The Driver's Site for the East Midlands

Welcome to Drivers' Union East Midlands.
Our Mission: Better road safety at lower cost. No unnecessary delay or slowing of road transport. No unnecessary or unjust prosecution of safe drivers.

Motorists & Drivers' Union is at

For specific topics click the appropriate label (above).

Search This Blog

Monday, 1 June 2015

Cyclist rides into back of car.

The cyclist who was so intent on a gadget he was using, failed to notice a parked car some distance ahead and rode at speed into the back of it See the video  

He was very lucky. He could easily have broken his neck but was able to continue his journey.

But let's reverse the role. A driver fails to notice a stationary cyclist, and at the same speed, crashes into the cyclist killing or at least seriously injuring him. The driver would be looking at a potential 14 years in prison.

What are the common factors in both cases?

  • Both didn't intend it.

  • In both cases it was from a very dangerous scenario, where humans on two flimsy wheels are mingling with big machines.

  • In both cases, having exposed humans in the road wasn't crucial for society.

  • The biggest difference?......................14 years inside.



  1. this is by far the most ignorant and stupid post I have ever seen on a blog, congratulations.

    1. Well we can all be insulting but what FACT don't you like?

  2. You use a hypothetical example and claim its fact, by definition it isnt. Where is the video of the driver going up back of a bike? Who was sentenced to 14 years? Under what law? By making things up and asserting them as fact you make yourself a target for ridicule although it wasn't my intention to insult you sorry.

  3. But drivers are regularly going to jail for hitting cyclists. Are you denying that? And the max penalty for death by dangerous driving is 14 years. All this is a fact. But you ignore the fact that exposed humans in the road, by their own choice, figures in both examples. It's a tongue in cheek post by the way. I think most people would see my point. I take it you are a keen cyclist? They really have had their humour cells removed in my experience.

    1. Michael Mason, Regent Street. Driver hit him from behind & killed him, she admitted had no reason not to see him, no mitigation or defence. Police failed to even pass case to CPS. Numerous examples of cyclists run down by drivers who "blinded by low sun" or "momentarily looked away" (>90s), most not convicted of anything (despite both defences being evidence of inattentive & dangerous driving behaviour), token fine if they did,
      You can make up all kinds of hypothetical scenarios and then attach hypothetical jail sentences to them. It doesn't make them true.

    2. Yes of course drivers will make terrible mistakes. One is to tell the truth 'I didn't see him'. But that's the point. One thing is consistent. All these cyclists were cycling and were on the road. So the question is why? Why does society allow this unnecessary human hazard that it doesn't need? Having then allowed this scenario, and the extra liability for drivers, it should jail them for an error?

      Society must have drivers to subsist and exist so it allows this highly dangerous scenario? If there is a call to jail drivers because of cyclists, it's fair to point out that we don't need them so why have them?

      You are wrong about both your points re momentarily looked away and sudden blindness. Those are both dealt with in detail and But cyclists won't accept them and want 'justice' & 'revenge' as if these events were deliberate. How does that bring the dead cyclist back? And how are they a deterrent to an unintended act?

      Your last sentence indicates that you will not accept reality. Cyclists die and are maimed because they were cycling; The choice is entirely theirs from the get go.

  4. I don't know if the maximum penalty for death by dangerous driving is 14 years or not but that doesn't have anything to do with a cyclist hitting a parked car. Clearly I have misplaced my sense of humour, you seemed to strongly suggest - in capitals - that it was factual.

  5. Luckily the majority of readers would see the point being made and it is based on fact and is fair comment. Of course avid cyclists will hate it but they're such a tiny minority anyway. But I have published your comments at least.