Cyclist Twitter post driver Emma Way found guilty

13»

Comments

  • GiantMike
    GiantMike Posts: 3,139
    giant man wrote:
    Now the stupid ***** is claiming to be the victim, dear god! she just loves the publicity

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-25013820
    But that is just a re-hash of the Daybreak appearance. I don't think she approached BBC Norfolk and gave any more information.
  • yorkshireraw
    yorkshireraw Posts: 1,628
    GiantMike wrote:
    giant man wrote:
    Now the stupid ***** is claiming to be the victim, dear god! she just loves the publicity

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-25013820
    But that is just a re-hash of the Daybreak appearance. I don't think she approached BBC Norfolk and gave any more information.

    This seems to be a new position - "I was quite angry at the mannerism of the cyclist on the road. My point of view is that he was on my side of the road - that's not the way you drive so I find that quite disrespectful."

    She never said this in any of her appearances back when the incident occurred. Then it was all 'I didn't need to stop', then 'I did stop but then carried on'. Nicely cooked up by her solicitor and completely unchallenged by the media, no platform to the Cyclist to give his view - assume he's had enough of it all.
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 40,602
    YorkshireRaw wrote:
    ... no platform to the Cyclist to give his view - assume he's had enough of it all.

    Do we know he hasn't been offered that platform though? From memory at the time he was fairly blase about the whole incident. Possibly he knows his riding wasn't great and just wants to forget the whole thing?

    Unfortunately we appear to have a publicity hungry solicitor who wants to milk all the media attention he can get. My reading of the girl's body language this morning was that she didn't particularly want to be on TV, she is probably (rightly) embarassed about how she acted and would rather it all went away. Maybe she signed up to a deal with her solicitor that means she now has to take part in his publicity circus?
  • yorkshireraw
    yorkshireraw Posts: 1,628
    Sorry - badly written by me.

    Should have said 'the rider was not on a platform such as this, assume because it either wasn't offered or because he's had enough of it'.

    My take (purely subjective) at the time, given he was somewhat casual in some respects, was that like many of us we have come to see poor driving (or lack of respect - leaving the scene etc) as something we have to put up with rather than not being bothered. Rightly he pointed out the tweet was a disgrace and showed no humility nor understanding of road law.
  • fatsmoker
    fatsmoker Posts: 585
    Just watched the clip
    Lorraine Kelly says "You don't seem very remorseful." She responds about her remorse for the tweet. She actually believes she isn't responsible for the accident, and appears to not understand she should have reported it. She deserves every nasty cyber-bullying incident she gets.
    And who the hell would employ her?
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 40,602
    fatsmoker wrote:
    She actually believes she isn't responsible for the accident

    A view supported by the Magistrates. Why are so many people assuming she was responsible for the accident? The fact that she is an idiot, left the scene and then sent that tweet doesn't mean the actual accident was her fault.
  • Team4Luke
    Team4Luke Posts: 597
    the main issue here is the way she felt she could trivialise to the whole world that hurting another human with a car is pretty cool thing to do. I don't really care what she was or was not found guilty of, other than she now understands there are consequences to this type of behaviour.
    Team4Luke supports Cardiac Risk in the Young
  • apreading
    apreading Posts: 4,535
    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.

    Yes, it is not officially called road tax, but Vehicle Excise Duty is only payable for vehicles on the road, is it not? If you declare your car off-road then you dont need to pay it. So in one way it IS a road tax (by another name).
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 40,602
    apreading 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.

    Yes, it is not officially called road tax, but Vehicle Excise Duty is only payable for vehicles on the road, is it not? If you declare your car off-road then you dont need to pay it. So in one way it IS a road tax (by another name).

    Problem is the term gets used by people who seem to think it is a tax that funds the roads and that, by extension, if you pay it then it gives you a greater entitlement to use them than anyone who doesn't pay. Vehicle tax is a more accurate description although it still has its faults. It's incredible the amount of people who don't understand the tax system.
  • Wirral_paul
    Wirral_paul Posts: 2,476
    Pross wrote:
    fatsmoker wrote:
    She actually believes she isn't responsible for the accident

    A view supported by the Magistrates.

    I wouldnt say that this is necessarily the case. The prosecution have to prove beyond reasonable doubt in order for the magistrates to convict. The prosecution obviously left some doubt - but this isn't the same as the magistrates believing she wasn't responsible. Given the circumstances with a lack of independent witnesses - i can see how the element of doubt would be there.

    I guess that the real surprise is that the CPS actually prosecuted for the Careless Driving charge in the first - i bet they wouldnt have without the Failure to Stop / Report case etc due to lack of evidence.

    We can only speculate anyway :?
  • bendertherobot
    bendertherobot Posts: 11,684
    Pross wrote:
    fatsmoker wrote:
    She actually believes she isn't responsible for the accident

    A view supported by the Magistrates. Why are so many people assuming she was responsible for the accident? The fact that she is an idiot, left the scene and then sent that tweet doesn't mean the actual accident was her fault.

    Agreed. However, she does seem to be suggesting now that the cyclist was at fault because he was "on her side." Do we know what the road looks like? I assume it was a single shared lane (if you follow) and that, in effect, this was a 50/50 thing.
    My blog: http://www.roubaixcycling.cc (kit reviews and other musings)
    https://twitter.com/roubaixcc
    Facebook? No. Just say no.
  • mamba80
    mamba80 Posts: 5,032
    the scary thing is that had she killed the cyclist, the fine/pts etc would probably have been very similar, punishments arnt based on the outcome of injuries sustained, esp as she wasnt convicted of driving without due care, charge of death by.. would have have been even less likely to have succeeded.

    having ridden a few sportives, its entirely probable that many cyclists were at times, riding on the wrong side of the road, just google "dartmoor classic sportive" images to see what i mean.
  • Mikey23
    Mikey23 Posts: 5,306
    That's making me nervous... I'm doing it in June!
  • adr82
    adr82 Posts: 4,002
    mamba80 wrote:
    having ridden a few sportives, its entirely probable that many cyclists were at times, riding on the wrong side of the road, just google "dartmoor classic sportive" images to see what i mean.
    I did Google that and didn't see anything unusual... just looked like lots of people moving out in order to pass slower riders, on what looked like extremely quiet roads. Nothing wrong with that. I'm sure people stray onto the wrong side occasionally but given the range of riders you get in some of these events there's nothing you can do about that except maybe warn anyone you see doing it that it's not a good idea. I don't really see the harm in it if you can see a mile ahead of you though.
    Mikey23 wrote:
    That's making me nervous... I'm doing it in June!
    Based on my Googling, I'd be more worried about the wildlife, eg 1, 2
  • overlord2
    overlord2 Posts: 339
    Get caught twice doing 35mph in a 30mph zone - 6 pts & £200

    Deliberately knock someone off a bike get - 7 pts & £337

    There's justice.
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 40,602
    Overlord2 wrote:
    Get caught twice doing 35mph in a 30mph zone - 6 pts & £200

    Deliberately knock someone off a bike get - 7 pts & £337

    There's justice.

    So who deliberately knocked someone of a bike and got that punishment then?

    I wonder what someone would get for libel?
  • Wirral_paul
    Wirral_paul Posts: 2,476
    Overlord2 wrote:
    Deliberately knock someone off a bike get - 7 pts & £337

    There's justice.

    Well for one thing its pretty clear that whatever she did, she didnt "deliberately" knock him off his bike - although it's probable that she was careless (but not proven), and she was fined for Failure to Stop / Failure to report.

    Still crap though hey. Shame they didnt look into her taking pictures of herself doing 90mph and tweeting the pic really - that could have been another 3 points for speeding and 3 points for using a mobile phone. That would have put her on 13 and banned for a while.

Categories