Must be knocking on 30 years back now,we had a motorist on the wrong side of the road who had a head on with a motorbike.
He was killed and the motorist was freed as "she had suffered enough with the guilt".
So today is nothing new.
How about some helpful tips to drivers, if involved in a RTA remember to stop at the scene but never try and avoid a cyclist, aim for them it is the safest thing to do.
This is ridiculous. What the hell is going on? I'm going to find out who the Magistrate is and write to complain. I'm really annoyed.
I'm going to write to 'Call me Dave' too - let's see if we really are "All in this together".
Even worse, that odious piece of air-brained trash will be cock-a-hoop about getting away with it.
**** it.
saying she had signed an exclusive TV deal.
I didn't think you could profit from criminal actions, although I'm guessing driving offences don't count...
It would appear that sentance is broadly in line with guidlines if this is to be believed
I guess the issue is that they couldn't prove careless driving, but did sentance with what was beyond doubt.
Lets hope she's got other points and she gets banned ASAP
The sad thing is, that she actually got a bigger fine and more points than some drivers get for killing cyclists!
At least she lost her job as a result of the tweet. Every cloud and all that.
@Rachel / allthegear - v. good so far!! Nice one.. 😀
Straight factual report of proceedings, as far as I can see.
Not quite, it refers to "clipped the cyclist" not collided with.
Does any cycle store sell a Glock 9 as safety gear? 😈
How about some helpful tips to drivers, if involved in a RTA remember to stop at the scene but never try and avoid a cyclist, aim for them it is the safest thing to do.
And remember to stock up on onions so you can do a good job of crying on telly.
On reading the BBC report it sounds like his word versus hers on whether she came across the road and hit him or he came across the road and hit her. Given cars and bikes take slightly different lines through tight bends I can see the two parties holding different views. I doubt you'd ever prove which version was correct.
In that situation, there is doubt and the benefit goes does it not with the defence.
She appear to have been done for what was provable, not what she may well have done. But that's how the law works in a fair society.
My own views on what I think she did and what she should be made to do are worthless (though they do involve her being "encouraged" to ride round London passing road safety leaflets to HGV / bus drivers - apologies to Gilbert & Sullivan).
VVVV Aracer - agreed (still like the Mikado idea though) VVVV
Can we put away pitchforks? I'm the last to excuse drivers hitting cyclists, but looking at the twitter stream it seems it was one person's word against another's and the magistrates were obliged to use reasonable doubt. I'm not sure an awful lot has gone wrong in that courtroom.
As mentioned above, it has halted her career, which is a more severe sanction than most people get. If only she was intelligent enough to understand that the tweet isn't the important bit.
allthegear - MemberErm - it turns out the deleted account could be re-enabled...
@EmmaWay20 now belongs to me.
What should we say??
Rachel (not Emma)
Following
2:1 there was atleast one other cyclist present, dunno whether they are discounted as not independent.but looking at the twitter stream it seems it was one person's word against another's
and seemingly gotten her a tv deal so not a total loss for her.As mentioned above, it has halted her career
If she'd said sorry yeah I agree put the pitchforks away and let's start looking at the legal system which appears to be broken, as it is tweeting about it still seems to be what she is sorry for and presumably she still thinks it's the cyclists fault, bit annoying that.
...Can we put away pitchforks? I'm the last to excuse drivers hitting cyclists, but looking at the twitter stream it seems it was one person's word against another's and the magistrates were obliged to use reasonable doubt. I'm not sure an awful lot has gone wrong in that courtroom.
My thoughts exactly.
There was no proof either way, so there was no way she was going to found guilty.
Milk floats don't pay road tax, do they??
Electric cars Rachel? Actually many small cars. My wife's BMW 3 series only pays £30 or so.
DONK - from the BBC report the other cyclist had already gone by the car, so unless they immediately looked back they wouldn't have seen anything meaningful.
2:1 there was atleast one other cyclist present
I don't believe the other cyclist saw the collision. To be honest from all I read about this before I was only ever expecting her to be convicted for failure to stop, so we should be grateful that the system is at least working properly this time.
[i] If only she was intelligent enough to understand that the tweet isn't the important bit. [/i]
+1
Not at all condoning her actions but I can't help but feel if she had the intelligence to put her hands up and admit she was in the wrong from the outset, and acknowledge she should have stopped, then the subsequent media storm could have been averted. But then I suppose that would mean her admitting guilt, and she dimly thinks she has done no wrong.
Aracer - are your posts stalking mine? Every time I post, there they are. 😯
I think a few retweets are in order...
IGM I was assuming other cyclist would be able to confirm whether emma was on wrong side of road,
tweet report doesn't say whether other cyclist did confirm.Toby Hockley tell courts Emma Way's car almost hit his friend as it crossed to wrong side of the road, he claims she then collided with him.
Aracer - are your posts stalking mine?
Great minds think alike.
D0NK - I'm recalling the story told at the time, not the evidence given now - as I said, I always expected there to be enough reasonable doubt on the careless driving.
rachael you are a f-ing hero, @sarcasticrover has nothing you!!
Re-read the original tweet.
Definitely knocked a cyclist off his bike earlier. I have right of way - he doesn't even pay road tax! #Bloodycyclists.
That's entirely consistent with someone who thought they were on the correct side of the road. No less stupid, but what if she is correct? The only person I have heard say she wasn't on her side is the cyclist she hit or perhaps hit her. If he had crossed the centre as he went into the corner would you look at the event differently? (clearly she should have stopped in any case).
"I have right of way" might mean "I was on my side what was he doing on the side where I have right of way?".
Only you'd never get that on a tweet.
What are the odds on her being in the jungle by the end of the week?
I bet the cyclist was wearing headphones too
hmm sounds to me like someone who believes cyclists shouldn't be on the road at all. Haven't read her stating he was on the wrong side of the road, (but her tweet kinda has me disinclined to believe her anyway) if he was then yes that changes things.That's entirely consistent with someone who thought they were on the correct side of the road
Oh look, Carlton Reid and Singletrack Mark have noticed the twitter account...
a routine hit and run, just one of those F***ing things!!!!!!
I read as 'a routine case of driving without due care and attention' which is very different.
In the event it *was* a completely routine case - the jury didn't find guilty on due care and attention, as they almost never do.
er.. yeah, I noticed it after Rachel posted on this thread.
DONK - as I understand it in court she claimed to be on the correct side of the road, they collided, ergo she is effectively claiming he was on the wrong side of the road.
One on one as the other cyclist would not have been in a position to see properly, so it is a possibility.
The cyclist hit of course has a somewhat different view.
What are the odds on her being in the jungle by the end of the week?
One lives in hope...
I've been trying to think of actually valuable stuff to tweet, rather than just me acting the (intentional) fool.
Please, if you have anything useful, either post here or tweet to the account and I'll retweet or copy/paste...
Kinda surprised Twitter work like this. Oh - and yes, I am fairly certain I'm not digging myself into any legal holes...
Rachel
from twitter:
Bigger fine for riding on the prom in Eastbourne...
[img] 
[/img]
although it does say max, not typical...
Rachel - short history of road tax and its historical demise in favour of vehicle excise duty.
I think you should offer Emma's services for hit and run contract killings.
Somebody has already asked that!!! 😯
Rachel
What was the daft git's user name?
What are the odds on her being in the jungle by the end of the week?
Let's hope she gets eaten by a python who tweets about it afterwards 😯
Well, if the real Emma Way won't do it, I will!!
edit - hang on - I've never seen the programme - what am I letting myself in for??
!Emma
What about putting up a link to this ~ [url= http://ukcyclelaws.blogspot.co.uk/p/the-laws-according-to-highway-code.html ]http://ukcyclelaws.blogspot.co.uk/p/the-laws-according-to-highway-code.html[/url]
What are the odds on her being in the jungle by the end of the week?
More likely to end up in a hedgerow by the end of the week judging by her driving
Twitter is recommending that !Emma follows @Chipps. Trying to decide what they want her to follow him for - knock him off??
@ martin hutch
BBC website headline now reads "#Bloodycyclists Twitter post driver Emma Way guilty" where it previously read "Emmay Way Guilty". Even with the revision it fails to acknowledge that she was found guilty of the more minimal offences. Now I recognise that the bbc isn't there to judge but perhaps a better perspective could be achieved with a headline of "emma way found not guilty of careless driving", after all "bloodycyclists" hardly implies balance.
