Girl hits cyclist then jokes about it on Twitter.

It's none of your business, you can bleat about free speech all you like but free speech does not allow you to vindictively hunt someone down and wreck their life. People get away with it on the Internet but hopefully this won't be allowed for much longer.

Curiously you are allowed to spread true things about people. There's no real difference between her getting nail by a few folks on the Internet and people's stories ending up in the papers.

The solution is not to run people over, flea the scene and then boast about it on the internet.
 
I'm fed up with cyclists and i don't even drive!! There moral supiorty is enough to ban them from the roads. They don't pay road tax, they reckless and when they get into an accident is automatically the drivers fault. If you saw how they act in central London you'd agree with me.

You are either trolling or being monumentally crass. Neither is very funny.
 
I stop close enough to the kerb so that they can't go past on the wrong side anyway.

Oh, you're one of those. Doesn't work. We cyclists go the other side (or some naughtily up the pavement) and leave you slow pokes stuck in traffic. :p

Note it's not always safe for a cyclist to overtake on the right. That's why a lot of ASL have a cycle lane that leads to them on the left.
 
Unfortunately for your suggestion most of the roads you drive down were designed for horses, then covered in tarmac in recent times (and yes that is still going on in the UK).
.

Correct, even my street, in a city centre, is just a thin layer of tarmac over 18th/19th century cobblestones.

Motor vehicle users forget that most roads weren't designed for heavy, fast, motorised vehicles.
 
They're certainly becoming more prevalent but that doesn't mean they should :)

Ahead of the line of traffic is the safest place for the cyclist to be. That's why ASL exist. They are a good thing (and crossing one on red counts as jumping the red light but not a lot of motorists are aware of that - or care. I do, as a motorist and cyclist)
 
I hear she might have ruined her life posting that on Twitter, apparently it'll effect her accounting degree, well it'll teach her a good lesson if it does.
 
I hear she might have ruined her life posting that on Twitter, apparently it'll effect her accounting degree, well it'll teach her a good lesson if it does.

Lets have some perspective here. What she did was stupid, but there as no serious injuries (if any injuries at all), so I don't see why this should impact her degree. I don't see how that helps anyone at all.
 
Now I am afraid you have definitely mistaken what I posted. I have no issue with cyclists on the road at all, I cycle myself (granted not as much as I used to) but I take issue with someone cycling on a busy, dangerous dual carriageway when a cycle path is provided. It puts them in danger and drivers in a difficult situation which could be avoided.

There could be any number of reasons why they don't use the path;

- They usually aren't swept and so increased chances of a puncture
- Pedestrians are more unpredictable than cars
- Surfaces are usually poor and badly designed
- There is a tendency to put street furniture in them
- Junctions and priority are generally poorly thought-out and marked leading to confusion

I assess each cycle path on its merits and if they are safe and useful then I'll use them but generally they are not. John Franklin, probably the most knowledgeable person on cycle safety in the UK has research showing that most cycle accidents happen where roads and cycle infrastructure meet and he believes this is generally a result of poor design. I'm inclined to agree.
 
I hear she might have ruined her life posting that on Twitter, apparently it'll effect her accounting degree, well it'll teach her a good lesson if it does.

You are an awful person.

Why is he? A lesson learned the hard way is often the best way.

Lets have some perspective here. What she did was stupid, but there as no serious injuries (if any injuries at all), so I don't see why this should impact her degree. I don't see how that helps anyone at all.

Perspective. She didn't know he wasn't seriously injured. She bragged about it, a crime, in the public domain. Sure, most people deserve a second chance, but she needs to learn a valuable lesson here (see my response above)
 
crash helmets should be law

You appear to confusing perceived risk with reality.

Mandatory use of cycle helmets would lead to a reduction in cycling and destroy cycle hire schemes whilst saving remarkably few lives or injuries. The argument just doesn't stack up.

You'd do more for the country by insisting all drivers wear helmets and neck braces to reduce injuries and deaths, not to mention almost wiping out whiplash claims and ambulance chasing lawyers overnight.

Don't get me started on those pesky pedestrians with their walking without high viz tabards; do you know how many are injured each year? Loads.
 
Horses get more respect than cyclists on UK roads. It's ridiculous, and further evidence of the unremitting stupidity of the great British public.
 
Why is he? A lesson learned the hard way is often the best way.

Perspective. She didn't know he wasn't seriously injured. She bragged about it, a crime, in the public domain. Sure, most people deserve a second chance, but she needs to learn a valuable lesson here (see my response above)

Losing her degree will more likely lead her towards more run ins with the CJS than avoiding it. At the end of the day what she did was reckless and stupid, but although she didn't know someone wasn't injured, you can't avoid the fact that the fact is nobody was.

People get into drunken fights all the time and do more harm to other people than has happened there and get off with a £80 fine.
 
Lets have some perspective here. What she did was stupid, but there as no serious injuries (if any injuries at all), so I don't see why this should impact her degree. I don't see how that helps anyone at all.

Since when did GD become so compassionate about those that break the law? Man, this place is going soft.
 
He's visible to the cars at the front of the queue, that is all that matters. if you queue up 4 cars back, the guys two forward and two back can't see you.

If for instance you're at a junction , move up to the front left, or the second lane, both cars near there can see you, they can give you a few seconds to get going and be across the junction before a row of cars comes past of which half of them won't know you're about to be alongside them.

A good driver will see a cyclist, realise they are highly vunerable and a couple seconds headstart will help them across safely.

Think of it like this, a guy in the second row stupidly didn't get in the left hand lane indicates left, acts like a jackass, and when he looks over his shoulder, he can see a gap between two cars.. there is actually a cyclist in that gap but he thinks its a gap and pulls into it the second its alongside him and then he smacks the cyclist.

HOnestly it should be basically law that if a cyclist is present they should go to the front and if present car drivers should give them a headstart.


Or the cyclist has to be subjected to all the cars that just overtook him before the red light , overtaking him again causing more road risk for all involved and potentially slowing the flow of traffic....
 
Losing her degree will more likely lead her towards more run ins with the CJS than avoiding it. At the end of the day what she did was reckless and stupid, but although she didn't know someone wasn't injured, you can't avoid the fact that the fact is nobody was.

People get into drunken fights all the time and do more harm to other people than has happened there and get off with a £80 fine.

I don't think she should lose her degree. However I'm saying the treatment she has got, the naming and shaming and her employers getting involved is fine. A hard, but fair, lesson.

The second point is valid, insomuch as they aren't getting fair punishment for their acts. Discussing that is well outside the scope of this thread.
 
Back
Top Bottom