CityCyclingEdinburgh was launched on the 27th of October 2009 as "an experiment".
IT’S TRUE!
CCE is 16years old!
Well done to ALL posters
It soon became useful and entertaining. There are regular posters, people who add useful info occasionally and plenty more who drop by to watch. That's fine. If you want to add news/comments it's easy to register and become a member.
RULES No personal insults. No swearing.
Yesterday's Grauniad:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2013/may/21/twitter-hit-and-run-boast-road-tax
A lot of people who I assume to be 'irate drivers' banging on about pavement cyclsts, RLJs, etc. in the comments. Plus the usual 'road tax' fallacies.
Sigh. Seems lots of people don't read articles before pouring their regurgitated opinions into a comment. Where do these sociopathic attitudes come from?
Where do these sociopathic attitudes come from?
IMO, the root of it is narcissism.
the inability to overcome this immature outlook results in malignant mental disorders.
this is easily camouflaged and tacitly encouraged in our society, as narcissistic cultures spend and consume more, while we attempt to fill the void that can never be filled.
the greatest exponent of this immature narcissistic tendency is the intolerant high speed motoring culture which we all find ourselves at the mercy of.
anyone who imagines that there's not a massive problem out there on the roads, just isn't really cycling all that much.
Perhaps if the Gov't were to remove VED for private vehicals and make the difference up by adding the average to the cost of fuel, drivers would have nothing to beat us over the head with?
IIRC the police like the tax disk, it gives them a ready reckoner as to the status of the vehicle. Though it could easily be replaced with a MOT sticker.
this is easily camouflaged and tacitly encouraged in our society, as narcissistic cultures spend and consume more, while we attempt to fill the void that can never be filled.
You're right, but I think it's much more explicit than that. Take for example the slogan used by a well known cosmetic company "Because I'm worth it."
That sums up the way people are encouraged to feel when they splurge on things they don't need or can't afford, whether it's fashion, household goods, exotic holidays or motor vehicles.
"Adding in to SRD's marvelous idea, maybe include things like "lives nextdoor", "chap at the pub last night", "doing weekly shop", etc.
Maybe slightly more humanised than just career descriptors? "
Better still IMO:
[i]"Parent", "sole care for relative", "your partner's relative"...
*disclaimer video linked below my cause anger and/or despair*
Apology video: http://www.itv.com/news/anglia/update/2013-05-22/im-sorry-says-cycle-tweet-girl/
"I'm sorry for tweeting and getting caught in my irrational prejudice."
"Having taken legal advice, I now don't even know if I hit the cyclist, and I would of course have stopped had I known that I had hit him. I mean it was only his handlebars that destroyed my wing mirror. Bother, I wasn't meant to say that was I, Simon..."
Solicitor Simon, "Hopefully the police will recognise that this is only a minor accident and that being suspended and publicly pilloried is punishment enough, I mean, it could have happened to anyone..."
No doubt she was well briefed before hand - tweeting isn't illegal, so apologise for that, but don't apologise for the driving offence as that would be an omission of guilt, and there's still a good chance I'll get you off...
Robert
"I mean it was only his handlebars that destroyed my wing mirror"
I think that counts as 'hitting a cyclist'...
"I'm sorry for tweeting and getting caught..."
As Roibeard says, basically this is saying 'Next time I hit someone with my car I won't brag about it on Twitter'.
"Having taken legal advice, I now don't even know if I hit the cyclist..."
Oh my. So basically she's been advised that she shouldn't be admitting anything about the incident yet. It does make you wonder why, in her tweet, she said she had 'definitely' hit a cyclist.
"... I mean, it could have happened to anyone..."
No. If people drive sensibly, then... No. You missed a bit off that sentence that basically says, "... who is driving like a muppet."
Referred to as a 'minor' accident? Well only in the sense that the cyclist was 'lucky' (that said, we live in a world where people call Audrey Fyfe's killer 'unlucky' (not half as 'unlucky' as she was)).
I still don't get what it is about driving that makes people so defensive and willing to excuse.
EDIT: Ah, was Roibeard's post a spoof? Have there been some bits added since I replied that make that clear?
I seem to remember a bit of a kerfuffle about someone making comments about what he'd like to do to Robin Hood Airport on twitter. This will be interesting.
Just watched the interview too. I can't believe this old-chestnut came out:
"She's not anti-cyclist, she's a cyclist herself"
@WC - I was aiming for a slightly caricatured summary.
Unfortunately it's more accurate then exaggerated...
Robert
"was Roibeard's post a spoof?"
Careful folks.
There's laws...
'Robin Hood' - I think the legal system is beginning to understand Twitter/jokes/irony
This case is more serious.
@chdot This case is more serious.
Not from the impression the solicitor was giving.
Simon Nicholls We hope that the police, when weighing everything up in the balance, take the view that eh this has been a very unfortunate incident and don't mix up the driving incident with the subsequent publicity and the tweeting. Emma's already indicated she apologises for the tweet em and of course, as anyone would be, she's sorry if there's been any discomfort caused to the cyclist in the circumstances. She's not anti-cyclist, she's a cyclist herself.
Robert
He knows it's serious - which is why he is concentrating on the Twitter part (and pretending his client is a victim) rather than the (apparently undisputed) facts -
Car hit bike, cyclist hit bushes, car didn't stop.
Several (probable) illegal activities there.
Perhaps solicitor will advise client to sue cyclist for damage to car and twitter users for her discomfort and police for wasting her time...
any discomfort caused to the cyclist
no. words.
She's not anti-cyclist, she's a cyclist herself.
That's not what her tweet suggested.
So from the full interview it appears she is trying to say she did not, in fact, hit a cyclist. No, her only 'crime' was to send 'a stupid tweet'. Lawyer hoping the police will just forget about it all.
I'm guessing that her lawyer is taking into account that the cyclist was:
a - seemingly not that bothered about the whole thing
b - not apparently planning to report it to the police
So, pretending to have nothing to do with it/unaware of hitting anything/one is a possible line of attack.
However, there is a witness to corroborate that a collision took place.
Presumably that witness and the (lightly) injured cyclist can identify the car make/colour, that a blonde woman was driving, and that the car did not stop after the collision. Presumably the woman's car has a damaged wing mirror.
So, in the face of eye witness account and collision evidence, plus a public admission of guilt, wouldn't a guilty plea be a better idea? Otherwise no reduction in sentence, unless in mitigation the defence cites:
a - suspension from work
b - public humiliation/vilification/harassment
Do these constitute "punishment enough" so that she'll get off with a slapped wrist, small fine and/or derisory ban?
On the other hand, the tweet is aggressive. defiant and does not show any remorse. The subsequent, lawyer influenced public apology is not genuine remorse. Indeed the attempt is being made to portray the driver as the victim. Aw, poor thing.
Given that anything I say here may be picked up by Google or another search engine, I shall be very careful in what I say:
I believe that the interview recorded with her solicitor is a carefully-crafted lie and that her true opinion is given by her defiant tweet. I believe that she is only sorry at the problems which her tweet have caused her personally, and that she is not remotely sorry for the cyclist whom she definitely hit, as she said in her tweet.
I am outraged by her wickedness in this whole affair and I hope that she is prosecuted harshly.
Yeah, the line "I didn't realise it would go national" (or somesuch) really betrays where her true concerns lie. "My career may be over": well maybe better rein in those "irrational prejudices" at least in public, eh?
The look on her face said it all. Like a naughty teenager who has been instructed by teacher to say sorry, but really doesn't want to. "But miss, he started it! I never done nothing! Why is everybody hassling me, it's not fair!"
@crowriver - So, in the face of eye witness account and collision evidence, plus a public admission of guilt, wouldn't a guilty plea be a better idea?
As I understand it, Legal Aid (or whatever it's called) is only available if you plead "not guilty", hence the predominance of defendants not changing their plea to "guilty" until actually being in court.
Robert
"She's not anti-cyclist, she's a cyclist herself."
That's not what her tweet suggested.
Legal Advisor - When was the last time you rode a bike?
Psychopath - Not since I was 7
Legal Advisor - Then you are a cyclist yourself!
Psychopath - Why yes I am!
*Disclaimer* This is an artistic representation of what may or may not have happened and any resemblance to persons living or dead is entirely co-incidental.
"
....Legal Aid (or whatever it's called) is only available if you plead "not guilty"
"
I don't get the impression she would be requiring 'Legal Aid', more like 'Daddy Aid'.
Full interview at
http://
vimeo.com
/66749086
just for clarification. (The forum wanted to imbed the video but it was denied access, so I had to split the URL into 3 parts to stop it trying).
The fact even her solicitor (assuming that's who he is - has it been stated somewhere?) makes sure it's the tweet that is being concentrated on just makes this whole episode more distasteful, though not surprising seeing as he's defending someone who's already displayed her guilt before potentially getting to a court.
Even the interview is being held in a sympathetic way which will only inflame the injustice of it all. Don't they get it? The tweet is merely the catalyst for the bad feeling this has caused. It's the collision, her failure to stop and her skirting round her liability for it all that is raising tempers.
Apparently she has been suspected from her job.
@ Min Or suspended, even. Mind you a pretty appropriate typo under the circumstances ;-)
Okay, she has every right to dispute the cyclist's version of the events. That is one person's story against another (it would be interesting if any of the witness views were aired), and even if you hate cars and drivers there would be nothing to determine who might be telling the truth.
But.
1. She tweeted that she definitely hit a cyclist (so her counter that she didn't stop at the scene because there wasn't a 'scene' is on shaky ground - especially if it all happened on a corner and so he went out of view so how does she know he was okay?
and
2. She tweeted that she had right of way. Now. To me that means she expected the cyclist to defer to her on the road. That's not a statement of 'he was on my side of the road' as she's now suggesting. That's a statement of 'I was heading towards him and he should get out of my way', which I personally believe has a very very heavy inference of her not being on 'her' bit of the road.
(also, if the cyclist was entirely in the wrong why is she apologising for any harm she may have caused him?)
I've no doubt at all that she's very upset by this. In the past this would simply not have lead to anything. But, in the immediate social media driven world, if you say something as stupid as she did, well then it might get picked up. Call me a cynic, but I also reckon her being a young pretty blonde has meant this has got more media attention that it otherwise would.
It annoys me as well as those above that the focus is on her tweet. She's sorry about the tewet. The tweet was the biggest mistake of her life. etc etc etc. The tweet is merely the culmination, the public result. And it plays right into the 'political correctness gone mad' brigaade from the likes of the Daily Wail whose commenters will revel in the fact it's clearly a breach of her human right to freedom of speech (and they will likely liken her to the Robin Hood airport 'bomber').
Quote: "I didn't just leave the scene, because there wasn't a scene."
Whoever was on the wrong side of the road, there was a collision (neither party denies that), therefore there was a scene!
"The tweet and the incident are completely different, it doesn't relate to the accident."
So, she hit a different cyclist at the same time, because that's what that statement implies!
"I don't really see I was in the wrong. If I had been in a bad accident I would have stopped."
Ah, so if it's only a "small" accident, you don't have to stop. Now I understand.
Some trainee solicitor she is!
"Some trainee solicitor she is!"
Accountant... ;)
You must log in to post.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts