Hatred, stupidity or both?

[Mark1978]

I would argue that she could be considered at fault for the collision without being convicted, as the vast majority of collisions, someone is at fault, but they don't all result in convictions.

Not in this case. She's been found not-guilty. Not to say she couldn't be found liable in a civil court, however.

[jan19]

If its any consolation, she hasn't exactly covered herself in glory. Even the Daily Mail readers were unimpressed! The overwhelming opinion from their comments was that she is a self centered selfish little girl, taking "me-me-me" to new heights. Even the self-confessed cyclist haters agreed that having hit the cyclist (regardless of whose fault it was) she should have stopped to see if he was ok.

Quite a few thought the cyclist should also have been on the show to get his side of the story.

Jan

[kwackers]

Even the Daily Mail readers were unimpressed!

Impressive stuff! You'd normally get some supporters in there even if you'd deliberately run over a bag full of kittens!

[Si]

I notice that in court she was found 'not guilty', but the cyclist was not found guilty of causing the crash. Yet she is now continuing to say that it was his fault. Either she is too stupid to see the difference here, or she realises exactly what she is doing and so is continuing to milk the publicity machine. One wonders if the cyclist in question could take her back to court for slander...after all if there was not enough proof to show who was at fault she would not be able to substantiate her claims of his fault.

[MartinC]

How do we know the cyclist wasn't on the wrong side of the road? She ways he was, he says he wasn't and his friend was in front of him so he doesn't know.

So how do we decide what actually happened in these circumstances? Deciding what we think happened is easy and we might all decide the same thing but it doesn't amount to proof. Even a civil case balance of probabilities may be hard to decide.

Here's a blog from a friend of the cyclist that's worth reading http://www.camprants.co.uk/post/6747494 ... dycyclists

[Si]

How do we know the cyclist wasn't on the wrong side of the road?

We don't - that's the point, we can't prove what happened, thus she can't prove that it was his fault, so saying that it was is not something she can support.

[MartinC]

Si, sorry, that wasn't a counter to your post which arrived while I was typing but to the points in the previous ones. Your're right, we don't know whose fault it is so he's pefectly entitled to ask her to put up or shut up, but I think he'd rather just to forget about the whole thing.

[Si]

Yes, I agree with you that he may well want to forget the whole thing....she might be the one crying every time a camera is pointed at her but I bet he's had loads of stress from it. I remember another well known cycling case where lots of people urged the cyclist to fight on, this was understandable as he had been clearly wronged, but the cycling public were not aware of how much the process of going through the courts was doing his head in and having a detrimental effect on his private life.

[661-Pete]

I think, on reflection, that what it amounts to is this: some girl, who wants to get on TV, to become a celeb, by whatever means; and has discovered the 'means to the end', however reprehensible. And perhaps the best favour we can do, to the unfortunate victim of her stupid behaviour, is to utterly ignore her.

Small hope, I reckon. Big Brother (is that still in existence?) beckons.... She reminds me, in some ways, of another female 'celebrity' who, likewise, came into her own spotlight after some idiotic behaviour. Anyone else remember how it all started?

Though I deplore this latest bit of nonsense and its perpetrator, I'm feeling charitable enough not to wish upon her the same fate as her illustrious (sorry - 'lustrous') predecessor...

But I still think the world would be a safer place if she never got behind the wheel of a car again.

[JimL]

How do we know the cyclist wasn't on the wrong side of the road? She ways he was, he says he wasn't and his friend was in front of him so he doesn't know.

So how do we decide what actually happened in these circumstances? Deciding what we think happened is easy and we might all decide the same thing but it doesn't amount to proof. Even a civil case balance of probabilities may be hard to decide
Here's a blog from a friend of the cyclist that's worth reading http://www.camprants.co.uk/post/6747494 ... dycyclists

A good example of the need for presumed liability in civil law.

[MartinC]

How do we know the cyclist wasn't on the wrong side of the road? She ways he was, he says he wasn't and his friend was in front of him so he doesn't know.

So how do we decide what actually happened in these circumstances? Deciding what we think happened is easy and we might all decide the same thing but it doesn't amount to proof. Even a civil case balance of probabilities may be hard to decide
Here's a blog from a friend of the cyclist that's worth reading http://www.camprants.co.uk/post/6747494 ... dycyclists

A good example of the need for presumed liability in civil law.

I agree with that. Whatever the causation it was the car that brought the danger to the situation so the driver should bear the cost of mitigating it. Unfortunately that's not how civil law works here but then we're not a very civilised country. FWIW I don't think there was any significant injury or damage caused to either party.

I certainly don't think presumed liability should operate in criminal law.