Forum menu
her employer has just suspended her today it appears.
She's 'withdrawn' the tweet and said it was a silly mistake. Saying stupid stuff on the internet is not illegal.
If there are no independent witnesses or evidence then it's basically her word against the cyclists', I can see her not getting charged with Careless Driving/Accident and Failure to Stop because a conviction beyond reasonable doubt is unlikely on that basis.
It looks like Failure to Report has a 24 hour time limit, did she report in time?
This may come to nothing, and it seems we all need to be running cameras on our helmets from now on.
[quote=mattjg ]
It looks like Failure to Report has a 24 hour time limit, did she report in time?
Neither did the cyclist. Should both be charged?
I don't know I'm not a lawyer.
mattjg »
It looks like Failure to Report has a 24 hour time limit, did she report in time?Neither did the cyclist. Should both be charged?
the duty to report under the RTA is for the drivers of motorised vehicles, there is no such duty upon cyclists.
[quote=smiffy ]
the duty to report under the RTA is for the drivers of motorised vehicles, there is no such duty upon cyclists.
Really? Thanks for that. Might be worth bearing in mind for the future.
There was enough on on timeline to do her for using a mobile phone while driving.
"if i'd have know it would ever get this far the stupid tweet wouldn't have been posted to be honest."
Yes I believe you are being honest, you have convinced me that the bad publicity is all you give a **** about.
"I stopped, looked in my rear, assessed the situation... and [u]saw that there was no reason to stop[/u]"
wha???
To be fair, the only person who seems to have changed their story (after the event when being interviewed etc) is the cyclist.
Everything she has said in interviews seems to have remained the same, but the guys story seems to be a bit ......... fluid ?
She may have said something different in her tweet, but that's not really going to make any difference in a legal sense is it. His story changing probably would.
Everything she has said in interviews seems to have remained the same, but the guys story seems to be a bit ......... fluid ?
What has he changed in his story? Can't find anything else other than the original leg hit front wing thing
Yes, but she hasn't said anything at all for 2 days, probably a shrewd move, and allows her to see appraise how much is known, but hearing her speak I don't think she's that clever, just how things turned out.
Cyclist story I'm not sure I follow quite how he went on the bonnet and then carried on riding, through a hedge for 20 meters, from an oncoming car, but we haven't seen her wing mirror/car yet either of course.
"I stopped, looked in my rear, assessed the situation... and saw that there was no reason to stop"wha???
could be paraphrased as "I stopped, assessed the situation, and saw that I needn't have stopped"
sloppy wording. not an offense.
From road.cc
he was thrown on to the bonnet of her car and then bounced off, going through a hedge and in a fine piece of bike handling managing to regain controls of his machine and stopMr Hockley had decided to take no further action, "you count your limbs and carry on" he memorably told us. This being a digitally connected age though he did leave respond to Ms Way's tweet by posting a message to her Facebook page.
"Oh hi! That was me you hit and FYI, [b]you didn't knock me off[/b], I'm too hard to be hurt by a pissy micra or whatever it was you were driving."
I've popped info@larking-gowen.co.uk an email voicing my opinion: that her suspension remains a permanent fixture, and that I would not be looking towards Larking and Gowen at any time whilst she is in employment there.
She seems a right doris and she deserves to get publicly shamed for what she has done.
It doesn't matter what she says on TV, it will be the statement that she gave to the Police that counts.
IF this goes to court and IF she gives a different version of events there, then the prosecuting barrister will have a field day.
Probably been said - but suddenly she has a very expensive looking lawyer and her story suddenly plays down the whole affair - the issue is she could have killed a cyclist and tweeted to make out the cyclist shouldn't have been there in the same was as a wasp at a picnic.
What has he changed in his story? Can't find anything else other than the original leg hit front wing thing
It's been mentioned in this thread already but I'm on my phone and haven't got time to look for it now. But there are some changing details in his accounts of what happened.
"Oh hi! That was me you hit and FYI, you didn't knock me off, I'm too hard to be hurt by a pissy micra or whatever it was you were driving."
And that's not going to help either is it.
could be paraphrased as "I stopped, assessed the situation, and saw that I needn't have stopped"sloppy wording. not an offense.
true, but much of what she says has been sloppily worded...
"I've had people drive past me calling me a killer cyclist." 😕
At least she wasn't chewing gum this time...
Pretty weak interviewing too, presumably negotiated by the newly acquired siamese lawyer - no mention of other tweets on her feed showing speeding and phone use while driving.
Bet she'll be on big brother soon.
Does she have any regrets?
Does she regret hitting the cyclist?
Does she regret her obvious ignorance of the Highway Code?
Does she regret tweeting offensive remarks?
No, she regrets it has gone this far. Pond life.
she regrets the mistake
Wow, just seen the BBC interview. It's like a 3 minute cringe and she just looks angry. Not sure the second hand car salesman - cum - lawyer is helping either. Methinks it's aimed at mums who have daughters of the same age. Not sure why the lawyer is getting involved in this PR stunt though. Surely it would be a tribunal with a judge, not jury? Anyone?
Just thinking though, we don't actually have any conclusive evidence that she was in the wrong (on the road, leading up to the collision)
She posted a stupid tweet online.
He responded apparently.
But we have no idea who was actually the person in the wrong on the road do we ?
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/road_traffic_offences/#P71_3529
Reading the above, I'd guess failing to talk to the cyclists at the scene would constitute "failure to stop". A check in the rear view mirror wouldn't be enough.
Anyway, we're not lawyers and we don't know. Let's see what happens.
[quote=nealglover ]Just thinking though, we don't actually have any conclusive evidence that she was in the wrong (on the road, leading up to the collision)
She posted a stupid tweet online.
He responded apparently.
But we have no idea who was actually the person in the wrong on the road do we ?
Indeed. But this is a forum populated by many cyclists so guess where the sympathy lies?
Some time ago, I posted a story about a cyclist running into the back of my wifes stationery van. I got many responses suggesting she was lying, had pulled over in front of the cyclist etc etc etc. The fact that I actually spoke to the guy afterwards and he admitted he'd not even been looking was irrelevant 😆
Not sure why the lawyer is getting involved in this PR stunt though. Surely it would be a tribunal with a judge, not jury? Anyone?
Probably to make it difficult to charge her in court.
She's appeared on TV, she's become "known", she's said sorry...
A good lawyer could probably now argue that she can't get a fair trial or it's not in the public interest to prosecute cos she's [s]cried crocodile tears[/s] said sorry.
nealglover -
No, we only have cyclist's story that she came across the side of the road.
And her tweet saying she'd hit a cyclist, which only implied that she'd left the scene.
Not sure the photo of her breaking the speed limit would be considered as it's a separate incident.
But as you can tell, I'm no lawyer
Yep, its such an obvious attempt at manipulation its ****ing abhorrent!
I've a horrible feeling she's gonna get off without charges.
On the flip side, she has ****ed up the rest of her life.
[quote=uselesshippy ] she has **** up the rest of her life.
I'm not so sure.
On the flip side, she has **** up the rest of her life.
nahh, next 6 months at the most, can you even remember the name of catbin lady?
I think the parts of her tweet "Definitely knocked a cyclist off" - rather than "cyclist hit my mirror and wobbled off"
and also "I have right of way" - which seems very confusing unless he was on her side of the road or she was avoiding cones
plus the whole thing followed by "#bloodycyclists" might be hinges that this case swings on.
I think the interviews are the lawyer's attempt to overcome what looks like a pretty black and white case, given the above.
Yep, its such an obvious attempt at manipulation its **** abhorrent!
The worst thing is that if she gets let off it'll say to drivers everywhere:
Look, you can run a cyclist over, boast about it in public and GET OFF SCOT FREE!
Whereas what needs to happen is the exact opposite - she should be hauled up for what seems (based on her own photos and tweets) to be consistent bad driving, sent to jail for a couple of years then made to ride a bike for the rest of her life.
[i]But this is a forum populated by many cyclists so guess where the sympathy lies? [/i]
It is STW though so I would have expected a lot more people changing their minds once they've seen her.
Have the Police charged her yet?
[quote=samuri ]But this is a forum populated by many cyclists so guess where the sympathy lies?
It is STW though so I would have expected a lot more people changing their minds once they've seen her.
😆
Really? her twit pic makes a her ok, but on the TV interviews the phrase "Face like a slapped arse" has been coming to mind.
I can't contain myself any longer.... is no one going to play on the fact that this aggressive bint launched her chariot at the Iceni in the Boudica Sportive?
unklehomered - Member
Really? her twit pic makes a her ok, but on the TV interviews the phrase "Face like a slapped arse" has been coming to mind.
........perhaps, but it's the incessant "I've been wronged, pity me!" whiny voice that's starting to rankle.
No, we only have cyclist's story that she came across the side of the road.
And she says the opposite. So there's not much going to happen there unless there is an independent witness ?
I think the parts of her tweet "Definitely knocked a cyclist off" - rather than "cyclist hit my mirror and wobbled off"
and also "I have right of way" - which seems very confusing unless he was on her side of the road or she was avoiding cones
plus the whole thing followed by "#bloodycyclists" might be hinges that this case swings on.
None of that is really relevant to any "case" though.
She just says she was showing off to her mates who don't like cyclists, and then says what really happened (from her point of view)
They are both saying the other was at fault as far as I can see ?
And they have both posted daft tweets online that don't exactly make either of them look great.
She's not completely unattractive, she's blond, young, breathing and a girl.
That's enough for most here
unklehomered - Membernahh, next 6 months at the most, can you even remember the name of catbin lady?
Nope and neither do her neighbours, colleagues etc, she is now just catbin lady.
[quote=samuri ]She's not completely unattractive, she's blond, young, breathing and a girl.
That's enough for most here
That's at least three more criteria than some folk on here require.
Driver is a muppet for her actions and the tweet.
Cyclist is a muppet for his actions afterwards, his story appears to change and his comments on her facebook page were quite pathetic. Did he come off or not, how do you go over a car bonnet, remain upright and not fall off? He should have kept schtum and held the moral highground. As it is, he has lost a lot of credibility and doesnt appear to have a good lawyer to help him regain any.
I predict she will now be being briefed by an expensive lawyer courtesy of her employer and receieve a caution from the police. Cyclist only has himself to blame that she does not recieve any greter penalty.
i listend to the interview with the cyclist he certainly loses on the looks side of the argument but comes across as genuine and likable. I'd back his word in court over hers.