Terrible that her actual actions which caused the collision aren't punished! And what of the cyclist? No damages? Or would he need to start a separate civil action against her?
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Cycling News
If you knock down a cyclist, don't tell Twitter
(123 posts)-
Posted 11 years ago #
-
With counter views of what actually happened out on the road it becomes one person's word against another (I think I'm right in remembering no one else actually saw the collision, only the aftermath) so how do you determine who is actually telling the truth (yes, her tweets should really have been used against her) in order to gain a Dangerous Driving conviction?
Not stopping at the scene was, in comparison, a simple matter of fact.
Cyclist would have to pursue a civil case for damages, though again (and I might be completely misremembering this) I'm sure there was no damage to the bike, and the cyclist himself had stated at some point he wasn't going to bother reporting it (and hadn't) until the Twitter furore kicked off.
Posted 11 years ago # -
The Road.cc report confirms Ms Way lost her job as a Trainee Accountant which will have a far bigger impact than points or a fine.
Posted 11 years ago # -
She's got a lovely exclusive with ITV Daybreak though...
Posted 11 years ago # -
I hope she finds another job. If she doesn't, she'll go on the dole and become a parasite: leeching from hard-working, tax-paying cyclists...
Posted 11 years ago # -
"Way refused to comment as she left court, saying she had signed an exclusive television deal." reports The Guardian.
Suddenly that £334 fine and £300 of costs looks positively affordable.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Good grief, I hope that doesn't mean she's getting paid for being a lousy driver? It's hard to imagine any other reason for wanting an exclusive "deal".
Posted 11 years ago # -
This story just won't die, now she is on TV wailing about being cyber-bullied
Posted 11 years ago # -
Which is obviously worse than being bullied with 3/4 of a ton of metal?
Honestly I wish she's shut up, get her head down and move on, ideally to realise the error of her attitude, modify her approach to other road users and have a happy and productive life.
I am however not confident...Posted 11 years ago # -
"
Her solicitor, Simon Nicholls, added that it had been a difficult case to defend."It can be hard enough at the best of times but when there's an apparent admission on the internet, you have to explain that," he said.
"
Mmm
Posted 11 years ago # -
I think the words he was searching for were "indefensible" and "guilty" ;-)
Posted 11 years ago # -
She's also changing her story, saying that the cyclist was on the wrong side of the road, when all the reports at the time (including hers) said that she came across to the cyclists side of the road.
Posted 11 years ago # -
@ EddieD
Actually, that was her story back in May.
"He came on to my side of the road. I pulled to the left as quickly as I could. He was right in front me."
Mr Hockley on the other hand said: ”A car came tearing round the blind corner and narrowly missed a cyclist in front of me. She came on to my side of the road, I took the wing mirror off and I went flying off my bike into a hedge."
Posted 11 years ago # -
She's an unrepentant moton who now has an even bigger chip on her shoulder about cyclists.
Apparently she didn't like the cyclist's "mannerism" and found it "disrespectful". Er, what? Mannerism is an historical painting style from the 16th and 17th centuries, alternately a literary style.
If El Greco had painted cyclists, then that would cycling Mannerism.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Painting herself into a corner?
Posted 11 years ago # -
Think her own words say it all
Posted 11 years ago # -
Fake.
Posted 11 years ago # -
@sg37409, care to expand on that a little?
Posted 11 years ago # -
Widely reported, she's given up her twitter account.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-25013820Who would blame her after this. Even if she hadn't do you think even she would be this stupid ?
Posted 11 years ago # -
But then it was also widely reported at the time that on her twitter feed she had picture/s of her car speedo at illegal speed as well as the infamous boast about hitting a cyclist...
Whether or not it's fake I couldn't say, but as to whether she was stupid enough to post incriminating materiel? Undoubtedly yes.Posted 11 years ago # -
The bottom one is date stamped October 2012. Well before this happened.
Posted 11 years ago # -
#lookoutwaysabout
Great jangling jelly babies. This is why @urbancyclist was right on the money in noting surprise that her biggest regret was tweeting about the incident, rather than her regret in hitting a person with her car.
Posted 11 years ago # -
These were screenshots taken at the time she posted her original hit'n'run tweet. People were saving them / forwarding them on to the police before she could deleted them or her account.
Posted 11 years ago # -
"Way refused to comment as she left court, saying she had signed an exclusive television deal." reports The Guardian.
I thought it was against the law to profit from crime? I imagine the telly breafast prog may have paid expenses?
Posted 11 years ago # -
Yep, those are Tweets from around the time of her particularly infamous tweet. People went back through her (public) timeline and extracted them for future posterity. She really did take a photo of her own speedo at 95mph... Sigh.
"I thought it was against the law to profit from crime? I imagine the telly breafast prog may have paid expenses?"
Expenses aren't profiting, they're reimbursements of costs you would have incurred. Her tv deal, to be profiting from the crime, would have to be specifically about her crime and entirely based around the case in question. Which I doubt would make for a particularly long television career, so it's likely on something entirely different (even having her as a Top Gear presenter would be separate from the crime).
Posted 11 years ago # -
Ah, ok: I thought this was a current tweet "from her" and hence, fakes.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Far be it from me to defend her but she did state that she wasn't paid for the TV appearance.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Yeah, weird though - not commenting at the court becuase you have a 'tv exclusive' There's some sort of deal been done....
Posted 11 years ago # -
Perhaps the hint of something she might be paid for later? It does all seem a bit odd.
Posted 11 years ago # -
WC said "Expenses aren't profiting, they're reimbursements of costs you would have incurred. Her tv deal, to be profiting from the crime, would have to be specifically about her crime and entirely based around the case in question."
... which is why I used the work Expenses as Focus also stated "Far be it from me to defend her but she did state that she wasn't paid for the TV appearance."
[tongue in cheek]I know what the word expenses means Anth [/tongue]. Its the first bit "Way refused to comment as she left court, saying she had signed an exclusive television deal." reports The Guardian. << This appears to be her being paid to tell her side of the story??
Posted 11 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
