Steven Nzonzi has done nothing wrong says Stoke City boss

Ush][quote=Colin Peyresourde wrote:

This seems a bit of a nothing story. The incident itself does not seem to be the worst piece of driving and the major issue was he didn't exchange details.

Ush wrote:

He says, steepling primly while not involved in the incident.

I agree that the incident was note worthy at the time, but there are no pictures of a 'smashed' bike. We only have the word of a man and his friends who may be taking umbrage at a driver for a slight which has embarrassed the cyclist. No pictures of an injury and on twitter the rider seems to be 'fine'.

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

I think a reprimand is order. And I'm glad Nzonzi has been named and shamed, but beyond that this is a storm brewed in a national newspaper teacup.

Ush wrote:

No, the newspapers picked up on this after it was an internet story... one in which cyclists, including Sir Chris Hoy attempted to make sure that one of our own was not left hung out to dry by a lazy, incompetent police force.

A reprimand seems insufficient for someone that is apparently such a reckless and callous individual. The license to operate an automobile should not be extended to such a numpty.

He may have not shown proper road awareness, but can every road user, cyclist/motorist/pedestrian say he has not had a moment of inattentiveness? Get over yourself.

I don't really care who has retweeted what, Sir Chris Hoy was not there and is not aware of all the facts, and neither are any of us. We only have one side of the story and in fact he seems to have retracted his comments about damage to his bike and the damage to him seems to be mostly his pride in smashing into the back of a car and his worry about his 'professional racing bike'.

I also feel that the fact that he wants to down play the issue:

Quote:

“Up to now the information has been extracted solely from various social media feeds,” said Rob, who is concerned that speculation on the incident has distorted the facts. Nevertheless he has expressed gratitude for the response of the online cycling community in trying to track down the driver.

Let us give this another narrative from the bits and pieces we have: Mr Lockhart was following too closely and either did not register a signal to pull-over, disregarded the brake lights on Mr Nzonzi's car and smashed into the back of him. Mr Nzonzi gets out his car, speaks to the cyclist to find out if he is OK, not feeling he had done anything wrong, not seeing any visible damage to his car, Mr Lockhart or his bike, goes about his business.

Mr Lockhart, being shocked and embarrassed in front of his friends and strangers and particularly fraught about the possibility of unseen damage to his carbon bike starts to harangue Mr Nzonzi requesting his insurance details. Mr Nzonzi, fearing that as he is sports star is being 'fitted' up Nzonzi decides to leave, making his remark about his license plate. Mr Lockhart and his friends, realising that he is sports star of sorts, and wishing some sort of retribution act like a cabal by firing out pictures of his car in to the social media, with a wish to embarrass Mr Nzonzi....

I'm not saying that the narrative I have cooked up is true, but it is possible and you should be mindful of this before you start snarling at people for their opinions. After all Mr Nzonzi was smart enough not to tweet 'Definitely knocked a cyclist off his bike - Bloodycyclist'. I am suggesting that in all probability this case is not serious and not worth the attention it has received and given Mr Lockhart's own statements, not one worth the police time. After all I would rather they caught the idiot who broke into my car trying to hot wire it, failed and left his phone in my car.....I handed that into the police and nothing came of it - I don't think they even bothered.

I haven't seen any pictures of a smashed bike yet, not even on Twitter.

It may not even get recorded as an RTC if they deem the driver not to be at fault. If thats the case then you can understand why when you read the defintion.

Definition of a road traffic collision

The law defines a reportable road traffic collision as an accident involving a mechanically-propelled vehicle on a road or other public area which causes:
Injury or damage to anybody - other than the driver of that vehicle,
Injury or damage to an animal- other than one being carried on that vehicle (an animal is classes as a horse, cattle, ass, mule, sheep, pig, goat or dog).
Damage to a vehicle - other than the vehicle which caused the accident.

If this is the case then the cyclist is the party at fault and only damage caused / injury received is his.

Its open to conjecture but that is the definition that has to be followed whether you like it or not.

I didn't realise Mark Hughes was also a legal expert

He's not the Messiah......

He could be caught for leaving the scene of an accident. At the very least he should have stayed to check the cyclist was ok, and to get him help if he needed it.

Not sure whether the cyclist knew in time, but if I end up riding (or driving) behind a driver that is driving erratically I give them a lot of space and stay well back. If someone is driving like that, then the chances are that they will do something unexpected, so you need to give your self time to react. It's not worth getting annoyed with them and riding / driving aggressively, especially if you're on a bike - you'll most likely come off worse.

Who gives a toss what Mark Hughes thinks, he should concentrate on being a football manager, something which he needs a bit more practice, and leave the decisions as to whether the law has been broken to those that can.

Rear-ending is just an example of presumed liability.

The following vehicle is assumed to be at fault unless they can prove otherwise, for instance if the car in front swerved in front and braked heavily.

Thats why its used in cash-for-crash scams.

I would have thought that parking on double yellows, obstructing a bus stop zone and parking adjacent to a junction would be good for, at best, a conversation regarding his driving practices. At worst, is the driver actually aware of the meaning of double yellows and is he aware of the dangers he is creating by his actions. Maybe his driving style is okay for the sleepy French towns or chaos of Paris - but Hale....?

If Manchester CPS are anything like London CPS, leaving the scene, even with witnesses, is not worth prosecuting (my witnesses to the leaver where an off duty police Sargent and two ambulance people) go figure...

How can twitter identify him in minutes and yet Manchester's finest, who's kinda job it is to figure this stuff out, have taken days to identify him and nick him?

Even if not at fault he has committed an offence by failing to give details to a person reasonably requiring them when injury and damage resulted from the presence of his motor vehicle.

He neatly compounds the offence by actually announcing to the other party and witnesses, that his action of leaving the scene without giving details was a deliberate act to break the law.

Another Emma Way moment?

This seems a bit of a nothing story. The incident itself does not seem to be the worst piece of driving and the major issue was he didn't exchange details.

I think a reprimand is order. And I'm glad Nzonzi has been named and shamed, but beyond that this is a storm brewed in a national newspaper teacup.

I'm not saying the driver isn't at fault, it may well be a case of dodgy driver that has caused this incident.

The story seems to have a life of its own since it was posted on facebook and twitter, so maybe I have just caught other people's version, a bit like Chinese whispers. I have also followed the story on here. That's what clouding my judgement, so many different version's going around from the rider and a witness.

We will see what comes of it, but it seems to have turned into a bit of a twitter witch hunt, not unlike another incident I was involved with today on there with another "Emma Way" kind of tweet.

Seen as the comments are open, I shall make one.

This story has gotten dodgyer as the days go on, he was "run down", then he was "knocked down", then he was "clipped" and now finally his story seems to be HE ran into the back of the vehicle.

Well there you have it, in any other circumstance, with two vehicle's. Where the one behind ran into the one in front. It is normally the case that the rear one was following too closely.

We'll see what comes of it. I dont see much happening. Yes he failed to give details and report an accident. So we'll see