Cyclist and motorist fined following incident

[philsknees]

I'll throw this one in without comment...... other than as a side issue to also draw attention to the helmet comment by the police/prosecution :

https://metro.co.uk/2019/04/04/cyclists ... w-9110092/

(The toll bridge is apparently a popular route over the Manchester Ship Canal for LEJOG -ers, having a rare (for the location) camp/caravan site nearby. No knowledge of what the site is like so you takes your chance!)

[reohn2]

Sounds like six of one and half a dozen of the other going off that report.

[softlips]

Both let the anger and situation bring out the worst of them. A raised hand and apology from either would have defused the situation.

[Lance Dopestrong]

Both behaved like fools.

Shame the police had to make an irrelevant victim blaming comment like that. When are Cycling UK going to represent its members interests by engaging better with the police to better educate them re both helmets, and their propensity to sometimes victim blame in this manner?

[hemo]

Cyclist was a complete ejit for holding on to the car, there was only going to be one who wasn't going to be injured in the final outcome of metal Vs body.

[thelawnet]

The MEN has the report

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk ... g-16078686

Some comments

Cyclist holding onto car = stupid
Driver swerving (on video) to get him off = dangerous

I note some people have suggested the cyclist was punished more severely as it cost him more in court.

This is not accurate as the driver pleaded guilty, the cyclist not.

So the cyclist paid higher costs.

It is striking that despite the police threatening to prosecute the cyclist if he pressed charges , which they indeed did, that there is no equality of outcome. The cyclist is injured by his stupidity whereas the motorist is not.

I don't think the road tax/insurance brigade will ever grasp this....

[Bonefishblues]

When fools meet.

[thirdcrank]

... there is no equality of outcome. The cyclist is injured by his stupidity whereas the motorist is not. ...

A criminal trial isn't intended to look at it like that. Each convicted defendant is judged on their own conduct.

It is still open to the injured cyclist to sue the driver for compo. I've no idea of the likely outcome but that's where any remedy lies.

[Bonefishblues]

His contributory negligence by his voluntarily hanging onto the car would play strongly in reducing any award, I'd think.

[thirdcrank]

My point remains that any remedy the rider has for the injuries he suffered is through the civil rather than criminal courts.

[Bonefishblues]

My point remains that any remedy the rider has for the injuries he suffered is through the civil rather than criminal courts.

I wasn't taking issue with that. Mine was intended as a build on yours, not to its detriment.

[pete75]

It is striking that despite the police threatening to prosecute the cyclist if he pressed charges , which they indeed did, that there is no equality of outcome. The cyclist is injured by his stupidity whereas the motorist is not.

Reading between the lines isn't that the coppers saying you've both been bloody fools so we'll drop the matter.

[thelawnet]

... there is no equality of outcome. The cyclist is injured by his stupidity whereas the motorist is not. ...

A criminal trial isn't intended to look at it like that. Each convicted defendant is judged on their own conduct.
.

I wasn't suggesting that it was, I was referring to the attitude of the average motorist complaining about cyclists and trying to equate cycling law breaking with motoring law breaking.

It is a bit like comparing a motorist with a 747 pilot.

Btw a point I should have mentioned is I imagine the motorist will have got stung hard on his insurance by the careless conviction so he can add another £1000 or so in costs over the next few years in added insurance. Wouldn't have thought they would ask about careless cycling convictions though.

[thirdcrank]

One issue here is what the aggrieved cyclist reports about the events and their aftermath. I'm reminded of the judgment in the defamation case following the plebgate incident.

The judge said the MP was not in a state of mind that evening either to measure his words carefully or remember precisely what they were. He was satisfied that Mitchell did lose his temper and it was part of common experience of life that a loss of temper could lead both to loss of inhibition in speaking and recollection of what was said. “It follows that his adamant denial of uttering the words alleged is not of itself determinative of the issues.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... libel-case

Lose your rag and you lose your credibility.