumped back down to his usual pitiful standard, dreaming of cyclists being convicted of careless driving or being smashed to pulp by a driver guilty of nothing more than a minor lapse of judgement.
@SVXY There is an offence of careless cycling, s28 RTA 1988
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/part/I/crossheading/cycling-offences-and-cycle-racing
@SVXY There is also an offence of handling eels in suspicious circumstances.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/62/section/32
Which has a lot more to do with the price of fish.
@SVXY Yes and a fisherman can be convicted of that offence as a cyclist can be of careless cycling
@SVXY Yes and a fisherman can be convicted of that offence as a cyclist can be convicted of careless cycling
@SVXY Oh good, the defender of drivers who kill and maim is back. Well down to your usual standard of idiocy, “it was not a criminal manoeuvre”. Well yes, it was, because it was a manoeuvre that has resulted in him being convicted of a criminal offence, namely causing serious injury by careless driving. Is there any other sphere of society where one can pretty much destroy another person’s life through criminal negligence and idiots will say well they didn’t really mean to do it so they shouldn’t get more than the tiniest slap on the wrist?
@Rendel Harris He was convicted of not seeing the cyclist when he knocked her off her bike, maybe as he didn’t have his sun visor down or didn’t check his mirrors enough. He was not convicted of doing a u turn or overtake where one was forbidden for example. In terms of his negligence that will be settled in any civil claim, he has also received a driving ban
@SVXY He was convicted of causing serious injury by careless driving, which is a very serious criminal offence as reflected in the suspended prison sentence he was given. Stop trying to minimise it by just saying “oh he was only convicted of not seeing her.” Your own words show how stupid your attempt to defend him is, “he knocked her off her bike, maybe as he [… ] didn’t check his mirrors enough” – he smashed into her directly from behind, do explain how checking his mirrors would stop him from driving straight into someone in front of him. As for trying to excuse him by saying it could’ve been because his sunvisor wasn’t down, firstly it can be seen on the video that Ms. Tanton was clearly visible in those light conditions and if he couldn’t see because of the light conditions then failing to slow down to account for that would be an act of criminal negligence. He was driving too close to the cyclist and so hit her, that is an illegal manoeuvre and it is that for which he has received a criminal conviction, not “not seeing her”.
@SVXY Careless driving causing serious injury was an offence only created in 2022, before then it was only treated as Careless driving with a maximum of a fine, penalty points and a driving ban. He must have missed her, maybe because of the sun or another factor but was still driving at below the 60mph speed limit on that road. Had he seen her clearly he would not have driven so close to her would he and slowed down, even if he should have looked ahead of him more keenly. He did not do an illegal manoeuvre forbidden by signage on that road
@SVXY Yeah….it wasn’t illegal for a husband to rape his wife until 1991, does that mean it’s not really bad now because it used not to be an offence? Dick has been punished under the law as it stood at the time of his offence and whining that the law used not to be so strict is ridiculous. As for the rest of your drivel, it’s amazing how you appear not only to have been present but actually inside his head to know exactly what happened. “Had he seen her clearly he would not have driven so close to her would he and slowed down” – I should think every cyclist on this forum has experience of drivers who have seen them and not slowed down and driven as close as possible. There has been plenty of evidence here and elsewhere that a significant proportion of driving instructors have contempt for and frustration with cyclists, it’s just as feasible that he enjoys doing punishment passes on cyclists and simply misjudged this one. As for “He did not do an illegal manoeuvre forbidden by signage on that road”, shouldn’t you make a beeping noise when you back up like that? You’ve gone from “he didn’t make an illegal manoeuvre” to “there wasn’t actually a sign forbidding his illegal manoeuvre”. Hilarious. I suppose if he’d been drunk you’d be saying there wasn’t a sign saying “don’t drive drunk on this stretch of road”? I’m afraid your desperation to defend a person who has ruined a woman’s life by committing a serious criminal offence either through staggering incompetence and negligence or a misjudged act of malice has made you look extremely stupid.
@SVXY Rape has always been a serious indictable only offence and it was right the marital exemption was removed. Careless driving even now remains only a summary offence, careless driving causing serious injury is now an either way offence but that is to do with the outcome. The offence remains careless driving not with intent like rape. Yes he should have slowed down but there is no evidence he saw the cyclist in which case he likely would have. Cyclists who choose to ride on 60mph limit roads could also help themselves by wearing high viz, not wearing sandals and ensuring they don’t ride 4 abreast
@SVXY Goodness me, your trolling’s getting desperately poor now, isn’t it? What has riding four abreast got to do with this single woman riding alone? What the hell has her choice of footwear got to do with it? If she hadn’t been wearing sandals (a perfectly acceptable form of footwear incidentally, so much so that Shimano and a number of other companies make SPD sandals) he wouldn’t have ploughed into her from behind? I really think it’s time for you to bugger off now as you clearly have no interest in cycling and your only purpose in being here is to defend drivers who kill and maim cyclists.
@Rendel Harris Wearing sandals may be fine if cycling on tracks over fields or in a quiet residential street with a 20 or 30mph limit. It is not sensible cycling on a 60mph main road
@SVXY So sandals are permissible footwear for cycling if you’re riding at 15 mph in a 30 mph zone but they are not permissible footwear for cycling if you are riding at 15 mph in a 60 mph zone? I’m afraid this is how trolls always give themselves away because clearly no human being with the capacity to operate a computer with sufficient adroitness to post a reply could genuinely be that stupid.
@SVXY Of course because cycling on a 60mph road is far more dangerous than cycling in a 30mph zone and you need footwear with the strongest grip to react quicker if needed
@SVXY Yet again it’s highly impressive how you know the exact circumstances of this incident, now down to the exact type of footwear Ms.Tanton was sporting at the time. There are numerous types of all-terrain/hiking sandals that have far better grip than a standard pair of trainers. And once again do explain how having shoes without gaps in the uppers would have prevented Dick from driving straight into her from behind? No actually, don’t bother.
@Rendel Harris it’s just the silliness of “debating club” games – if not simply outright attention-seeking.
Say a dozen irrelevant things and repeat them until someone knocks them down, then play logic on each ignoring any wider picture (“they don’t say you can – ergo you cannot!” – but aside from that being incorrect the HC itself isn’t all direct quotes from law and that section is in the “more like guidance” category).
If someone points out you’re factually incorrect ignore it, or demand “proof”, or say that’s your belief or that people feel that way. Let the other side waste energy on fact and logic.
If you get stuck just bring in more tangential and/or made up stuff.
Is this being done in the hope that it’ll get picked up by some AI and misdirect that?
@SVXY wow and in what way did the lady wearing sandals contribute to the inability of the so called “highly qualified driving instructor” to avoid mowing her down? Isn’t it more a case of him not seeing her simply because he didn’t look? Or did he actually mean to knock her off her bike and then try to minimise the consequences of his actions (like many criminals do). You don’t know and neither does anyone else apart from the criminal! So could you save your sympathy for the actual victim?
@SVXY If you choose to cycle on a busy 60mph main road it is not sensible to cycle in sandals, for starters as it would reduce your grip and reaction time compared to some other types of footwear. You can have some sympathy with the victim while still making that point. As he was only convicted of careless driving clearly he did not commit that with intent either
@SVXY You are not right about much in this thread, but this at least is correct …
The outcome does not determine a crime, or its seriousness. It is the equivalent of the age old football debate about whether a player deserves a longer ban because their tackle caused a serious injury.
Assault requires intent. Just because the outcome of this particularly egregious incompetent driver causes injuries as serious as an assault would does not make it one.
In cases like this, with no obviously illegal factor, such as phone use, drink or drugs etc. the punishment should be based on the level of incompetence of the driving. A lengthy ban (2 years is pathetic), extended retest at the end, an life ban from ever teacher others to drive would be more appropriate that prison.
@Jetmans Dad The question of whether there was intent is an extremely moot one: the video demonstrates that visibility was close to perfect, there was no oncoming traffic and Dick glanced to his left shortly before hitting the cyclist. There is no conceivable reason for him not to have seen her, nor is there any reason why he could not have given her a very wide berth. Impossible to prove in court, I realise, but I would not be in the least surprised if he did have intent to pass her close to give her a little fright and misjudged the distance. Anyone who doubts that (I don’t include you, SVXY, as I doubt you actually ride a bicycle), think about the number of times you’ve been out riding in the same situation and have received unnecessarily close passes that could only be deliberate.
@Jetmans Dad you’re quite right, – although we then get into what charges are considered (see nonsense of the distinction between “careless” and “dangerous”. And of course that these only exist to replace other charges (which the judiciary / jurors felt were unfair on motorists)). And the fairly arbitrary allocation of punishments.
The contrarian would have been better being more explicit about “should it be a *crime* if most people don’t think it is?”
Or rather – how does the law help with deterrence / prevention of harm AND delivering the degree of “desert” broadly acceptable to society.
Ultimately I would suggest that “police it better” isn’t the primary tool (particularly with such a massive investment in the motornormative). I would argue for the “restrict motoring convenience” like the Dutch. And not “restrict and ideally dissuade vulnerable road users” which the Uk has done by fiat and presumably that poster would like more of.
“in his defence, he clearly didn’t see her as he was driving up hill directly into sun and she’s wearing dark clothing”
This is not a defence; it’s an admission (albeit not by the criminal).
When will people accept that the laws of physics mean cyclists are not invisible? They may be hard to see… if you don’t look for them… but there will always be circumstances where hiviz or lights won’t make a difference. The only solution is that drivers accept responsibility for positively assessing that the road ahead is clear before they drive into it.
@GMBasix
Lazy/angry drivists & DM readers: “waah waah cyclists can’t be seen unless they wear hi-viz”
also lazy/angry drivists & DM readers “but I can see that one wearing dark clothing”
Let’s be clear, anyone defending that collision is either trolling or a complete idiot.
That said, cycling has been on a wrong side of a culture war for years now, used by left wing warriors and revenue-hungry YouTubers to make either outrageously self-entitled or anti-freedom statements.
People love their cars, and quite rightly so. They are ingrained as part of a societal normality which embodies democracy, the rule of law and personal freedom and responsibility. An attack on these precious values – by activists who want 15 minute cities, state control of every facet of our lives, or preferential treatment for one group of road users – provokes a strong, and sometimes hyperbolic, reaction.
That context helps explain comments like those in the Daily Mail, even if they are unjustified.
@jackcycles And the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids?
@chrisonabike er, no. But thanks for playing.
@jackcycles I had one once, but the wheels came off.
@chrisonabike Kudos for the Dr Strangelove reference. I doubt that Nigel will get it, though.
FTFY
@jackcycles Here he comes again, blaming lefty cyclists for a ‘culture war’ and roping in all manner of things unrelated to the matter at hand. You don’t get to go ‘Oh, those people are bad. But you know what? I’ve got an explanation for why they are.’ No, you haven’t. Because none of your made up drivel would explain the comments even if they weren’t made up drivel. They’d be an excuse. So you’re little better than those horrorshows.
@jackcycles I’m hoping that you’re being ironic in your defence of DM readers, but on reflection, maybe not. Anyone who posts ‘People love their cars, and quite rightly so.’ is a fool or perhaps AI.
As the Dalai Lama said “People were created to be loved, and things were created to be used; the world is in chaos because we love things and use people”
If you love your car, be careful you don’t burn your foreskin on the exhaust.
@eburtthebike
Maybe this is @jackcycles … ?
https://www.timesnownews.com/viral/man-in-sexual-relationship-with-his-car-says-he-never-experienced-true-love-before-article-92019320
@mitsky
Nearly 20 years ago, but my imagination is still boggled. No information on the bike’s view of events sadly. Hope it was OK.
A man caught trying to have sex with his bicycle has been sentenced to three years on probation.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/7095134.stm
@Danbury presumably he ignored the Velominati’s advice to “put it in the big gear”? Painful…
Or did he feel need to prove his manhood after cries from youths implying he couldn’t get his front wheel up?
A friendly reminder.
@Nigel Garage I came across a beautiful quote from the Dalai Lama just this morning: “People were made to be loved, and things were made to be used. We are in the trouble we are now because we love things and use people.” I can’t think of a more perfect example of this than someone who can say, apparently seriously, “People love their cars and rightly so.” 1750 people a year are killed by car drivers and 25,000 seriously injured. 40,000 people in the UK die prematurely every year as a result of pollution that in urban areas is primarily caused by motor vehicles. Millions of children grow up every year with developmental and cognitive impairment due to that same pollution. The overuse of cars – the love of them, if you will – is a primary driver of the obesity epidemic killing hundreds of thousands more every year and stretching the NHS to breaking point. And yet you think it’s quite right to love these things.
@Rendel Harris the “relationship engineering” of a product and how that then evolves (because humans exist in societies) is a fascinating business.
To a first approximation aren’t products designed to be loveable? (Leaving aside the “marmite effect” or “learn to love it” of eg. hot chilli or beer)
Doesn’t a great deal of effort and indeed trial going into that, from making things “self-explanatory” through decent ergonomics to hooks like having “a satisfying click” and “making me walk tall”?
It would be remarkable if people *didn’t* love their cars.
Because cars weren’t set up as a simple blag (or have outlasted it) there’s also the mitigating or getting us to overlook the unpleasant parts. As with other “addictive” things those become increasingly noticeable once the first thrill lapses.
Luckily we aren’t great at saying “could things be better? Let’s step back and see whether they might be overall if I did things differently. Allowing that any change will be work and take time to get used to”.
@jackcycles Hello again. You failed to mention the leftie establishment brainwashing “normal people” with con trails & 5G, and that Mr Loophole (renowned road safety “expert”) is our only hope for salvation. That and something about “established” red lights?
@jackcycles
TL;DR I’m not defending this tw*t for driving like an entitled tw*t. He’s clearly a tw*t. I’m just defending tw*ts driving like entitled tw*ts in general.
It’s society’s fault, but you’re not allowed to fix it.
@jackcycles Thats complete bollocks and you know it. Cyclists have been subjected to hatred for decades. Nothing to do with 15 minute cities or state control.
You are right, cycling is used in culture wars but you have it completely backwards. Its the right wing that are obsessed with it.
As to freedom, come on, you’ve been drinking the cool-aid. The American version of freedom which is freedom to be an inconsiderate asshole. Freedom would be being able to safely cycle and walk to most of the things you want to in your life without being put in danger by assholes in cars who could, very easily go about their business whilst keeping you safe.
Cycling doesn’t take away from driving. Thats such an asinine way of thinking about it. Cyclists take up a tiny amount of space vs cars. They don’t pollute. The don’t litter pavements. They aren’t noisy and smelly. The unbelievably larger portion of travel spending is still related to cars. Active travel is a rounding error.
Explain to me how cyclists are getting preferential treatment again vs drivers? The only way you can remotely spin that is that instead of 99.99% of funding and thought going towards drivers its only 99%.
Perhaps, just perhaps the idea of 15 minute cities is to make places that are good to live in for families and communities. Perhaps, just perhaps, the best places to live are those that have all the amenities you need within easy reach without having to drive. Perhaps, just perhaps, we have an obesity and health crisis and getting people out of their cars and moving under their own power is a good thing. Perhaps, just perhaps, freedom is being able to choose how you want to get about rather than being forced to use a car if you want to get there safely.
My partner would love to cycle more but shes petrified of cycling on our roads because of the cunts behind the wheel who will happily put your life at risk to save literally no time at all. I ride with my two kids on the back of a cargo bike and even that doesn’t stop plenty of people from doing stupid things around me. Some people are just scum.
@jackcycles
“Let’s be clear, anyone defending that collision is either trolling or a complete idiot.”
Or is both at the same time as proven by your very own comment.
@jackcycles Are you also misinterpreting the ’15-minute Cities’ idea?
@judda6610 I suspect it’s misrepresenting, rather than misinterpreting.
@jackcycles I feel the need to ask you to think very carefully about the phrase “preferential treatment for one group of road users” and be honest about who that applies to.
🙄
@belugabob I fear that you ask too much of the pair of pathetic sad git trolls infesting this topic. They clearly derive some suspect stimulation from adopting stupid and offensive anti-cyclist positions while hoping for vituperative responses which gain them even further stimulation.
@wtjs just because I feel the need to ask, doesn’t mean that I expect a rational answer – it was more of a rhetorical question (hence the roll-eyes)
Sick to my stomach at these horrible events and the Mail-reader pile-on that followed it.
One can’t help feeling he knew exactly what he was doing. The lack of humanity at the time and after is deeply disturbing.
@bathcycleguy my thoughts exactly; far from being an unavoidable incident, it appears to be either a deliberate close pass gone wrong or a deliberate collision, without any regard for another human being. In either case why anyone would try to blame the victim and excuse the criminal who injured her? It is just beyond belief!
This was an awful crash, the drivers punishment was way to lenient, and I hope the poor lady can recover and move on.
But is there really much to be gained by picking out the worst comments and highlighting them on here as a headline? There are always total idiots and trolls on the internet, saying horrendous stuff to get attention. Given them more attention is exactly the opposite of what should be done.
We don’t even know if comments are real, if its one person with a load of accounts, outright trolling, AI generated…
It turns a serious story into clickbait.
@ribena or we can keep on highlighting ridiculous attitudes until it finally becomes apparent to the perpetrators that it’s unacceptable.
Ignoring them makes them think that nobody disagrees with them.
@belugabob perhaps… at least on this forum (and likely in many of the “opinion” pieces) there is a “ho ho bet this will wind the beggars up!” – or at best only an interest in “getting a chuckle”.
I don’t think human nature changes much (eg. they like to put the boot in to others in NL also) but the topics which create a frisson because “we’ve all done / thought it” do.
Hence eg. the image of dropping concrete blocks off motorway bridges wouldn’t be “banter” in most places. But while “stringing up piano wire across a bike path” almost certainly also wouldn’t be in NL apparently it is in the UK …
@chrisonabike
maybe, but things that used to be banter & jokes in the 1960s/1970s have (thankfully) become socially unacceptable , and this is mostly because enough people spoke up about it.
We even managed to make drink-driving a lot less acceptable, by the same means.
“Daily Mail readers rush to defend unrepentant driving instructor”
If you want the opinion from a bunch of entitled, self serving scumbags, there is where you will find them.
The type of prick who buys into that shameless rag are the type who’s opinions will never change because its always got to be about them. If its gets in their way they despise it, cyclists, foreigners, anyone with an ounce of compassion for other people.
If I ever became a billionaire the first thing I’d do is buy the Daily Mail and raze is to the ground
Wouldn’t it be better to take the Onion / Infowars (proposed) approach and keep it going to satirise the kind of crap it currently pumps out?
@mdavidford Nah, I want to raze it to the ground.
I never said I’d empty the staff from the building first.
@mdavidford It’s already so bad, that I’m not sure I’d be able to recognise it as satire.
Obviously, if motorists can’t see a cyclist if she/he not wearing high-vis clothing, they can’t see a pedestrian on a crossing if he /she is not wearing high-vis clothing.
“It’s awful, but in his defence he didn’t see her…” sadly not a view many drivers would find as extraordinary as those of us on this site do.
@jaymack maybe if he had bothered looking he would have seen her? His dashcam showed her quite clearly…
Is anybody else fighting intrusive thoughts of playing baseball with the head of a particular (now ex-?) driving instructor?
Asking for a friend.
Position statement: this is about how stories like this mess with my ^friend’s head, not what my friend intends, or incites others, to do.
Unduly lenient sentence.
My guess is, his self-belief that he did nothing wrong is so ingrained that there is a strong possibility that he might be involved in something in the future.
(Assuming he can afford any future insurance premium.)
Then hopefully this incident can also be taken into account to have him banned for life.
@mitsky Why should you be banned for life if you weren’t even judged by a court to be driving dangerously, as he wasn’t? At most he should maybe have got a few years longer ban and mandatory retest
@SVXY He wasn’t driving dangerously, he just smashed into the back of a cyclist at 55mph on a clear road in broad daylight, causing her the most horrendous injuries imaginable, because, in the very best case, most defensible, scenario, he, a driving instructor, simply couldn’t be bothered to perform the most basic task of a driver which is to monitor the road ahead for hazards and vulnerable road users. Go away now, there’s good chap.
@Rendel Harris Yes, he was driving at 55mph in a 60mph road. The court verdict was he was not driving dangerously but carelessly eg he should have had his visor down to keep out the sun so he could monitor the road ahead.
@SVXY The court does not decide on whether someone was driving carelessly or dangerously, they can only decide on the guilt or otherwise of the defendant on the charge the CPS decides to lay against them. The CPS is notorious for preferring to charge careless rather than dangerous because it’s an easier win; this results in entirely unjust sentences such as this one.
@SVXY None of the magistrates who sentenced him said the CPS should have charged him with dangerous driving. Why should they? He was not speeding, he was not on his phone and he was not drunk or under the influence of drugs either
@SVXY
This is a curious tactic – rebutting your own argument with your very next sentence.
@mitsky That’s what terrifies me. It’s one thing to accept that humans make mistakes, but another to act like you never did anything wrong. He comes across as someone who is convinced he is the real victim in all of this.
I’m less bothered about the lack of custodial sentence than I am about the brevity of his driving ban. If not being drunk or on his phone is considered to be mitigation, surely being an actual professional driving instructor means he really ought to have known how to watch the road!! The lack of compassion and humility should also be considered. He didn’t even have the gumption to fake it.
Someone else suggested that being close to the verge may have given her some protection, and I’m sure it did when it came to the actual collision, but I wonder if she’d have been a bit more visible if she had been further away from the edge?
And another Mail reader said: “She was swaying from left to right with each turn of her pedals. She was an accident waiting to happen.”’
Funny how a Daily mail reader can ascertain that from a poor quality video, yet Mr Dick couldn’t even see the cyclist, despite having the benefit of glorious, high-resolution, real life vision (not to mention the enhanced observation skills associated with being a driving instructor)
Could we have a whip round, and buy him a conscience?
🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
another Mail reader said: “She was swaying from left to right with each turn of her pedals. She was an accident waiting to happen”
I’m surprised nobody else has yet commented about this aspect of what the unsurprisingly repellent Mail reader wrote: most of us sway with each pedal stroke, to varying degrees. The stabilisation setting on much camera video (almost all of mine) minimises the apparent degree of sway. There was nothing remarkable about Ms Tanton’s cycling, yet exceedingly stupid and malevolent (forgive the tautology) expletive-deleted Mail Reader views this as an excuse for the ******* driver and an ‘it’s her own fault’ comment because a cyclist just being on the road is enough for those b******s and for our very own loathsome trolls. Many of us, including me, would have been further out from the road edge, and could well have been even more horrifically injured as a result. Make no mistake: chance alone has protected those of us who have so far been lucky enough to evade such an assault from an unrepentant driver untroubled by his joke suspended sentence. She is forced to rely on the civil court for recompense and the punishment and justice which should have resulted from the criminal court case. I hope it’s a massive settlement!
Some observations. He’s a professional driver yet is driving into bright sunlight without his visor down to cut glare and without appropriate eyewear. Apart from the responsibility any regular driver would have, he had not equipped himself correctly to drive in those conditions. Rob Jefferies, a medalist at our nationat track championships died in a similar way some years ago, tragic but that was an inexperienced young driver that caused that. This guy definitely should not be teaching people to drive, it was lax driving beyond belief. Even with a visor or photochromic driving glasses, there has to be some doubt as to whether his eyesight was up to scratch and mandatory eyesight testing should take place in cases like this, was his prescription in date etc. The only mitigating factor is that she was wearing dark clothing, but even then if with specs his eyesight was 20/20 he should have seen her. He was far too relaxed – more or less ‘oh what was that’, quite disturbing.
@chrisonabike Kudos for the Dr Strangelove reference. I doubt that Nigel will get it, though.
@bathcycleguy my thoughts exactly; far from being an unavoidable incident, it appears to be either a deliberate close pass gone wrong or a deliberate collision, without any regard for another human being. In either case why anyone would try to blame the victim and excuse the criminal who injured her? It is just beyond belief!
Never trust a DM reader…
How can this guy ever get his job back as a driving instructor?? But I expect that after his ban ends he will be back instructing new drivers how to drive safely!
What a complete Tosser and a two year ban is no way long enough.