LONDON: A 21-year-old woman who posted about “bloody cyclists” on Twitter hours after knocking a cyclist off his bike has been convicted of failing to stop and failing to report an accident, but cleared of driving without due care and attention at Norfolk magistrates court on Tuesday.
Cyclist Toby Hockley sustained minor injuries when Emma Way’s car clipped him on a narrow country lane in Norfolk on 19 May.
Later that day Way, of Watton Norfolk tweeted: “Definitely knocked a cyclist off his bike earlier. I have right of way — he doesn’t even pay road tax!”
Way was forced to defend herself on BBC Radio and national television after a public outcry at the comments, but was found guilty on Tuesday at Norwich magistrates court. She was fined £300 and £337 court costs and had seven points added to her licence for failing to stop and report the collision. She was found not guilty of the more serious charge of driving without due care and attention to the disappointment of cycling campaigners.
21 year old woman driving a car knocks man on his bicycle then tweets with pride “Definitely knocked a cyclist off his bike earlier. I have right of way — he doesn’t even pay road tax!” — convicted and fined.
Lesson I; Don’t drive carelessly and don’t be callous towards those you hurt.
Content II; Don’t knock any one down and tweet about it at the same time.
If you knock’m down don’t tweet. If you tweet you only wish you knocked’m down. (– No court can convict you for that although such emotions are to be guarded AGAINST. ) If you don’t knock’m and don’t tweet thats fine too, not everyone’s reading your tweets. You are not Stephen Hawking. Or tell your guy-next-door “You know I had a night mare, I knocked a guy off his bike and tweeted about it” although you didn’t do any of that. But if you knocked someone and hurt him and be brazen about it with your tweet so many people are actually looking for it that you have invoked Quantum Mechanics to pave the likelihoods for your conviction.
Now Miss Norfolk ( I initially thought thats her name, but her name is way, is that why she thinks she has a right-of-WAY, she is certainly to be educated on that phrase) you will ask me how Quantum Mechanics is the Jurisdiction of every silly thing?
Quantum Mechanics is based on this law. Or rather among a dozen or dozen-of-dozen laws there is one, this one, that explains some Quantum Mechanical behavior.
O = A*B. I confine A and B to be fractions. For those of you who shall do well in being enlightened as to what a fraction is, a fraction is always a rational number between 0 and 1. They do not go below zero or go above 1, for a silly definition that someone had made for them, 1000s of years ago. Lets make our peace with that. Now A and B being fractions here they represent certain mathematical quantity or rather attributes if you are to deal with them in purely mathematical frame-work, and these attributes are called as likelihood. A is a likelihood that certain event 1 has to happen or has happened. And B is again the same concept: certain event 2 has happened or has to happen and given by a likelihood B. Events will always have likelihood and likelihood have always to be less than 1 and more than zero. Hence as far as anyone can tell you likelihood of events are always fractions.
So-far-so good Ms Norfolk are you with me?
Then Quantum Mechanics which is usually a field of knowledge that deals with events with very small occurrences such as how likely it is that you will knock someone down today because you were not paying enough attention is A = 0.001. Then Quantum Mechanics asks you another and another and another question in any sequence. It associates all likelihoods or occurrences with a number which has got to be within 0-1 and be related to the context. If a context is not related we can safely if we realize its veracity, say that the likelihood is zero. If we have considered all cases that are possible and there are none left, which is like never the case, (but for practical implications may be possible) we say the likelihood of all the events combined is 1. Also see that, therefore, not only A and B but Quantum Mechanics may have in its fold not only 3, 4 or 6 variables but an infinite number and the rule of the sports here is O = A*B*C*D* … (ad infinitum if that be the case).
Then O which is again necessarily a fraction it gives the likelihood of a particular outcome. O is only a product of a few variables that are to decide the total possibility of an outcome or occurrence because they are the ones that decides a sequence of events. So if event H is really not connected to the others say A, B, E etc but is taken to determine how the sequence A, B, C, E, .. H is going to help us conclude something, we may be reaching a spurious claim. Truth checking would therefore give that H being not connected to the sequence of events must lead to ZERO. Its up to human ingenuity and good judgement that we find which is a valid concern and which is not, which is why even if we do not realize in our subconscious, it is Quantum Mechanics that is deciding whether we have made an erroneous claim of an event or not.
Lets therefore presume here that there are only two variables that are giving a good cursory judgement (as is even visible to a reader of the news of girl’s car knocking the guy down) A and B. A: The girl knocked the guy down. B: The girl tweeted about it. Forgetting all the other variables that determine one or the other conclusion among 100s possible its is clear that its that girl who hit a guy off his bike and bruised him and ran away and even talked about it. SO even if she were not to talk about it she would have committed a traffic-felony and she had to report and she had to admit her crime and so on (and in general the tons of other possibilities that a lot of cases might go un-investigated or even out of capability to investigate etc) .. But the very simple logic here which is quite clear to anyone who could make sense of the news, as are those who immediately in their minds convicted the girl by reading the tweet is; its the sequence of two events A and B that led to the conclusion O. If other events were to happen such as; there is no confession in terms of B, it would be murky perhaps at the least to try to find out (for example on part of a news-reader ) as to what had happened.
Now that we are on to Quantum Mechanics here is another nugget.
The correspondence Principle. This guy which gets talked a lot has a simpler form at times. Again this principle is a specific or corollary of O = A*B with the understanding that even if one of the variable say A can be insignificant it still depends on the sequence of other variables which decides how significant the total outcome would be. Therefore given that B can be significant enough to over ride A’s insignificance the outcome O can be significant. In other words an event might correspond from a scale of insignificance to a scale of significance. Often a scale of insignificance can be the micro or nano scale and the scale of significance is reached because it is not insignificant. So there is a bridge between two scales, one of insignificance and one of significance. One of micro and one that is not micro but lies close. In all totality this is the reason why Quantum Mechanical effects can be carried to the Classical scale and this is known as correspondence Principle.