Bryony
Veteran
- Location
- Ramsgate, Kent
Also judging by what she said she has no remorse for what she's done 
"I can't help it if a cyclist falls over"
- Thread starter glenn forger
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Boris Bajic
Guest
What a terrible story.
Several points struck me about this. First, as a parent who taught all my children to ride on relatively fast-flowing roads, I feel there may be a need to impress upon all road users (particularly motorists) that just as some drivers are novices, so some cyclists are. I think quite a lot of road users assume that any novice will have L-Plates... which they will not necessarily.
I felt that with my children, their diminutive stature gave the clue that they may wobble all over the place. In the case of the victim in this collision, there was no such clue - even if the driver had seen her in time. All drivers (all road users) need to make allowances for the novice road user.
No mention is made in any press coverage of the motorist crossing an unbroken line, nor was she prosecuted for doing so. I wonder whether the curve in this case was an extremely gentle one. I do not write this as some sort of mitigation, but it may in part explain the verdict. If the curve offered visibility ahead, then the jury may have decided it was safe (in the absence of other vehicles) to pass.
Another thing that struck me (again with relation to riding with my children when they were learning) is that the victim appears to have ridden into the back of her boyfriend's bicycle. This would suggest that he braked and she collided with him. This almost happened to me and my children a couple of times before I opted to ride behind and slightly outside them as they found their feet. This is not an attempt at blaming the victim. To my mind the driver was in the wrong.
But... if the victim clattered into the back of her boyfriend's bike as he braked, then that may also account for the verdict. He says himself that she collided with his rear wheel and then fell, so this does seem to be what happened.
Many users of these pages will teach their own offspring to cycle. This story (without my wanting to blame the victim) does highlight the advantage of the novice riding to the front, not the rear, of the 'teacher' or experienced rider.
This is a terrible story. I do not for one moment blame the victim, but I can well understand why the jury reached the verdict it did... although if there was an unbroken white line I am surprised by the levity of the charge.
Several points struck me about this. First, as a parent who taught all my children to ride on relatively fast-flowing roads, I feel there may be a need to impress upon all road users (particularly motorists) that just as some drivers are novices, so some cyclists are. I think quite a lot of road users assume that any novice will have L-Plates... which they will not necessarily.
I felt that with my children, their diminutive stature gave the clue that they may wobble all over the place. In the case of the victim in this collision, there was no such clue - even if the driver had seen her in time. All drivers (all road users) need to make allowances for the novice road user.
No mention is made in any press coverage of the motorist crossing an unbroken line, nor was she prosecuted for doing so. I wonder whether the curve in this case was an extremely gentle one. I do not write this as some sort of mitigation, but it may in part explain the verdict. If the curve offered visibility ahead, then the jury may have decided it was safe (in the absence of other vehicles) to pass.
Another thing that struck me (again with relation to riding with my children when they were learning) is that the victim appears to have ridden into the back of her boyfriend's bicycle. This would suggest that he braked and she collided with him. This almost happened to me and my children a couple of times before I opted to ride behind and slightly outside them as they found their feet. This is not an attempt at blaming the victim. To my mind the driver was in the wrong.
But... if the victim clattered into the back of her boyfriend's bike as he braked, then that may also account for the verdict. He says himself that she collided with his rear wheel and then fell, so this does seem to be what happened.
Many users of these pages will teach their own offspring to cycle. This story (without my wanting to blame the victim) does highlight the advantage of the novice riding to the front, not the rear, of the 'teacher' or experienced rider.
This is a terrible story. I do not for one moment blame the victim, but I can well understand why the jury reached the verdict it did... although if there was an unbroken white line I am surprised by the levity of the charge.
glasgowcyclist
Charming but somewhat feckless
- Location
- Scotland
I disagree.
My reading of the published account is that Mr Pontin did not witness what happened to his girlfriend.
"He felt his girlfriend’s wheels touch his bike and when he looked round she had been hurled into the entrance of a field."
and
"During the trial Dr Measures claimed that Ms Perinova had fallen into her path."
It is the killer who claims that the victim fell into her path and, frankly, from her comments I wouldn't be surprised if she felt not one iota of blame. She strikes me as a particularly heartless b'stard.and
"During the trial Dr Measures claimed that Ms Perinova had fallen into her path."
GC
mcshroom
Bionic Subsonic
- Location
- Egremont, Cumbria
It would be interesting to know how you can both fall into the path of a car and then be hurled into a gate at the side of the road at the same time.
I would also like to know how the defendant both managed to not see the cyclists and decide that there was room to pass them at the same time.
From what has been reported, the defence evidence is complete bollocks, and the jury's decision an utter travesty.
I would also like to know how the defendant both managed to not see the cyclists and decide that there was room to pass them at the same time.
From what has been reported, the defence evidence is complete bollocks, and the jury's decision an utter travesty.
Bryony
Veteran
- Location
- Ramsgate, Kent
totally agree!!
Born2die
Well-Known Member
- Location
- 8th c*****t town in the uk
I gave up the car 4 years ago when I lost my job. I see the shopping as an excuse for an elongated farmers walk to the bus station (always remember backpack for milk etc). Can get most places within 40/50 miles on the bike (good excuse for a ride) and if I need to ferry my 8yo there are buses we can take the bikes etc and a local coach company visit all the major attractions. I really don't see the need for a car now and how half of those on the dole afford it is beyond me. I couldn't afford the petrol let alone insurance tax repairs etc
I really think it is wrong to blame the Jury unless you know what direction was given to them by the judge. I have sat on a jury and it is a very difficult job and as citizens we should respect their decision.
However, I think we should be discussing whether the CPS did a good job and also the attitude of the legal system to cyclists. I think this is the real problem.
mcshroom
Bionic Subsonic
- Location
- Egremont, Cumbria
I didn't think I did blame them. The decision was a travesty of justice IMHO (from the evidence reported)
Where the fault lies for that I don't know, but it was a travesty.
GrasB
Veteran
- Location
- Nr Cambridge
"The jury deliberated for three hours before returning a ‘not guilty’ verdict."
How many of those jurors have ever been on a bike,and how many are of the "they don't pay road tax,so they aren't worthy" mentality?!
Actually in a straw pole today 6 out of 7 of our admin staff (all non-cycling car owners) thought that it was completely the cyclists fault for not keeping their bike upright.
This strengthens my view that motoring offences should not be convicted by jury but by trained judges.
Oh My God. Only just heard about this case but boy does this make my blood boil. How the hell can it be fine to overtake on a blind bend and then KNOWINGLY CARRY ON WHEN YOU SEE NOT ONE BUT TWO CYCLISTS coming towards you? All this does is reinforce the message that a cyclists' life is worth nothing in the eyes of not only a large number of drivers, but also the law itself.
Glow worm
Legendary Member
- Location
- Near Newmarket
What a totally scandalous decision. 'Justice' is a complete joke in this country. And as cyclists we're completely f*cked, as the place is clearly run by drivers for drivers. We're just the weirdos who get in their way, slow them down and damage their precious cages when they run us over. What a backwards sh*theap of a country this is.
The problem is that if people continually get away with this sort of manslaughter, or receive laughable sentences, then we will see a form of mob justice start to occur. Then there could be some really nasty stuff happening. The justice system in the UK definitely requires a kick up the arse.
