UKC

Oh dear. It's not a good idea to knock someone off their bike, fail to stop and then tweet about it

http://ipayroadtax.com/no-such-thing-as-road-tax/i-knocked-a-cyclist-off-hi...

In reply to Nevis-the-cat: A waste of cells... and trainee accountant apparently.

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:

I saw it mentioned on the BBC site yesterday. Definitely seems a few blonde moments short of a Barbie.

Interesting that the article in the link reckons/claims that young, recently qualified female drivers are more aggressive towards cyclists.

ALC

In reply to a lakeland climber:

They tend to be aggressive to everyone.

I blame a sense of over entitlement

In reply to a lakeland climber:

I'm not so sure - collars and cuffs mate.

http://ipayroadtax.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/emmaway1.jpg

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:

Sheesh. That could have turned out really badly. I'm glad it didn't.

No doubt MG will be along in a minute to tell us that it's all the cyclist's fault or something.

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:

The cyclist's side of the story: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-22602141

ALC

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:

I hope she's hung out to dry and (unfortunately for her) made an example of so others may realise the potential error of their ways.

A taxi drove straight into me last September (head through the windscreen, much fun), and despite the police prosecuting is still trying to claim that it wasn't his fault.

In reply to Nevis-the-cat: We had a bloody bizarre experience on Sunday. Riding down the long straight between Denton and Ilkley on the back road - 25' wide, almost half a mile long straight, side by side as there's hods of room to overtake. Small Micra came past, gave us loads of room, followed very closely by red Isuzu W344 CYG who nearly took my arm off. Arms were waved, he did a death overtake, all horns sounding, of the Micra. We rode on.

a few minutes later we say W344 CYG sat by the road with his window down. He looked somewhat agricultural (flat hat, dog). I called across "you got a bit close there, mate" (I was careful not to swear or be abusive).

At which point he zoomed out and passed incredibly close (the road by now's quite narrow) and started shouting about "driving illegally" (I assume he meant by riding 2 abreast). Words were exchanged n(my mate got quite cross). He then pulled in front of us and started weaving backwards and forwards across the road slamming his brakes on. Eventually (and following some choice abuse from my mate) he drove off, head out of the window still shouting about "driving illegally".

I wrote his number down because I fully intended to call the police, as the chap's clearly a bit unstable, but then decided that it's doubtful they'd do anything so didn't bother.

What struck me was the absolute level of rage that us riding perfectly considerately and legally apparently caused in him.

Very odd...

In reply to a lakeland climber: further evidence on FB

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:

Unbelievable!

In reply to andy: Not surprising - Ilkley drivers are just as crap as inner city Bratfud ones but usually driving more expensive motors ; ) He was probably in a hurry to get to Bettys. Glad no-one was hurt...

In reply to ClimberEd:

Whilst that is one view. The victim suggests on FB "For me the best outcome is a change if attitude towards cyclist. We try our best to share the road and be respectful to motorists and deserve the same respect."

Some of his fellow cyclists also suggest "Maybe we should try and get her out on a ride with the club? Fits in with the inclusive element. Then she may understand how vulnerable you are in traffic on a bike...... A good chance to educate someone and would bring a really positive end to it, would also make a really good story too?"

This approach sounds nice and doesn't alienate drivers.

Jeez - that is awful.

In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat:



I agree, but I think it is highly unlikely that attitudes will change. Drivers need to realise we have as much right as they do to be on the roads and are legitimate users, not an obstacle to be passed - but I have little faith that will happen.

In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat: what she did was awful but people and especially young people make mistakes. It would be a good story if she was sent out riding with the club....... And perhaps a driving ban for a while.

Cheers

Toby

In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat:

Too many people just get wrapped up in their own little bubble when driving and seemingly forget about everything outside that might have an impact (hopefully not literally) on them or other road users.

I'd like to see different penalties applied to bad driving - such as having to ride a bike to work. There's a judge in Texas who applies somewhat radical thinking to sentencing for really quite serious crimes and that goes completely against the "lock 'em up and throw away the key" mentality that seems to pervade the discourse about law and order in the States.

ALC

In reply to Toby_W:

Apparently the employer is now involved - it's not lookng good.

It sounds like she was lucky she hit a cyclist. Had she hit a horse or another vehicle, she'd be living off soup and pooing in a bag.

In reply to lummox:

This was a shagged out W-reg Isuzu 4x4 van. The driver was male, 25-40 and was wearing a flat hat. I suspect he was a farmer on his way home from Otley Show having come last in the piglet fingering contest.

In reply to andy: Sorry- poor attempt at humour. Btw, the winner of the piglet fingering contest was an older bloke. Have you noticed more motor traffic on the back road to Beamsley from Ilkley recently or is it just me ?

In reply to lummox: On Sunday it was noticably (a) busier and (b) more bellend-rich. We assumed it was Otley Show.

I've now discovered I can report this nobber online, so have filled in WY Police's online form - sure it won't do anything but it might be nice if they'd pop round and firstly explain that riding 2 abreast isn't illegal (or indeed inconsiderate where the road's wide, straight and empty) and trying to make people fall off their bikes isn't a very nice thing to do.

In reply to andy: The Otley Show was on Saturday but there could be a hangover effect... I think reporting this sort of behaviour is the way forward. Coppers will find it more and more difficult to fob it off if increasing numbers of riders take the trouble to contact them.

In reply to Nevis-the-cat: On a positive note - her spelling is good.

In reply to andy:


Alongside these big incidents, there's the constant, wearing small change of pointless unpleasantness from drivers. Like yesterday I'm just cycling along and suddenly a taxi driver is hooting and gesticulating. Why? Because I pulled out to go round a parked car. What does he expect me to do? Can't he anticipate that I'm going to do that? He's a professional driver for crying out loud. If he's that stupid, what are the amateurs like? Gah.

Small town, Dundee. I've got his number. I'll be catching up with him

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:

Lancashire Police encourage the public to report bad driving; the report goes on the PNC and if the car is seen by a patrol car equipped with ANPR it gets stopped for a chat and a "producer" notice. More then three reports earns the driver a home visit and possible confiscation of the vehicle; we have successfully dealt with two habitual speeders in our street by using this system.

Find out the non-emergency number and put it on your mobile. In Lancs it's 0845 1 25 35 45.

In reply to lummox: Ooh shit it was - I've given them the wrong date!

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:
What's so annoying about the "road tax" argument is the assumption that cyclists aren't paying tax. Most of us have cars which we leave at home

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:

unless using a fake name and untraceable connection.
Would have liked to see her response when that tweet from the cops popped up.

In reply to andy:

I think his brother drives a black pick up.

I was heading into Silsden the other evening, over the bridge and turning right by the bridal shop, indicating clearly. Some pronghead over took me, on the other side of the road as I was by now at the white lines, just missed a car coming the other way and had the audacity to sound his horn.

I saving up all my revenge for when the assorted bell ends and boy racers meet my 2.5 tonnes of reinforced ex army Land Rover.

In reply to dissonance:

Unfortunately her mum has washed the evidence.

In reply to Chris the Tall:
Although I find it almost equally annoying (and totally unconstructive) when cycling advocates focus on the smug semantic pedantry "no such thing as road tax, it's vehicle excise duty so ner-ner-ne-ner-ner" thing rather than the actual point, which is that vehicle excise duty (sometimes referred to as "road tax") doesn't pay for the roads and paying it doesn't give you a greater right to use the roads any more than paying more income tax gives you a greater right to use hospitals, and in any case that many cyclists (who own cars) also pay vehicle excise duty while owners of emissions band A motor vehicle don't.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

This isn't the most annoying thing. It is the assumption that paying the "tax" gives you more rights on the road.

In reply to ClimberEd:



The majority of cyclists are drivers as well, aren't they ? I don't think it ever helps to lump all drivers into one group and alienate those drivers (probably a majority) that are pro cycling because thats an immediate loser.

In reply to Nevis-the-cat: Well the online reporting thing works - they've just rung to check a couple of details and said "he'll be spoken to". So well done WY Police.

In reply to andy: Likes this ^^^

In reply to lummox:

It was manic a couple of weeks ago. There were several protracted delays when convoys of cars had stand-offs about who would back up and to where along there. One was resolved by someone in one of the houses opening up gate and letting some cars temporarily park up in their yard to try and clear it.

If it carries on the route through Langbar will be quicker and easier!

In reply to Liam M: I thought most people knew it wasn't worth trying to drive along it at the weekend cos of all the cyclists ? : )

In reply to Ramblin dave:

Agree. It is a road tax, as it is a tax paid for using certain classes of vehicle on a road.

It does not, however, confer any more rights to use those vehicles than to use vehicles for which it is not payable.

Neil

In reply to Liam M: I'm bemused as to why there's any cars on there really, unless they live in Nesfield. If I lived in Beamsley I'd go round via Addingham, and even in Nesfield you'd think it'd be easier to go round via Ilkley than the inevitable snarl ups on there at weekends.

We had more problem from the Ilkley "dads 'n' lads" ride out this weekend who appeared to think that they had some divine right to stay bunched across the road and expected us to line out to let them zoom past referring to us as "guys" in that Ilkley-esque way some of them seem to do.

In reply to a lakeland climber:

For what it's worth, I managed to convince the BBC to explain 'road tax' in this article

In reply to andy: The Ilkley CC ride like they drive their X5s down The Grove : )

In reply to lummox:

Well as an ex-member (actually I'm a member til 2021 as I paid in advance) I couldn't possibly comment!

In reply to andy: Have you heard Rushby's story about his old Landy meeting an X5 Daddy on The Grove ? : )

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:

I did a sportive at the weekend. I was 200m from the end, and following the road into the carpark where it finished. The road went nowhere else except the sports centre car park.

Now when people barge past me in their cars or vans, perhaps they're in a hurry and can justify squeezing through next to a traffic island. But what on earth was the VW Transporter driver who barged past me by a bend and traffic island thinking of? He got a bang on the side of his van, but then I think he went and hid around the back of the sports centre when he saw that the car park was full of cyclists.

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:

Isn't it council tax rather than road tax that pays for roads.

I'm really put off cycling nowadays. I love it but with the combination of avoiding potholes and literally putting my life in the hands of people in cars I prefer the protection my metal box car gives me.

In reply to lummox:

I haven't, but I'd like to...

In reply to ivebittenoffmorethanicanstu:
In a nutshell yes. However the main trunk roads (A roads, Motorways etc) are paid from out of the general tax pool. I think!

In reply to andy: In summary, Daddy's X5 lost- bits : )

In reply to andy:

Good effort.

You never know but he might already be known to them...

In reply to andy:

TBH I prefer to go out on my own or just a couple of mates, the club thing is beginning to eat itself - every Sunday's a Sportive.....

but maybe i'm just a miserable mysanthropic bastard anyway.

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:

We've started going out with Skipton on a Saturday. Sunday with Ilkley was just too early, and Skipton's Sunday rides had started to turn into a bit of a cock waving competition. Saturdays is a slow social ride, but we usually split a group of 5 or 6 off and get out for 50-70 miles with appropriate tea drinking stops.

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:

I'm just hoping for a no VED/no insurance/red diesel combo...

In reply to lummox & Andy:

Here goes

Nice sunny day, happy happy in the Lightweight beetling along the Grove. I'm heading towards the moor, just by the wine bar and Adams and Tebb, so parked cars on my left. I'm as far to the left as poss when a f*cktard in a gold X5 pulls onto the Grove and heads straight towards me. He must be so used to bullying people out of the way he just kept coming, at a good speed.

Only then did he realise I wasn't some old boy in a Yaris, but a hairy arsed bloke in a fook off great army Land Rover. I could not get any closer to the parked cars, so just sat there as I watched him swerve into the kerb and enjoyed that nice sound as concrete meets alloy, then his wing mirror hit mine. Mine wobbled (a bit) and his detonated all over the road.

I looked at him and smiled, then put it in gear and beetled off.

I did bob in and report it but the copper wasn't interested.

In reply to andy:

So that he'll be relying on, say, a bicycle to get around?

In reply to Nevis-the-cat: Lovely. Now could you go out looking for a red Isuzu, W344 CYG?

In reply to andy:

Sounds much moe sensible.

Mr Tall Clare rides with Skipdale I believe and from what I hear there is less talk of "watts" and more talk of "footy and beer"

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:

Mr TC hasn't been out with Skipton for ages - he's lost his mojo well and truly That said, he did go for a bimble on his cyclocross bike the other day and got questioned by someone on Mastiles Lane as to what a 'road' bike was doing up there...

In reply to Nevis-the-cat: He rides on a Sunday - I think I've only been him out once, but I believe there was a bit of willy waving going on that day from the usual suspects. To be fair it was back in Jan/Feb when every right minded fat lad should be doing 13mph base miles and we had a few whippety people flying off the front and deciding not to stop for a brew because they "have to get back" - well don't come out on a ride that involves a cafe stop then. Things may have improved now, but I prefer to ride Saturday morning with the club and then go out Sunday afternoon with my mates.

In reply to Tall Clare:

If he doesn't mind a fat lad for company I'm just getting my mojo back (Aldridge is not exactly the most exciting peddling venue).

Andy - to re-inforce my solitary no mates nature I'm building a TT bike.....

In reply to andy:

<raises hand> Mr TC isn't a 'willy waver' - he just tends to go out early and get back because that's what he's always done, as when his kids were little it was the only way he was 'allowed' to get out! He's only been out with them a couple of times.

In reply to Tall Clare:

He was entirely innocent of said will waving on the one occasion he was there when I was. I have no problem with people wanting to get out early/get straight home/do whatever - I do have a problem with what starts off as a 40 mile steady ride with a cafe stop where we plan to ride together (particularly in the winter) turning into a desperate gurn-fest with people riding on their own spread over a mile of Wharfedale because someone's shot off the front somewhere near Cracoe, and then never seeing everybody for the rest of the day because they decided they didn't want to stop. As I said, if people want to go out for a blast and get back for whatever it is that's cool - but several rides early in the year were spoilt by ending up as an individual TT to Arncliffe and back.

In reply to andy: Actually part of the problem with Skippy is that there's never that many people there on a Sunday - so they end up going as one group, so there's a spread of abilities - but that often means the new people get dropped so don't come back, so they end up with a small group (and repeat...).

Whereas on a Saturday they have blimmin' loads of people so it's easy to get a few folks who agree to do a longer, slightly quicker ride together.

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:

You've just given me another plan for my retirement.

It reminds me of an incident last year, where we were walking through the village in the rain and a car came past, rather too fast, and swerved into a puddle next to us. He didn't soak us because we were to far from the kerb. As he went past I turned and gesticulated, kinda hoping he would stop so we could "discuss" the matter. I guess he must have been watching me in the mirror when he crashed into the thick metal posts by the traffic-calming constriction in the road...

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:

as a white van man, cyclist and motor cyclist, i'll say it's about time the 20 something blonde got the recognition they deserve

i get more of 'em tail-gating me than bmw drivin' reps

obviously some blondes are natural and can drive...

In reply to andy:

Glad you reported the Izuzu nob, yeh he may well be known to the plod, and if he not, he will be now. Maybe he was a bit tiddly after the traditional 5 pints of Dr O'Reillys ME262 following his sloppy performance at the pig-frottering show.

It's this physical bullying thing that gets me, so many people seem to think nothing of casually threatening you with a ton of fast moving metal. What the hell is that all about? Imagine wandering into a busy pub and firing up a chainsaw to get to the front of the queue. Not many of us would do that so why the strongarm tactics when seated in a car? Arrgh!

In reply to Removed User:

It's just personality based, like people swagger and use their weight (if they have it) to make way through crowds.

Can be very dangerous in cars though.

In reply to Tall Clare:

i haven't heard of cyclocross in omg 30 years or more, was fun to watch

In reply to Removed User: Update on the Isuzu nob - got a call from a PC at Otley nick - he's been round to see said nob who was "very surprised" to see a copper on his doorstep. He was warned about his behaviour and informed that cycling 2 abreast on a clear, wide road is neither illegal nor inconsiderate. He was "chastened" and was warned that he's to think more careful before using his car as a weapon.

Excellent service from WY police - top work.

In reply to andy: I will have to try this with the Belper Brigade who also take offense at the same two abreast on a straight road with no one coming scenario.

In reply to Nevis-the-cat: Daily Maul has now got involve. They have contacted a friend of Emma's. The friend claims "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."

Conflicting with the cyclists POV.

In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat:

"he was gone"? Yep - gone into the hedge...

Some serious excuse-generating going on here from young Emma...

In reply to andy: She is right though that the evil cyclists were going too fast - did they think they were in a race against the clock or something?

In reply to andy:

Good result. I have had the same a couple of times in Lancashire too.

I am sure people think the police wont be interested so dont report the events, then as the police are not omnipotent so nothing happens.

Moral of the story if you dont report it they definitely wont do anything

In reply to andy:


Some serious excuse-generating going on here from young Emma...

No one really knows what happened.
She should have probably got out of her car and had a look, but didn't. If the Police want to investigate that and the subsequent non reporting of the accident then fine.
If it further transpires that she was driving recklessly/dangerously, then prosecute her for that.
Equally, if the cyclists were indeed riding irresponsibly, then that needs to be taken action on. The cyclists were part of an organised event and it wouldn't be the first time this year that incidents have happened in similar circumstances.
Pending any investigation, why not stop the witch hunt?
People, for example, have mentioned the possibility of her losing her job in an almost gleeful manner.

In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat:

She is right though that the evil cyclists were going too fast - did they think they were in a race against the clock or something?

Not sure what you mean by this - are you criticising or defending the cyclists?

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2328397/Trainee-accountants-Twitter...

In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat:

This is Norfolk not some Yorkshire village plagued by Tour de France wannabees! Likely to be going somewhere between 15-20mph (total guess but typical for a club rider on a sportive).

Sportives tend to be reasonably well signed especially around the event centre to warn motorists of large number of cyclists.

However we don't know the weather conditions, she may have had the sun in her eyes, nor do we know how wide the road was - single track or two lane? Also were both parties on the correct side of the road? It may have been that both were close to the central line if it were a two way road and the collision was "just one of those things" (actually if it was on a bend then both parties should be to the outside of their lane).

What is inexcusable is that she didn't stop at the scene of an accident - what did she imagine the result of her car colliding with a cyclist might be? If she felt threatened (not unreasonable for a woman driver on her own) then she should have reported it to the police as soon as possible.

ALC

In reply to Alex Ekins:

From your link:

"Her defence will not be helped by earlier tweets. One featured a picture which appeared to be taken from her driving seat, showing a slow-moving car in front.
The caption read: ‘This is the reason for my lateness. Always stuck behind some clueless crazy fool! #smartcar.’ Now angry cyclists who claim Miss Way is the ‘clueless crazy fool’ have forwarded that message to police. Another tweet on her account passed to officers featured a picture of a speedometer at 95mph – 25mph over the national limit."

Seems like she had a "relaxed" attitude to personal responsibility.

ALC

In reply to MJ:


Not keen on a witch hunt, but it is important to keep the pressure on the police to ensure that this goes to court - far too often they seem to drop these cases due to what they consider insufficient evidence.


As opposed to the genuinely gleeful manner in which see reported endangering someone's life.

In reply to MJ:

Do you ride sportives?

In reply to a lakeland climber:


Out of interest, what's your reasoning behind this?

In reply to Chris the Tall:


As opposed to the genuinely gleeful manner in which see reported endangering someone's life.

Yes, she was particularly stupid and perhaps callous in what she has done via Twitter. As I have said, if she is guilty of any crimes, charge her accordingly.
The witch hunt thing isn't just confined to this case though. Every time something like this happens, the cycling fraternity are up in arms about it and are very quick to call for all sorts of retribution - be it legal or otherwise. I just feel that sometimes it escalates into a 'feeding frenzy' and that can have negative impacts for all parties involved - driver goes through hell and cyclists perhaps don't learn any lessons that might be beneficial to them.

In reply to Martin W:

best visibility round the bend, the outside of the corner (of your lane) allows you to see further... it's sort of the opposite of the racing line but as well as giving you better line of sight round the corner this position has another advantage

on "the racing line" acceleration from the apex of the corner tends to push the car / bike to the outside of the corner (and over acceleration can often lead to crossing the centre line... or simply running off the road)

a wide entry into the corner should lead to a later apex... which in turn leads to less likely hood of you drift out under acceleration

i may not have explained this very well, but it's covered, i believe, in the advanced driving curriculum.

In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat:


Do you ride sportives?

No I don't.
I assume you do though, so perhaps you can answer my original question?

In reply to rallymania:

It's covered in the manual to either Gran Turismo or Ridge Racer Type 4

In reply to Martin W:

It lets you see further round the bend.

ALC

In reply to MJ:

They are against the clock.

In reply to MJ:


Not everyone is up in arms. The victim and some of his club members think differently and more positively (see my post at 10.38 Tue).

I think their attitude to this is very commendable and much more likely to get a desired result than punishment.

In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat:

They are against the clock.

Not necessarily in this case, but couldn't that be a contributory factor in other similar instances?

In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat:

Not everyone is up in arms. The victim and some of his club members think differently and more positively (see my post at 10.38 Tue).

I think their attitude to this is very commendable and much more likely to get a desired result than punishment.

Yes, a bit more balanced and less emotional.
However, it does mention the old fall back of 'If only drivers rode a bike, then they'd understand'...
Yes, some drivers are inconsiderate, but they are probably bad drivers full stop and not just around cyclists. I really don't think a cycling lesson will make any difference what so ever.
My other point, was that cyclists are sometimes too busy blaming motorists. Maybe they should be looking at themselves, particularly when it comes to organised events on roads which aren't closed to the public. If that means holding certain events in the early/late hours or enforcing individual group size whilst the event is taking place, then so be it.

In reply to MJ: pretty much every sportive i've done sets off people in small groups. And i've also rarely if ever finished one in a group of more than half a dozen.

In reply to Nevis-the-cat: This girl is an idiot. Why did she do it on purpose? Why then boast about it. I personally don't think it's ignorance, it seems a lot more premeditated than that.

While I realise that this isn't aimed at most cyclists, some are very very frustrating to drive behind.

I don't care if people want to go out on their bikes and I'll wait patiently behind them until a decent and safe opportunity presents itself for as long as it takes.

What really gets to me is "packs". Cyclists riding three or four abreast for a good 25-30 meters. Down country roads this makes overtaking an almost impossibility. Considering the highway code states (and I am aware that it is a guide rather than law) that: "...never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends...". This is especially relevant when it comes to races where groups of packs are commonplace. This makes overtaking extremely difficult and dangerous for both the vehicle and the cyclists.

Surely the highway code is there to make driving safe for all users, so following this should help everyone just get a long a little bit better - which is surely what all users want anyway?

In reply to a lakeland climber:

>> if it was on a bend then both parties should be to the outside of their lane


If you're driving on the left (as you should be in the UK) then when negotiating a right-hand bend your sightline is better if you stay towards the edge of the road, not the centreline. (The fact that the edge of the road is more likely to be full of detritus and cr@p is an argument against straying excessively close to the edge, at least without proper observation - especially if you're on two wheels.)

The person coming the other way will be turning to the left, so they would indeed get a better sightline by positioning themselves more towards the centreline. In fact the benefit is much more pronounced on left-hand bends.

It is, of course, also possible to adjust your speed according to how far you can see ahead, rather than trying to see further ahead in order to maintain speed. Just one of those myriad little decisions that you need to make when you're out on the roads...

In reply to Richiehill:

Actual races are few and far between however there are "chain gangs" that can get pretty big and to be fair, there's a lot of willy waving going on so to some extent I agree with you.

However let's look at riding two abreast: if it's a small group, say ten or a dozen, then if they were single file and allowing for 3 metres per bike that's anywhere from thirty to thirty six metres that you need to get past in one go. To put it in to perspective a full length articulated lorry is around 15 metres in length. So although riding two or, heaven forbid three abreast, looks like it will slow you down more, in fact you have more opportunities to overtake. All the above assumes that the road isn't single track of course.

The other thing to remember is that to safely overtake it has to be safe for all parties not just the overtaker and that includes any vehicles coming in the opposite direction.

ALC

In reply to Martin W:

Sorry I meant to the outside of the bend, i.e the larger radius, which is as you describe.

ALC

In reply to a lakeland climber: I understand where you are coming from, but why is it so hard to ride; 3 bikes, 15 meter gap, 3 bikes, 15 meter gap, 3 bikes, 15 meter gap, 3 bikes, 15 meter gap on the narrower roads then 6 bikes 15 meter gap, 6 bikes 15 meter gap on wider or less busy roads?

I also understand that A LOT of car users are idiots too and the attitude of the cyclists is probably a knock on effect of what car users have done to them. However, two wrongs don't make a right and if drivers are being that bad, it's for the police to fight, not a vigilante of angry cyclists.

I do feel for cyclists as I know how vulnerable they are and must feel, but blocking the road and making other users more and more frustrating is not going to help. If anything it's just going to make things worse.

In reply to a lakeland climber:
there's a lot of willy waving going on so to some extent I agree with you.

Yes, combined with a lack of consideration.. For example after following a peleton for maybe 10 minutes toward Grassmere at <20mph, I was finally able to overtake. Shortly afterwards there was a roundabout where I had to pause. The peleton had the option of waiting behind for 15s for me to pull out and get on my way, or swirling past and leaving me behind them again for the next 15 min on the other side of the roundabout.

In reply to Richiehill:


As is required by the HWC - if you are overtaken, you should leave room for the vehichle to pull in in front of you if needed. Again, commn sense and consideration.

In reply to Richiehill:

A lot depends on the situation really but when we're out: a) we try not to be in a big group, usually up to a dozen; b) if cars are behind then we'll either split as you describe and wave the cars through or call up to the front and pull in at a suitable safe point. Of course there may not be a suitable pull-in point for a few hundred metres but that's just one of those things.

Of course there are cyclists who are the equivalent of the grumpy old man determined to drive down the middle lane of the motorway at 50mph. They're both prats.

ALC

PS: (It's spelt metre BTW, the SI unit of length)

In reply to MG:

However you should only overtake if you can see that you *have* room to pull in in front of the slower vehicle. You can't bully your way in. Nor can you assume that if the car in front has overtaken then it is safe for you to do so.

There are times when I'm out on my bike, on my own, and I wave a car on as I can see that the road ahead is clear but nothing happens until halfway through the clear section and approaching either a blind bend or summit and they decide that it is now safe enough to overtake! I might as well not have bothered helping them. I must say that this is a small minority though.

ALC

In reply to a lakeland climber: True. I think there is something particularly difficult with groups of cyclists at say 20-25mph as it is just the wrong speed. Slower, like a tractor, and it is close to a stationary, which mean overtaking is easy. Faster, say 50mph, and it doesn't affect cars much in terms of speed. But 20-25mph makes overtaking difficult and slows people down a lot, which is inevitiably frustrating.

In reply to a lakeland climber:

Good point, it makes the spacing even more of a necessity.

>

I have to say, whilst it's only a minority of cyclists that frustrate the hell out of me, very very very few are as courteous as you are. Sometimes, even when it's just two cyclists together they insist on riding side by side. Quite a lot of cyclists just completely flat out ignore vehicles completely!

Perhaps you should create a school for riders!

(...)
In reply to MG:
>
>a lakeland climber: True. I think there is something particularly difficult with groups of cyclists at say 20-25mph as it is just the wrong speed. Slower, like a tractor, and it is close to a stationary, which mean overtaking is easy. Faster, say 50mph, and it doesn't affect cars much in terms of speed. But 20-25mph makes overtaking difficult and slows people down a lot, which is inevitiably frustrating.
>

I agree, if it was 5-10 MPH slower or 10-15 MPH faster then it would be ok. But it's just right at the awkward speed!

PS I've taken notice and put a pound in my bad spelling meter.

In reply to a lakeland climber:

I tend to wave cars on when I'm cycling on winding roads (I am exceedingly slow), but I can understand why they might want to wait until they can see for themselves that the road is clear.

I like it best when it takes them 10 seconds to work out what gear to be in by which time the chance has passed but they go for it anyway...

In reply to Chris the Tall:

May we burn her ?

In reply to Richiehill: I'm a member of two cycling clubs, both of which have a "let them pass" mentality (unlike some of our other more militant local clubs who ride "en peleton" wherever and whenever they're out - however lining out AND leaving gaps isn't always that quick a thing to do so sometimes it's easier and quicker for all concerned to stay in a group and/or wait for a longer straight to let people past.

And on the 2 abreast thing - have a look upthread at what happened to us - we are very considerate, but on a 1/2 mile straight, wide road with nothing coming I'm going to carry on having a chat, as there's no need for a car to even slow down to pass. Half a mile later where the roads narrower we'd drop in if we hear a car coming.

All that said 90% of motorists near us are courteous and considerate - similar proportion of cyclists, I suspect.

In reply to Paul F:

Get the scales!

In reply to Richiehill:

Just been out for a ride and it was pretty gusty so at times keeping both hands on the handlebars was a must so waving cars past took secondary priority

ALC

In reply to a lakeland climber:

How inconsiderate. :p

In reply to a lakeland climber:

Everywhere is plagued by Tour De France wanabees.

And some of them are a f**king danger.

And most of the time, they are totally oblivious not only to their actions ,but their mortality.

I toyed with the idea of getting into road cycling ,but in my few forays on tarmac I decided it was much,much too dangerous.

Safer up in the mountain mists!

In reply to andymac:
Very good. I'm guessing you mean cyclists.


Kenton Cool wannabe?

In reply to Removed User:

I am a cyclist.

and

Tom Weir wannabe.(sort of)

In reply to Richiehill:


On pushbikes?

In reply to Richiehill:

Have you considered driving lessons?

In reply to MG:


You're probably thinking of:

168

Being overtaken. If a driver is trying to overtake you, maintain a steady course and speed, slowing down if necessary to let the vehicle pass. Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass. Speeding up or driving unpredictably while someone is overtaking you is dangerous. Drop back to maintain a two-second gap if someone overtakes and pulls into the gap in front of you.

That doesn't quite say what you suggest it does. It's made very clear in an earlier rule that it is the responsibility of the person overtaking to make sure that there is room for them to pull in afterwards:

162

Before overtaking you should make sure
&#8729; the road is sufficiently clear ahead
&#8729; road users are not beginning to overtake you
&#8729; there is a suitable gap in front of the road user you plan to overtake.

So what the Highway Code says is: you shouldn't close the gap in front of you if someone is overtaking, and if, having been overtaken, you no longer have a safe gap in front of you then you should drop back. That's not the same as leaving room for the overtaking vehicle to pull in front of you "if needed" - it's entirely their responsibility to make sure there is room before they start the overtake.

If I'm stuck at the back of a queue on a windy road behind a FART and someone comes up behind me obviously keen to make a bit of progress then I will often drop back and give them room in front to make the pass. As you say, it's a courtesy (and it even sometimes seems to wake up the other bimblers in front to the fact that your vehcile won't explode in flames if you allow someone else to "get in front of you"). But the Highway Code doesn't actually suggest or require that you do it, apart from the general exhortation in rule 147 to "Be considerate", so if someone doesn't do it then they are being rather inconsiderate but they aren't actually contravening any specific rules.

In reply to Martin W:

I think it says exactly what I wrote - note the bit about dropping back and not obstructing. I agree though it's a two-way process cars *and* bikes need to be considerate and respectful of each other, as the other clause you quote suggests.

In reply to MG:

But what you shouldn't do is simply overtake and force your way in, there has to be room for you to complete the manoeuvre before you begin to overtake.

ALC

In reply to a lakeland climber: And (this is the bit about non-cycling drivers not necessarily appreciating the finer points of riding a bike in a group) it's not always as quick for a group of riders to split into appropriately sized groups to allow a car to overtake in dribs and drabs as you might expect - so sometimes it's best just to wait til you can overtake everyone. The road up Wharfedale's a good example - some wide bits, some narrow bits, some of which are uphill.

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:

Her "apology" vimeo.com/66749086

Sorry I tweeted so I got caught.
Sorry everyone is being mean to me.
Sorry I am suspended.
I only donked his handlebars with my car.
No mention of being sorry that she was driving like an idiot or for knocking him off.
Lovely girl.....

In reply to andy:

And (this is the bit about non-cycling drivers not necessarily appreciating the finer points of riding a bike in a group) it's not always as quick for a group of riders to split into appropriately sized groups to allow a car to overtake in dribs and drabs as you might expect - so sometimes it's best just to wait til you can overtake everyone.

To flip that to the drivers perspective, maybe drivers don't understand why you have to be in groups that are large enough to make overtaking difficult?
Surely it's all about compromise and understanding from all road users?

In reply to Guy:

No mention of being sorry that she was driving like an idiot or for knocking him off.

You are of course assuming that the cyclist is totally blameless in all of this...

In reply to MJ:

Eye witness reports from other cyclists (potential bias) said she swung wide around the corner clipping the cyclist.

She says I donked his handlebars, she did not say he hit my wing mirror.

Starting to sound like it was her fault...

In reply to Guy:

Quality, that's almost as good as Lance Armstrongs confession on Opra

I hardly hit him at all on my wind mirror (which vanished after the impact) and had I even known I'd knocked him down of course I'd have stopped (but I was driving so fast I was out of sight by the time I'd worked out which of the other mirrors to look in to check). Also when I was 5 I had a bike for a while.

Six points and a decent fine and I'm sure she's learned a lesson that will improve her behaviour and driving (whatever the cyclist was doing).

Cheers

Toby

In reply to MJ:


Some drivers don't understand there's such things as cycling clubs?

I don't think anyone has to ride in a group - it's just sociable, faster, easier, more fun etc etc. Both my clubs try to split into groups of no more than 12-15, as that's an ideal size for allowing people to take a rest from the wind but aren't so big it's difficult to line out to let people past - but there are bits of road where it's easier for all concerned to stay grouped to allow cars past. A group that size is about the same dimensions as a tractor and trailer, and moves at a similar speed.

In reply to Guy:

You get the impression from the interview she wouldn't be regretting anything if she hadn't sent the tweet

In reply to Trevers:


Did she blub in the interview? I bet she did. This is now a well-established way of getting it to be all the horrid other person's fault. But some of us can still tell the difference between maudlin self-pity and actual remorse.

In reply to Tim Chappell: she is just sorry she tweeted,claims to be a cyclist.what she means is she still has her bmx in the shed from when she was 11.
she admitted she knew she hit him.hope she gets made an example of.

In reply to mark s:


I don't hope she gets made an example of; I don't believe in media circuses and show trials. But I do hope she gets treated justly. And just treatment, for what it seems she's done, would appear to be quite severe.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

From the Beeb:

"Everyone's judging me on one man's side of the story".

Ehh.... no, we're judging you on your side of the story too. He was happy to enough to put it down to experience and seemed pretty magnanimous about the whole thing.

In reply to Tim Chappell: She seems to be sorry for herself more than anything else.

In reply to Submit to Gravity:

Good odds for Channel 4 to make a documentary about her.

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:

She was brave to give the interview in the first place. But apart from that she seems to have missed so many points...

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:
She's certainly changed her story :

Tweet : "Definitely knocked a cyclist off his bike earlier"

Interview : "He did wobble slightly but he was upright, he was fine"

Whether she was boasting about something that didn't actually happen in her tweet, or she is now trying to make it sound better ........the evidence suggests the latter

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-22636230

In reply to Trevers:


that or as thick as mince.

In reply to dissonance:

I was trying to give her some small credit, be nice

In reply to Trevers:

A few beans short as a bean counter

In reply to Beat me to it!:

Don't think this has been posted here yet.

The driver's side of the story:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-22639720

In reply to steelbru:

A devils advocate approach would be that neither had intention to report the incident. She, because she believed nothing serious happened and he was in the wrong. He, because he was worried about what his girlfriend would think about his cycling.

If he was completely in the right, shireley he would be interested in contacting the police in the first place.

Smoke and mirrors with this one.

In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat:

Perhaps he didn't see the point in contacting the police since he had no way of identifying her without video footage. I don't imagine he'd think for a second she'd be so stupid as to brag about the incident on twitter

In reply to Trevers:

That was the impression I got, he didn't report it because he had no way of identifying the car & driver as it happened so fast.

As he was riding with others there must be other witnesses to what actually happened to him in the immediate aftermath? He says he was knocked into the hedge which is at odds with what she's claiming in her interviews.

In reply to Phil79:

If there were other cyclists around then she may not have realised that she had actually caused one to crash. She should still have stopped at the scene though as she knew that she'd hit "something" and it was likely to be a cyclist.

ALC

Curious that she has been on several nedia outlets with her lawyer; though I'm guessing TV exposure never hurt any lawyer. As others have said she has been very careful to keep the discussion on the tweets and her career. With the bold Simon at her elbow, I can't help thinking this has been carefully managed and a lot of resources have been brought to bare to try and protect her.

I think this case may be a bit more interesting than just the tweet.

In reply to Removed User:
In her situation, she'd be daft not to have a lawyer - she's trying to save her career.

In reply to Removed User:

I think this case may be a bit more interesting than just the tweet.

Until proven otherwise, this whole story is nothing but 'The Tweet'.

In reply to Flash:

from your link her lawyer says...

"all along Emma has said her driving wasn't at fault, that the cyclist clipped her"

which is a bit different from all the other information we've heard so far from everone else.

doing that interview might turn out to be a mistake.

Her saving grace as far as lawyers are concerned is that while her tweet indicates that she knocked the cyclist off, it doesn't accept responsibility for the accident and that is clearly the angle they are pushing.

In reply to MJ:


Absolutely and the law will run it's course. What I think is interesting is the "Clifford-esque" counter attack and the resources that have been put into that. Most young twitter eejits have been brutalised by the press and in some cases jailed for the tweet itself (aye I know all cases on different merits...), but this one has faced them head on. There is a story there if some journo wants to have a better look.

In reply to Removed User:

I may be guilty of being cynical but I wonder if she was actually an overweight spotty bloke rather than a reasonably pretty young lady would she be getting all this media exposure?

To be honest I don't think her lawyer is doing her any favours by parading in front all the media outlets. Although I'm sure he's making a packet out of it. She's coming across as self pitying and a touch arrogant at times, even rolling her eyes at some of the questions.

In reply to Toby S:

Perhaps. Though she has been rather silly. I don't see a lot difficult about the idea that "it is never acceptable to collide with any other road user/pedestrian or object with your vehicle (flies etc aside), but in the unlikely event you do you need to stop and deal with it however minor", but clearly some people do...

Neil

In reply to Neil Williams:

This takes the biscuit - from the BBC piece on this:

>> Later that morning, Miss Way's tweet read: "Definitely knocked a cyclist off his bike earlier. I have right of way - he doesn't even pay road tax!"

>> The comment included the hashtag #Bloodycyclists.

>> It was retweeted several hundred times and led to what a tearful Miss Way described as the public "judging me on one man's side of the story".

Sorry? "One man's side of the story" ?? It was her tweet that was being repeated not his.

She really doesn't seem to have any sense of the concept of personal responsibility.

>> "The tweet and the incident are completely different, it doesn't relate to the accident," she said. "I don't really see I was in the wrong. If I had been in a bad accident I would have stopped"

In both tweet and later image massaging statements it's clear that she knew she had been in a collision, however minor, yet she failed to stop as required by law.

Imagine the furore if her tweet had read:

"Definitely knocked a young kid off the road earlier. I have right of way - he doesn't even pay road tax!"

ALC

In reply to Toby S:

Cynic on dude. In an equally cynical mode the PR trend of getting your message out, geting it heard and repeating it until it's the only story out there seems to be at play here. She is being converted into the victim in classic spin. The fact she's a young, white, and reasonably articulate (when not on twitter!!) female helps the whole process along.

In reply to Removed User:

after watching that interview i think she was coached from start to finish on what to say and how to say it. she might well "get away with it" in the media, but i hope the court takes a more even handed, and unbiased, view.

she said she stopped and looked in the mirror and then drove off, if any witnesses contest this, then she might have a problem with the rest of her testimony being believed. Just pausing for a second or two and then driving off is not what the stop after an accident is meant to convey. there was no meantion of her getting out her car. you'd think that her mirror "disappearing" would at least cause her some concern?

i didn't see anything in that video that made me think she was sorry for the incident, only that she was sorry for the tweet and what it's done to her career prospects.

In reply to a lakeland climber:

Playing Devil's Advocate, all she has admitted in the tweet is that she left the incident, which is a different offence to causing an accident by dangerous driving. The tweet makes no acceptance of responsibility so that is something which needs to be identified by regular due process.

To elaborate what I mean. I could be driving down the street, and a bike could come flying through a red light and I end up knocking them off their bike. While I have admitted I knocked them off their bike I am clearly not responsible. That is why I say the tweet is not evidence for anything other than leaving the scene of an accident. Again, I do not know if she is to blame or not, I am only talking about the facts of the content of the tweet.

In reply to Nevis-the-cat: http://www.itv.com/news/anglia/2013-05-22/cycle-tweet-girl-breaks-her-silen...

at 00:22 "...get blown out of precaution" ha ha ha maybe she should have driven with more precaution.

In reply to rallymania:

I believe there is no doubt that there are more than the lawyer involved. there must be a PR firm in there somewhere, which begs the question, who is she? As was said mentioned earlier the law will do what the law will do and if there is insufficient evidence for a conviction then the biggest problem for her is the tweet. Somebody is going to an awful lot of trouble and expense on the tweet issue. Why?

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:
I'm sick to death of this irrational, casual hatred towards cyclists. Attitudes like hers make us into a social outgroup, and I sincerely hope she gets hung out to dry.

In reply to Removed User:

<cynic> Mummy and Daddy have friends in high places? </cynic>

In reply to Toby S:

I think we now have cynicism alignment....

In reply to Removed User:

Just an expensive and probably pointless damage limitation exercise orchestrated by Mummy and Daddy's expensive family lawyer, eg trying to separate the tweet from the motoring offence (failure to stop) with the aim of getting a lenient time in court and her job back. Probably lose her licence for a while and not get her job back.

In reply to Milesy:

OK, going along with your DA, according to the tweet:

she (my emphasis) knocked a cyclist off his bike.

Note that she didn't say she and the cyclist bumped in to one another but that she knocked a cyclist off his bike. That is quite explicit, she is stating that she was the active party in the incident. There is nothing in the tweet to say that she left the scene of the accident without passing on details, we only found this out later.

I haven't seen, or looked, to see if there are any images of the location of the incident so I can't say just how much visibility there was on the lane. But playing Devil's Advocate myself, what if it had been a milk lorry that had been travelling in the opposite direction and out of sight round the corner, would we be discussing an ill advised tweet or would we be reading eulogies about how wonderful she was and had such a bright future?

ALC

In reply to kevin stephens:

Has she been charged? If she had would it be made public?

In reply to kevin stephens:

Not sure what you are getting at, it was she who made this thing public

In reply to balmybaldwin:
If she doesn't get charged then from her point of view it's really just the tweet mess needing cleaned up.

In reply to balmybaldwin:

i'm guess that was.. has her status regarding being formally charged or not been made public?

rather than the event itself.

In reply to a lakeland climber:

No you will find it is not explicit. I already explained my logic.

The exact words are "I knocked a cyclist off his bike"

That is not an admission of blame for the accident as the context of everything else is vital, and in a collision the driver of a car is always going to knock the cyclist off their bike regardless of who is to blame as it is bigger and stronger.

2 scenarios:

1. Driver approaches cross roads with give way to the other direction, and cyclist coming in that other direction. Driver goes through the give way and knocks the cyclist off his bike.

2. Driver approaches cross roads with right of way, with the give way to on the other direction, and cyclist coming in that other direction crosses the give way. Driver goes through and knocks the cyclist off his bike.

In both cases the driver has been the one who has knocked the cyclist off their bike, because the car is bigger and more powerful however in both cases the blame is on the person who crossed the give way. Nothing else has changed. Both going the same directions and both the same speeds.

In reply to Milesy:


I wasn't aware that "legal right of way" equated to "legal right to drive without due care and attention and potentially kill someone". I am not pronouncing on which way the law sides (as I don't know) but If I as a motorist ran over a cyclist on a crossing - even if I had priority - I would blame myself for not driving 1500Kg of death round a town without a modicum of common sense or awareness.

In reply to krikoman:

did you check the shifty look to camera / daddy at the end?

" I did not have sexual relationships with that cyclist"

In reply to wintertree:

"without due care and attention"

We are talking about law here, and in the law that is currently unsubstantiated claims regardless of how much smoke is being blown from either side.

I have been in a road traffic accident with another car before and I was held to blame because I was the one who crossed the give way line. There was no discussion as there was no other evidence to prove otherwise.

If a cyclist pulls out a give way onto a busy road with traffic going at the speed limit the cyclist will be held to blame without other evidence such as the car was speeding, or was on his phone.

I am a cyclist as well but I am speaking as someone who understands the law, not as a cyclist, or a driver.

In reply to Removed User:


could just be an ambitious lawyer or even her going for the 15 minutes of fame.
From what I have seen of those interviews she doesnt seem to be doing herself any favours but then again have thought that of some other PR jobs which apparently turned out to be great successes.

In reply to Milesy:

Exactly! She said she "definitely knocked a cyclist off", not "was in collision with" or "had a bump with" the first clearly indicates she was the active party rather than just one of the participants. She used the phrase "I definitely knocked" rather than "I knocked" which gives further weight to an initial admission of her being the active party. Now I agree with you that without further information we cannot determine if there were contributory actions on the part of the cyclists.

Looking at a map of the area and having read the route notes for the sportive, there's a high probability that they were on a single track lane so "right of way" is a little tricky.

ALC

In reply to a lakeland climber:

I'm sorry but you are wrong, and if you can't see that after further explanation please don't take up a job in law or insurance underwriting.

In reply to Milesy: Do you work in traffic collision law?

In reply to Milesy:

Since you can't even quote the tweet correctly I suggest the same to you

So, go on, how from her tweet do you infer that "all she has admitted in the tweet is that she left the incident,"? (your words) So you don't have to look it up the tweet was:

"Definitely knocked a cyclist off his bike earlier. I have right of way - he doesn't even pay road tax! #bloodycyclists"

ALC

In reply to a lakeland climber:

She may have definately knocked a cyclist off his bike, but he 'may' have suddenly swerved in front of her and it was unavoidable. I doubt if this was the case but that's probably how it will be spun. Just because she says definately doesn't mean she's at fault.

In reply to The New NickB:

An excellent and well thought out comment that ads a plethora of quality and information to a discussion. Well done Sir. Well done.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Why not? Just strap a rope between a car and the front of your bike and begone with all this cycling nonsense.