Cyclist Twitter post driver Emma Way found guilty

AdrianStuart

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-25000788

Fantastic!

graeme_s-2

BBC wrote:

Miss Way, of Watton, was acquitted of driving without due care and attention.

I'd say it's not all that fantastic

MartinGT

I would agree but a poxy fine and a slap on the wrist. Waste of time.

navrig

She said: "The tweet was spur of the moment. It was ridiculous and stupid and I apologise to all cyclists.

"It is the biggest regret of my life so far."

She regrets the tweet, which got her caught rather than the incident itself. Am I reading the article correctly?

Team4Luke

result. Seven points enforces future safe driving from her and huge insurance increase.

AdrianStuart

Lots of negative nigels on this forum!

It's a start in terms of justice being served

rodgers73

Ignoring the crass tweet and the media cicus that cropped up as a result, the woman's actions are relatively minor, if still wrong. She clipped the guy causing a bruise and making him fall into a hedge. She didnt exactly drive directly at him at 40mph.

Too much "string 'em up" type reaction to all of this. At the time and following the sentencing.

MartinGT

rodgers73 wrote:

Ignoring the crass tweet and the media cicus that cropped up as a result, the woman's actions are relatively minor, if still wrong. She clipped the guy causing a bruise and making him fall into a hedge. She didnt exactly drive directly at him at 40mph.

Too much "string 'em up" type reaction to all of this. At the time and following the sentencing.

Seriously? :?

adr82

rodgers73 wrote:

Ignoring the crass tweet and the media cicus that cropped up as a result, the woman's actions are relatively minor, if still wrong. She clipped the guy causing a bruise and making him fall into a hedge. She didnt exactly drive directly at him at 40mph.

Too much "string 'em up" type reaction to all of this. At the time and following the sentencing.

What the f*ck are you talking about? We're talking about a car hitting a person here. If she'd hit him slightly harder he could easily have died or at least been seriously injured. Just because that fortunately didn't happen makes no difference. What if there had been a wall or a deep ditch instead of a hedge for example? If he was a pedestrian and not a cyclist would you be reacting this way? Even ignoring the tweet entirely she deserved to have the book thrown at her.

Guanajuato

Just like the one who killed a cyclist by hitting them whilst driving on the wrong side of the road round a bend. Oh.

gozzy

It's her, if I thought he was injured I would have stopped, line that got me. I assume she got a really good look in her, small and restricted visibility, rear view mirror as she drove off down the road.
The milk of human kindness is pretty whiffy in some people.

littledove44

Seems a reasonable punishment to me, as long as the cyclist was not seriously injured. That would be another matter entirely.

As to this absurd road tax thing. I have five cars so I probably pay way more road tax than she does. If I choose to use the bike instead of the road, thats my business.

herb71

She was convicted of failing to stop and failing to report. But acquitted of driving without due care. She should have been convicted of being monumentally stupid as well, but I am sure half of us would be in jail if that was the case.

She got a moderate fine, 7 points (which is more than I got when convicted for driving without due care when I was 19) and lost her job to boot.

As long as she does not appear on celebrity big brother in future then it seems to me justice has been served one way or another.

DavidJB

Lets remember she's also ruined her life and lost her job. She's paid a price far outside of the sentence here.

DavidJB

littledove44 wrote:

As to this absurd road tax thing. I have five cars so I probably pay way more road tax than she does.

http://ipayroadtax.com/

NO SUCH THING AS ROAD TAX.

Bobbinogs

DavidJB wrote:

Lets remember she's also ruined her life and lost her job. She's paid a price far outside of the sentence here.

err, lost limb or something similar is a ruined life. Finding a new career isn't.

I agree she has paid an appropriate price though. Let's face it, we could all rant about sentencing in the courts everyday of the week but this one seems about right.

ToeKnee

This, and other cases of late, have got me thinking: what do you actually have to do to get convicted of 'driving without due care and attention'?

"Miss Way, of Watton, was acquitted of driving without due care and attention."

adr82

DavidJB wrote:

Lets remember she's also ruined her life and lost her job. She's paid a price far outside of the sentence here.

Maybe so, but it's entirely her own fault:

Describing the trial as a relatively routine case of driving without due care and attention, prosecutor Stephen Poole added: "Why it becomes notorious is because the suspect went home and tweeted.

bendertherobot

adr82 wrote:

rodgers73 wrote:

Ignoring the crass tweet and the media cicus that cropped up as a result, the woman's actions are relatively minor, if still wrong. She clipped the guy causing a bruise and making him fall into a hedge. She didnt exactly drive directly at him at 40mph.

Too much "string 'em up" type reaction to all of this. At the time and following the sentencing.

What the f*ck are you talking about? We're talking about a car hitting a person here. If she'd hit him slightly harder he could easily have died or at least been seriously injured. Just because that fortunately didn't happen makes no difference. What if there had been a wall or a deep ditch instead of a hedge for example? If he was a pedestrian and not a cyclist would you be reacting this way? Even ignoring the tweet entirely she deserved to have the book thrown at her.

The Magistrates, who had the benefit of listening to all the evidence, concluded that she was not guilty. The fact that a car hit a person is irrelevant. The facts of how that collision happened are crucial. In this case the Magistrates could not decide who was "in the wrong." On that basis they had to acquit. But, crucially, the convicted her of the two most SERIOUS charges.

slowbike

DavidJB wrote:

littledove44 wrote:

As to this absurd road tax thing. I have five cars so I probably pay way more road tax than she does.

http://ipayroadtax.com/

NO SUCH THING AS ROAD TAX.

Oh FFS - its a term used when referring to Vehicle Excise Duty ... it matters NOT what you call it - the principle is the same - you have to pay a TAX to use your motor vehicle on the ROAD.

Bleating on that "there is no road tax" is completely pointless and misses out on the more important fact that VED bases charges on levels of CO2 - so cyclists "pay" the same level as an electric car - but without any of the COST to the government - so we're saving them money by not "paying" "ROAD TAX" ...

GiantMike

bendertherobot wrote:

The Magistrates, who had the benefit of listening to all the evidence, concluded that she was not guilty. The fact that a car hit a person is irrelevant. The facts of how that collision happened are crucial. In this case the Magistrates could not decide who was "in the wrong." On that basis they had to acquit. But, crucially, the convicted her of the two most SERIOUS charges.

Well said.

Jehannum

Finding a new career may not be easy for her. She'll have a criminal record for 5 (?) years, and any job she goes for will have plenty of candidates with clean sheets. Without a job, her next car insurance premium is going to be hard to fund.

It's not ideal, but she may just learn something from the experience. Sadly it might only be to stay away from twitter.

spen666

For all those ranting on here about how its a disgrace etc.


Please remember she was found NOT GUILTY of careless driving.

She was only guilty of failing to stop/ failing to report an accident. She cannot be sentenced for the standard of her driving as she was found not guilty of that offence

adr82

bendertherobot wrote:

adr82 wrote:

rodgers73 wrote:

Ignoring the crass tweet and the media cicus that cropped up as a result, the woman's actions are relatively minor, if still wrong. She clipped the guy causing a bruise and making him fall into a hedge. She didnt exactly drive directly at him at 40mph.

Too much "string 'em up" type reaction to all of this. At the time and following the sentencing.

What the f*ck are you talking about? We're talking about a car hitting a person here. If she'd hit him slightly harder he could easily have died or at least been seriously injured. Just because that fortunately didn't happen makes no difference. What if there had been a wall or a deep ditch instead of a hedge for example? If he was a pedestrian and not a cyclist would you be reacting this way? Even ignoring the tweet entirely she deserved to have the book thrown at her.

The Magistrates, who had the benefit of listening to all the evidence, concluded that she was not guilty. The fact that a car hit a person is irrelevant. The facts of how that collision happened are crucial. In this case the Magistrates could not decide who was "in the wrong." On that basis they had to acquit. But, crucially, the convicted her of the two most SERIOUS charges.

I wasn't actually talking about the various charges or the sentencing, I was responding to the use of the phrase "the woman's actions are relatively minor", wasn't that clear? I don't understand how anyone can complain she's somehow been punished excessively given what she did (again, ignoring the tweet).

debeli

She (Way) was a complete noodle-brain, a bad driver and a twitter-splatter narcisist with no social conscience.
Not all of the above are crimes.

She was exposed as a result to natonwide ridicule, she lost her job in hard times and she got a bagful of points.

I think that's a pretty fair result, although it doesn't address allegations of her tweeting her speedo showing very high speeds and other unacceptable behaviour. Ovrall, nothing to complain about and it was never going to be much better.

GiantMike

spen666 wrote:

For all those ranting on here about how its a disgrace etc.


Please remember she was found NOT GUILTY of careless driving.

She was only guilty of failing to stop/ failing to report an accident. She cannot be sentenced for the standard of her driving as she was found not guilty of that offence

There's no point being pedantic and clever. This is the internet FFS. She tried to kill him with her massive car and got away with it, then the judge, who was probably her Dad or boyfriend, let her off and made the cyclist buy her a new car, or something like that. I demand the right to be outraged by something that didn't happen and that I don't understand because I can't be bothered to research it. It's an outrage, and I'm only bothered because somebody involved was on a bike. Had she hit a pedestrian I couldn't have given less of a f*ck.

bendertherobot

adr82 wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

adr82 wrote:

rodgers73 wrote:

Ignoring the crass tweet and the media cicus that cropped up as a result, the woman's actions are relatively minor, if still wrong. She clipped the guy causing a bruise and making him fall into a hedge. She didnt exactly drive directly at him at 40mph.

Too much "string 'em up" type reaction to all of this. At the time and following the sentencing.

What the f*ck are you talking about? We're talking about a car hitting a person here. If she'd hit him slightly harder he could easily have died or at least been seriously injured. Just because that fortunately didn't happen makes no difference. What if there had been a wall or a deep ditch instead of a hedge for example? If he was a pedestrian and not a cyclist would you be reacting this way? Even ignoring the tweet entirely she deserved to have the book thrown at her.

The Magistrates, who had the benefit of listening to all the evidence, concluded that she was not guilty. The fact that a car hit a person is irrelevant. The facts of how that collision happened are crucial. In this case the Magistrates could not decide who was "in the wrong." On that basis they had to acquit. But, crucially, the convicted her of the two most SERIOUS charges.

I wasn't actually talking about the various charges or the sentencing, I was responding to the use of the phrase "the woman's actions are relatively minor", wasn't that clear? I don't understand how anyone can complain she's somehow been punished excessively given what she did (again, ignoring the tweet).

She's had far more excessive punishment than hundreds of people who do this every day and are ignored by our policing system. That SHE brought that punishment on herself is delicious irony. Without her tweet she would never have been punished. She's been punished quite correctly in the Courts and suffered in the media. I'm glad that she has suffered, it's a message to others.

RiderUk

Just so I have got this right.
she knocks over a cyclist whilst driving past and is not charged with “driving without due care and attention”

bendertherobot

RiderUk wrote:

Just so I have got this right.
she knocks over a cyclist whilst driving past and is not charged with “driving without due care and attention”

No, you have it wrong. She was charged with careless driving and acquitted. The cyclist was not knocked over. There was a collision between them which the Magistrates could not rule on one way or another.

herb71

RiderUk wrote:

Just so I have got this right.
she knocks over a cyclist whilst driving past and is not charged with “driving without due care and attention”

They were moving in opposite directions. She claimed to be driving at 15mph and tight to the verge. The cyclist claimed she was heading 'towards' his side of the road. The statement from the cyclist seems vague to say the least.

DavidJB

Slowbike wrote:

DavidJB wrote:

littledove44 wrote:

As to this absurd road tax thing. I have five cars so I probably pay way more road tax than she does.

http://ipayroadtax.com/

NO SUCH THING AS ROAD TAX.

Oh FFS - its a term used when referring to Vehicle Excise Duty ... it matters NOT what you call it - the principle is the same - you have to pay a TAX to use your motor vehicle on the ROAD.

Bleating on that "there is no road tax" is completely pointless and misses out on the more important fact that VED bases charges on levels of CO2 - so cyclists "pay" the same level as an electric car - but without any of the COST to the government - so we're saving them money by not "paying" "ROAD TAX" ...

False. Terminology is massively important. You Fail.