Dozy mare!

Koncordski

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Contacted by the Mail last night, Miss Way refused to comment. However a friend said she had been suspended from work at accountants Larking Gowen.

The friend claimed:

‘She stopped, but the other guy didn’t stop. She looked in the mirror and he was gone. It’s absolutely ridiculous. There was nobody marshalling the cyclists and they were going really fast.
‘She is a village girl who knows every pothole on every road round here. She made a stupid remark on Twitter but it’s all got out of hand.’

sketchley

To be fair she isn't saying that she just run over a cyclist and least so know she can't as it's illegal.

Not sure what to make of Miss Way's friend's comment. If true she did stop. I guess there were a few cyclists on the ride that day so must be witnesses to say if she stopped or not. Saying that the original tweet said she had knock the cyclist off, so how could she looked in the mirror and seen he was gone then..... I wonder if the "friend" is a solictor

lostboysaint

As the original story said he took a dive into the bushes he's bound to have been "gone" IF she stopped!

Headhuunter

willy b wrote:

:? People don't learn do they...

Yeah this is just what's known as jumping on the bandwagon/trolling...

Wrath Rob

Headhuunter wrote:

willy b wrote:

:? People don't learn do they...

Yeah this is just what's known as jumping on the bandwagon/trolling...

Judging by the re-tweets, I think she's going to have a very, very bad day. So will the University of Gloucestershire, who are teaching her to teach. Maybe she'll learn a more important life lesson from this than all of her Uni time.

okgo

I think she will indeed Rob.

Sewinman

Does anyone actually know what happened? This lynch mob attitude is very distasteful.

DonDaddyD

This

Cyclist account
I managed to keep control of the bike; the back brake had locked on but I managed to rejoin the road and stop in the middle of it"

Does not equate to this:

Mate's account
‘She stopped, but the other guy didn’t stop. She looked in the mirror and he was gone.

[There are many positions behind the car the cyclist could have ended up that isn't visible in the mirrors. I would need legal confirmation, but my interpretation of stopping is to stop the car, turn the engine off, hazard lights on, get out and physically look for the person the car has collided with]

Now the frustrated Lawyer in me (Greg gimme a job FFS) would immediately question whether the driver had anyone in the car with her, if there was someone in the car (and assuming she didn't do the following) why didn't they insist that she stop, get out and (i) look for the cyclist (ii) check the car? If there wasn't anyone in the car with her then the above account is pure speculation or at best an extension of Emma Way's version of the events - born from the supposed closeness of the friend, again speculation - this time on my part.

Truth is we don't know how it happened or explicitly what happened. What we do know is that from the driver's own admission her car collided with a cyclist . The severity of the collision, one would expect, should determine the punishment. If the requirement when hitting something is to exit the vehicle then there needs to be punishment. If stopping the car and looking in your mirrors is enough - then... perhaps the law needs changing.

Then there is the other matter of her attitude as a driver - what with the pictures she has been taken whilst behind the wheel of a moving vehicle. This I would expect should contribute to the severity of her legal punishment.

However, in the interest of balance, reading the cyclists account I am not sure how he managed to travel 20m through a hedge, stay ontop of his bike and stop it in the middle of the road. Unless he meant bounce against the hedge for 20m and then steer the bike back towards the middle of the road where he stopped - but, again, that would be speculation.

.Cyclist account:
I bounced back off the car and went through a hedge for about 20 metres. I managed to keep control of the bike; the back brake had locked on but I managed to rejoin the road and stop in the middle of it"

Headhuunter

DonDaddyD wrote:

This

Cyclist account
I managed to keep control of the bike; the back brake had locked on but I managed to rejoin the road and stop in the middle of it"

Does not equate to this:

Mate's account
‘She stopped, but the other guy didn’t stop. She looked in the mirror and he was gone.

[There are many positions behind the car the cyclist could have ended up that isn't visible in the mirrors. I would need legal confirmation, but my interpretation of stopping is to stop the car, turn the engine off, hazard lights on, get out and physically look for the person the car has collided with]

Now the frustrated Lawyer in me (Greg gimme a job FFS) would immediately question whether the driver had anyone in the car with her, if there was someone in the car (and assuming she didn't do the following) why didn't they insist that she stop, get out and (i) look for the cyclist (ii) check the car? If there wasn't anyone in the car with her then the above account is pure speculation or at best an extension of Emma Way's version of the events - born from the supposed closeness of the friend, again speculation - this time on my part.

Truth is we don't know how it happened or explicitly what happened. What we do know is that from the driver's own admission her car collided with a cyclist . The severity of the collision, one would expect, should determine the punishment. If the requirement when hitting something is to exit the vehicle then there needs to be punishment. If stopping the car and looking in your mirrors is enough - then... perhaps the law needs changing.

Then there is the other matter of her attitude as a driver - what with the pictures she has been taken whilst behind the wheel of a moving vehicle. This I would expect should contribute to the severity of her legal punishment.

However, in the interest of balance, reading the cyclists account I am not sure how he managed to travel 20m through a hedge, stay ontop of his bike and stop it in the middle of the road. Unless he meant bounce against the hedge for 20m and then steer the bike back towards the middle of the road where he stopped - but, again, that would be speculation.

.Cyclist account:
I bounced back off the car and went through a hedge for about 20 metres. I managed to keep control of the bike; the back brake had locked on but I managed to rejoin the road and stop in the middle of it"

From initial accounts it sounded like there were witnesses, there was reference to other cyclists around who were also taking part in the sportive, so it should be easy to get independent accounts...

notsoblue

This is a pretty interesting social media event. And its fascinating to see what happens when people don't understand what "Public" really means, and broadcast controversial opinions. Opinions that previously would usually only be shared with people who either agreed or who wouldn't bother with disapproval. This is quite similar to the kind of throwaway comment about cyclists (or any other convenient out-group) you often hear in the pub or other social situations.

In this case the comment was referring to a potential criminal act, and the disapproving audience is huge. I think its a shame that people potentially have their lives ruined by strangers on the internet for an unguarded comment. But on the other hand its a good thing that the overall take home message from all this is that what she did was not "OK".

It would be a sad state of affairs if there wasn't this reaction to her tweet.

The Rookie

Given the tone of her tweet, I think it vanishingly unlikley she stopped, however the requirement is to do more than stop, it is to stop and exchange details, that clearly involves more than stopping the car for a few seconds to see if the other party has stopped given that it was possible
1/ The cyclist was invisible in the hedge
2/ She travelled far enough round the corner while stopping to make it irrelevant that she merely stopped
3/ Likewise the cyclist going the other way.

Reports on the impact seem contrary, one has him falling off, the other staying on, if he truly went up the windscreen he didn't stay on!

willy b

So looks like Gloucester Uni are addressing Becky:
https://twitter.com/uniofglos

Like NSb I find this whole thing very interesting, but also amazing at what people say on a public outlet.

notsoblue

willy b wrote:

So looks like Gloucester Uni are addressing Becky:
https://twitter.com/uniofglos

I think they're reacting pretty well. They posted this little reminder: http://mashable.com/2012/09/04/students ... -warnings/

disgruntledgoat

I was unaware that it was a requirement to have marshalls to ride a bike on an open road.

daviesee

disgruntledgoat wrote:

I was unaware that it was a requirement to have marshalls to ride a bike on an open road.

It was a sportive but they only have marshals at junctions, not bends.

Headhuunter

disgruntledgoat wrote:

I was unaware that it was a requirement to have marshalls to ride a bike on an open road.

Just like it's a requirement that a man with a red flag should walk ahead of all motor traffic....

disgruntledgoat

daviesee wrote:

disgruntledgoat wrote:

I was unaware that it was a requirement to have marshalls to ride a bike on an open road.

It was a sportive but they only have marshals at junctions, not bends.

And if you drive on the correct side of the road, you would think that, regardless of anyone telling you there may be oncoming traffic, you wouldn't have a problem.

daviesee

disgruntledgoat wrote:

daviesee wrote:

disgruntledgoat wrote:

I was unaware that it was a requirement to have marshalls to ride a bike on an open road.

It was a sportive but they only have marshals at junctions, not bends.

And if you drive on the correct side of the road, you would think that, regardless of anyone telling you there may be oncoming traffic, you wouldn't have a problem.

Something must be lost in translation as we are both stating the obvious.

sketchley

Has any actually said if the cyclist and / or the driver were on the correct side of the road or not? Was it a single track road?

Kieran_Burns

Sketchley wrote:

Has any actually said if the cyclist and / or the driver were on the correct side of the road or not? Was it a single track road?

Yes.

Very early on

He said: “”A car came tearing round the blind corner and narrowly missed a cyclist in front of me. She came on to my side of the road, I took the wing mirror off and I went flying off my bike into a hedge.

EKE_38BPM

A few posts back DDD wondered what constituted stopping after a collision.
Legally, I don't know, but I'll tell you a little story about something that happened to me many moons ago:

I was driving through Wood Green (an busy urban shopping area) and a dog ran out into the path of my car from between stationary traffic on the other side of the road. I was doing about 20 mph and had no chance to stop in time but performed an emergency stop after the dog and my car collided.

I stopped (holding up traffic behind me), hazard lights on, got out of my car and went to the front of my car to see what condition the dog was in. There was no sign of the dog and no pedestrians saw where it went. My registration plate was cracked from the impact and there was a bit of dog hair (I presume, I didn't DNA test it) stuck in the crack.
I looked under the car and around the immediate area but the dog had disappeared.

If I could do that for a dog (and I don't like dogs) how can the dozy mare not do that for another human being?

I wonder what will happen to her? I suspect the police will give her a slap on the wrist (points and/or awareness course and a fine) and her employer won't do much unless she has to drive for a living (which I don't think she does).

Once this hoo-haa blows over, I bet she will still hold the same attitude (despite the awareness course) and will have enjoyed the noteriety.

veronese68

I think the cyclists account said something along the lines of it being a narrow road and she was going too fast to make the corner. Didn't specify wether it was single track or not. I'm going to make a bit of an assumption from reading between the lines and say it wasn't single track and she ran wide thus collecting the cyclist. The description of the cyclist going over the bonnet sounds a bit odd, again reading between the lines I would say she hit him with the right hand front corner and as a combination of him turning and her pushing him the other way he wound up riding up the top edge of the wing and the A pillar of the windscreen, clouting the wing mirror as he went. If he'd gone straight over the bonnet in the classic sense he wouldn't have been able to stay on the bike.
As I said this is all assumption as a result of reading between the lines and applying a bit of what passes for logical thinking in my mind so may not be even remotely true.

daviesee

EKE_38BPM wrote:

...I wonder what will happen to her? I suspect the police will give her a slap on the wrist (points and/or awareness course and a fine) and her employer won't do much unless she has to drive for a living (which I don't think she does)...

I wouldn't hold up too much hope.
This guy - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-e ... e-22397918
has killed 2 cyclists.
He got 2 years jail time for the first one.
Got out and had another go....
He only got 300 hours community & 5 year ban for the second.

If anything ever justified a WTF? Then it is this. :shock: :evil: :?

DonDaddyD

I'm not into all this reading between the lines it precipitates the witch hunt...

The cyclist claims to have hit the wing mirror. Her twitter message did not indicate any damage to the wing mirror or any of the usual inconveniences that comes with hitting a wing mirror.

We need more information, details of what happened. Until then I think I've said all that I can reasonably say.

Kieran_Burns

DonDaddyD wrote:

I'm not into all this reading between the lines it precipitates the witch hunt...

The cyclist claims to have hit the wing mirror. Her twitter message did not indicate any damage to the wing mirror or any of the usual inconveniences that comes with hitting a wing mirror.

We need more information, details of what happened. Until then I think I've said all that I can reasonably say.

Oh, I'll say it then:

"That's never stopped you before"

Is everyone happy now?

veronese68

DonDaddyD wrote:

I'm not into all this reading between the lines it precipitates the witch hunt...

The cyclist claims to have hit the wing mirror. Her twitter message did not indicate any damage to the wing mirror or any of the usual inconveniences that comes with hitting a wing mirror.

We need more information, details of what happened. Until then I think I've said all that I can reasonably say.

Initially he said he'd hit the wing mirror, later I read an account in which he said he'd gone over the bonnet and windscreen which sounded rather more dramatic. Hence reading between the lines I suspect he didn't go over the middle of the bonnet as the second account implied but kind of rode up the side of the car. I don't have time to find the second account at the moment sorry, read loads about this and can't remember where I saw it. Makes me an unreliable witness for now, sorry.

sketchley

If he went over the bonnet but still managed to end up stopped in the middle of the road on the bike, the bloke is hero.....

DonDaddyD

Sketchley wrote:

If he went over the bonnet but still managed to end up stopped in the middle of the road on the bike, the bloke is hero.....

I know, them Norfolk Ninja Cyclists, they be badass MuthaFuckas

kelsen

Sketchley wrote:

If he went over the bonnet but still managed to end up stopped in the middle of the road on the bike, the bloke is hero.....

Maybe it was something like this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=VgB ... =endscreen

rolf_f

Kieran_Burns wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

I'm not into all this reading between the lines it precipitates the witch hunt...

The cyclist claims to have hit the wing mirror. Her twitter message did not indicate any damage to the wing mirror or any of the usual inconveniences that comes with hitting a wing mirror.

We need more information, details of what happened. Until then I think I've said all that I can reasonably say.

Oh, I'll say it then:

"That's never stopped you before"

Is everyone happy now?

To be fair, he hasn't made any comment about what he can unreasonably say.........