Wicked hag rammed cyclist

MoonCircuit

A 63-YEAR-OLD disabled driver deliberately rammed a cyclist off his bike in a road rage incident, a court heard.



Patricia Pickford allegedly knocked over Neil Doherty with her Nissan Almera. But Pickford denies this – saying the cyclist deliberately fell off his bike in order to make a false complaint.

Mr Doherty, who was then a University of Nottingham researcher, said he spoke to Pickford at traffic lights in Abbey Street, Lenton, after she cut him up and "nearly flattened" him. "I was maintaining my composure," Mr Doherty told Nottingham Crown Court. "I didn't want to start an altercation." But Pickford, of Poplar Crescent, Nuthall, allegedly swore at him. "She said something about paying her road tax and 'you cyclists'," Mr Doherty added. He said he then waited in a cycle path for the lights to change. "I didn't see a great deal because the car was behind me. I heard the revving of the engine."

The prosecution say Pickford rammed Mr Doherty.

He said his bike was jolted forwards and he ended up under the front of the car. Mr Doherty picked up the registration plate as "evidence" and called police. He was left with grazes and swelling to his left side. Pickford, the former wife of a policeman, took the plate back and drove off. She denies dangerous driving on March 6 at 8pm.

She said her car did not move and Mr Doherty fell off his bike to make a false complaint.

http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/news/ ... ticle.html

!

downfader

Interesting story. If she did nothing then how did her plate come off. I couldnt imagine laying infront of a car and pulling it off, if you pardon that expression

chuckcork

Seems like a good argument for helmet cameras to me.

downfader

chuckcork wrote:

Seems like a good argument for helmet cameras to me.

..or a car camera incase of odd cyclists.

Poacher

Update: she's been found guilty.

A 63-YEAR-OLD disabled woman has been found guilty of dangerous driving after she deliberately rammed a cyclist off his bike as he rode home from work.
Patricia Pickford wept as she was convicted at Nottingham Crown Court yesterday.
The jury spent three hours deliberating before giving their verdict.
Former police wife Pickford sat down in the dock as Recorder William Edis told her all sentencing options would be open to him.
Pickford, of Poplar Crescent, Nuthall, denied knocking over Neil Doherty, a University of Nottingham researcher riding home towards Castle Boulevard.
He told the court he was first nearly run over on a dual-use pedestrian and cycleway at Dunkirk roundabout on March 6 at 8pm.
He went to speak to the driver, who was Pickford. She had stopped her blue Nissan Almera at traffic lights in Abbey Street.
Mr Doherty said he had been "shocked" at being cut up and decided to speak to Pickford, whose driver's side window was open.
He told the court in his evidence: "I said something along the lines of, 'Do you know you nearly flattened me back there?'
"I was maintaining my composure. I didn't want to start an altercation."
Pickford was "immediately aggressive", swore and said she "paid her road tax", said Mr Doherty. She referred to "you cyclists".
He told the court he thought the best course was to continue his journey, cutting in front of Pickford's car to rejoin the cycle lane.
Her car then hit the back of his bike, which sent him forwards and caused him to fall heavily under the front of the car.
"The bumper area of the car was above my head," he added. Later he developed breathing problems and visited his doctor. He suffered grazes.
Pickford said she was a lone female in her motability car and became concerned for her safety. She has been released on bail until sentencing.
rebecca.sherdley@nottinghameveningpost.co.uk

http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/news/Disabled-driver-guilty-road-rage/article-374366-detail/article.html

Porgy

I hate that when some nutcase of a woman tries to knock you over and then pleads that she is concerned for her safety when you complain.

If you're so concerned for your safety don't upset people by driving like a loon - is my solution.

chuckcork

downfader wrote:

chuckcork wrote:

Seems like a good argument for helmet cameras to me.

..or a car camera incase of odd cyclists.

Actually, with rear cameras on some cars to help park them, and the declining price of such recording equipment anyway, I'm suprised that there haven't been moves to making such mandatory in all new cars.

Sure enough it would add to cost, but then again I would think insurers would like it as it would take the guesswork out of deciding who is responsible for accidents.

Of course that would only bring about cries of Big Brother, but then again why not?
Applied generally might also lead to better car design, better road design, fewer fatalities as people know they couldn't get away with dangerous driving etc?

spen666

chuckcork wrote:

....

Actually, with rear cameras on some cars to help park them, and the declining price of such recording equipment anyway, I'm suprised that there haven't been moves to making such mandatory in all new cars.

Sure enough it would add to cost, but then again I would think insurers would like it as it would take the guesswork out of deciding who is responsible for accidents.

Of course that would only bring about cries of Big Brother, but then again why not?
Applied generally might also lead to better car design, better road design, fewer fatalities as people know they couldn't get away with dangerous driving etc?

Interesting idea, but how would you store the footage taken. I imagine that a journey of 1 hour will require a lot of capacity to store the data.

how long would people be required to store the same?

Would you change the law, so that if someone is accused of an offence and cannot produce video for that incident date/ time, then a court can draw an inference (ie reversing to some degree the idea of innocent until proven guilty)

how do you ensure all devices are recording the same time on the footage?

What about older cars that wouldn't have it fitted?

idaviesmoore

spen666 wrote:

chuckcork wrote:

....

Actually, with rear cameras on some cars to help park them, and the declining price of such recording equipment anyway, I'm suprised that there haven't been moves to making such mandatory in all new cars.

Sure enough it would add to cost, but then again I would think insurers would like it as it would take the guesswork out of deciding who is responsible for accidents.

Of course that would only bring about cries of Big Brother, but then again why not?
Applied generally might also lead to better car design, better road design, fewer fatalities as people know they couldn't get away with dangerous driving etc?

Interesting idea, but how would you store the footage taken. I imagine that a journey of 1 hour will require a lot of capacity to store the data.

how long would people be required to store the same?

Would you change the law, so that if someone is accused of an offence and cannot produce video for that incident date/ time, then a court can draw an inference (ie reversing to some degree the idea of innocent until proven guilty)



how do you ensure all devices are recording the same time on the footage?

What about older cars that wouldn't have it fitted?

Foookin' bad idea, IYAM. My missus can't even work out how to switch the satnav on, let alone a camera.

spen666

idaviesmoore wrote:

spen666 wrote:

chuckcork wrote:

....

Actually, with rear cameras on some cars to help park them, and the declining price of such recording equipment anyway, I'm suprised that there haven't been moves to making such mandatory in all new cars.

Sure enough it would add to cost, but then again I would think insurers would like it as it would take the guesswork out of deciding who is responsible for accidents.

Of course that would only bring about cries of Big Brother, but then again why not?
Applied generally might also lead to better car design, better road design, fewer fatalities as people know they couldn't get away with dangerous driving etc?

Interesting idea, but how would you store the footage taken. I imagine that a journey of 1 hour will require a lot of capacity to store the data.

how long would people be required to store the same?

Would you change the law, so that if someone is accused of an offence and cannot produce video for that incident date/ time, then a court can draw an inference (ie reversing to some degree the idea of innocent until proven guilty)



how do you ensure all devices are recording the same time on the footage?

What about older cars that wouldn't have it fitted?

Foookin' bad idea, IYAM. My missus can't even work out how to switch the satnav on, let alone a camera.

It would have to work automatically from the ignition being turned on

downfader

A good few lorry firms are installing camera systems for insurance purposes. Have read about it a few times on lorry forums (I know, I was bored and curious )

Theirs though, rely on 30second to 2 minute loops that only switch in when the brakes are applied sharply. I dont think it could ever be made a legal requirement given the current technology... though we do now have compact flash cards that store 32gb, give it 5 years and it will be better, more reliable, etc.

chuckcork

downfader wrote:

A good few lorry firms are installing camera systems for insurance purposes. Have read about it a few times on lorry forums (I know, I was bored and curious )

Theirs though, rely on 30second to 2 minute loops that only switch in when the brakes are applied sharply. I dont think it could ever be made a legal requirement given the current technology... though we do now have compact flash cards that store 32gb, give it 5 years and it will be better, more reliable, etc.

There are laptops that come with flash drives, it would simply start with the ignition coming on.

It could actually be marketed as a benefit to a driver. After all, if you car got sideswiped while parked and someone drove off, you could look at the footage and get the number plate details to pass on to the police.

Or if you were rear-ended by a tailgater you'd have proof of how an incident occured, and no bull about 'ice' or 'diesel' or somesuch. It would also clearly show whether the other car was being driven by someone with a mobile phone pressed to their ear, was driving dangerously, had failed to indicate etc, and so remove the legal argy bargy of he said she said no witnesses? Oh well we'll call it a draw then....

spen666

chuckcork wrote:

downfader wrote:

A good few lorry firms are installing camera systems for insurance purposes. Have read about it a few times on lorry forums (I know, I was bored and curious )

Theirs though, rely on 30second to 2 minute loops that only switch in when the brakes are applied sharply. I dont think it could ever be made a legal requirement given the current technology... though we do now have compact flash cards that store 32gb, give it 5 years and it will be better, more reliable, etc.

There are laptops that come with flash drives, it would simply start with the ignition coming on.

It could actually be marketed as a benefit to a driver. After all, if you car got sideswiped while parked and someone drove off, you could look at the footage and get the number plate details to pass on to the police.

Or if you were rear-ended by a tailgater you'd have proof of how an incident occured, and no bull about 'ice' or 'diesel' or somesuch. It would also clearly show whether the other car was being driven by someone with a mobile phone pressed to their ear, was driving dangerously, had failed to indicate etc, and so remove the legal argy bargy of he said she said no witnesses? Oh well we'll call it a draw then....

how would that work?

If parked, how would the ignition be on? Have I missed something?

To get coverage as you describe, you would need numerous cameras on the car

idaviesmoore

spen666 wrote:

idaviesmoore wrote:

spen666 wrote:

chuckcork wrote:

....

Actually, with rear cameras on some cars to help park them, and the declining price of such recording equipment anyway, I'm suprised that there haven't been moves to making such mandatory in all new cars.

Sure enough it would add to cost, but then again I would think insurers would like it as it would take the guesswork out of deciding who is responsible for accidents.

Of course that would only bring about cries of Big Brother, but then again why not?
Applied generally might also lead to better car design, better road design, fewer fatalities as people know they couldn't get away with dangerous driving etc?

Interesting idea, but how would you store the footage taken. I imagine that a journey of 1 hour will require a lot of capacity to store the data.

how long would people be required to store the same?

Would you change the law, so that if someone is accused of an offence and cannot produce video for that incident date/ time, then a court can draw an inference (ie reversing to some degree the idea of innocent until proven guilty)



how do you ensure all devices are recording the same time on the footage?

What about older cars that wouldn't have it fitted?

Foookin' bad idea, IYAM. My missus can't even work out how to switch the satnav on, let alone a camera.

It would have to work automatically from the ignition being turned on

She can't do that either :roll:

spen666

idaviesmoore wrote:

...

She can't do that either :roll:

That is ok then she won't be on the road, so no need for any safety device for her

chuckcork

spen666 wrote:

how would that work?

If parked, how would the ignition be on? Have I missed something?

To get coverage as you describe, you would need numerous cameras on the car

Didn't think of that, but then it could always just run off the battery, and be like a car alarm and tripped if the car is affected? It would require multiple cameras of course, but they would become cheaper as more would be produced, just like airbags and every other 'expensive' accessory has become standard as the price has dropped to where now they fitted in all cars, just about.

You could easily enough have it promoted through lower insurance premiums being offered, like better security is, with the bonus that if someone knicked your car you'd have a picture of them doing it!

Not pretending I can think of all the angles of course, but it could be a defensive measure for drivers on increasingly congested roads, just as some commuting cyclists like Downfader are doing,would allow a very fast establishment of responsibility in the event of an accident and act as an 'independent witness' when no others are around.

spen666

chuckcork wrote:

spen666 wrote:

how would that work?

If parked, how would the ignition be on? Have I missed something?

To get coverage as you describe, you would need numerous cameras on the car

Didn't think of that, but then it could always just run off the battery, and be like a car alarm and tripped if the car is affected? It would require multiple cameras of course, but they would become cheaper as more would be produced, just like airbags and every other 'expensive' accessory has become standard as the price has dropped to where now they fitted in all cars, just about.

You could easily enough have it promoted through lower insurance premiums being offered, like better security is, with the bonus that if someone knicked your car you'd have a picture of them doing it!

Not pretending I can think of all the angles of course, but it could be a defensive measure for drivers on increasingly congested roads, just as some commuting cyclists like Downfader are doing,would allow a very fast establishment of responsibility in the event of an accident and act as an 'independent witness' when no others are around.

i like the idea, but am not sure it is practical in terms of cost at present

1) issue re running of it when ignition is off
2) number of cameras needed to cover car properly - eg at least 2 at front and 2 at back plus a minimum of one either side I would have thought
3) storage space needed
4) cost of repairing / maintaining such equipment


I think the idea will come into fruition at some stage though, if we still have cars.

downfader

I think the car is here to stay. Its just too convenient for most people so it will exist in some form.

I think if camera's for insurance/accident purposes were to take off then you are quite right Spen, you'd need atleast 4 cameras, wide angle of view, etc. It would also have to be either idiot proof in operation or completely automatic. There are some good sensors on the market that trigger from physical movement or motion.. expensive though

Last thing we all need is another satnav/mobile/ipod type device for people to play with while driving. Crikey, its a lot simpler with a helmet or bike camera

ride_whenever

Why not make cars smaller on the inside and cover them in some sort of foam to make them nice and safe to crash into, like reverse D30, gets softer the harder you hit it to soak up the impact?

spen666

downfader wrote:

I think the car is here to stay. Its just too convenient for most people so it will exist in some form.

I think if camera's for insurance/accident purposes were to take off then you are quite right Spen, you'd need atleast 4 cameras, wide angle of view, etc. It would also have to be either idiot proof in operation or completely automatic. There are some good sensors on the market that trigger from physical movement or motion.. expensive though

Last thing we all need is another satnav/mobile/ipod type device for people to play with while driving. Crikey, its a lot simpler with a helmet or bike camera

i think it would have to be automatic otherwise people will say it was not recording if they were at fault.
I agree re Sat nav ipod type device. It must be automatic like on the buses

downfader

ride_whenever wrote:

Why not make cars smaller on the inside and cover them in some sort of foam to make them nice and safe to crash into, like reverse D30, gets softer the harder you hit it to soak up the impact?

Did you see that Japanese firm that was testing "pedestrian" airbags? Amazing stuff, though it could fling you into traffic if it went wrong.

Another Japanese firm has made an airbag jacket for the elderly after hearing of severa nasty falls. That was pretty cool.

NlEDERMEYER

How come she was found guilty of dangerous driving? Surely, given intent being assumed, assault would be more appropriate (and with a potentially deadly weapon).

spen666

NlEDERMEYER wrote:

How come she was found guilty of dangerous driving? Surely, given intent being assumed, assault would be more appropriate (and with a potentially deadly weapon).

Possibly becausethere is no offence in English Law of assault with a potentially deadly weapon.

You've been watching too much Starsky & Hutch

Proving the necessary intent to bring assault/ manslaughter/ murder charges for offences involving motor vehicles has proved nigh on impossible in criminal cases

chuckcork

spen666 wrote:

NlEDERMEYER wrote:

How come she was found guilty of dangerous driving? Surely, given intent being assumed, assault would be more appropriate (and with a potentially deadly weapon).

Possibly becausethere is no offence in English Law of assault with a potentially deadly weapon.

You've been watching too much Starsky & Hutch

Proving the necessary intent to bring assault/ manslaughter/ murder charges for offences involving motor vehicles has proved nigh on impossible in criminal cases

I can't comment on English law, but they managed to do it in Ireland, when a driver deliberately aimed his vehicle at someone and hit them, in full view of witnesses.

I believe it might have been done in England though, a case where a motorcycle cop was rammed off the road by someone he had tried to pull over? I think the cop was named Raja Bashrat Ahmed, a google search brings up that the person who shunted him into the path of a lorry was sentenced to life in prison.

ronstrutt

chuckcork wrote:

I can't comment on English law, but they managed to do it in Ireland, when a driver deliberately aimed his vehicle at someone and hit them, in full view of witnesses.

I believe it might have been done in England though, a case where a motorcycle cop was rammed off the road by someone he had tried to pull over? I think the cop was named Raja Bashrat Ahmed, a google search brings up that the person who shunted him into the path of a lorry was sentenced to life in prison.

There have also been similar cases in England but, as Spen said, it's a question of proving it. If someone drives 100 yards along the pavement trying to run someone over it might be difficult to claim that "my foot slipped" if charged with attempted murder. Running into someone at traffic lights is a different matter.

downfader

ronstrutt wrote:

chuckcork wrote:

I can't comment on English law, but they managed to do it in Ireland, when a driver deliberately aimed his vehicle at someone and hit them, in full view of witnesses.

I believe it might have been done in England though, a case where a motorcycle cop was rammed off the road by someone he had tried to pull over? I think the cop was named Raja Bashrat Ahmed, a google search brings up that the person who shunted him into the path of a lorry was sentenced to life in prison.

There have also been similar cases in England but, as Spen said, it's a question of proving it. If someone drives 100 yards along the pavement trying to run someone over it might be difficult to claim that "my foot slipped" if charged with attempted murder. Running into someone at traffic lights is a different matter.

A couple of yards perhaps, but surely not 100! :shock: Or did your zero button get stuck?

Richard Hobson

Sentencing due for driver who rammed cyclist

http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/news/Sentencing-driver-rammed-cyclist/article-436184-detail/article.html

A DISABLED woman convicted of dangerous driving after she rammed a cyclist off his bike will be sentenced next Thursday.

The date has been pencilled in at Nottingham Crown Court for Patricia Pickford to attend to learn her fate.

The 63-year-old, of Poplar Crescent, Nuthall, was found guilty of the charge at an earlier trial.

She had denied knocking over Neil Doherty, a University of Nottingham researcher riding home towards Castle Boulevard.

He told the court he was first nearly run over on a dual-use pedestrian and cycleway at Dunkirk roundabout on March 6 at 8pm.

He went to speak to the driver, who was Pickford.

She was "immediately aggressive", swore and said she "paid her road tax", said Mr Doherty. She referred to "you cyclists".

As he went to continue his journey, her car then hit the back of his bike, which sent him forwards and caused him to fall heavily under the front of the car.

chuckcork

I particularly like the comment suggesting she be sentenced to cycle lessons!

dennisn

Love the title. Makes me laugh each time I see it. And she does look like a "wicked hag".
Ya, but the camera adds 10 pounds.

Dennis Noward

number9

"In the wake of the London bombs we're told that many commuters are now switching to bicycles... can I offer five handy hints to those setting out on a bike for the first time. Do not cruise through red lights. Because if I'm coming the other way, I will run you down, for fun. Do not pull up at junctions in front of a line of traffic. Because if I'm behind you, I will set off at normal speed and you will be crushed under my wheels.... Do not, ever, swear at or curse people in cars or trucks. You are a guest on roads that are paid for by motorists so if we cut you up, shut up."



(Jeremy Clarkson The Sun. 16 July 2005)

eternal_headwind

Is there more to the quote? He says five, I count three...