Forum menu
Can someone explain the rationale behind not posting on social media until a case is concluded?
In this country the Police like to investigate and collect evidence without anyone's recollection - victim, suspect or witnesses - being influenced by anything. Recollections could be mistakenly influenced or altered based on what they see or read.
Similarly the CPS and judges expect the jurynto decide solely on the evidence presented in court, rather than what some bellend says on social media.
Can anyone explain the rationale for this being so hard to understand?
I reckon the driver would get off with nothing if it wasn't for the horn beep at the start.
He'll claim the bike veered out into the road ( which he did slightly) and caused it( which he didn't)
Don't get me wrong, I think the caravaner is completely in the wrong, but I don't think the court/ genpop will
That is horrible. The worst the driver will get is the repair bill for his bumper.
The comments section is truly sickening. Not just stupid but maliciously so.
Can anyone explain the rationale for this being so hard to understand?
No problem understanding this clear description. No-one could be arsed to tell me before. Thank you.
Can anyone explain the rationale for this being so hard to understand?
No need for that mate, makes you seem like a bit of a tool.
I mean holy actual 💩 moly!
I know roadies usually (stereotyping) are in too much of a rush to wave to us mere mtbers.
Though very much show empathy to the guy nearly could have been soooooo much f worse.
Thank christ on a bike the bike took it only.
Healing vibes and positivity to all involved and this serves as a stark reminder to me when I next get a semi road read PAVEMENT off road ride in next.
Not directly related but I didn't know where else to share it...
https://twitter.com/cyclegaz/status/1545873934784102400
Neither video is a nice watch. The lorry collision made me feel queasy
Meanwhile.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-62153644
Not defending the cyclist, not least for not stopping, but this is an accident, not a deliberate act.
We really are an underclass in many people's eyes, aren't we?
No problem understanding this clear description. No-one could be arsed to tell me before. Thank you.
Yeah sorry, my comment did make me come across as a tool.
Not defending the cyclist, not least for not stopping, but this is an accident, not a deliberate act.
I suppose it is an accident in that the cyclist didn't deliberately hit the woman but mounting the pavement to whizz round a corner and then hit a person on that pavement who you hadn't seen is 100% down to the cyclist riding in a very bad way.
Do you think a car driver doing the same in their car would get anything less?
Mounting the kerb then probably no but he didn't deliberately ride into her with intent, just made 'an error of judgement'
Whereas......
Overtaking where they can't see; community service and a ban
Couldn't see because of sun but carried on anyway - acquitted
https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/20192780.henley-cyclist-killed-collision-sun-blinded-driver/
Do you think a car driver doing the same in their car would get anything less?
Yes.
https://www.darkerside.org/2013/10/helen-measures-and-the-death-of-denisa/
Did Denisa die because of Helen’s driving? Well, she was thrown 15 feet after an impact from a tonne of metal travelling at 50mph and died from severe head injuries. Tick.
Was Helen’s driving careless, even if only because of ‘momentary attention with no aggravating factors’ (quoting from sentencing guidelines)? Helen overtook on a bend, into a space she could not see to be clear, and did not stop when she saw that the space was not clear even though she said she could have done so. Apparently, this wasn’t careless or inconsiderate.
For the record, if the verdict had been the other way, it looks like the sentence would have been some kind of community order coupled with a temporary driving ban and some additional driver training
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-39356514
A delivery driver has been cleared of causing the death of a four-year-old girl by dangerous driving.
Peter Williams, 62, knocked over Esmé Rose Weir in Cheshire in January 2016 as she rode a scooter on the pavement.
Mr Williams, of Poulton Road, Wallasey told the jury at Liverpool Crown Court that despite checking his mirrors he had not seen her as he mounted the pavement
https://beyondthekerb.org.uk/somethings-very-seriously-wrong-here/
Sinden had been texting on his phone prior to the collision, and gave evidence at trial which not only disagreed with earlier statements to the police but which also contradicted other statements he made at the same trial. Many statements were mutually exclusive. Some were seemingly works of fantasy, such as the claim that objects falling onto his capacitive touchscreen phone from elsewhere in the van had somehow typed text messages. And basic time and space analysis of others showed them to be impossible, such as statements relating to his mobile phone use which, on consideration of the timestamps of the messages, were entirely incompatible with him having reached the collision site by the time of the collision.
I looked at this case in great depth shortly after Sinden was—to widespread astonishment—cleared of all charges.
Not defending the cyclist, not least for not stopping, but this is an accident, not a deliberate act.
The cyclist was absolutely as guilty as the drivers in the later examples, and I can only hope his sentence is considered the starting point for any motorist causing a death.
And as an aside I would recommend a nicer cycling route. I live close to Hurn and it is a 60mph narrowish two lane road (the pavement can legally be cycled on by the way) and I wouldn't be surprised if you were going to turn left and ride along the Avon Causeway (a narrow, twisty, undulating couple of miles) where your only purpose of riding along it would be to piss off as many car drivers as possible.
Yes, you are just as entitled to ride along those roads as the cars but do you want an enjoyable ride or one filled with hassle?
Yes.
And if you look I am sure you can see cases where cyclists were cleared too. The cyclist in this case was an idiot who was cycling dangerously and the fact he got done for that and some motorists get off does not change that. Yes the motorists should get sentences and that is where the frustration should be rather than presumably saying the cyclist should be charge free because
Yes, you are just as entitled to ride along those roads as the cars but do you want an enjoyable ride or one filled with hassle?
The problem is if we don't exercise our rights, some idiot will try and take them away from us.
Can anyone explain the rationale for this being so hard to understand?
Meh. Of course I can understand why there's the potential for issues. But if I was a victim I might still chose to post a clip up - I imagine posting something like that on social media would be extremely cathartic; you get a lot of attention, well-wishers and vindication.
Have you ever heard of a witness statement being discounted, or a jury that couldn't convict because they'd seen a bike vs car clip on Road.cc? Because if not, it seems like a load of disproportionate rules that inconvenience a victim.
My opinion might be swayed by the fact that I was in an almost identical collision where someone (aggrieved at my completely legal filtering) drove into me from behind, over my bike and then drove off. I didn't have footage, though. The police were ultimately useless, and the guy, presumably, still drives. So, as NWA famously sang (about biases towards car drivers), **** tha police.
Not posting on social media because it might be prejudicial or some other spurious reason given out by the cops or anyone else connected with the status quo is for the birds
The only reason the police have got remotely interested in prosecuting this type of crime over the last few years is due to an increase in dashcams (both on bikes and in cars) a sustained social media campaign by cyclists and finally realising that doing nothing will get them in more trouble. If it wasn't for an avalanche of incontravertable evidence then it would all be ignored like it has been for the last 40 years. What is amusing (if anything is here) is that dumpsters like the DM site give these vids airtime for clickbait but though the usual suspects in the comments section get our attention, the vast majority and various decision makers including those in business who are looking for the next profit segment also notice and it generates more headroom for a proper debate on lack of infrastructure.
Make a noise I say.
presumably saying the cyclist should be charge free because
Honestly fella, what a pile of bollocks. Which bit of 'not defending the cyclist....' did you miss?
No, he caused death by a careless / dangerous act, which caused the accident which led to a death, and he got a custodial sentence. Which is probably right.
Guardian article says that there are ca 400 pedestrian deaths on our roads every year, on average 2.5 of them are caused by cyclists.
Careless / dangerous act in a car......
There's about 1850 road deaths per year total. That include deaths where a careless / dangerous driver is also killed. There are about 180 drivers per year in total who get a custodial sentence for causing death by careless or dangerous driving. 1/10 if you discount the 'killed by self'
About 2 cyclists per week or 100 / year get killed by drivers. Are 10 drivers per year going to prison for killing cyclists? As they are usually pretty extreme cases and therefore likely to be reported or commented on here I doubt it.
That's the point - kill a cyclist and you are treated leniently compared to another driver or a pedestrian, it's as if we don't count.
Agree with that Winston. The not putting footage on social media in order to not prejudice a trial makes sense if the CPS, the judges and police did their job properly but they don't do they?
Short of taking matters into ones own hands, posting the footage on social media is the only recourse we have.
The only answer here is to prosecute without a jury. Any statistical analysis of past verdicts shows that the law does next to nothing when it comes to protecting cyclists and that jurors almost exclusively pass a verdict based entirely on their own self interest.
The whole concept of trial by jury is that we are judged by our peers. If the victim is someone on a bicycle who has been killed / injured by a dangerous driver and they are subsequently judged by another 12 drivers then they are not being judged by their peers are they?
What prejudices a trial more than uploading footage is the lazy language employed by the media (and the courts). "Cyclist hit by car" is a common fallacy. The cyclist was hit by a driver, (unless of course, the car was driving itself.)
OPs group was riding either side of the car. It's not wrong but I would have avoided the 'vanner by either sticking to the one side or behind.
Still, the driver needed to hold back as the bikes were all over and no way of knowing what was going where.
Have you ever heard of a witness statement being discounted, or a jury that couldn’t convict because they’d seen a bike vs car clip on Road.cc? Because if not, it seems like a load of disproportionate rules that inconvenience a victim.
You understand the principle applies to all potential criminal cases? That there are rules that traditional media have had to abide by and apply to users of social media as well?
This isn’t about cyclists or drivers. It's about trying for to ensure all sides get a fair trial. One day that principle might keep your innocent ass out of prison.
“Cyclist hit by car” is a common fallacy. The cyclist was hit by a driver
I know what your saying, but it's one of those annoyingly 'correct' phrases that omits a lot of details, not a fallacy, just a zero implied blame statement of fact...
You understand the principle applies to all potential criminal cases? That there are rules that traditional media have had to abide by and apply to users of social media as well?
Yes I'm just arguing that there's a proportionality argument - if posting it on social media makes very little difference to the police's 'case'*, but it makes you feel better AND as Winston says 'makes a noise', then it's more likely to do you, the victim, some benefit - kowtowing to police requests almost certainly won't.
*No doubt they've got four more detectives on it down at the crime lab - working in shifts.
It's not solely whether it actually prejudices a trial, it's whether it has the potential to. It might not even be the video itself, which is after all a factual document, but look at the comments on here and on the road.cc/FB post, those also have the potential. Or at the very least gives a cause for doubt that a lawyer could play on, and which might then cause the police / CPS to not pursue appropriately.
If we want evidential based hearings and action, then we should keep that in mind. If all we want is to post videos and rail against how bad it is, then post away.
The problem is not that this stuff will predjudice a trial. I imagine the Caravanner is going to get everything the law currently wants to throw at him - it's an open and shut case with that evidence.
The probably is that 99% of these collisions happen without dashcams. Caravanner probably thinks himself unlucky that he was the unlucky one to be caught on camera and he's got a point. The vast majority of these incidents go unpunished. So sharing these things around and making drivers fearful of being caught on camera is a very worthwhile endeavour IMO.
I'm with theotherjonv on this, besides there is nothing to stop you from presumably posting stuff on social media later on is there?
Well I did advise the rider and the guy that posted the video not to post to socials but it’s found it’s way on there and gone viral and is now part of road.cc’s blog today
Urgh.
Horrible all around. Horrible incident, horrible malicious driver, but also horrible road. I really hope the planned route for the day was mostly lovely and just had that little bit as an unavoidable nastiness. Otherwise, I'd be giving up road riding if it looked all like that - where's the pleasure? And that's before you add the likelihood of coming up against stressed moronic drivers. No ta.
This will be taken as victim blaming - whatever, bite me (and I'm not even sure the cyclist victim did it, just the camera bike maybe), but this is just the sort of slow section on an otherwise faster road that I never filter past cars that have previously overtaken me. It just seems to be poking a wasps next. I want drivers to be safe and courteous and choose the right moment to pass me well. But once they have done the right thing (and I appreciate they didn't in this case, with horn and close passing of the caravan) slipping past them at a slow patch on the road so they have to do it again just seems crass. If I slow up and don't filter past I'll be what, 20-40 yards further back down the road. That's my little time penalty for greasing the wheels and all road users getting along ok - a bit of ying and yang. Safely passing and then re-passing a cyclist is a ballache even as a cycling advocate and I can see how it could really rile people.
Nope, not in this case.
I cycle to work 2 or 3 days a week on a mix of narrow roads and bridleways and I'm full on mr nice guy pulling off the road for vehicles that come up behind me and wait patiently for me to find a farm gate or passing place. If there are vehicles coming towards me on the singletrack road and clearly slowing down then I will also try and get out of thier way - we are all probably going to work and all road users - I'm full of sunshine......
.....right up to when one of them pulls a dick move clearly on purpose like speeding up, banging on the horn, close passing me, swearing from the window etc etc. Then they forfit any right to the road whatsoever and i'll do whatever I need to do to make me feel better. Childish I know but otherwise I just simmer all day.
@convert - you make a good point. I also try to avoid antagonising folk and likely wouldn't have tried overtaking that driver given their previous manoeuvre. As you say, they're just going to come past you again if/when the traffic opens up.
but this is just the sort of slow section on an otherwise faster road that I never filter past cars that have previously overtaken me.
Likewise, it doesn't gain much and stops potential problems. However not in any way condoning or excusing this drivers actions.
I try to make a point when driving of NOT mgifing but instead sticking behind any cyclists for as long as needed until it is safe to pass and then passing wide and slow (30mph or less) in the (perhaps deluded) hope that other car drivers will copy me rather than the knobs who insist on close passing.