# Guilty or Not Guilty



## ianrauk (31 Mar 2022)

What do the good folks of CycleChat think

Motorist pleads guilty to careless driving



It's a strange one and I'm still digesting it to make an opinion.


----------



## DCLane (31 Mar 2022)

It's the vehicle speed which imo is the issue here. That someone fell over, whether scared or not, appears to have exacerbated things.

I'd suggest they should/could have slowed, which would have prevented the issues. And their licence getting points.


----------



## Alex321 (31 Mar 2022)

TBH, I'm surprised they pleaded guilty..

Agreed that they probably should have slowed more, but they didn't seem to be going ridiculously fast.

But the actual offence is Careless and inconsiderate driving
"If a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place, he is guilty of an offence".

I think that falls under "without reasonable consideration...".


----------



## Milkfloat (31 Mar 2022)

Genuinely surprised that would result in a Careless Driving charge, around here the police would be high fiving the driver.

More info: https://www.northants.police.uk/new...ng-thanks-to-operation-snap-video-submission/


----------



## Arjimlad (31 Mar 2022)

I'm kinda surprised as Northants Police don't have the best reputation for acting on cyclists' videos ! 

The lack of deceleration is IMHO inconsiderate. I would slow right down as a driver in these circumstances. 

On the bike I expect most of us have experienced (and maybe reported) worse - but I don't know the outcome, only that it was "positive"...


----------



## numbnuts (31 Mar 2022)

Slow the video down, land rover passes, she turns round to shout at driver and falls off


----------



## AndyRM (31 Mar 2022)

Honestly? I don't understand this one. Yes, it's a narrow road/track, but there seems no reason to me for the cyclist to fall over like that. And I wouldn't say the driver 'forced' their way past.


----------



## AndyRM (31 Mar 2022)

numbnuts said:


> Slow the video down, land rover passes, she turns round to shout at driver and falls off



That's not what happened.


----------



## ianrauk (31 Mar 2022)

Milkfloat said:


> Genuinely surprised that would result in a Careless Driving charge, around here the police would be high fiving the driver.
> 
> More info: https://www.northants.police.uk/new...ng-thanks-to-operation-snap-video-submission/



That link is in my original post. Cheers anyway.


----------



## Dogtrousers (31 Mar 2022)

numbnuts said:


> Slow the video down, land rover passes, she turns round to shout at driver and falls off


I don't think so. The person with the camera is the one who turned round, and wasn't the one who fell off. The person who fell off may or may not have turned round, we couldn't see because the camera was pointing away.

As to my opinion... I'm not a lawyer. It was certainly a knobbish bit of driving, I think I'm qualified to say that.


----------



## Time Waster (31 Mar 2022)

She fell after the vehicle passed but not to say it wasn't a factor.

In such a situation I guess all parties need to slow to pass. If I was driving I'd stop, go into neutral and hand brake on until they passed me by.

If I was cycling I'd probably stop and if the driver had stopped I'd pass by walking my bike around. I have done this because of the narrow road and ditch by the side. If the driver didn't stop like that of be standing astride my bike waiting for it to pass. Once that's happened just move on. There's nothing to be gained by gesticulating or shouting at the disappearing car. I'd hope I was sure footed enough not to topple over too. 

This is something that probably happens a fair amount on such roads. Very few make it to the police, prosecution or conviction.


----------



## slowmotion (31 Mar 2022)

My guess is that the cyclist anticipated that the pass would be closer than in actually was, leaned away and over-balanced. I've done that too. It was inconsiderate driving but not particularly awful IMVHO.


----------



## cougie uk (31 Mar 2022)

ianrauk said:


> What do the good folks of CycleChat think
> 
> Motorist pleads guilty to careless driving
> 
> ...



I'm surprised you're confused. Way too fast past the cyclists leaving them with little time to stop and unclip. That rider could have easily fallen the other way. 

Ridiculous driving. If it had been me I'd have stopped or been at walking pace at most. 

The driver admitted it was careless.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (31 Mar 2022)

Defo careless driving at that speed past them at close range without making any attempt to slow.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (31 Mar 2022)

Guilty.

Way too fast to be passing that close. The L-plate on the back might be relevant too. It's also worth pointing out that the filming rider is to the right of the one who falls so was passed very closely indeed. 

As a driver in that situation, I would have stopped as far to my left as possible until the riders passed.


----------



## Dogtrousers (31 Mar 2022)

I think the rider falling off is a bit of a red herring. What's important is the (poor) quality of the driving. It would be the same if no one had fallen off.


----------



## Milkfloat (31 Mar 2022)

ianrauk said:


> That link is in my original post. Cheers anyway.


Ooops.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (31 Mar 2022)

Dogtrousers said:


> I think the rider falling off is a bit of a red herring. What's important is the (poor) quality of the driving. It would be the same if no one had fallen off.



Exactly


----------



## winjim (31 Mar 2022)

Daft bit of driving which is not excused by, but should be considered in the context of, the cyclists being way way over to the left. Stop on the left or ride in the middle, that's just mixed messaging.


----------



## shep (31 Mar 2022)

They fell of way after the Landrover had gone past, why?

Did the one in front stop and they didn't have time to unclip so toppled over?


----------



## MontyVeda (31 Mar 2022)

shep said:


> They fell of way after the Landrover had gone past, why?
> 
> *Did the one in front stop and they didn't have time to unclip so toppled over?*


that's what it looks like to me. 

but as has been pointed out, the cyclist toppling isn't the issue, the speed and closeness of the pass is, and the driver has admitted they were at fault, so what we have here is a non-story.


----------



## shep (31 Mar 2022)

MontyVeda said:


> that's what it looks like to me.
> 
> but as has been pointed out, the cyclist toppling isn't the issue, the speed and closeness of the pass is, and the driver has admitted they were at fault, so what we have here is a non-story.


If they hadn't fell off what problem had been caused?

Just the fact he was driving quicker than some think appropriate?

He'd gone past before the one in the middle even noticed him!


----------



## mjr (31 Mar 2022)

winjim said:


> Daft bit of driving which is not excused by, but should be considered in the context of, the cyclists being way way over to the left. Stop on the left or ride in the middle, that's just mixed messaging.


Brave words are cheap. Who here would play chicken with an oncoming Landrover driven that badly? Even if the riders had dismounted and stood on the edge of the tarmac, it would have been an inconsiderate close pass of pedestrians at that speed. If the cyclists had "taken the lane" and stuck to it, I think we'd be looking at a serious-injury collision, at best.

So guilty. It looks way less than 1.5m and probably more than 30mph. This was before the highway code clarification this January, but it was still clearly careless and inconsiderate driving under the old one because they would never try that with an oncoming van. I say van because that sort of driver may well bully an oncoming car into the verge or back to a passing place.


----------



## Glow worm (31 Mar 2022)

Definitely too close and too fast. I was reading some comments on this incident earlier on Twitter, from drivers saying this driver did nothing wrong because he didn't actually hit anyone! I've read this kind of crap from drivers so often and it's an attitude that certainly explains a lot of terrible driving ie it's fine to roar past us at 60 mph within inches as long as they don't hit us. Nitwits the lot of them and I'd throw the book at them all.


----------



## Ian H (31 Mar 2022)

The cyclist behind was quite possibly unsighted and therefore surprised by the vehicle, and perhaps not the most experienced rider. Given there was no wobble room, the speed was inappropriate and verging on dangerous. 

As said above, an experienced cyclist would have ridden out until the vehicle slowed, but that doesn't excuse the driver at all.


----------



## mjr (31 Mar 2022)

Ian H said:


> As said above, an experienced cyclist would have ridden out until the vehicle slowed, but that doesn't excuse the driver at all.


From the manner of driving and way the vehicle moved, based on my decades riding small country roads, including ones in Northants, I really believe that "until the vehicle slowed" would mean "until it hit them" in that case. The best likely scenario is that they might have decided to drive with two wheels in the field. They weren't slowing for anything short of the apocalypse.


----------



## Time Waster (31 Mar 2022)

Either the cyclists or the driver would have to pass by at less than 1.5m due to the width of the road. Not a nice road for cycling if motor vehicles can use it too.

I'm an experienced cyclist and I'd have simply stopped and waited as far over as possible. You can never be sure that a fast driver is going to stop and primary in that situation could turn careless into dangerous without any change in the driver's actions. Or it could force a change in behaviour. Which happens is discovered with hindsight, which means IMHO cyclists need to pick the safest option in case worst case scenario happens.

Fair result for careless but equally as likely to expect no conviction.


----------



## fossyant (31 Mar 2022)

Driver too fast, middle cyclist having a clipless moment, not helped by the panic from the rear. I've had worse, much worse, but I am experienced, and I'd stand my ground. Given they were crawling before the driver passed, I think they all spotted the driver, but the driver just charged through, which is wrong.


----------



## ianrauk (31 Mar 2022)

cougie uk said:


> I'm surprised you're confused. Way too fast past the cyclists leaving them with little time to stop and unclip. That rider could have easily fallen the other way.
> 
> Ridiculous driving. If it had been me I'd have stopped or been at walking pace at most.
> 
> The driver admitted it was careless.


Nowhere in my post does it say I'm confused.
My take on it us that the vehicle was too fast for the road and the woman who fell was startled and suffered a clipless moment.
The vehicle driver also believed he was going too fast so decided to plead guilty due to the video evidence. Though I am of the opinion, if it wasn't filmed he would have a different plea and there would have been a different outcome.


----------



## mjr (31 Mar 2022)

Time Waster said:


> Either the cyclists or the driver would have to pass by at less than 1.5m due to the width of the road.


Cyclists may pass cars at 1m in line with current highway code advice, or less if they choose, but it's for the more vulnerable user to decide, not the biggest.



> Not a nice road for cycling if motor vehicles can use it too.


It's fine if the motorists stop and let cyclists pass, like the police said.


----------



## Ian H (31 Mar 2022)

mjr said:


> From the manner of driving and way the vehicle moved, based on my decades riding small country roads, including ones in Northants, I really believe that "until the vehicle slowed" would mean "until it hit them" in that case. The best likely scenario is that they might have decided to drive with two wheels in the field. They weren't slowing for anything short of the apocalypse.


That's not my experience from decades of cycling in Devon lanes and around the UK.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (31 Mar 2022)

ianrauk said:


> What do the good folks of CycleChat think
> 
> Motorist pleads guilty to careless driving
> 
> ...



It sounds windy, + the speed of the Land Rover could well have brought with it turbulent air, we all know that alone is capable of unsettling a bicycle. But also nothing happened in shot that could have led to a sideways topple like that, panic and forget to unclip?


----------



## MontyVeda (31 Mar 2022)

shep said:


> If they hadn't fell off what problem had been caused?
> 
> Just the fact he was driving quicker than some think appropriate?
> 
> He'd gone past before the one in the middle even noticed him!



The fall isn't the issue. It's irrelevant. 
Personally i believe the speed and closeness of pass is the issue here. It's a narrow lane so giving the cyclists more space wasn't an option, slowing down or even stopping was. The driver admits the pass was inappropriate, which matters more than my opinion.
I can't see the rider's head so can't really tell what they did or didn't notice. Either way, that's also irrelevant.


----------



## newfhouse (31 Mar 2022)

Some context and additional information here.


View: https://twitter.com/surreyroadcops/status/1509570070330101764?s=21&t=bQOwnj8XgchqjPmuj2WqXQ


----------



## Arjimlad (31 Mar 2022)

This made me remember a similar incident I had with a Range Rover driver. 

There wasn't very much room but the driver failed to react to my presence by slowing down one iota. I sent the footage in wondering what would happen.

Avon and Somerset said it was a "positive outcome" of a warning, fixed penalty, conditional course offer or prosecution. I've driven that road myself and would always slow down.


----------



## shep (1 Apr 2022)

It's a pointless post really, the cyclists involved think he's guilty, the Police think he's guilty and even the driver has admitted he's guilty!

What did you expect to hear from people on this forum?

Me personally would have thought 'knobhead' and carried on with my day, these 3 clearly thought differently. 

The front one shat themselves and slowed down, the middle one was too close and didn't have a clue what was going on and the 3rd one was more interested in shouting abuse.


----------



## matticus (1 Apr 2022)

shep said:


> It's a pointless post really, the cyclists involved think he's guilty, the Police think he's guilty and even the driver has admitted he's guilty!


I kinda agree with this!

Careless Driving seems about the right verdict. Not Dangerous Driving, not Attempted Murder, not innocent on all charges.
This post was bound to provoke the more extreme opinions either side of that - and we have delivered!


----------



## MontyVeda (1 Apr 2022)

shep said:


> It's a pointless post really ...





matticus said:


> I kinda agree with this! ...


TMN to MontyV


----------



## Dogtrousers (1 Apr 2022)

Not pointless at all. We all got to hear of this incident, which was interesting.

And some got to have a go at the nobber driver.
And some others got to have a go at the cyclists, for Doing It All Wrong. 

All par for the course for CC.


----------



## Cycleops (1 Apr 2022)

‘The driver was offered an education course in lieu of a prosecution but failed to attend, resulting in a court case’
This speaks volumes.


----------



## shep (1 Apr 2022)

MontyVeda said:


> TMN to MontyV


I don't know what this means, sorry.


----------



## DRM (1 Apr 2022)

If it was me, I think I’d have spotted the Land Rover hurtling down the road, and would have slowed ready to stop as it appears to be a straight, long road with good visibility, and think I’d have twigged that the Land Rover wasn’t stopping for anything, crap driving, but equally crap cycling too


----------



## cougie uk (1 Apr 2022)

DRM said:


> If it was me, I think I’d have spotted the Land Rover hurtling down the road, and would have slowed ready to stop as it appears to be a straight, long road with good visibility, and think I’d have twigged that the Land Rover wasn’t stopping for anything, crap driving, but equally crap cycling too


Love to know how you can tell what cars stop and which don't ?

My normal tactic is to ride further out so they have to slow but it's not for everyone.


----------



## DRM (1 Apr 2022)

cougie uk said:


> Love to know how you can tell what cars stop and which don't ?
> 
> My normal tactic is to ride further out so they have to slow but it's not for everyone.


It’s all experience, due to driving around 30,000+ miles a year, you soon learn to spot dangerous idiots, the ones that will pull out in front of you, the ones that play chicken on a narrow road, those messing with a phone, or distracted and the downright dangerous idiots, yes taking the lane helps, but you have to know which battles to fight, and which to back away from, I err on the side of caution, on the bike, or in the van or my own car


----------



## fossyant (1 Apr 2022)

shep said:


> Me personally would have thought 'knobhead' and carried on with my day, these 3 clearly thought differently.
> 
> The front one shat themselves and slowed down, the middle one was too close and didn't have a clue what was going on and the 3rd one was more interested in shouting abuse.



That's my view.

As someone that does MTB to0, we call a 'fall' a 'little lie down', unless you stack it properly. That was a clipless moment/little lie down. Most likely caused by panic from all of the three. Me that pass I'd not be too bothered, but I'd have been further out already so driver was forced to slow down. Poor rider positioning.


----------



## newfhouse (1 Apr 2022)

Just a reminder that the driver entered a guilty plea. Whatever mistakes the cyclists may have made they did not endanger the driver.


----------



## DRM (2 Apr 2022)

newfhouse said:


> Just a reminder that the driver entered a guilty plea. Whatever mistakes the cyclists may have made they did not endanger the driver.


No they didn’t, but lack of awareness put themselves in danger


----------



## Joffey (2 Apr 2022)

GUILTY

The driver is careless and inconsiderate. He should have slowed, as is the law, but didn't. He/she is bang to rights.


----------



## Illaveago (2 Apr 2022)

A similar thing happened to me the other day but I remained upright! I slowed down to let the idiot in a white BMW past ! It was a narrow road and we were approaching one another . He was driving fast towards me . I was wondering if he was ever going to slow down ! He eventually did just a few yards in front of me ! I gave him my most serious Paddington Bear stare as he went past !


----------



## steveindenmark (2 Apr 2022)

I think he could have slowed down and the rider is guilty of incompetence 😁. Its an odd one.


----------



## Dogtrousers (2 Apr 2022)

I'm loving all of these pompous expert "if it was me I'd have done this and that and the other" comments. I'm surprised no one's mentioned saddle height.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (2 Apr 2022)

Dogtrousers said:


> I'm loving all of these pompous expert "if it was me I'd have done this and that and the other" comments. I'm surprised no one's mentioned saddle height.


Saddle soo high she couldn't pedal


----------



## shep (2 Apr 2022)

newfhouse said:


> Just a reminder that the driver entered a guilty plea. Whatever mistakes the cyclists may have made they did not endanger the driver.


Exactly, which is why all this is pointless.


----------



## Illaveago (2 Apr 2022)

I just had another look at the video .
Did the rider who was videoing the ride run into the person who came off ?
I can't see how when they turned round to see the Land Rover that they avoided hitting her !


----------



## ebikeerwidnes (2 Apr 2022)

The person who fell off reminded me of a few times when I have had to stop and not realised that the ground on my left was slightly lower than expected
Hence I put my foot down onto thin air
which result in a slow fall to the left accompanied by a growing hope that no-one is around to notice

Although the car is clearly going too fast for the circumstance - to be clear


----------



## Mo1959 (2 Apr 2022)

I must be really sick as I laughed when watching it


----------



## nickyboy (3 Apr 2022)

Everyone has differing thresholds of what's acceptable. If that was me cycling I'd have thought "hmmm, wish he'd slowed down a bit". Then just got on with the ride. I wouldn't have felt endangered, no big deal. Appreciate that the police force and recording magistrate felt it was bad enough to prosecute but I wouldn't regard it as particularly poor driving.

I can't help but think the rider falling off (which had precious little to do with the incident) influenced the process


----------



## newfhouse (3 Apr 2022)

nickyboy said:


> Appreciate that the police force and recording magistrate felt it was bad enough to prosecute but I wouldn't regard it as particularly poor driving.


The police offered a driver training course, presumably because they didn't feel it serious or clear cut enough to prosecute. It seems it only went to court because the driver failed to attend.

Had the rider not fallen the video would likely never have been published or sent to the police.

The way I see it, the falling rider was inattentive when the leader braked suddenly. Some of us may like to think we are sufficiently robust to shrug off a close pass like that but drivers have no way of gauging a cyclist's risk tolerance. In situations like that they should be more cautious and slow the f... down.


----------



## Alex321 (3 Apr 2022)

newfhouse said:


> The police offered a driver training course, presumably because they didn't feel it serious or clear cut enough to prosecute. It seems it only went to court because the driver failed to attend.


That isn't the way that works. You get offered the course for a variety of offences in place of prosecution. If you don't take up the offer, or if you do but then fail to attend, then the prosecution goes ahead.

You aren't offered the course because it isn't serious or clear enough to prosecute - and if you were, then the evidence still wouldn't be enough to prosecute if you declined.




newfhouse said:


> Had the rider not fallen the video would likely never have been published or sent to the police.



Very likely.



newfhouse said:


> The way I see it, the falling rider was inattentive when the leader braked suddenly. Some of us may like to think we are sufficiently robust to shrug off a close pass like that but drivers have no way of gauging a cyclist's risk tolerance. In situations like that they should be more cautious and slow the f... down.



Agreed.


----------



## newfhouse (3 Apr 2022)

Alex321 said:


> You aren't offered the course because it isn't serious or clear enough to prosecute - and if you were, then the evidence still wouldn't be enough to prosecute if you declined.



In practice an assessment is made about the seriousness, the administrative burden and the likelihood of conviction. In that respect it is similar to being offered a police caution for some other offences - there is an admission of guilt but no onerous punishment. Of course the driver is free to argue the toss in court if he wishes to take the risk of losing. The whole process - for both sides - is like a game of poker.


----------



## Alex321 (3 Apr 2022)

newfhouse said:


> In practice an assessment is made about the seriousness, the administrative burden and the likelihood of conviction. In that respect it is similar to being offered a police caution for some other offences - there is an admission of guilt but no onerous punishment. Of course the driver is free to argue the toss in court if he wishes to take the risk of losing. The whole process - for both sides - is like a game of poker.


Sorry, but apart from the seriousness, that is just false.

Almost all safety awareness courses are offered in lieu of prosecution - usually in place of a fixed penalty ticket. And unlike a police caution, if you decline the offer of the course, you WILL be prosecuted, in almost very case.

The seriousness is certainly a consideration. AIUI, you cannot be offered the course if the likely penalty would be more than 3 points./ But you are only normally offered it if conviction is almost certain. And the offer of the course comes *with* a Notice of Intended Prosecution.


----------



## newfhouse (4 Apr 2022)

Alex321 said:


> Sorry, but apart from the seriousness, that is just false.
> 
> Almost all safety awareness courses are offered in lieu of prosecution - usually in place of a fixed penalty ticket. And unlike a police caution, if you decline the offer of the course, you WILL be prosecuted, in almost very case.
> 
> The seriousness is certainly a consideration. AIUI, you cannot be offered the course if the likely penalty would be more than 3 points./ But you are only normally offered it if conviction is almost certain. And the offer of the course comes *with* a Notice of Intended Prosecution.


I don’t think we’re too far apart.

We are both happy that perceived seriousness is a part of the decision process. Can we also agree that the whole point of fixed penalties and awareness courses is to attempt to modify behaviour without placing a burden on the courts system?

Maybe where we differ is regarding the likelihood of conviction if the case goes to trial being a factor. Obviously that’s not a consideration in cases of bus lane infringement or measured speeding since the evidence will usually be unequivocal. Situations such as the one we are discussing rely on a judgement being made by the person processing the initial evidence. They must assess not only the strength of the case but also second guess the likely outcome should it end up in court. Everyone works to a KPI whether formal or informal and the police are no different. The ratio of successful to unsuccessful prosecutions is one of those indicators. They can stack the odds a little by offering remedial courses, knowing that most (but not all) recipients of such an offer will accept even if they believe they did nothing wrong. That’s the poker game I mentioned.


----------



## DRM (4 Apr 2022)

What I don’t get is the driver of the Land Rover would have not lost any time by backing off, or even cocking a wheel up on the verge, it’s a flaming off roader, not likely to get stuck is it


----------



## ebikeerwidnes (5 Apr 2022)

The problem is people who seem to not realise that slowing down a fraction for a second or two makes naff all difference to their lives

They regard ever second as being critical so making them slow down is just not acceptable to them

Had the same attitude a few days ago - I was in my car and a bike was in front going round a right hand bend so I slowed down as I couldn;t see what was coming
The Audi SUV behind me went mad - flashing his light and all sort - then couldn;t pass me due to traffic calming stuff. WHen he could he shot past me at great speed - then made his point by staying on the right hand side of the road for over half a mile - then staying there round another corner to try to get past a couple of car ahead

By the time we reached some traffic lights about 6 miles further on he was turning right - I hope he noticed me pass him slowly as I pulled up to the lights in the left lane!!!
Gained nothing but could have killed people if a car had been in the wrong place
morons exist as we know!!!!


----------



## Roseland triker (5 Apr 2022)

I drive faster than that in my land rover. 

Who cares as the cyclist needs to learn Ballance and the fact at some point in your life you will get run over cycling.
She should be prosecuted for foul language and rude hand gestures.


----------



## Dogtrousers (5 Apr 2022)

Roseland triker said:


> I drive faster than that in my land rover.
> 
> Who cares as the cyclist needs to learn Ballance and the fact at some point in your life you will get run over cycling.
> She should be prosecuted for foul language and rude hand gestures.


Gosh

I'm outraged.


----------



## Roseland triker (5 Apr 2022)

Dogtrousers said:


> Gosh
> 
> I'm outraged.


Why ? Don't like the truth?


----------



## Mo1959 (5 Apr 2022)

I like to try and see things from both sides. There's no real reason the cyclists couldn't have pulled in either. Obviously a Landrover used for work, maybe by a farmer out checking stock who might have already given way to other cyclists with no thanks. If it was me, I would rather just pull over and let them get about their business. Not saying what the driver did was totally acceptable, but just trying to see it from their side.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (5 Apr 2022)

Roseland triker said:


> I drive faster than that in my land rover.
> 
> Who cares as the cyclist needs to learn Ballance and the fact at some point in your life you will get run over cycling.
> She should be prosecuted for foul language and rude hand gestures.



0/10


----------



## Phaeton (5 Apr 2022)

Is there no thought about prosecuting the first rider who actually caused the event which caused the rider to fall? If you take the LandRover out of the equation, the actual 'accident' was caused by 

a) the front rider stopping 
b) the second rider riding too close 
c) having a clipped in moment 

So although the pass by the LandRover was not nice & more consideration could have taken place


----------



## Dogtrousers (5 Apr 2022)

Ming the Merciless said:


> 0/10


Oh come on, he did try. Must be worth a 2.


----------



## mjr (5 Apr 2022)

Dogtrousers said:


> Oh come on, he did try. Must be worth a 2.


Looked like a number 2


----------



## Roseland triker (5 Apr 2022)

Ming the Merciless said:


> 0/10


You obviously don't have to do any farm work around stupid cyclists.


----------



## classic33 (5 Apr 2022)

Roseland triker said:


> You obviously don't have to do any farm work around stupid cyclists.


We're assuming the person was actually farming, not just flying round in a land rover for the sake of it.


----------



## Phaeton (5 Apr 2022)

I've just googled that & got no results for a flying LandRover


----------



## matticus (5 Apr 2022)

Roseland triker said:


> Why ? Don't like the truth?


----------



## Dogtrousers (5 Apr 2022)

Phaeton said:


> I've just googled that & got no results for a flying LandRover


Will this do?


----------



## Milkfloat (5 Apr 2022)

Mo1959 said:


> I like to try and see things from both sides. There's no real reason the cyclists couldn't have pulled in either. Obviously a Landrover used for work, maybe by a farmer out checking stock who might have already given way to other cyclists with no thanks. If it was me, I would rather just pull over and let them get about their business. Not saying what the driver did was totally acceptable, but just trying to see it from their side.


Their side is breaking the law, the cyclist is just a bit useless. If we want more people cycling then we need to be encouraging people to cycle, even if they are a bit useless, at least the one that fell off was not breaking the law.


----------



## Milkfloat (5 Apr 2022)

Phaeton said:


> Is there no thought about prosecuting the first rider who actually caused the event which caused the rider to fall? If you take the LandRover out of the equation, the actual 'accident' was caused by
> 
> a) the front rider stopping
> b) the second rider riding too close
> ...



What caused the front rider to stop? - the illegally driven Landrover.


----------



## newfhouse (5 Apr 2022)

Milkfloat said:


> If we want more people cycling


I’m not convinced everybody on this thread wants that.


----------



## Roseland triker (5 Apr 2022)

newfhouse said:


> I’m not convinced everybody on this thread wants that.


Definitely not round here.
Bad cyclists far out number the bad drivers here on a percentage basis. Cyclists are a pain here and I would say 95%+ are dangerous to other road users .


----------



## matticus (5 Apr 2022)

Roseland triker said:


> Definitely not round here.
> *Bad cyclists *far out number the bad drivers here on a percentage basis. Cyclists are a pain here and I would sa*y 95%+ are dangerous to other road users* .


I saw some ran a guy off the road last week:


----------



## Roseland triker (5 Apr 2022)

Milkfloat said:


> What caused the front rider to stop? - the illegally driven Landrover.


 Nothing illegal about that Landy driving. The issue was a stupid cyclist using rude and offensive language and hand gestures.


----------



## newfhouse (5 Apr 2022)

Roseland triker said:


> Cyclists are a pain here and I would say 95%+ are dangerous to other road users .


How many drivers have they killed or injured?


----------



## Roseland triker (5 Apr 2022)

matticus said:


> I saw some ran a guy off the road last week:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Happens daily here.whats your point?


----------



## newfhouse (5 Apr 2022)

Roseland triker said:


> Nothing illegal about that Landy driving. The issue was a stupid cyclist using rude and offensive language and hand gestures.


The driver admitted his guilt in court.


----------



## Roseland triker (5 Apr 2022)

newfhouse said:


> How many drivers have they killed or injured?


A few bad accidents have been caused by cyclists here over the years


----------



## Roseland triker (5 Apr 2022)

newfhouse said:


> The driver admitted his guilt in court.


Silly man. Should of prosecuted the cyclists for offensive language etc.


----------



## newfhouse (5 Apr 2022)

Roseland triker said:


> A few bad accidents have been caused by cyclists here over the years


95%?

Sigh… Why am I bothering?


----------



## matticus (5 Apr 2022)

Roseland triker said:


> Silly man. *Should of* prosecuted the cyclists for offensive language etc.


"I rest my case, Your Honour!"


----------



## Phaeton (5 Apr 2022)

Milkfloat said:


> What caused the front rider to stop? - the illegally driven Landrover.


Which bit was illegal?


----------



## Roseland triker (5 Apr 2022)

newfhouse said:


> 95%?
> 
> Sigh… Why am I bothering?


At least 95% of cyclists are bad and dangerous here. Drive down here and see for yourself.


----------



## AndyRM (5 Apr 2022)

96.7% of statistics are made up on the spot.


----------



## Roseland triker (5 Apr 2022)

Phaeton said:


> Which bit was illegal?


None of it..

Load of bull


----------



## Phaeton (5 Apr 2022)

Roseland triker said:


> None of it..
> 
> Load of bull


I would say it was very inconsiderate, bordering on the dangerous, however all the issues were self inflicted by the cyclists.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (5 Apr 2022)

Roseland triker said:


> Silly man. Should of prosecuted the cyclists for offensive language etc.



Should HAVE.

I don't normally correct that common mistake but there was nothing else worth addressing in your post.


----------



## Randomnerd (5 Apr 2022)

<<BBC Radio Four Studio, Salford, a moment ago>>

_….technicians tapping away at complex keyboards…somewhere in the midday sky, satellites scud across the northern hemisphere…in the same continent, surgeons sew up the bomb-torn limbs of orphans…_



Sarah Montague switches on her mike after a quick sip of water and a moment in which to clear her throat. Gordon, assistant producer, runs the live feed and her desk module light glows green: “…we are going over live now, to our south-west transport correspondent…Hello, Trevor. Welcome to The World At One. Now, give us your considered opinion about the moment Harry, Jane and Stella were cycling along a road and met a Land Rover, and how the whole thing turned up on a quiet cycling forum. Give us your expert opinion…”

“Aaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggghhhhhhhhhh”

“Thanks Trevor. Immigration….”


----------



## matticus (5 Apr 2022)

Phaeton said:


> I would say it was* very inconsiderate, bordering on the dangerous*, however all the issues were self inflicted by the cyclists.


Hence he was prosecuted for Careless Driving. Seems reasonable, no?

What the cyclists did after the incident of Careless Driving is irrelevant - and no big deal. "Woman falls gently into ditch." BONG!


----------



## Poacher (5 Apr 2022)

I wonder how that Landy driver would have reacted if he encountered, say, a recumbent trike.


----------



## newfhouse (5 Apr 2022)

Roseland triker said:


> Drive down here and see for yourself.


Not sure you're best suited to be a tourism ambassador.


----------



## Milkfloat (5 Apr 2022)

Phaeton said:


> Which bit was illegal?


Careless Driving


----------



## mjr (5 Apr 2022)

Randomnerd said:


> : “…we are going over live now, to our south-west transport correspondent…


If you think Northamptonshire is in the southwest, you may be the BBC's geography correspondent...


----------



## Phaeton (5 Apr 2022)

Milkfloat said:


> Careless Driving


We will never know as a judge was not able to decide


----------



## mjr (5 Apr 2022)

Phaeton said:


> We will never know as a judge was not able to decide


A judge can throw an unjust case out, can't they?


----------



## MontyVeda (5 Apr 2022)

Phaeton said:


> Is there no thought about prosecuting the first rider who actually caused the event which caused the rider to fall? If you take the LandRover out of the equation, the actual 'accident' was caused by
> 
> a) the front rider stopping
> b) the second rider riding too close
> ...


the event was the driving, not the fall.
The driver was prosecuted for their driving, not for causing an accident.


----------



## Milkfloat (5 Apr 2022)

Phaeton said:


> We will never know as a judge was not able to decide


There is no judge, it was a Magistrates court where he pled guilty. The Police, CPS, his lawyer and ultimately himself decided it was illegal.


----------



## newts (5 Apr 2022)

Roseland triker said:


> At least 95% of cyclists are bad and dangerous here. Drive down here and see for yourself.


I travel/work across Cornwall on a regular basis (for 20+ years) & haven't seen anything to backup your claim?


----------



## matticus (5 Apr 2022)

Milkfloat said:


> There is no judge, it was a Magistrates court where he pled guilty. The Police, CPS, his lawyer and ultimately himself decided it was illegal.


The Cycling Mafia made him confess. He woke up on the day of the trial with a detached steering wheel on the pillow next to him.


----------



## Randomnerd (5 Apr 2022)

mjr said:


> If you think Northamptonshire is in the southwest, you may be the BBC's geography correspondent...


As I understand, the yawn-inducing, laid-back agricultural parishioner with his gum boot almost permanently jammed in one or other personal orifice is of a Kernowseque hue. Your sprinkling of cold water on my lukewarm attempt at wit was almost refreshing. Ta.


----------



## DRM (5 Apr 2022)

Roseland triker said:


> You obviously don't have to do any farm work around stupid cyclists.


I’ve got jobs to do, but don’t behave like that when held up by stupid tractors and other slow moving, blockage causing farm machinery, I guess you’re just ticked off for losing the right to use red diesel


----------



## Roseland triker (5 Apr 2022)

newts said:


> I travel/work across Cornwall on a regular basis (for 20+ years) & haven't seen anything to backup your claim?


What until you get run over by a 60yr old in a Audi estate on a back road


Good luck dude


----------



## Roseland triker (5 Apr 2022)

matticus said:


> The Cycling Mafia made him confess. He woke up on the day of the trial with a detached steering wheel on the pillow next to him.


Yep absolute bull


----------



## AndyRM (5 Apr 2022)

Roseland triker said:


> What until you get run over by a 60yr old in a Audi estate on a back road
> 
> 
> Good luck dude



That's bad driving, rather than cycling, Shirley?


----------



## MontyVeda (5 Apr 2022)

AndyRM said:


> That's bad driving, rather than cycling, Shirley?


i don't believe this one does much thinking before posting... it's just random ranting really.


----------



## boydj (5 Apr 2022)

Roseland triker said:


> I drive faster than that in my land rover.
> 
> Who cares as the cyclist needs to learn Ballance and the fact at some point in your life you will get run over cycling.
> She should be prosecuted for foul language and rude hand gestures.



Hope this is tongue-in-cheek because your trike would have been wiped out by the land-rover. Presumably he saw the video of the pass and that's why he pled guilty. Clearly the inexperienced cyclists should have been give a lot more consideration by the driver.


----------



## AndyRM (5 Apr 2022)

MontyVeda said:


> i don't believe this one does much thinking before posting... it's just random ranting really.



I like the inclusive nature of this site, with both under-thinking and wildly over-thinking represented. The middle ground is well spoken for too.


----------



## boydj (5 Apr 2022)

Roseland triker said:


> Nothing illegal about that Landy driving. The issue was a stupid cyclist using rude and offensive language and hand gestures.



That would be why he pled guilty in court. The 'rude and offensive language' came after the bad driving. And you're not a cyclist, in spite of the name. An experienced cyclist would have held the centre of the lane and forced the driver to slow before passing.


----------



## boydj (5 Apr 2022)

Phaeton said:


> Which bit was illegal?


Ask the police who charged him, or the court where he pled guilty. I'd hazard a guess at not slowing and passing the cyclists at speed and very close.


----------



## Phaeton (5 Apr 2022)

boydj said:


> Ask the police who charged him, or the court where he pled guilty. I'd hazard a guess at not slowing and passing the cyclists at speed and very close.


At you admit to the fact you are guessing & not like the others who seem to be working on invented facts.


----------



## MontyVeda (5 Apr 2022)

Phaeton said:


> At you admit to the fact you are guessing & not like the others who seem to be working on invented facts.


What's been invented?


----------



## boydj (5 Apr 2022)

Phaeton said:


> At you admit to the fact you are guessing & not like the others who seem to be working on invented facts.



Are you on the jungle juice? Nobody's guessing. The driver went to court and pled guilty - that's a simple fact that can't be denied, even in your fantasy world. The driving was bad, the police charged the driver and he pled guilty.


----------



## Alex321 (5 Apr 2022)

Roseland triker said:


> Nothing illegal about that Landy driving. The issue was a stupid cyclist using rude and offensive language and hand gestures.


If there was nothing illegal about it, then why did he plead guilty?

The police, the CPS and the court disagree with you.


----------



## Alex321 (5 Apr 2022)

Roseland triker said:


> What until you get run over by a 60yr old in a Audi estate on a back road
> 
> 
> Good luck dude


And that is somehow supposed to back up your claim about 95% of cyclists being bad?

How, exactly, does the possibility of being run over by a bad driver have any relevance to the percentage of bad cyclists?


----------



## Alex321 (6 Apr 2022)

Phaeton said:


> At you admit to the fact you are guessing & not like the others who seem to be working on invented facts.


Can you point to *anybody* working on "invented facts".

FACT 1. He was given the opportunity of attending a safety awareness course. - which normally only occurs when the police are pretty convinced of guilt.

FACT 2. He failed to attend said course.

FACT 3. He was then prosecuted for the offence under section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 "Driving carelessly or inconsiderately".

FACT 4. He plead guilty to that charge, incurring a fine and 3 penalty points (and higher insurance next renewal).

None of those are invented, they are the facts as reported.


----------



## Phaeton (6 Apr 2022)

ROFL you are all so easily enraged


----------



## MontyVeda (6 Apr 2022)

Phaeton said:


> ROFL you are all so easily enraged


as far as trying to be a comedy troll goes, i think you need extra lessons


----------



## Phaeton (6 Apr 2022)

MontyVeda said:


> as far as trying to be a comedy troll goes, i think you need extra lessons


Case in point


----------



## Randomnerd (6 Apr 2022)

"Grandpa. How do wars start?"

"Oh, little Sophie, I don't know. People get so serious about being right, and one thing leads to another. Before you know it....boom."

"I see, grandpa."

"Hmm"

"Are you going to ride your bike later, grandpa? It's sunny out!"

"No, Sophikins. I'm going to trawl the cycling forums again, looking for pointless arguments about trivia. That's proper cardio."

"Okay. Will you have one of your pink pills first though? Will I fetch grandma with your flannel?"

"Yes. And I'll log on. Good girl."


----------



## matticus (6 Apr 2022)

Phaeton said:


> ROFL


If Rosey was awarded 2/10 [ other views are available], your efforts are at best 1/10.

Soz!


----------



## shep (6 Apr 2022)

Randomnerd said:


> "Grandpa. How do wars start?"
> 
> "Oh, little Sophie, I don't know. People get so serious about being right, and one thing leads to another. Before you know it....boom."
> 
> ...


Comedy Gold!


----------



## FishFright (6 Apr 2022)

Phaeton said:


> ROFL you are all so easily enraged



Weak back attempt


----------



## Sittingduck (6 Apr 2022)

is It bad that I kept going back to replay it? Weirdness all round, a theme continued by some of this thread…


----------



## Alex321 (6 Apr 2022)

Phaeton said:


> ROFL you are all so easily enraged


Any indication here of anybody being "enraged". I haven't seen any.


----------



## Arrowfoot (7 Apr 2022)

Randomnerd said:


> "Grandpa. How do wars start?"
> 
> "Oh, little Sophie, I don't know. People get so serious about being right, and one thing leads to another. Before you know it....boom."
> 
> ...


Coming from someone who is easily triggered, it is indeed gold.


----------



## DRM (7 Apr 2022)

Alex321 said:


> Any indication here of anybody being "enraged". I haven't seen any.


----------



## Dogtrousers (7 Apr 2022)

Alex321 said:


> Any indication here of anybody being "enraged". I haven't seen any.


I am.

Grrrrr.

See?


----------

