Forum menu
From our local rag, driver got a lesser punishment for speeding wtaf! I cannot imagine a situation where that wouldn't be a result of your own poor driving in the first place?
A note attached to the court listing states: “No endorsement. Special reasons: cyclist very close and defendant could only see his helmet.
“Could not reasonably pull over to allow him to pass without causing an accident; risk of serious injury and even death to cyclist giving defendant no option but to speed up to avoid an accident.”
As much as that sounds like total bollocks - from the article I’ve got absolutely no idea where the driver and cyclist were in relation to each other at the time
I used to live on that road and consequently cycle along it most days, it's a dead straight main road through a built up area, with junctions, cameras and traffic lights but nothing out of the ordinary.
It's a bit light on information so we can't really speculate whether it was reasonable or not. But let's do that anyway! 2 pages minimum.
Heidi Caple was driving a four-by-four along the A40 West Wycombe Road on December 12, 2018, when she was caught breaking the 30mph speed limit.
Bleedin'ell.....it takes almost 3 years for these things to be resolved!?! How much evidence did they need to gather, despite almost none in the article?
They weren't working at breakneck speed with the legal issues, it would appear.
As much as that sounds like total bollocks – from the article I’ve got absolutely no idea where the driver and cyclist were in relation to each other at the time
Nor what speed she was doing.
from the article I’ve got absolutely no idea where the driver and cyclist were in relation to each other at the time
it reads like he's coming up behind the car and is about to smash into it?!:
Could not reasonably pull over to allow him to pass without causing an accident
if that's the case, given that she's exceeding the 30mph limit (doesn't say how much by!), cyclist must have some legs on him 🤣
Bet it was a chipped e-bike....
cyclist must have some legs on him
And no brakes…
Break out the pitchforks, a quick Google search to try and find more details actually found a previous case from October 2018 where she got a total of 12 points.
Obviously had a better lawyer this time.
Tried to see if I could find any more info on the case & came up with this from 3yrs ago, jeeez 😡
Heidi Caple, 53, of Winters Way, Holmer Green. Failure to give information relating to the driver of a vehicle who was alleged to have been guilty of an offence. Driving record endorsed with three penalty points. Fined £50. Driving over the speed limit. Driving record endorsed with three penalty points. Fined £50. Driving without valid insurance. Driving record endorsed with six penalty points. No totting disqualification. Fined £140. Costs £115.
Edit - beaten by Riddoch
riddoch
Full MemberBreak out the pitchforks, a quick Google search to try and find more details actually found a previous case from October 2018 where she got a total of 12 points.
Obviously had a better lawyer this time.
Nice one, let's get her
I thought it was just rural road where laws didn't apply to land rovers, as long you fix the wall in the morning....
It's surely bobbins but playing devil's advocate for a moment, can anyone envisage a scenario where this is likely?
She could only see his helmet so, what, either she's overtaking him or he's overtaking her? Whichever way round it is, one of them has erred and there's oncoming traffic. So either the cyclist is stuck out about to have a head-on, or she's going to have to shove him through the kerb. So she speeds up to get out of trouble and give the cyclist some space. Reasonable as far as it goes.
But. Why couldn't she have slowed down? Surely that would have had the same outcome?
I can't see it. Anyone any ideas?
I can’t see it. Anyone any ideas?
Nope. The pull over to let them pass is odd. About the only thing I can think which fits it if they were drafting her and then she accelerated away but not sure how that would count as an excuse.
Yeah, I interpreted that as a close pass with something coming the other way, so floored it to avoid side swiping the rider. If she was going a speed low enough for a cyclist to overtake then that would be in a traffic queue, so nowhere to accelerate to, (unless into a huuuuuge gap that she'd not noticed due to texting or something).
So an expensive lawyer managed to find an excuse to avoid her being banned. I can't imagine how much that costs, or how expensive annual insurance must be with that number of offences or points. Driving must be very important to her.
Because must go faster than cyclist.
Obviously had a better lawyer this time.
Given that string of offences, low fine and no disqualification I'd say she had a pretty decent lawyer last time!
But. Why couldn’t she have slowed down? Surely that would have had the same outcome?
I'm sure the answer was given in the thread about hi-viz last week, but was couched in evolutionary theory bobbins and a saccadic masking diversion. I think the answer was that drivers have evolved from predators who can only accelerate if they see something unusual - and that's assuming that they actually see anything at all because of the evolution of the eye - so asking people to slow down isn't necessary because they are just doing what primates do. Something like that.
The pull over to let them pass is odd.
Actually yeah, my close pass theory isn't robust in the light of that evidence.
I think the one thing we can be sure of in this instance is that the Bucks Free Press employ at least one really shit journalist.
So what happened then ?
What are the facts ?
Another one to laugh about
Stupid stupid stupid
Another one to laugh about
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/im-not-going-lie-necked-21820359
/blockquote>Incredible
That last one looks fairly obviously a drink driving accident followed by taking off, going home and necking more, so when the police arrive...it was to steady my nerves.
About 15 years ago a..why is it always a Mercedes!...spun off the road near my house, left two big skid marks going through a fence across a field and..his number plate and a bit of bumper, the police traced the number plate, went to his house and he appeared at the door with a glass of whisky, to 'steady his nerves', he at least had to pay the farmer for the damage.
I initially interpreted the first report as the cyclist overtaking the car. Accelerating the car would be the safest if there was a risk of a head on between cyclist and oncoming. The prob with braking is that the cyclist might decide to brake also, just at the time the driver does. But cars can accelerate faster than bikes so whatever the cyclist chooses to do, accelerating the car will give the cyclist room to pull in.
This was no doubt not the scenario, but unlike the OP I found it very easy to imagine it.
In that drink driving one there is IIRC a countback - method the cops can use in these circumstances - ie check the rate she metabolises alcohol, compare that to what she claims to have ahd and work out BA at the time of the crash. Its a complex proceedure and I guess the cops either didn't follow it properly or could not be bothered - the hour time gap may have made it harder as well
Is it possible the cyclist was drafting her?
would explain why she could 'only see his helmet', she didnt like it she she sped up maybe?
Is it possible the cyclist was drafting her?
would explain why she could ‘only see his helmet’, she didnt like it she she sped up maybe?
This is what it sounds like to me
Is it possible the cyclist was drafting her?
would explain why she could ‘only see his helmet’, she didnt like it she she sped up maybe?
Which means, then, you can go at any speed you want on the motorway just as long as someone is tailgating you?
Bleedin’ell…..it takes almost 3 years for these things to be resolved!?! How much evidence did they need to gather, despite almost none in the article?
If you defund the legal system and close courts the result is it takes longer. There is a huge backlog throughout the system.
I interpreted it as her having pulled out to pass a cyclist having missjudged the speed differential with the bike and an incoming vehicle and choosing to boot it past to "save" the cyclist, past a speed camera. Which to me indicates poor observation and ability to anticipate hazards.
I suppose the judge's decision is the only important one in all of this...
Bleedin’ell…..it takes almost 3 years for these things to be resolved!?!
Struggling to think what they must have been doing all that time
ooh not has a double post for ages
almost feels nostalgic
Struggling to think what they must have been doing all that time
This incident occurred in 2018, the pandemic didn't start until 2020!
People need to stop blaming Covid, and Brexit, for everything that is wrong in the UK.
This incident occurred in 2018, the pandemic didn’t start until 2020!
People need to stop blaming Covid, and Brexit, for everything that is wrong in the UK.
Please read The Secret Barrister for a truly depressing resume of what austerity has done to our justice system, for both victims, criminals, and all those employed in its intricate nooks and crannies.
Then add the Covid effect.
Then read his follow up - Fake Law - to see the even darker effects of politicians and the media ****ing about with the justice system.
or how expensive annual insurance must be with that number of offences or points. Driving must be very important to her.
Given that one of her offences is driving without valid insurance I doubt that’s a huge factor for her.
what austerity has done to our justice system
Sure, I appreciate the devastating effect austerity has had right across our society. IMO this case should have been resolved within a reasonable time, say within 6 months tops, long before the pandemic.
@greyspoke that road is relatively flat (especially past the cameras), the only time a cyclist would be overtaking would be in traffic at sub 30mph & there wouldn't be space for a car to boot it above limit without crashing into vehicles ahead. Maybe I'm just not imaginative enough though.
Not surprising. Read The Secret Barrister and you'll realise just how incompetent magistrates often are.
I work with one who campaigned vociferously against Covid vaccines, despite having caught it twice.
Not surprising. Read The Secret Barrister and you’ll realise just how incompetent magistrates often are.
Be the change you want to see and volunteer to be one.
Is it me or are these people going to more effort to break the law then wriggle out of it than just admitting it or not doing it?
So regarding the A40 case. I know the road pretty well having lived in the area for 20 years. Nice wide A-Road with a 30 limit and a couple of cameras. I'm failing to see how the driver accelerating over the speed limit would save the cyclist. Street view below
https://maps.app.goo.gl/EiT3s48bEMcuKHY96
Be the change you want to see and volunteer to be one.
Actually in the process of doing this. Somewhat difficult as I don't fit the the traditional stereotype of 70-year-old retired professional Rotary-club golfist.
I did actually think of a scenario (as I rode home) where the motorist’s behaviour might not have been that reprehensible.
You’re tootling along in your Landrover (struggling a bit as they weren’t really designed for tarmac), doing maybe 25mph in a thirty. You come up behind a small van doing 15 and think there’s room here I’ll go by them. Only to find that the reason their doing 15 is because they were sitting a close but respectful distance behind a cyclist. Unfortunately the cyclist is just where you were going to pull in having overtaken the van. Yes perhaps you could have been more observant (in retrospect there was something you saw a bit like a cyclist’s helmet showing above the van) but now you can’t brake and pull in because there’s a van you just overtook, you can’t just pull in because there’s a cyclist, and there’s a car coming the other way. So you accelerate around the cyclist. Safest option in the circumstances you ended up in.
And yes I’ve tried really hard to make that a plausible best of a bad situation explanation.
And it’s not that good.