Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Porsche driver broke skull of man riding Boris bike on her way to Harvey Nichols

“It came out of nowhere” says careless driver about cyclist on roundabout

A Chelsea motorist who hit a cyclist and broke his skull has been fined £5,000 and had six points put on her licence after being found guilty of careless driving. Marianna Papachristophorou, 47, was travelling from her £5m home to Harvey Nichols in Knightsbridge when she hit Jason Tann, who was riding a Santander hire bike.

The London Evening Standard reports that the incident occurred near Cadogan Square at about 7.30pm on May 22 last year.

Property investor Papachristophorou, driving a Porsche 4x4, entered a roundabout and hit Tann, who was sent four metres into the air.

The court heard the cyclist suffered three seizures in the 24 hours after the crash and cannot remember the incident. He suffered brain injuries and a fractured skull but has now made a full recovery. 

Papachristophorou denied careless driving and said she checked that the road was clear.

“It came out of nowhere. I realised within seconds it was a man,” she said, adding that she feared Tann had gone under the wheels of her vehicle.

“The defendant did make observations prior to entering that roundabout as she claims, but sadly sometimes people miss things,” said Deputy District Judge Adrian Turner.

“The only conclusion I can come to is that I’m sure beyond reasonable doubt there was a lack of care on that day in failing to observe Mr Tann approaching the roundabout and coming on to it and then failing to take action.”

Papachristophorou was also ordered to pay £795 in costs and court fees and may face civil proceedings in the future.

Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.

Add new comment

31 comments

Avatar
ktache | 4 years ago
1 like

RobD, much as I agree with your sentiment and the theme of your arguement, and there would be one hell of a lot of testing going on, and very annoyed ex drivers, I must object to your use of the A word, it is a crash, collision or incident.  The A word can describe some things, but minimises cause, and there was many human failings in the driver in this case.

Avatar
don simon fbpe | 4 years ago
10 likes

Dear courts,

The cyclist didn't appear from nowhere, unless they could defy physics or some other sciency bollocks. So please stop accepting this as any form of defence, in fact, why not add on a few quid to the fine as they attempt to insult your intelligence. If they do believe sincerely that the cyclist didappear from nowhere, might I suggest that removal of driving licence would be a good idea as they will need time away from the pressures of the road to assess their thought processes and priorities in life.

Irrespective of whatever vehicle they drive.

Yours sincerely.

The don.

Avatar
Sriracha replied to don simon fbpe | 4 years ago
7 likes
don simon fbpe wrote:

Dear courts,

The cyclist didn't appear from nowhere, unless they could defy physics or some other sciency bollocks. So please stop accepting this as any form of defence, in fact, why not add on a few quid to the fine as they attempt to insult your intelligence. If they do believe sincerely that the cyclist did appear from nowhere, might I suggest that removal of driving licence would be a good idea as they will need time away from the pressures of the road to assess their thought processes and priorities in life.

Irrespective of whatever vehicle they drive.

Yours sincerely.

The don.

Or take them at their word. They have just self-diagnosed either defective vision or a lack of aptitude for driving. They should be required to take an eye test and then resubmit to a driving test to make make sure both possibilites have been dealt with and remedied, before a new licence is issued.

SMIDSY should be taken at face value and dealt with rigorously - it is not acceptable to have drivers who can not - by their own admission - see other road users. It's fundamental.

Avatar
RobD replied to Sriracha | 4 years ago
3 likes

Sriracha wrote:
don simon fbpe wrote:

Dear courts,

The cyclist didn't appear from nowhere, unless they could defy physics or some other sciency bollocks. So please stop accepting this as any form of defence, in fact, why not add on a few quid to the fine as they attempt to insult your intelligence. If they do believe sincerely that the cyclist did appear from nowhere, might I suggest that removal of driving licence would be a good idea as they will need time away from the pressures of the road to assess their thought processes and priorities in life.

Irrespective of whatever vehicle they drive.

Yours sincerely.

The don.

Or take them at their word. They have just self-diagnosed either defective vision or a lack of aptitude for driving. They should be required to take an eye test and then resubmit to a driving test to make make sure both possibilites have been dealt with and remedied, before a new licence is issued. SMIDSY should be taken at face value and dealt with rigorously - it is not acceptable to have drivers who can not - by their own admission - see other road users. It's fundamental.

Any accident that causes an injury/damage to property should require the driver to take a retest to prove that they are still capable of driving correctly. They only had to perform to the minimum standard required for one hour once in their life, if they had to go through the inconvenience of a retest and the potential embarrassment maybe drivers would take a little more care.

Avatar
Christopher TR1 | 4 years ago
6 likes

Only by pure luck did she not kill somebody that day. She should do jail time - it might make her think next time she gets behind a wheel. Hang on, why is she even allowed to continue driving. Ever?! Who thought that was a good idea????

Avatar
HowardR | 4 years ago
0 likes

growingvegtables: "- YOU drive a wank-panzer." ........ Erm!?.... Could you let me know where one might obtain such a vehicle? I am of course asking on behalf of a friend.

Avatar
burtthebike replied to HowardR | 4 years ago
0 likes

HowardR wrote:

growingvegtables: "- YOU drive a wank-panzer." ........ Erm!?.... Could you let me know where one might obtain such a vehicle? I am of course asking on behalf of a friend.

Here https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/SINCLAIR-C5-VEHICLE-CIRCA-1985-MANY-ACCESSORI...

Avatar
ktache | 4 years ago
0 likes

brooksby, tell us more about the Tardis thing.

What is it called these days?

I assumed it was still the Tardis, though my interest in Dr WHO has declined since Tom Baker, who incidentally is the voiceover on the BBCs american football shows.

Avatar
brooksby replied to ktache | 4 years ago
1 like

ktache wrote:

brooksby, tell us more about the Tardis thing.

What is it called these days?

I assumed it was still the Tardis, though my interest in Dr WHO has declined since Tom Baker, who incidentally is the voiceover on the BBCs american football shows.

Its just the styling - since the early seventies it has to be TARDIS, all upper case. No biggy

Avatar
ktache | 4 years ago
1 like

Yes A440, I'm suprised it wasn't an Audi urban tank too.

Avatar
Awavey replied to ktache | 4 years ago
4 likes
ktache wrote:

Yes A440, I'm suprised it wasn't an Audi urban tank too.

Technically it could be argued it still is...Porsche are owned by the Volkswagen group,who also own & make Audis  3

The one thing perhaps other than the usual gripes in these cases that stood out for me is they reported in the Standard she was driving from her home in Chelsea to Harvey Nichols in Knightsbridge...thats a journey 1 to 2 miles at most,why would you even consider driving that distance in London ?

Avatar
StuInNorway replied to Awavey | 4 years ago
6 likes

Awavey wrote:

... they reported in the Standard she was driving from her home in Chelsea to Harvey Nichols in Knightsbridge...thats a journey 1 to 2 miles at most,why would you even consider driving that distance in London ?

"Because, 'Daaarling', when one has a Porsche, one must be seen in one's Porsche, yes ? 'Daaarling, otherwise one's frightfully expensive clothing might get dirty from all those horrible fumes out there"
 

Avatar
Sriracha replied to Awavey | 4 years ago
4 likes
Awavey wrote:
ktache wrote:

Yes A440, I'm suprised it wasn't an Audi urban tank too.

Technically it could be argued it still is...Porsche are owned by the Volkswagen group,who also own & make Audis  3

The one thing perhaps other than the usual gripes in these cases that stood out for me is they reported in the Standard she was driving from her home in Chelsea to Harvey Nichols in Knightsbridge...thats a journey 1 to 2 miles at most,why would you even consider driving that distance in London ?

Oh, that's an easy one. Because the roads are too dangerous to cycle in London. (Yes, the roads darling - it's the roads that are dangerous, that's why I use my Porsche, to make things safer).

Avatar
A440 | 4 years ago
1 like

I fail to see the relevance of the kind of car that was being driven in this incident, other than to incite hatred toward those who can afoord to drive nice cars. It tends to elicit comments like "...£5k sounds a lot, but is probably chickenfeed to Papachristophorou..." and other such ignorant jests, while the commenter is entirely ignorant of the facts regarding the financial wherewithal of the driver. People who make such comments are stupid.

The incident is about the driving and the offense, not the vehicle involved, nor your personal sentiment regarding drivers of said vehicles.

Avatar
Mungecrundle replied to A440 | 4 years ago
3 likes
A440 wrote:

I fail to see the relevance of the kind of car that was being driven in this incident, other than to incite hatred toward those who can afoord to drive nice cars. It tends to elicit comments like "...£5k sounds a lot, but is probably chickenfeed to Papachristophorou..." and other such ignorant jests, while the commenter is entirely ignorant of the facts regarding the financial wherewithal of the driver. People who make such comments are stupid.

The incident is about the driving and the offense, not the vehicle involved, nor your personal sentiment regarding drivers of said vehicles.

Interesting that you do not mention that the report details that Mr Tann was riding a Santander hire bike. Maybe trying to imply that he was inexperienced and not familiar with controlling the bicycle?

Or maybe it was just a fact about the incident along with location, names of those involved, injuries caused, punishment from the court etc.

Avatar
growingvegtables replied to A440 | 4 years ago
4 likes

A440 wrote:

I fail to see the relevance of the kind of car ...

Lord forbid that I get cynical in my old age.   But I'll hazard a guess.

 

- YOU drive a wank-panzer.

- I ride a bike

 

 

Bottom line - I DO see the relevance of the kind of driver who buys and drives that car, with utter disregard for other (let alone, vulnerable) road-users?

Avatar
brooksby replied to growingvegtables | 4 years ago
7 likes

growingvegtables wrote:

A440 wrote:

I fail to see the relevance of the kind of car ...

Lord forbid that I get cynical in my old age.   But I'll hazard a guess.

 

- YOU drive a wank-panzer.

- I ride a bike

 

 

Bottom line - I DO see the relevance of the kind of driver who buys and drives that car, with utter disregard for other (let alone, vulnerable) road-users?

Yup. They buy a car like that knowing that them and theirs will be safe inside and damn the rest of you...

Avatar
Hirsute replied to A440 | 4 years ago
1 like
A440 wrote:

I fail to see the relevance of the kind of car that was being driven in this incident, other than to incite hatred toward those who can afoord to drive nice cars. It tends to elicit comments like "...£5k sounds a lot, but is probably chickenfeed to Papachristophorou..." and other such ignorant jests, while the commenter is entirely ignorant of the facts regarding the financial wherewithal of the driver. People who make such comments are stupid.

The incident is about the driving and the offense, not the vehicle involved, nor your personal sentiment regarding drivers of said vehicles.

Such a vehicle has very good visibility due to the height and design, so any bollocks about not seeing 'it' is, well bollocks.

Avatar
kil0ran replied to Hirsute | 4 years ago
0 likes
hirsute wrote:
A440 wrote:

I fail to see the relevance of the kind of car that was being driven in this incident, other than to incite hatred toward those who can afoord to drive nice cars. It tends to elicit comments like "...£5k sounds a lot, but is probably chickenfeed to Papachristophorou..." and other such ignorant jests, while the commenter is entirely ignorant of the facts regarding the financial wherewithal of the driver. People who make such comments are stupid.

The incident is about the driving and the offense, not the vehicle involved, nor your personal sentiment regarding drivers of said vehicles.

Such a vehicle has very good visibility due to the height and design, so any bollocks about not seeing 'it' is, well bollocks.

Depends on the height of the driver - high belt-lines and low seating affect visibility in those things if you're short

Avatar
Hirsute replied to kil0ran | 4 years ago
4 likes

kil0ran wrote:

Depends on the height of the driver - high belt-lines and low seating affect visibility in those things if you're short

Not really. Driver's seats can be adjusted up and down, seat belt points can be adjusted up and down, so that isn't an excuse. If she also was unable to see out of the side window, she should not be driving.

Avatar
grumpyoldcyclist replied to A440 | 4 years ago
4 likes

A440 wrote:

I fail to see the relevance of the kind of car that was being driven in this incident, other than to incite hatred toward those who can afoord to drive nice cars. It tends to elicit comments like "...£5k sounds a lot, but is probably chickenfeed to Papachristophorou..." and other such ignorant jests, while the commenter is entirely ignorant of the facts regarding the financial wherewithal of the driver. People who make such comments are stupid.

The incident is about the driving and the offense, not the vehicle involved, nor your personal sentiment regarding drivers of said vehicles.

I think it's the fact that it's an off-roader, which is clearly the wrong type of vehicle for travelling one or two miles anywhere other than off road. Some people may need these vehicles for accessing certain locations or towing trailers, but most are stupid people sold entirely the wrong vehicle for their needs.

Where's a Martin Lewis campaign when you need one?

Avatar
vonhelmet replied to A440 | 4 years ago
1 like
A440 wrote:

I fail to see the relevance of the kind of car that was being driven in this incident, other than to incite hatred toward those who can afoord to drive nice cars. It tends to elicit comments like "...£5k sounds a lot, but is probably chickenfeed to Papachristophorou..." and other such ignorant jests, while the commenter is entirely ignorant of the facts regarding the financial wherewithal of the driver. People who make such comments are stupid.

The incident is about the driving and the offense, not the vehicle involved, nor your personal sentiment regarding drivers of said vehicles.

The financial wherewithal of the driver? Pull the other one. A Porsche cayenne (most likely candidate, given its described as a 4x4) costs £60k and the article says the driver's house is worth £5m so you don't need to be a chartered accountant to figure out she's wadded.

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to A440 | 4 years ago
4 likes

A440 wrote:

I fail to see the relevance of the kind of car that was being driven in this incident, other than to incite hatred toward those who can afoord to drive nice cars. It tends to elicit comments like "...£5k sounds a lot, but is probably chickenfeed to Papachristophorou..." and other such ignorant jests, while the commenter is entirely ignorant of the facts regarding the financial wherewithal of the driver. People who make such comments are stupid.

The incident is about the driving and the offense, not the vehicle involved, nor your personal sentiment regarding drivers of said vehicles.

 

You are not telling me that someone living in a £5million home who drives such a vehicle and shops at Harvey Nicks (oh, and is a 'property investor') is some penniless pleb, reliant on foodbanks.  We are not 'entirely ignorant of the facts regarding the financial wherewithal of the driver' because there's enough information given to make it clear they are likely to be very well-off.

 

Of course, the biggest reason to suspect that someone is a bad-driver is not their level of wealth, it's the fact that they are a driver.  (Lock 'em all up as a precautionary measure.  Sort 'em out later.)

Avatar
ktache | 4 years ago
4 likes

I shall paste in what I said on this yesterday when OldRidgeback pointed it out

 

"  "It came out of nowhere", she couldn't even say that "He.."

I do find it odd that motorists believe that we can dematerailise at will and for some reason choose to rematerialise in front of them.  Surely if I had super powers and could defy the laws of physics I might chose to teleport to my destination, like getting home when it was raining really hard on Tuesday evening, or at the very least ignore a bit of gravity on the way up big hills, and perhaps add to it on the way down. Wheeee!

Or the ability to transform steel and aluminium into titanium, at will of course, I am aware of Midas's foolish mythical wish.

I am also guessing there is a possibility of there might just be a further civil proceding, what with a lawyer being injured by a seemingly rich, innatentive driver, and already with a driving offence convicted."

And add, she was driving an urban tank, why should she even bother looking out of it's windows?

Avatar
racyrich replied to ktache | 4 years ago
0 likes

ktache wrote:

I am also guessing there is a possibility of there might just be a further civil proceding, what with a lawyer being injured by a seemingly rich, innatentive driver, and already with a driving offence convicted."

 

Unfortunately the civil proceedings will be covered by the driver's insurance so their only hit will be an increased premium, along with increased premiums for the rest of us to cover any settlement.

Avatar
nniff | 4 years ago
2 likes

Santander Tardis - what will they think of next?

Two objects on a converging course that remain on a constant bearing to each other will inevitably collide.  Put another way, you will collide with a moving object behind your A-pillar, so best move your head and look around your A-pillar, especially if you're rolling onto a roundabout or crossing a T junction.

Avatar
brooksby replied to nniff | 4 years ago
2 likes

nniff wrote:

Santander Tardis - what will they think of next?

Two objects on a converging course that remain on a constant bearing to each other will inevitably collide.  Put another way, you will collide with a moving object behind your A-pillar, so best move your head and look around your A-pillar, especially if you're rolling onto a roundabout or crossing a T junction.

Tut-tut: everyone knows it should be TARDIS... Hasn't been "Tardis" since the Target novelizations in the seventies.

(I'll get my coat...  3  )

Avatar
StuInNorway | 4 years ago
9 likes

So the Porsche 4x4 driver (known for being, in general, such a sedately driver vehicle - NOT ) is claiming that they were driving carefully, but the Boris Bike flew into the roundabout at high speed and threw "it"self (plus the rider) in front of their poor Chelsea tractor ?
If someone reversed a van into their 4x4, would they accept that "sadly sometimes people miss things," ? or would they be going out all lawyers blazing ?
“The defendant did make observations prior to entering that roundabout" . .  such as "Oh my hair's looking nice today . . . or "OOH a new Instagram post from my favourite marketing scammer (sorry influencer)" . .  or maybe "Oh good I did remember my Harvey Nic's storecard" ????   What they did not do was observe any other road users.  If only these cars came with some for of transparent opening at the front a driver could see though.

Avatar
baggiero | 4 years ago
5 likes

He didn't come out of "nowhere", he was already on the roundabout by the sounds of things ...  So presumably he "came out of the bit of the roundabout to which you are supposed to give way (to traffic originating from)" would be what she ought to be corrected with ..!

Avatar
burtthebike | 4 years ago
5 likes

£5k sounds a lot, but is probably chickenfeed to Papachristophorou, but hopefully Mr Tann is a CUK or BC member and their solicitors are working on a very big claim indeed.  At least the courts didn't swallow the "came out of nowhere" excuse, and unless the entry to the roundabout for the cyclist was 30% slope, he couldn't have been going very fast on one of those bikes.

Are we finally seeing the courts starting to doubt the usual driving excuses?

Pages

Latest Comments