# anyone know this cyclist?



## PK99 (21 May 2015)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...d-hit-run-cyclist-outside-Blackpool-home.html


----------



## jefmcg (21 May 2015)

Do with have to join in with a Daily Mail lynch mob?


----------



## glenn forger (21 May 2015)

I look forward to the Mail covering the news that drivers commit ten hit and runs every day in London alone with the same journalistic impartiality.


----------



## vickster (21 May 2015)

Afraid not, never had the misfortune to go to Blackpool


----------



## Michael86 (21 May 2015)

jefmcg said:


> Do with have to join in with a Daily Mail lynch mob?


Yes, who ever he is, he needs to be found. And put in jail, if he did that to my daughter he would be 6 foot under.


----------



## Pale Rider (21 May 2015)

Michael86 said:


> he would be 6 foot under.



And the dad looks capable of doing it.


----------



## jefmcg (21 May 2015)

thousands of bad things happen everyday. I'm not letting that rag set any agenda for justice.


----------



## glenn forger (21 May 2015)

Michael86 said:


> Yes, who ever he is, he needs to be found. And put in jail, if he did that to my daughter he would be 6 foot under.



See the sign in the background? Personally, I wouldn't let a child that young run around unattended near the entrance to a cycle lane.


----------



## PK99 (21 May 2015)

jefmcg said:


> thousands of bad things happen everyday. *I'm not letting that rag set any agenda for justice*.



how about the local newapaper?

http://www.lep.co.uk/news/video-blackpool-toddler-dragged-along-road-in-hit-and-run-horror-1-7271946


----------



## PK99 (21 May 2015)

jefmcg said:


> Do with have to join in with a Daily Mail lynch mob?



http://www.lep.co.uk/news/video-blackpool-toddler-dragged-along-road-in-hit-and-run-horror-1-7271946


----------



## glenn forger (21 May 2015)

A bloke in his 20s has made himself known to police, the article says.


----------



## PK99 (21 May 2015)

glenn forger said:


> I look forward to the Mail covering the news that drivers commit ten hit and runs every day in London alone with the same journalistic impartiality.




Well done. Ignore the appalling behaviour and run your usual agenda. You really are a twat aren't you!


----------



## glenn forger (21 May 2015)

I'm asking for this appalling behaviour to be scrutinised, or don't the other victims matter to you?


----------



## Markymark (21 May 2015)

PK99 said:


> Well done. Ignore the appalling behaviour and run your usual agenda. You really are a twat aren't you!


Tbf there is often a click bait bias in the media. These stories make front page news usually followed by analysis and comments wanting cyclists insured taxed etc. Glenn's point is that the 10 hit and runs a day within one city by cars are by and large ignored.


----------



## mjr (21 May 2015)

I don't remember http://www.norfolk.police.uk/newsandevents/newsstories/2015/april/appealtotracecar.aspx being in the Daily Mail.


----------



## Dogtrousers (21 May 2015)

Man bites dog


----------



## potsy (21 May 2015)

I did enjoy this comment, even though he wasn't having a go at cyclist's 



> He hasn't got a helmet on himself so he not consecrate of his own safety then he's not going to be of others. Look if your going to cycle do it on the roads and have a helmet and hi vis jacket on. Don't run the red lights and indicate where your turning. This is not having a go at cyclist because most drivers cycle and visa versa. It's common sense and safety. Plus your not paying road tax so at least be considerate.



Cyclist was a moron, but I think I've said that before on other threads, if that is just a pavement and not a shared use path then he should face whatever punishment is allowable, terrible riding.


----------



## Racing roadkill (21 May 2015)

What an utter scrote.


----------



## Globalti (21 May 2015)

What went wrong? The bloke is wearing a FLOURO jacket.... I thought they guaranteed immunity to accidents?

All those years I drove around with a St Christopher medal on my dashboard and I *never* had an accident...... tsk, modern juju ain't the same.


----------



## Roadrider48 (21 May 2015)

Poor little girl, I hope she is ok.
Pavement cycling tosser!


----------



## Arjimlad (21 May 2015)

I'd passed my National Cycling Proficiency by his age and my Mum let me ride on the road.

It would be great if hit & run motorists could be so easily photographed.


----------



## Drago (21 May 2015)

Why is that chump Cyclist even the foot way? Idiot of the highest order.


----------



## oldfatfool (21 May 2015)

Drago said:


> Why is that chump Cyclist even the foot way? Idiot of the highest order.


Probably because he hasn't got any road tax!!! 

Seriously though, shite cycling, and shite behaviour afterwards  Hope the youngster doesn't suffer any long term effects and lets daddy have his bike back.


----------



## Adam4868 (21 May 2015)

vickster said:


> Afraid not, never had the misfortune to go to Blackpool


How would you know its misfortune if youve never been ?


----------



## mr_cellophane (21 May 2015)

Twat in the comments here


> Montgomery-the-4th, bournemouth, United Kingdom, about 2 hours ago
> Im not taking sides here but she did just come out of nowhere?! I often travek very fast on pavements myself but then again i am highly skilled with rapid reactions, i probably could have bunny hopped that little girl.


----------



## Michael86 (21 May 2015)

glenn forger said:


> See the sign in the background? Personally, I wouldn't let a child that young run around unattended near the entrance to a cycle lane.





glenn forger said:


> See the sign in the background? Personally, I wouldn't let a child that young run around unattended near the entrance to a cycle lane.


What sign? The child wasn't running around. That is a normal pathway. The cyclist even shouldn't be on the path, especially at that speed. The ten hit and runs in London don't even cone into it. A child could of died.


----------



## raleighnut (21 May 2015)

The cyclist is a scrote no question but why was the mother not holding the toddlers hand that close to a road. I would have been.


----------



## Michael86 (21 May 2015)

raleighnut said:


> The cyclist is a scrote no question but why was the mother not holding the toddlers hand that close to a road. I would have been.


I couldn't agree more, but its not like the toddler was running around out of control.


----------



## Tanis8472 (21 May 2015)

Isnt it illegal to be filming outside your property boundaries with cctv?


----------



## glenn forger (21 May 2015)

Michael86 said:


> The ten hit and runs in London don't even cone into it.



Exactly. Beware of force-fed indignation. With international affairs in meltdown this story is the lead story on the Mail website with over 2k of comments of the "One time I saw a cyclist be annoying" variety, others call for violent retribution against riders.


----------



## Michael86 (21 May 2015)

With those comments, its even more important to give that cyclist a heavy prison sentence. Its not about retribution.


----------



## glenn forger (21 May 2015)

Michael86 said:


> With those comments, its even more important to give that cyclist a heavy prison sentence. Its not about retribution.



Only a quarter of culpable killer drivers get a custodial sentence, there is no way this bloke will go to prison. A fine, probably.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (21 May 2015)

Tanis8472 said:


> Isnt it illegal to be filming outside your property boundaries with cctv?



No, not if you're filming a public place, it's no different to photographing in public.

You can also film and photograph private areas as long as you're doing it from a public area.


----------



## Globalti (22 May 2015)

Why did the parents have CCTV set up? Was this a new variation on cash for crash?

(That was a joke, before anybody flames me!)


----------



## vickster (22 May 2015)

Or Blackpool's just downright dodgy as the crime figures seem to suggest?


----------



## PK99 (22 May 2015)

vickster said:


> Or Blackpool's just downright dodgy as the crime figures seem to suggest?



Blackpool is seriously dodgy. The low-life quotient is alarmingly high.


----------



## glenn forger (22 May 2015)

This story's turned into Friday's Ten Minute Hate. Sky News have even hitched the pro-helmet angle to it, as if helmets stop you riding into toddlers.


----------



## glenn forger (22 May 2015)

the cycle lane starts two doors down. Personally there's no way I'd leave a 3 year old unattended on that pavement.


----------



## glenn forger (22 May 2015)

"Dragged twelve feet", well, she was knocked over, poor tyke, I dunno about dragged twelve feet.

"Hit and run" they got a photo of the bloke standing there. It was a "hit then hang around for a bit then leave".


----------



## nickyboy (22 May 2015)

glenn forger said:


> the cycle lane starts two doors down. Personally there's no way I'd leave a 3 year old unattended on that pavement.



Glenn, you can see that the mother was unlocking the car, father following on with a baby, child walked out to the car following the mother. To suggest that she was "unattended" is disingenuous.

The cycle lane starts, what, 30m after where the collision took place? The cyclist should have been on the road at that point, then on the cycle lane

Unfortunately in misrepresenting the facts that we can all see with our own eyes you undermine your argument. I totally understand your position that the media should give exposure to car driving hit and runs but the way you misrepresent the facts gets in the way of this valid point. You come across as an apologist for, frankly, terrible cycling


----------



## Michael86 (22 May 2015)

glenn forger said:


> "Dragged twelve feet", well, she was knocked over, poor tyke, I dunno about dragged twelve feet.
> 
> "Hit and run" they got a photo of the bloke standing there. It was a "hit then hang around for a bit then leave".


Have your got anything wrong with your eye sight @glenn forger? She was clearly dragged along the pavement


----------



## Piemaster (22 May 2015)

mjray said:


> I don't remember http://www.norfolk.police.uk/newsandevents/newsstories/2015/april/appealtotracecar.aspx being in the Daily Mail.


Or this one. And it's the second similar incident in the area in the last couple of months


----------



## glenn forger (22 May 2015)

Toddlers dart out. It's what they do. If you don't have hold of them they will run if they see someone they know, you've got to keep a tight hold, I doubt that's the first ever cyclist to take a short cut there on the pavement. Excusing nothing, before the straw men start, cyclist was an idiot but I can see a few ways that collision could have been avoided.


----------



## ufkacbln (22 May 2015)

To me there are two aspects to this
Firstly the incident itself, and secondly riding off

Debate the first as much ss you like, but the second is unequivocally wrong


----------



## ufkacbln (22 May 2015)

This post is absolutely judgmental 

Is it me or is there something "not quite right" about the cyclist

I could be totally wrong, but I suspect when all this comes out there will be a history of learning difficulties or similar


----------



## Milkfloat (22 May 2015)

vickster said:


> Parents should be aware. What if child had run under wheels of a passing car



What if's are easy to say, being realistic as a parent, you cannot keep hold of your kids at all times, one parent was in front one behind, I think it is pretty unreasonable to suggest that that the child should be being held directly by one of the parents, there is no indication that child would go on the road. The child was on the pavement where they are allowed to be, the cyclist was on the pavement doing silly speeds where they are not allowed to be. In my humble opinion, the parents are not at fault at all.


----------



## vickster (22 May 2015)

I said they should be aware, not that they were at fault


----------



## 4F (22 May 2015)

The toddler should have been wearing a helmet


----------



## User6179 (22 May 2015)

glenn forger said:


> Toddlers dart out. It's what they do. If you don't have hold of them they will run if they see someone they know, you've got to keep a tight hold, I doubt that's the first ever cyclist to take a short cut there on the pavement. Excusing nothing, before the straw men start, cyclist was an idiot but I can see a few ways that collision could have been avoided.



Would this post not be victim blaming Glen @hypocrisy .


----------



## glenn forger (22 May 2015)

Notions of blame don't attach themselves to toddlers. It's what they do, it's their nature.


----------



## MarkF (22 May 2015)

No parent yet has never had a child not dart away from them at some time, it's not a matter of not looking after a child correctly, you do yourself no favours GF. 

The cyclist is at fault, still, accidents happen and I'd have a degree of respect for him if had he stuck around, but knocking child over and then scuttling off, wow!


----------



## glenn forger (22 May 2015)

Once again, I said I wouldn't let a child cross that particular pavement on their own. That's not blaming anyone.


----------



## MarkF (22 May 2015)

It's not a matter of "letting" Glenn, see my earlier post.


----------



## Leodis (22 May 2015)

Sad news and no doubt he has learnt his lesson but its one of the usual Daily Mail stories. So worried about the childs health she thought to take out her phone and take pictures of said cyclist, first thought is not the child but the camera then head off to the Daily Hate.



> 'The speed he was going on that bike in a residential area with young children around is dangerous and this happened to Lucie out of nowhere.



How could see tell, she was paying as much attention to the cyclist as she was her kid. Hope the kid recovers from her scratches well.


----------



## PK99 (22 May 2015)

glenn forger said:


> Once again, I said I wouldn't let a child cross that particular pavement on their own. That's not blaming anyone.



yes it is. stop digging.


----------



## PK99 (22 May 2015)

Leodis said:


> Sad news and no doubt he has learnt his lesson but its *one of the usual Daily Mail stories*. ll.



picked up from the local rag, see post up thread.

and appears in other nationals too - the mail was just the first.

does the fact it was in the mail make the cyclist's behavior any less reprehensible?


----------



## Leodis (22 May 2015)

PK99 said:


> picked up from the local rag, see post up thread.
> 
> and appears in other nationals too - the mail was just the first.
> 
> does the fact it was in the mail make the cyclist's behavior any less reprehensible?



Who gives a toss really. Children are been raped, slaughtered and starved to death yet Daily Hate readers have such low intelligence they can only react to a 3 year old involved in an accident. 1st world problems.


----------



## PK99 (22 May 2015)

Leodis said:


> Who gives a toss really. Children are been raped, slaughtered and starved to death yet Daily Hate readers have such low intelligence they can only react to a 3 year old involved in an accident. 1st world problems.



would your response be different had my op linked to the local newspaper report rather than the Mail?


----------



## Leodis (22 May 2015)

PK99 said:


> would your response be different had my op linked to the local newspaper report rather than the Mail?



No, the same.


----------



## Michael86 (22 May 2015)

glenn forger said:


> Toddlers dart out. It's what they do. If you don't have hold of them they will run if they see someone they know, you've got to keep a tight hold, I doubt that's the first ever cyclist to take a short cut there on the pavement. Excusing nothing, before the straw men start, cyclist was an idiot but I can see a few ways that collision could have been avoided.


Like the cyclist not being on the path, and on the road like he should be.


----------



## glenn forger (22 May 2015)

I know the cyclist shouldn't be on the path. It's there, in my post, where I condemn the cyclist. It is more likely that a rider would use that pavement than others, so I would have kept a tight hold of the toddler. That's not saying the cyclist was innocent, it's saying take care with ankle biters.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (22 May 2015)

Michael86 said:


> Like the cyclist not being on the path, and on the road like he should be.



It could also have been a 12 year old kid riding the bike at that speed down the pavement. Should they be on the road?


----------



## cd365 (22 May 2015)

He would have been in a world of pain if he had done that to my daughter.
Cyclists do not belong on the pavement.


----------



## User6179 (22 May 2015)

glenn forger said:


> I know the cyclist shouldn't be on the path. It's there, in my post, where I condemn the cyclist. It is more likely that a rider would use that pavement than others, so I would have kept a tight hold of the toddler. That's not saying the cyclist was innocent, it's saying take care with ankle biters.



Just for the record Glen , are you saying that pointing out measures that somebody could take to protect themselves after they have had an accident is not victim blaming ?


----------



## glenn forger (22 May 2015)

No, because she's a toddler. I said, stop thinking in terms of blame, they don't apply, the toddler did exactly what toddlers do, blame doesn't come into it.


----------



## User6179 (22 May 2015)

glenn forger said:


> No, because she's a toddler. I said, stop thinking in terms of blame, they don't apply, the toddler did exactly what toddlers do, blame doesn't come into it.



Your not blaming the toddler though , your blaming the parents .


----------



## glenn forger (22 May 2015)

My blaming the parents what?


----------



## Mugshot (22 May 2015)

cd365 said:


> He would have been in a world of pain if he had done that to my daughter.
> Cyclists do not belong on the pavement.


Whilst I do not think he should have ridden off, or been on the pavement or even not been paying sufficient attention to what he was doing, maybe this sort of reaction is the reason he rode off, maybe the dad said he was going to tear him limb from limb or words to that effect so he thought he'd make a sharp exit.


----------



## ufkacbln (22 May 2015)

glenn forger said:


> I know the cyclist shouldn't be on the path. It's there, in my post, where I condemn the cyclist. It is more likely that a rider would use that pavement than others, so I would have kept a tight hold of the toddler. That's not saying the cyclist was innocent, it's saying take care with ankle biters.



I suspect the parents have a much better perception and knowledge of what is likely than a complete stranger who has never been near this area?


----------



## cd365 (22 May 2015)

Mugshot said:


> Whilst I do not think he should have ridden off, or been on the pavement or even not been paying sufficient attention to what he was doing, maybe this sort of reaction is the reason he rode off, maybe the dad said he was going to tear him limb from limb or words to that effect so he thought he'd make a sharp exit.


It looked like to me the father just picked his daughter up, but he could have made threats that we are not aware of.


----------



## glenn forger (22 May 2015)

Cunobelin said:


> I suspect the parents have a much better perception and knowledge of what is likely than a complete stranger who has never been near this area?



How come their kid got hit then? If the pavement outside my house leads to a cycle lane I would have a pretty good idea that riders may go past. Through the medium of interpretive dance because writing it down doesn't seem to work, that's not blaming anyone.


----------



## Spoked Wheels (22 May 2015)

glenn forger said:


> I look forward to the Mail covering the news that drivers commit ten hit and runs every day in London alone with the same journalistic impartiality.





mr_cellophane said:


> Twat in the comments here



I've seen a few twats in Bournemouth so no surprise there.

A twat is a twat full stop. No matter whether they are in control of a tank or a bicycle. They need to be stopped.

Focusing on why drivers get away and cyclists don't is not the way to go about this issue IMHO, it's not a competition.


----------



## .stu (22 May 2015)

glenn forger said:


> This story's turned into Friday's Ten Minute Hate. Sky News have even hitched the pro-helmet angle to it, as if helmets stop you riding into toddlers.


The helmet is for the toddler, stupid!


----------



## iggibizzle (22 May 2015)

This is the road where it happened. Zero need to be on a pavement. Cycle down it often.


----------



## .stu (22 May 2015)

As a parent of a 3yo toddler myself, all I can say is that you constantly have to watch out for them as they are ignorant of the dangers around them. The cyclist and the toddler likely couldn't see each other, but the mother was in a position to see both and could have prevented this from happening. The cyclist shouldn't have been going at that speed on the pavement, and should have been more aware that there were potentially children about as he should have seen the young family leaving the house.

I'm not apportioning blame and would be very upset if this had happened to my little girl (especially because I would feel that I had let her down by not looking out for her and would be kicking myself as well as cursing the cyclist) but I do feel that it has to be remembered it was an accident, and no-one went out that morning intending to cause any harm to anyone else.


----------



## nickyboy (22 May 2015)

glenn forger said:


> How come their kid got hit then? If the pavement outside my house leads to a cycle lane I would have a pretty good idea that riders may go past. Through the medium of interpretive dance because writing it down doesn't seem to work, that's not blaming anyone.



Glenn, have a look at the streetmap for Collingwood Avenue, Blackpool. If you do you'll see that there is indeed a cycle lane about 30m past the house. However, there is no access off the pavement onto the cyclepath at all. No lowered kerbs etc. The only way to get to the cycle path (other than bouncing down off the kerb) is to ride on the road.

As such it's entirely reasonable that a parent would not expect a cyclist to be cycling on that bit of pavement. The pavement does not lead to the cycle lane

You're misrepresenting the facts..........again


----------



## glenn forger (22 May 2015)

Nope, I said the pavement leads to a cycle lane, there is a cycle lane at the end of the pavement, that makes it more rather than less likely that there will be a cyclist on the pavement, where he shouldn't be.


----------



## glenn forger (22 May 2015)

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.8...ata=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s59jry2cYd8hju-zEA-EAWQ!2e0

Dropped kerb just before the cycle lane, by the mankiest caravan in Lancashire.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (22 May 2015)

Blame

Child - 0%
Parents - 0%
Cyclist - 100%

GC


----------



## Adam4868 (22 May 2015)

PK99 said:


> Blackpool is seriously dodgy. The low-life quotient is alarmingly high.


Any town,city in the country could be "dodgy" as you like to call it.Im not dodgy"and i live and work here.The area or road where this happens wouldnt really be "dodgy".All of which is of no relevance to someone riding on a pavement.My kids ride on pavements on the way to school,some roads arent safe to be on.So maybe i am "dodgy" too !


----------



## Michael86 (22 May 2015)

Mugshot said:


> Whilst I do not think he should have ridden off, or been on the pavement or even not been paying sufficient attention to what he was doing, maybe this sort of reaction is the reason he rode off, maybe the dad said he was going to tear him limb from limb or words to that effect so he thought he'd make a sharp exit.


 The father has every right to tear him limb from limb.


----------



## Michael86 (22 May 2015)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> It could also have been a 12 year old kid riding the bike at that speed down the pavement. Should they be on the road?


No, but he isn't 12. He should know better. He should of been on the road full stop.


----------



## Dommo (22 May 2015)

Michael86 said:


> The father has every right to tear him limb from limb.



No, he doesn't. I think you misunderstand which century we live in... Yes, the cyclist should not have been on the pavement and will be punished (or not) according to the law.


----------



## anothersam (22 May 2015)

Can I mostly agree with Glenn without getting tarred and feathered (I have allergies)? No? Then bad Glenn! Bad!

You can see the cyclist as 100% wrong and also see it as a typical 10 minute hate job, pushing all the right buttons (think of the children) for yet another click orgy. The DM merely offers a shriller voice than the rest of the 4th estate.


----------



## PK99 (22 May 2015)

anothersam said:


> Can I mostly agree with Glenn without getting tarred and feathered (I have allergies)? No? Then bad Glenn! Bad!
> 
> You can see the cyclist as 100% wrong and also see it as a typical 10 minute hate job, pushing all the right buttons (think of the children) for yet another click orgy. The *DM* merely offers a shriller voice than the rest of the 4th estate.



Choose a different report then.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/201...g-hit-and-run-cyclist-pavement_n_7419098.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...nd-run-cyclist-is-dragged-along-pavement.html
http://metro.co.uk/2015/05/21/cycli...didnt-bother-to-stop-to-check-on-her-5208635/
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/horrifying-moment-hit-and-run-cyclist-riding-5733724
http://thugviral.com/tag/lucie-wilding/
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/57...own-toddler-and-drags-her-12ft-along-pavement
http://www.dreamindemon.com/communi...wn-sidewalk-by-hit-run-bicyclist-video.78330/
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article4448023.ece
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news...t-and-run-of-toddler-on-pavement-video-173131
http://www.blikk.hu/ - Címkék


----------



## Dommo (22 May 2015)

[QUOTE 3707935, member: 9609"]morally he does[/QUOTE]

Yeah...because some cuts and bruises to a child totally justifies tearing a man "limb from limb" in some medieval vengeance concept....


----------



## Mugshot (22 May 2015)

[QUOTE 3707935, member: 9609"]morally he does[/QUOTE]
Morally? Whilst the fella shouldn't have been riding on the pavement or if he felt he had no other option he should have been far more aware, I would imagine it unlikely that he set out to deliberately hurt anybody. I don't think it would be morally right to bash somebody up a bit given the circumstances, however much you might like to.


----------



## Leodis (22 May 2015)

PK99 said:


> Choose a different report then.
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/201...g-hit-and-run-cyclist-pavement_n_7419098.html
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...nd-run-cyclist-is-dragged-along-pavement.html
> ...



You have far too much time on your hands. Are you the local troll for Mums.net?


----------



## Mugshot (22 May 2015)

At the risk of sounding like I'm defending the cyclist, how many times have we read posts on this forum from people that are too scared to ride on the road, alternatively how many times have we read and indeed experienced being told to "Get off the road", by drivers that feel we have no right to be there? Again, the cyclist shouldn't have been there, but we are not all robust enough to ignore the dogs abuse which we can sometimes receive.


----------



## Glow worm (22 May 2015)

PK99 said:


> http://www.blikk.hu/ - Címkék


 
Good contender for most obscure link of the year there!


----------



## anothersam (22 May 2015)

PK99 said:


> Choose a different report then....



It's neck and neck at times, but I daresay the Wail still wins shrill.


----------



## Milkfloat (22 May 2015)

Mugshot said:


> At the risk of sounding like I'm defending the cyclist, how many times have we read posts on this forum from people that are too scared to ride on the road, alternatively how many times have we read and indeed experienced being told to "Get off the road", by drivers that feel we have no right to be there? Again, the cyclist shouldn't have been there, but we are not all robust enough to ignore the dogs abuse which we can sometimes receive.



I don't think this cyclist could be described as too scared to ride on the road - that tends to be wobbly kids and wobbly old people, not fast moving cyclists in high-vis. My kids sometimes cycle on a pavement, they are well aware what speed they should go and are so nervous that if anyone is within 100m of them they stop and wait. The school run is painful to say the least. As soon as they get confidence and speed up, they will be on the road like everyone else.


----------



## PK99 (22 May 2015)

Leodis said:


> You have far too much time on your hands. Are you the local troll for Mums.net?



simple google search of the child name threw up world wide reports. cut ans paste a few second work.


----------



## Mugshot (22 May 2015)

Milkfloat said:


> I don't think this cyclist could be described as too scared to ride on the road


You could well be right, equally you have no idea.


----------



## jarlrmai (22 May 2015)

Glenn usually you are spot on but this is an argument you can't be making. The disparity of coverage in the press yes but suggesting ways this could have been avoided that don't involve this guy not cycling on the pavement is hurting your cause.


----------



## .stu (22 May 2015)

If you look at the video, the cyclist is keeping up with the red car going past on the road, so he is going way too fast to be on the pavement. On the other hand, the mother needs to realise that when she opens her door and goes out on the street with her daughter in tow, she is the person primarily responsible for the safety of that child, and so yes, she does need to look both ways, because there could be anything coming along the pavement, even things that shouldn't be there.

I'm glad the child is ok tho.


----------



## Milkfloat (22 May 2015)

Mugshot said:


> You could well be right, equally you have no idea.



I would be willing to bet a lot of money that he was not too scared to ride on the road, he was just being a pillock.

He is now probably too scared to ride on the pavement or road now he has been 'outed'.


----------



## Mugshot (22 May 2015)

Milkfloat said:


> He is now probably too scared to ride on the pavement or road now he has been 'outed'.


More than likely.


----------



## glenn forger (22 May 2015)

Now they're begging for more "One time a cyclist was annoying" stories:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05vy4kk

*A child is recovering after being hit by a cyclist riding on a pavement, the cyclist rode off. 
Have you ever been put at risk on the road by a cyclist?*


----------



## Tin Pot (22 May 2015)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Blame
> 
> Child - 0%
> Parents - 0%
> ...



There are two approaches to take when something untoward happens;

1. Deal with it, find out how to reduce the chance if it happening again
Or

2. Find someone to blame

I never find the second approach useful. Ever.


----------



## Dommo (22 May 2015)

glenn forger said:


> Now they're begging for more "One time a cyclist was annoying" stories:
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05vy4kk
> 
> ...



I needed some motivation to go about working out what I need to do to stop paying the license fee, since I can do without the 5 mins a week of broadcast TV I watch. I think you just found it for me...


----------



## glenn forger (22 May 2015)

We had all this when that loathsome Andrea Leadsom led a campaign to imprison killer cyclists, current tally a quarter of a ped a year.


----------



## Tin Pot (22 May 2015)

Howabout we have a Sticky "Witchhunt" thread, eh?

If someone is accused of a crime, we can publish their photo and hunt them down using The Power Of The Internet.

Even if they never get charged, or stand trial, at least we will have destroyed their reputations and careers - so some justice is guaranteed. 

Who's with me?


----------



## winjim (22 May 2015)

Tin Pot said:


> Howabout we have a Sticky "Witchhunt" thread, eh?
> 
> If someone is accused of a crime, we can publish their photo and hunt them down using The Power Of The Internet.
> 
> ...


----------



## Michael86 (22 May 2015)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> It could also have been a 12 year old kid riding the bike at that speed down the pavement. Should they be on the road?


No, but it wasn't.


----------



## Michael86 (22 May 2015)

Dommo said:


> Yeah...because some cuts and bruises to a child totally justifies tearing a man "limb from limb" in some medieval vengeance concept....


She could if died.


----------



## Michael86 (22 May 2015)

Mugshot said:


> At the risk of sounding like I'm defending the cyclist, how many times have we read posts on this forum from people that are too scared to ride on the road, alternatively how many times have we read and indeed experienced being told to "Get off the road", by drivers that feel we have no right to be there? Again, the cyclist shouldn't have been there, but we are not all robust enough to ignore the dogs abuse which we can sometimes receive.


If you ride on the pavement, you need to go at a slow speed.


----------



## NormanD (22 May 2015)

I believe you are reacting to what the media want you to react too, maybe some truths are hidden in this, so I'll reserve my judgement on this.


----------



## glenn forger (22 May 2015)

https://www.facebook.com/groups/stopkillingcyclists/permalink/1607098669541039/



> Last July I was attacked by a driver in a road rage assault. I had done absolutely nothing to provoke him, but he was angry at my taking primary position in the road.
> He threatened to kill me, chased me through the streets and deliberately ran me over with his car.
> He was sentenced to two years in prison (served 9 months) and banned from driving for four years.
> At the time of this assault he was already serving a suspended sentence for a similar road rage assault on two pedestrians. I feel let down by the justice system, I fail to see why a driver who deliberately uses his car to attempt to kill someone should ever be allowed to drive again.
> ...


----------



## User6179 (22 May 2015)

Dommo said:


> I needed some motivation to go about working out what I need to do to stop paying the license fee, since I can do without the 5 mins a week of broadcast TV I watch. I think you just found it for me...




I would wait another week before you cancel as they have a doc on how the Jews persecuted the Nazis on next week .


----------



## anothersam (22 May 2015)

Dommo said:


> I needed some motivation to go about working out what I need to do to stop paying the license fee...



Bonus: it helps keep the postman employed.

View attachment 89521


----------



## Tin Pot (22 May 2015)

Why is noone able to see prejudice and stereotype for what it is.


----------



## cd365 (22 May 2015)

Michael86 said:


> If you ride on the pavement, you need to go at a slow speed.


You shouldn't ride on the pavement fullstop.


----------



## Mugshot (22 May 2015)

Michael86 said:


> If you ride on the pavement, you need to go at a slow speed.


I said as much in my two previous posts which you didn't quote.


----------



## midlife (22 May 2015)

On a slightly different tack I wonder what the outcry would have been had the child been hit by a fast moving motability scooter?

Shaun

PS I think the cyclist us at fault here


----------



## Mugshot (22 May 2015)

cd365 said:


> You shouldn't ride on the pavement fullstop.


I can understand why some people would want to ride on the pavement rather than the road, given the choice I'd rather see someone riding carefully on the pavement than have another car on the road.


----------



## MarkF (22 May 2015)

Mugshot said:


> I can understand why some people would want to ride on the pavement rather than the road, given the choice I'd rather see someone riding carefully on the pavement than have another car on the road.



I ride on the pavement occasionally, to avoid seriously busy/scary junctions, but these are wide pavements in commercial areas, I've never and never would cycle on a narrow suburban pavement like in the video. The rider missed the danger signals, unguarded exit, woman by the car, these would have have set alarm bells ringing for me, not that I'd be daft enough to be there anyway. He was a useless and dangerous rider and luckily he learned that with the girl not being badly injured.


----------



## Hip Priest (22 May 2015)

Nobody should be riding that fast on the pavement. I see people do it all the time in front of my own house.


----------



## Michael86 (22 May 2015)

midlife said:


> On a slightly different tack I wonder what the outcry would have been had the child been hit by a fast moving motability scooter?
> 
> Shaun
> 
> ...


----------



## Profpointy (22 May 2015)

[QUOTE 3708416, member: 45"]I don't think so. Next time the mom will be more careful leaving her house with her daughter. And the risk of a repeat is reduced. This would not be possible if the mother wasn't allowed to think about what she could have done to avoid the incident.

That's not victim blaming.[/QUOTE]

well it bloody well sounds like victim blaming. Poor kid shouldn't have been allowed out on the pavement - surely you're not suggesting that are you?


----------



## Drago (22 May 2015)

No one should ride on the foot way. As best it gives car drivers something to complain about when riders do it to dodge lights etc, at worst it can be dangerous.


----------



## Profpointy (22 May 2015)

[QUOTE 3708655, member: 45"]No. I'm suggesting that following something like this it's prudent for the parent to consider what he/she might be able to do to protect the child from future collisions with idiots.

Fear of being accused of victim blaming would prevent the parent being able to say "be careful Titch, there are some nobber cyclists around here".[/QUOTE]


Parent allowed child on pavement, not playing with lions. Being expected to be ultra diligent of yourself or of a child is a bit much I think


----------



## Leodis (22 May 2015)

Its just one crazy witch hunt targeting a minority. Sure the cyclist was wrong but accidents happen, I am sure he didn't mean it but this horrid attitude in society of blame. I sometimes wonder why kids mostly these days grow up without respect and lack any social morality and then I look at the parents. The parents in this case one walked off to unlock the car leaving the kid to wonder, the father was probs locking up and they took their eyes off the ball, the cyclist in hindsight would have used the road, accidents happen just because your a parent doesn't give you any more a higher moral level in life or society and the right to spread this guys picture about.


----------



## Arrowfoot (22 May 2015)

Leodis said:


> Its just one crazy witch hunt targeting a minority. Sure the cyclist was wrong but accidents happen, I am sure he didn't mean it but this horrid attitude in society of blame. I sometimes wonder why kids mostly these days grow up without respect and lack any social morality and then I look at the parents. The parents in this case one walked off to unlock the car leaving the kid to wonder, the father was probs locking up and they took their eyes off the ball, the cyclist in hindsight would have used the road, accidents happen just because your a parent doesn't give you any more a higher moral level in life or society and the right to spread this guys picture about.



Many of us grew up playing on the pavement in front of our homes. Thats the luxury most could afford. It was safe and our parents could hear us. Can't recall any accidents of this nature involving a cyclist. When a child and family can't even feel safe on the payment in front of their home, its a sad, day.


----------



## Drago (22 May 2015)

Accidents happen because f***wits aren't allowed to be drowned at birth.

This was no 'accident'. This incident was the direct result of someone's conscious decision to ignore the law, a law that is intended to protect pedestrians from injury by cyclists. Seeing as this is the result of a deliberately unlawful act, how can it be accidental?


----------



## growingvegetables (22 May 2015)

No attempt here to diminish the cyclist's responsibility.

Bit of background though - at 20, he's from that generation of kids whose (driving) parents bought them bikes. Cycling proficiency more or less moribund in schools (and irrelevant). Before Bikeability was introduced. And he's a testosterone-filled youf who can't afford a Corsa.

Recipe for disaster. The majority of pavement riders around me fall into that age group - and scare the bejasus out of me. Not a bloody clue.


And what's the answer? 

Bikeability 1 & 2 is made available to only two-thirds of primary school children in Leeds - entirely dependent on whether the school considers it appropriate to include it in their budget ... or not, as the case may be. Bikeability 3 - only made available to a tiny number of secondary school children.
And driving parents continue to buy bikes for their kids ... without a thought for teaching their kids about safe riding.
Eeeh - I'm feeling grumpy tonight.


----------



## PK99 (22 May 2015)

[QUOTE 3708773, member: 45"]I'm not too bothered about pavement cyclists. What I'm bothered about is a pavement cyclist who drags a toddler along a pavement and legs it.

Mind, he might have been frightened that dad was going to kill him, and he has handed himself in.[/QUOTE]

From the video, the dad was completely focussed on the child.

The cyclist was a complete farkwit and any one here who acts as apologist for his behaviour is also a complete farkwit.


----------



## Pale Rider (23 May 2015)

I think it's a good thing the cyclist crashed into the child when he did.

Otherwise, the child might have kept going, run into the road and suffered serious injury.


----------



## anothersam (23 May 2015)

A frame-by-frame analysis of the film shows that the "hit and run villain" was actually forced into the path of the child to avoid being run down by another cyclist, moving too fast to be positively identified but thought to be Sir Bradley Wiggins.







Wiggins, known to be practicing for his hour record attempt, has yet to answer police inquiries about his whereabouts at the time of the incident. The cyclist caught in the net of worldwide condemnation was reluctant to implicate him, however:


----------



## Drago (23 May 2015)

Nearly choked on my coffee when I read that. You, Sir, have made my morning!


----------



## mickle (23 May 2015)

Two issues. 1. Cyclist knocks child over on footpath. It's a matter for the police and the CPS to decide whether or or not to persue a prosecution, but clearly the cyclist is in the wrong. 2. The media's hysterical response to the incident and what that says about society's attitudes towards cyclists. A fair and just society would care about all RTAs and give each KSI the same value. But no. Up to 3000 people killed in the UK by accidents involving motor vehicles compared to fewer than one persons killed by cyclists. The Cops turn a blind eye to endemic law breaking by drivers - red light jumping, tailgating, using mobile phoned, close passes etc. But when one little girl is knocked over by a cyclist all hell breaks loose. We're surrounded by idiots and we're fighting a losing battle.


----------



## nickyboy (23 May 2015)

mickle said:


> Two issues. 1. Cyclist knocks child over on footpath. It's a matter for the police and the CPS to decide whether or or not to persue a prosecution, but clearly the cyclist is in the wrong. 2. The media's hysterical response to the incident and what that says about society's attitudes towards cyclists. A fair and just society would care about all RTAs and give each KSI the same value. But no. Up to 3000 people killed in the UK by accidents involving motor vehicles compared to fewer than one persons killed by cyclists. The Cops turn a blind eye to endemic law breaking by drivers - red light jumping, tailgating, using mobile phoned, close passes etc. But when one little girl is knocked over by a cyclist all hell breaks loose. We're surrounded by idiots and we're fighting a losing battle.



I agree that, for whatever reason, society/media focus on incidents involving cyclists when far more involve motor vehicles but get very little attention. That's wrong. However, there seems to be a vocal minority of cyclists, based on the posts on this thread, who act as apologists for poor cycling behaviour. This doesn't help. Any reasonable person would look at the video and come to the conclusion that the cyclist was 100% in the wrong. Trying to argue in mitigation does the cycling community no favours. It marginalises us from mainstream opinion

Oh, and calling it a "battle" doesn't help either. My personal experience in cycling on roads is almost totally positive. Maybe I've been lucky or maybe it's because I don't go out to cycle in a confrontational, asserting-my-rights way?


----------



## Arrowfoot (23 May 2015)

mickle said:


> Two issues. 1. Cyclist knocks child over on footpath. It's a matter for the police and the CPS to decide whether or or not to persue a prosecution, but clearly the cyclist is in the wrong. 2. The media's hysterical response to the incident and what that says about society's attitudes towards cyclists. A fair and just society would care about all RTAs and give each KSI the same value. But no. Up to 3000 people killed in the UK by accidents involving motor vehicles compared to fewer than one persons killed by cyclists. The Cops turn a blind eye to endemic law breaking by drivers - red light jumping, tailgating, using mobile phoned, close passes etc. But when one little girl is knocked over by a cyclist all hell breaks loose. We're surrounded by idiots and we're fighting a losing battle.



The comments are related to this incident. Not a single soul who found the cyclist conduct wanting suggested that we should ignore all other erroneous things and just focus on this cyclist. I am sure we all want the right actions taken against all parties who have erred. And not just this cyclist.

So lets not bring in the red light jumping, UK accidental deaths, the conditon of the cricket pitch at Lords or the name of my mum's boyfriend. All these are irrelevant.


----------



## mickle (23 May 2015)

Arrowfoot said:


> The comments are related to this incident. Not a single soul who found the cyclist conduct wanting suggested that we should ignore all other erroneous things and just focus on this cyclist. I am sure we all want the right actions taken against all parties who have erred. And just this cyclist.
> 
> So lets not bring in the red light jumping, UK accidental deaths, the conditon of the cricket pitch at Lords or the name of my mum's boyfriend. All these ar irrelevant.



One little white girl ridden into by a cyclist and all hell breaks loose. Meanwhile carnage and endemic lawbreaking on the roads perpetrated by drivers on a daily basis goes unnoticed. If you think that's irrelevant you're a nidiot.


----------



## cd365 (23 May 2015)

mickle said:


> One little white girl ridden into by a cyclist and all hell breaks loose. Meanwhile carnage and endemic lawbreaking on the roads perpetrated by drivers on a daily basis goes unnoticed. If you think that's irrelevant you're a nidiot.


What has colour got to do with this now?


----------



## mickle (23 May 2015)

cd365 said:


> What has colour got to do with this now?


Exactly.


----------



## Milkfloat (23 May 2015)

mickle said:


> One little white girl ridden into by a cyclist and all hell breaks loose. Meanwhile carnage and endemic lawbreaking on the roads perpetrated by drivers on a daily basis goes unnoticed. If you think that's irrelevant you're a nidiot.



I don't think it is anti cycling, it just happens that there was very good cctv of the incident, the victim was a small child and the perp did a runner.


----------



## User16625 (23 May 2015)

Michael86 said:


> Yes, who ever he is, he needs to be found. And put in jail, if he did that to my daughter he would be 6 foot under.



Yeah I thought it was a bit odd for the father not to crush that ****ers skull in.


----------



## snorri (23 May 2015)

nickyboy said:


> Any reasonable person would look at the video and come to the conclusion that the cyclist was 100% in the wrong.


I think any reasonable person seeing the video would not jump to conclusions, but would seek out more information before apportioning blame.


----------



## User16625 (23 May 2015)

snorri said:


> I think any reasonable person seeing the video would not jump to conclusions, but would seek out more information before apportioning blame.



What would this "more information" be? The vid shows exactly what happened.


----------



## Arrowfoot (23 May 2015)

snorri said:


> I think any reasonable person seeing the video would not jump to conclusions, but would seek out more information before apportioning blame.


What are the possibilities that the cyclist was not wrong. Maybe here are some possibilities;

The girl saw the cyclist and deliberately ran into his path
The 3 year old girl tried to top herself
The 3 year old girl was negligent as she did not look right or left before crossing
The pavement is actually a road or a dedicated cycleway or a shared path
The Cyclist was belling his way clearly to alert people ahead
The mother purposely set up the girl to walk into the cyclist knowing that he does this daily.

I am sure people here would like to consider possibilities you have in your mind. I seriously cannot think of anything else.

Again the question of reasonableness beckons. I reckon the reasonable Police are going to charge him and the reasonable court is going to convict. Do you think that it all this will be reasonable.


----------



## snorri (23 May 2015)

RideLikeTheStig said:


> What would this "more information" be? The vid shows exactly what happened.


I just hope you and/or Arrowfoot are never responsible for investigating any accident or incident I may have the misfortune to be involved in.


----------



## Arrowfoot (23 May 2015)

snorri said:


> I just hope you and/or Arrowfoot are never responsible for investigating any accident or incident I may have the misfortune to be involved in.



Evasive or just do not know how to draw a reasonable conclusion


----------



## Adam4868 (23 May 2015)

I think the word' accident' is what's important here.He did wrong but I'd be a hippocrit to say I've never road on a pavement,or that I don't let my kids do it now.He was wrong and probally shat himself and fled. I certainly don't want his skull crushed or the death penalty !


----------



## Drago (23 May 2015)

It's not an accident. The riders presence was deliberate.


----------



## subaqua (23 May 2015)

Adam4868 said:


> I think the word' accident' is what's important here.He did wrong but I'd be a hippocrit to say I've never road on a pavement,or that I don't let my kids do it now.He was wrong and probally shat himself and fled. I certainly don't want his skull crushed or the death penalty !




Ooh you can't say accident as that implies nobody is at fault. Oh hang on its a cyclist so clearly not at fault, despite riding on pavement at a speed rather quick for a pavement . Least he handed himself in .


----------



## Drago (23 May 2015)

He's so at fault he should change his name to "Guilty Cyclist" by deed poll.


----------



## NormanD (23 May 2015)

May I point out a few things here 
A. we only have the mothers version of the "cyclist did a runner" and not the cyclist, are there always two sides to a story? we haven't got his version of the event, and if he did a runner how was she able to take the picture of him>?
B. We have the mother saying he swore at them before cycling off (True or untrue, only her version was reported)
C. watch the mothers reaction as the event happens, it's not one of rushing to her child, but directly at the cyclist.
D. watch the video to the 7 second mark, tell me what was the mothers intentions with her right arm and the item she was holding?
E. Did she indeed strike out at the cyclist knocking him off his bike (as stated he did by her) maybe that's why he swore and that's why the husband didn't intervene?
F. did the parents give the cyclist enough time to apologies (maybe he did and maybe he didn't) as they seemed to jump into the car pretty quick

Yes I understand and agree the cyclist was a complete nobber for riding on the pavement / disregard for pedestrians, I'm not disputing that, but this is such a one sided story of all cyclists are painted with the same brush.


----------



## classic33 (23 May 2015)

anothersam said:


> Bonus: it helps keep the postman employed.
> 
> View attachment 89521


I'd remove the QR Code as well as your address!


----------



## anothersam (24 May 2015)

Cheers. I don't know what that is, but I'll do it.


Oh, I'll just delete the whole thing. Description: letter fringed in dire red warning about the criminal offence of owning a TV but never turning it on, from Mr John Hales of TV licensing, esquire.


----------



## classic33 (24 May 2015)

anothersam said:


> Cheers. I don't know what that is, but I'll do it.
> 
> 
> Oh, I'll just delete the whole thing. Description: letter fringed in dire red with many warnings from Mr John Hales from TV licensing.


Square "pattern" alongside the address.


----------



## anothersam (24 May 2015)

Oh, _that_.






The letter I got was almost surely one in this comprehensive collection.

. . .

This post was later hijacked to add the following:
I was pitched into a bit of hot water myself when I published some satire elsewhere which this thread incited me to produce.... I blame Glenn, of course (who may want to start distancing himself from me about now, if he hasn't already).

Rumours that we were spotted in the vicinity of the incident are almost entirely without foundation.


----------



## buggi (24 May 2015)

Not saying cyclist was right, obviously shouldn't be on the pavement, but he doesn't exactly look like a yob on a bike. So if the parents are so adamant there was an altercation, why is there no footage of what happened after? It might be he actually came back to see if she was ok (lets not forget he fell off so it would have took some time to get up and he might of been swearing but out of shock) They might just be so angry that their child got injured that they have exaggerated. You don't even see them arguing and if he just rode off, how did they get the photo (they certainly didn't take it on the cctv). Perhaps he did stop, they decided their child was ok, he rode off but didn't give his details and now they want to sue. 

shoot like this happens all the time... That's why insurance companies don't believe there majority of people have whiplash.


----------



## Drago (24 May 2015)

NormanD said:


> May I point out a few things here
> A. we only have the mothers version of the "cyclist did a runner" and not the cyclist, are there always two sides to a story? we haven't got his version of the event, and if he did a runner how was she able to take the picture of him>?
> B. We have the mother saying he swore at them before cycling off (True or untrue, only her version was reported)
> C. watch the mothers reaction as the event happens, it's not one of rushing to her child, but directly at the cyclist.
> ...



All of which took place AFTER the cyclist had ridden up the foot way like a pecker and run into a kiddie, and in no way diminishes, excuses or negates the selfishness and stupidity of doing so.


----------



## cd365 (24 May 2015)

I can;t see the issue here. It is illegal to ride on the pavement. Whilst doing this illegal act he ran a young girl over. How can anyone try and blame anyone else other than the cyclist.


----------



## Arrowfoot (24 May 2015)

NormanD said:


> May I point out a few things here
> A. we only have the mothers version of the "cyclist did a runner" and not the cyclist, are there always two sides to a story? we haven't got his version of the event, and if he did a runner how was she able to take the picture of him>?
> B. We have the mother saying he swore at them before cycling off (True or untrue, only her version was reported)
> C. watch the mothers reaction as the event happens, it's not one of rushing to her child, but directly at the cyclist.
> ...



I think you are completely right. The mother threatened him with the item that she was holding and he probably thought he was going to murdered. Furthermore there was no necessity to take a bleeding child to the hospital with just haste. They should have done the decent thing and allowed the cyclist to compose himself and be given the opportunity to apologise. Maybe if the couple did not have the child, this cyclist would not have been put in such situation in the first place.


----------



## ufkacbln (24 May 2015)

As I posted before , (and I realise it is making an assumption without full knowledge), I still have a feeling that there is some sort of learning difficulty with this cyclist.
Whilst this does not "excuse" his behaviour, it must at least be mitigation


----------



## Drago (24 May 2015)

He learns well enough to ride a bike...


----------



## winjim (24 May 2015)

Drago said:


> He learns well enough to ride a bike...


Err... he obviously doesn't.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (24 May 2015)

Cunobelin said:


> As I posted before , (and I realise it is making an assumption without full knowledge), I still have a feeling that there is some sort of learning difficulty with this cyclist.



Based on what?


GC


----------



## NormanD (25 May 2015)

A now the other SIDE


----------



## Drago (25 May 2015)

Disinterested. He hit the girl on the bike as a consequence of being a tool and riding on the foot way. What happened seconds after that is an irrelevance and does nothnig to alter or lessen his guilt. If he doesn't like the consequences then he should cease to ride like a nodder.

"I didn't know it was illegal." A, I don't believe someone bright enough to earn a degree could not know that, and B, it's no defence.


----------



## Lemond (25 May 2015)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Based on what?
> 
> 
> GC


Bugger all, by the looks of it.


----------



## anothersam (25 May 2015)

NormanD said:


> A now the other SIDE



Needs a cycling course, community service running errands for injured toddlers, and perhaps relocation and a new identity should this somewhat less thuggish profile of him not calm passions to a dull furore.


----------



## Drago (25 May 2015)

Nuke him!


----------



## anothersam (25 May 2015)

...it's the only way to be sure. I suggested burning him, but everybody deserves a second chance.


----------



## PK99 (25 May 2015)

NormanD said:


> A now the other SIDE



But that is from the Daily Hate ade therefore clearly fiction and of no imterest to anyone here......


----------



## Accy cyclist (25 May 2015)

"He said he had been cycling on the pavement because the roads were busy with school traffic, adding: ‘I didn’t know it was illegal. I usually use cycle paths or the roads."


This is a reasonable excuse for pavement cycling. If the lazy @#!s actually walked the few hundred yards to pick up their children instead of driving there the roads would be less congested and safer for law abiding cyclists! The roads surrounding the junior school near me are chock a block at 3 o clock! You can see them all trying to get as close to the gates as possible so that precious has to walk the least distance possible. No way would i cycle past,as they pull in and pull out without giving a toss for anyone not driving a car!
As for the dad in the video he doesn't look the type to accept a reasonable apology,more like the hit them first then ask questions later type. Maybe the cyclist saw him jump the wall and thought let's get out of here then do my explaining to the police and not the violent chav.


----------



## Drago (25 May 2015)

Maybe he should have thought about violent chav Dads genetically programmed to punch his lights out before knocking down the chavs offspring while commiting an unlawful act.


----------



## numbnuts (25 May 2015)

If the said cyclist had stopped and the father gave him a good hiding this would have pleased the Daily hate Mail readers and it would have sent out the wrong message that you can hit a cyclist when you feel like it.


----------



## ufkacbln (25 May 2015)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Based on what?
> 
> 
> GC




Just the way he responded, his bearing and bewildered look

As I clearly stated it is not based on evidence


----------



## ufkacbln (25 May 2015)

anothersam said:


> ...it's the only way to be sure. I suggested burning him, but everybody deserves a second chance.




So lightly cooked as opposed to burned then?


----------



## Accy cyclist (25 May 2015)

Drago said:


> Maybe he should have thought about violent chav Dads genetically programmed to punch his lights out before knocking down the chavs offspring while commiting an unlawful act.




The unlawful act wasn't committed maliciously or on purpose, These things happen.


----------



## Accy cyclist (25 May 2015)

numbnuts said:


> If the said cyclist had stopped and the father gave him a good hiding this would have pleased the Daily hate Mail readers and it would have sent out the wrong message that you can hit a cyclist when you feel like it.




I think the DM has stirred it up enough as it is! Some will have read the story and thought this gives them the green light to seek revenge for the injured child. As we know there are many out there who think knocking a cyclist off his or her bike will only cause a few bruises and after all they've been asking for it! They being all cyclists and not just the odd one!


----------



## Flying_Monkey (25 May 2015)

I'm really surprised that there is anyone trying to minimise this guy's guilt here, let alone the attempts to blame the victim and her family. And comparisons to what car drivers do or don't do to cyclists are irrelevent whataboutery. He hit a child. On the pavement. She could have died. There is no excuse. These things happen? Really? Well, they don't happen if someone doesn't commit the offense. So no, they don't just 'happen'. It wasn't an act of God. And if he hasn't got any specific mental disorder (and we don't know that) then he's certainly about as self-centred as you can imagine with his 'pity me' complaints about the aftermath - although there is also no excuse for anyone trying to enact 'revenge'. But he's the kind of person who gives the rest of us cyclists a bad name. If he is unable to remember the basic rules of the road and doesn't have any common sense then perhaps he might consider public transport instead.


----------



## PK99 (25 May 2015)

Accy cyclist said:


> "He said he had been cycling on the pavement because the roads were busy with school traffic, adding: ‘I didn’t know it was illegal. I usually use cycle paths or the roads."
> 
> 
> This is a reasonable excuse for pavement cycling.



1. No it isn't

2. even if it were there is no excuse EVER for cycling at that speed on the pavement in a residential area. Walking speed maybe, but no more


----------



## PK99 (25 May 2015)

numbnuts said:


> If the said cyclist had stopped and the father gave him a good hiding this would have pleased the Daily hate Mail readers and it would have sent out the wrong message that you can hit a cyclist when you feel like it.



Why indulge in complete invention?


----------



## PK99 (25 May 2015)

Accy cyclist said:


> The unlawful act wasn't committed maliciously or on purpose, These things happen.



the unlawful act of riding on the pavement was an accident?

Are you a complete farkwit or just putting on an act?


----------



## Drago (25 May 2015)

I suspect the former...


----------



## Drago (25 May 2015)

Accy cyclist said:


> The unlawful act wasn't committed maliciously or on purpose, These things happen.



He accidentally rode on the path? Utter tosh. These things only happen when f***wits are on the loose. Conscientious riders that obey the law and ride within their limits don't seem to have a problem with mowing down kiddies on the foot way.

He deliberately rode on the path, and an innocent kiddie got hurt because he behaved like a chump. S**t doesn't just happen - chumps go out of their way to make it happen.


----------



## Profpointy (25 May 2015)

PK99 said:


> Why indulge in complete invention?



well many of us here have had cars driven at us, and someone of this parish was bashed off her bike and assaulted. Another person (on here or the other place) described a fellow churchgoer boasting to parishioners that he deliberately drove v close to bikes to drive them / frighten them off the road - so no, villification and targeting of cyclists in general isn't fanciful given it's Daily Mail readers were talking about.

For the avoidance of doubt this doesn't excuse stupid pavement riding that caused the accident.


----------



## subaqua (25 May 2015)

Drago said:


> He accidentally rode on the path? Utter tosh. These things only happen when f***wits are on the loose. Conscientious riders that obey the law and ride within their limits don't seem to have a problem with mowing down kiddies on the foot way.
> 
> He deliberately rode on the path, and an innocent kiddie got hurt because he behaved like a chump. S**t doesn't just happen - chumps go out of their way to make it happen.


surely he incidently rode on the pavement as accidents dont happen anymore


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (25 May 2015)

https://goo.gl/maps/c3OCz
That is exactly where it happened

Measuring from google maps, the distance shown on CCTV is 6m.

He crosses that in 1.2 seconds (by stop watch)

5m/s or just over 11mph!

Regardless of your opinion of pavement cycling, 11mph on a footpath is far, far too quick.


----------



## NormanD (25 May 2015)

Hands up all them cyclists that have never ever cycled on a footpath!!!


----------



## Accy cyclist (25 May 2015)

PK99 said:


> the unlawful act of riding on the pavement was an accident?
> 
> Are you a complete farkwit or just putting on an act?




i meant he didn't knock the child down out of malice. Even though he wasn't legally allowed on the pavement i don't think he cycled on the pavement looking to knock someone down. Ok he was going too fast but he panicked when he saw meat head jump the wall,a natural reaction i'd say.


----------



## HOU5EY (25 May 2015)

Looks like he was going way too fast and he didn't stop. I hope he learns from his mistakes and I hope the little girl is ok. Very unfortunate accident.


----------



## PK99 (25 May 2015)

Accy cyclist said:


> i meant he didn't knock the child down out of malice. Even though he wasn't legally allowed on the pavement i don't think he cycled on the pavement looking to knock someone down. Ok he was going too fast but he panicked when he saw meat head jump the wall,a natural reaction i'd say.



would you make the same sort of dissembling excuses for a motorist going too fast for the road conditions who injured a cyclist?

If not why not?


----------



## cd365 (25 May 2015)

NormanD said:


> Hands up all them cyclists that have never ever cycled on a footpath!!!


I haven't as an adult, I don't remember doing it as a child but I couldn't be 100% certain


----------



## Accy cyclist (25 May 2015)

PK99 said:


> would you make the same sort of dissembling excuses for a motorist going too fast for the road conditions who injured a cyclist?
> 
> If not why not?





PK99 said:


> would you make the same sort of dissembling excuses for a motorist going too fast for the road conditions who injured a cyclist?
> 
> If not why not?



A cyclist hitting a pedestrian doesn't usually have the same devastating affect as a car hitting a cyclist.


----------



## screenman (25 May 2015)

http://www.horncastlenews.co.uk/new...in-collision-with-cyclist-in-wragby-1-6758692


Amazing that is the first time I have done that with the Kindle and I have owned it for few years.


----------



## Hip Priest (25 May 2015)

I viewed the vid, and it's pretty bad. He's travelling at a fair old pace. I'm not a hang 'em and flog 'em type, but I'm certainly not going to defend him.


----------



## Hip Priest (25 May 2015)

Accy cyclist said:


> i meant he didn't knock the child down out of malice. Even though he wasn't legally allowed on the pavement i don't think he cycled on the pavement looking to knock someone down. Ok he was going too fast but he panicked when he saw meat head jump the wall,a natural reaction i'd say.



Why are you calling the father a 'meat head'? All he did was rush to his child's aid. The child (and by extension her parents) are the victim in this incident.


----------



## PK99 (25 May 2015)

Accy cyclist said:


> A cyclist hitting a pedestrian doesn't usually have the same devastating affect as a car hitting a cyclist.



you continue to dissemble - the child in the video could easily have been killed.

If a motorist, going too fast for the road conditions, collided with and injured a cyclist to the same degree as the child in the video would you still make the same dissembling excuses on his behalf.

if not why not?


----------



## PK99 (25 May 2015)

Hip Priest said:


> *Why are you calling the father a 'meat head'?* All he did was rush to his child's aid. The child (and by extension her parents) are the victim in this incident.



because a cyclist was involved, by definition anyone else involved is a lower form of life


----------



## PK99 (25 May 2015)

screenman said:


> http://www.horncastlenews.co.uk/new...in-collision-with-cyclist-in-wragby-1-6758692
> 
> 
> Amazing that is the first time I have done that with the Kindle and I have owned it for few years.



most won't follow the link, let's make the point explicit

*A cyclist collided with three pedestrians and seriously injured an elderly woman in Wragby on Wednesday, May 20.*

A cyclist riding on the footpath collided with three pedestrians, knocking over a 75-year-old woman, who suffered a broken collarbone.

The incident happened around 9.30pm in the alleyway near the GP surgery, leading to Hansards Drive.

The casualty was assisted by a young male passerby who helped her home safely.


PC Barnsley is keen to trace the cyclist, any witnesses to the incident, and also the passerby who helped.

PC Barnsley can be contacted at Horncastle Police Station via the 101 number, or he can be emailed at jonathan.barnsley@lincs.pnn.police.uk


----------



## screenman (25 May 2015)

I think it would be nice if we could separate cyclists from thugs on bikes.


----------



## Accy cyclist (25 May 2015)

PK99 said:


> you continue to dissemble - the child in the video could easily have been killed.
> 
> If a motorist, going too fast for the road conditions, collided with and injured a cyclist to the same degree as the child in the video would you still make the same dissembling excuses on his behalf.
> 
> if not why not?





PK99 said:


> most won't follow the link, let's make the point explicit
> 
> *A cyclist collided with three pedestrians and seriously injured an elderly woman in Wragby on Wednesday, May 20.*
> 
> ...





PK99 said:


> because a cyclist was involved, by definition anyone else involved is a lower form of life




Why don't you calm down a bit. You're here there and everywhere quoting posts!


----------



## CopperCyclist (25 May 2015)

Hip Priest said:


> Why are you calling the father a 'meat head'? All he did was rush to his child's aid. The child (and by extension her parents) are the victim in this incident.



This, this, this.

I'm not normally one to jump on the "don't stereotype" bandwagon, but all the evidence here suggests that is entirely inappropriate to label the dad like this. On CCTV provided he does nothing but run to his daughters aid. In his account he doesn't challenge the cyclist, hell even in the cyclists account he makes no mention of him being threatening - the closest you get is he said the family "hurled abuse".

But because he's tattooed and wearing a vest, people are calling him a meathead and a chav...

I think from what I've seen he handled it a lot better than many people would.

The cyclist himself... You're an idiot. You're an idiot for the way you rode, and you're twice the idiot for not identifying that the reason there is a perceived "hate campaign" is purely down to the Daily Mail, to whom you've gone running to with "your side"!


----------



## Dan B (25 May 2015)

screenman said:


> I think it would be nice if we could separate cyclists from thugs on bikes.


Some cyclists are thugs on bikes.


----------



## PK99 (25 May 2015)

Accy cyclist said:


> Why don't you calm down a bit. You're here there and everywhere quoting posts!



and you are dissembling and deliberately evading the point.

why to some cyclist have a tribal approach "Two wheels good. Four wheels bad"?


----------



## Bianchi boy (25 May 2015)

Micshared86 said:


> Yes, who ever he is, he needs to be found. And put in jail, if he did that to my daughter he would be 6 foot under.


Was this a shared cycle route? One of the photographs appeares to show a signpost depicting a bicycle indicating it would be.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (25 May 2015)

Accy cyclist said:


> A cyclist hitting a pedestrian doesn't usually have the same devastating affect as a car hitting a cyclist.



Are you suggesting I can ride like an a**ehole on my bike because I'm less likely to hurt someone?

Am I ok to throw eggs into peoples faces because they're less likely to cause harm than if I threw rocks at them?


----------



## vickster (25 May 2015)

Accy cyclist said:


> A cyclist hitting a pedestrian doesn't usually have the same devastating affect as a car hitting a cyclist.


Doesn't make it acceptable, even if that is so. A bike travelling at 11mph with a full grown man on board could certainly kill a small child. That's why cyclists aren't allowed on the pavement. 

So the roads were busy with traffic, tough, as cyclist ultimately you're traffic too. If you want to avoid the traffic, get off the bike and walk it along the pavement. Yes, in an ideal world, the roads would be clear, and cyclists wouldn't be impeded by vehicles. We don't live in an ideal world unfortunately


----------



## Dan B (26 May 2015)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> https://goo.gl/maps/c3OCz
> That is exactly where it happened
> 
> Measuring from google maps, the distance shown on CCTV is 6m.
> ...


Also a whole lot faster than the child is moving. Notwithstanding all the assertions upthread that "toddlers dart out", she seems to be moving at little more than walking pace. If the cyclist didn't see her it was more likely due to her (lack of) height than her speed.

(For the avoidance of doubt, no, I am not suggesting it's the child's fault for not being taller)


----------



## Thomk (26 May 2015)

Yes. We all have a choice whether to cycle on the pavement and I would guess that a large proportion of us have done it, at least occasionally. Many have used mobile phones whilst driving, failed to ensure that children in their car have seatbelts on...the list is endless. These are all choices and no-one makes them with the intention of causing any harm.

But. With choice comes responsibility whether harm was intended or not.

In this case the cyclist made a bad choice cycling on the pavement, a bad choice with the way he cycled on the pavement and a bad (even worse) choice when he cycled away after the accident. Excuses from him or others seems to me to be in bad taste and misguided.


----------



## glenn forger (26 May 2015)

Thomk said:


> and a bad (even worse) choice when he cycled away after the accident.



He hung around at the scene then his father picked him up in a car.


----------



## Thomk (26 May 2015)

glenn forger said:


> He hung around at the scene then his father picked him up in a car.


Apologies.


----------



## Dogtrousers (26 May 2015)

I won't be listening, because phone-ins are for tiresome morons. But if any of you can stand it ...

You and Yours, Radio 4, in a short while

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05vy4kk


_Call You and Yours: Have you ever been put at risk on the road by a cyclist?
A child is recovering after being hit by a cyclist riding on a pavement.
Have you ever been put at risk on the road by a cyclist?

Meanwhile Chris Boardman has called for stricter liability for motorists in accidents involving vulnerable road users, to protect pedestrians and cyclists.

Cyclist casualties have risen in recent years as the amount of cycling has increased, latest figures show that over 19,000 cyclists were killed or injured in reported road accidents in 2013.

What's your experience on the pavement or road? Are you a cyclist who has been in an accident? Or are you a pedestrian or motorist who's been in an accident caused by a cyclist?

Email us with your stories youandyours@bbc.co.uk and join Winifred Robinson at 1215.

Producer: Maire Devine
Editor: Chas Watkin._


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (26 May 2015)

Dogtrousers said:


> I won't be listening, because phone-ins are for tiresome morons. But if any of you can stand it ...
> 
> You and Yours, Radio 4, in a short while
> 
> ...


I just came onto this thread to mention the broadcast. CB is doing his usual excellent job.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05vy4kk


----------



## cd365 (26 May 2015)

Bianchi boy said:


> *Was this a shared cycle route?* One of the photographs appeares to show a signpost depicting a bicycle indicating it would be.


No, the cycle route started at the sign


----------



## glenn forger (26 May 2015)




----------



## subaqua (26 May 2015)

NormanD said:


> Hands up all them cyclists that have never ever cycled on a footpath!!!


how far back you want to go. I probably did as a kid. I regularly CROSS on to access property . Last time I did ride on a footpath with a no cycling sign it was under the encouragement of the Area coordinator of LCC for the POP in 2012 . which speaks volumes.


----------



## marshmella (26 May 2015)

Letters page in todays Metro is full of anti cyclist comments .


----------



## glenn forger (26 May 2015)

Didn't hear You and Yours but apparently it was just people phoning in with implausible anecdotes about something that happened one time. Unedifying.


----------



## jonny jeez (26 May 2015)

glenn forger said:


> I look forward to the Mail covering the news that drivers commit ten hit and runs every day in London alone with the same journalistic impartiality.


I reckon if one of them did it by driving at speed on the pavement, past kids front gates...they would.


----------



## glenn forger (26 May 2015)

A cabbie phoned in and said he was overtaking on a bend and met a cyclist coming the other way. That was it. That was his story.


----------



## glenn forger (26 May 2015)

Jogger struck by cyclist dies:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-32883520#?utm_medium=twitter

There's going to be a shitstorm of rabble rousing.


----------



## jonny jeez (26 May 2015)

glenn forger said:


> See the sign in the background? Personally, I wouldn't let a child that young run around unattended near the entrance to a cycle lane.


That's a very good point.

Well spotted.

I retract my previous comment. Although I shall have to leave it there or this post will make no sense.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (26 May 2015)

glenn forger said:


>



98 people hit by cycles is 98 too many, just as 2642 people hit by cars is 2642 too many. 

Whats the modal share of the traffic types for the same timespan? 2% looks about average to me for bike share (happy to see numbers telling me I'm mistaken tho) & not sure how much you can legitimately read into half a statistic.


----------



## glenn forger (26 May 2015)

shouldbeinbed said:


> 98 people hit by cycles is 98 too many, just as 2642 people hit by cars is 2642 too many.
> 
> Whats the modal share of the traffic types for the same timespan? 2% looks about average to me for bike share (happy to see numbers telling me I'm mistaken tho) & not sure how much you can legitimately read into half a statistic.



That's right nationally. So 1.8% of pedestrians injured and hurt by cyclists, who are 2% of traffic, so cyclists are less likely to injure peds than drivers even after you allow for the respective disparate numbers.


----------



## glenn forger (26 May 2015)

It's also a truism that more cyclists means safer conditions for peds, so encouraging cycling makes it safer to walk. You can't say that about any other road user. But of course all this will be ignored while Radio 4 engage in tabloid garbage and mad people phone in with their tedious "One time a cyclist got his bum out" anecdotes.


----------



## PK99 (26 May 2015)

glenn forger said:


>


I suspect that the motorvehicle events were in the vast majorith of Cases unintentional entryonto the fotaay by the vehicle. in the case in discussion, the cyclist was deliberatelty and with forethoughe cycling on the pavement Nd was not showing due regard to the safety of legitimate users of the fotway.


----------



## glenn forger (26 May 2015)




----------



## PK99 (26 May 2015)

glenn forger said:


> That's right nationally. So 1.8% of pedestrians injured and hurt by cyclists, who are 2% of traffic, so cyclists are less likely to injure peds than drivers even after you allow for the respective disparate numbers.



All motor vebicle vs pedestrian collisions will be recorded. My guess would be that most cyclist pedestrian collisions would not be, and would expect gross underrecording of minor injuries.


----------



## glenn forger (26 May 2015)

[QUOTE 3713622, member: 45"]You think I was driven into on a pavement by a driver reversing onto a drive to turn around. He hadn't bothered looking because he was in "look only for other cars" mode and assumed that any pedestrians would jump out of the way of the all-powerful motor car.[/QUOTE]

Speeding driver chatting on a mobile, kills two children on the pavement, 18 month ban and £3000 fine. She chose to speed. She chose to have a chat on her mobile.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...T-GUILTY-causing-death-dangerous-driving.html


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (26 May 2015)

glenn forger said:


> She chose to have a chat on her mobile.



EU should do something useful and build signal blockers into all motor vehicles. So that there's no phone signal inside the vehicle at all. I bet that would save a lot


----------



## glenn forger (26 May 2015)

Extremely unlikely, passengers shouldn't be barred from using phones. The point is that a culpable driver who killed two children didn't spend a day in prison, so jailing this rider would make no sense.


----------



## jonny jeez (26 May 2015)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> EU should do something useful and build signal blockers into all motor vehicles. So that there's no phone signal inside the vehicle at all. I bet that would save a lot


Whilst loosing the country billions in revenue from business reliant upon communication.

More thought, less reaction


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (26 May 2015)

jonny jeez said:


> Whilst loosing the country billions in revenue from business reliant upon communication.
> 
> More thought, less reaction



Use radio antenna on the outside of the vehicle to pick up phone signal, bluetooth connection inside the car.

Should allow for hands free usage, while stopping people texting and facebooking while driving.

Problem solved.


----------



## glenn forger (26 May 2015)

Just make the penalty the same as for drink-driving:


----------



## shouldbeinbed (26 May 2015)

glenn forger said:


> That's right nationally. So 1.8% of pedestrians injured and hurt by cyclists, who are 2% of traffic, so cyclists are less likely to injure peds than drivers even after you allow for the respective disparate numbers.


Nationally yes, but London specifically to keep the situations in context? and in the same time period?


----------



## glenn forger (26 May 2015)

In London (1998-2007), just 2% of pedestrian collision injuries on the pavement involved cycles; the other 98% involved motor vehicles.8

http://www.ctc.org.uk/sites/default/files/file_public/pedestrians4rrv2.pdf


----------



## shouldbeinbed (26 May 2015)

glenn forger said:


> In London (1998-2007), just 2% of pedestrian collision injuries on the pavement involved cycles; the other 98% involved motor vehicles.8
> 
> http://www.ctc.org.uk/sites/default/files/file_public/pedestrians4rrv2.pdf


Yes we have got that but it is a bit meaningless without the context of ratio of cycles to motor vehicles in the same city in the same time span.


----------



## glenn forger (26 May 2015)

shouldbeinbed said:


> Yes we have got that but it is a bit meaningless without the context of ratio of cycles to motor vehicles in the same city in the same time span.



Cyclists are 2% of traffic nationally, much higher in London, yet cyclists are LESS likely to injure a ped nationally or in London.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (26 May 2015)

glenn forger said:


> Cyclists are 2% of traffic nationally, much higher in London, yet cyclists are LESS likely to injure a ped nationally or in London.


Again with the repeats. Context please & similar link as you're providing for collisions, what proportion of traffic were cyclists in that now quite distant time span in London?

I'm ready to accept the argument, I'd just like to see the numbers


----------



## glenn forger (26 May 2015)

It's a lot more than 2%, that's the point. In other words in the capital possibly ten per cent of traffic is cyclists, yet they cause 2% of peds' injuries, nationally the same rule applies. In the last ten years, just over 7,600 pedestrian were killed by motor vehicles while 29 were killed by cyclists. Over the same period, 364,000 pedestrians were injured by motor vehicles, almost 76,000 (or 21%) of them seriously while cyclists injured just over 2,600 with roughly the same proportion (22%) being considered serious. You are 263 times more likely to be killed by a motor vehicle than by a bicycle.


----------



## MontyVeda (26 May 2015)

NormanD said:


> Hands up all them cyclists that have never ever cycled on a footpath!!!








i also tell the odd porky though.


----------



## glenn forger (26 May 2015)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-bans-saw-7-cent-drop-deadly-car-crashes.html


----------



## ufkacbln (26 May 2015)

glenn forger said:


> Cyclists are 2% of traffic nationally, much higher in London, yet cyclists are LESS likely to injure a ped nationally or in London.




It's all about risk.... Innit?

I remember one article that compares accidents per mile travelled and proved that per mile cyclist are by far the greater danger


----------



## glenn forger (26 May 2015)

That was The Times, and their figures were nonsense, they included motorway miles. No peds on motorways.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (26 May 2015)

glenn forger said:


> You are 263 times more likely to be killed by a motor vehicle than by a bicycle.



Road CC puts the figure a bit lower than 263x however. Last paragraph of linked article. Coincidentally the story popped up on my facebook feed. 

http://road.cc/content/news/152677-livingston-jogger-dies-after-being-hit-cyclist


----------



## jonny jeez (26 May 2015)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> Use radio antenna on the outside of the vehicle to pick up phone signal, bluetooth connection inside the car.
> 
> Should allow for hands free usage, while stopping people texting and facebooking while driving.
> 
> Problem solved.


Eh..so remove the danger by removing phone signal, then solve the problem that this creates by, we...providing phone signal.

Or am I missing the irony?


----------



## glenn forger (26 May 2015)

But 65% of traffic volume was on motorways. You can't compare the two if 2/3 of the distance traveled by one group is on a motorway where pedestrian collisions are impossible.

There were 79 pedestrians killed or seriously injured (KSI) by bikes in urban areas in 2012, so that’s one KSI per 75 million miles walked.

By contrast, there were 4,679 pedestrian KSIs involving motor vehicles - one KSI per 1.25 million miles walked.

That means for every mile you walk, you are 60 times more likely to be killed or seriously injured by a driver than a cyclist.

http://road.cc/content/news/109269-are-drivers-and-cyclists-just-dangerous-pedestrians


----------



## HOU5EY (26 May 2015)

Seems to me like a lot of cyclists on here consider themselves to be responsible riders and that's great, keep it up and keep being cautious, even when you are flat out down hill to get up the next one. Point is this guy wasn't thinking about what he was doing. I have a young kid and they don't see the dangers. This was an accident and extemely unfortunate. It wasn't the first and it wont be the last but it seems a lot of people that saw this will think about riding more carefully


----------



## Dan B (26 May 2015)

I have two young kids - actually one of them isn't walking yet, so that's not really relevant, but anyway. The point is they shouldn't _have_ to think of the dangers when they're on the pavement because there shouldn't _be_ any dangers on the pavement.


----------



## Arrowfoot (26 May 2015)

Excellent article. Many have ridden on pavements and they do it carefully.


http://cyclinguphill.com/laws-cycling-pavements/

*Laws about cycling on pavements*
by Tejvan on January 28, 2015 in advocacy

Many people ask, but it is illegal to cycle on the pavement, unless there is a sign indicating a shared use cycle path. Cycling on footways (a pavement by side of a carriageway) is prohibited by Section 72 of the Highway Act 1835, amended by Section 85(1) of the Local Government Act 1888.(Highway Code)




Cycling on the pavement


*Penalties for Cycling on Pavement*
This is punishable by a fixed penalty notice of £30 under Section 51 and Schedule 3 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.

*Can Children Cycle on Pavements?*
Officially, no. The law on pavement use applies to all on bicycles, irrespective of age. However, children under 16 would not get prosecuted.

*Enforcement of Law*
Cycling on pavements is often a significant local issue. In response the government passed law enabling fixed ticket penalties to be issues. The then home minister, Paul Boateng issued a letter about the aims of enforcement:

“The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so. Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required.” [1. bike hub]

Similar advice has been giving to police and community support officers that tickets should be given with a considerable degree of discretion, bearing in mind there is a large practical difference between a young children cycling slowly along a road to avoid a dangerous crossing, and an older person riding aggressively on pavement putting people at risk.

*Cycling on Footpaths*
Fixed penalty notices for cycling on pavements is intended for pavements by the side of a highway. For footpaths away from roads, e.g. in parks, it is less clear an offence is being made, unless the path is clearly marked as non-cycling.





*Personal view about cycling on pavements*
As a cyclist I want to cycle on the roads not pavements. It’s that simple. (Even though roads are quite dangerous, and at times you feel like putting your life on the line). Unfortunately, people on bikes (I won’t call them proper cyclists) do sometimes ride aggressively on pavements, which can be quite off putting to other pedestrians. It can also lead to accidents.

But, I’m not a ‘pavement fundamentalist’. Occasionally, I can empathise with people who ride on pavements.










If necessary to get from one road to another.
To miss dangerous junctions where a cyclist would be forced to take a risky crossing.
When I see very young kids learning to cycle on the pavement I can understand why they are avoiding roads. However, I feel a better solution is to make roads safer, rather than avoid roads. A 20 mph speed limit in urban areas should help make roads safer.
If people cycle at walking speed and are ready to give way to any pedestrian.
*Legal Enforcement*

People will see it is illegal and therefore should never be done. They have a point. But, how many cars stick to legal speed limit? There is a big difference between a young kid cycling slowly on pavement and someone riding aggressively expecting people to jump out of the way. The advice of the home Minister to enforce cycling on pavements with discretion is good common sense advice.

I do see some people cycling on the pavement, with disregard for other road users, and I would like them to get a ticket.

*Pavements / Cycle Paths*




I am usually suspicious of cycle paths made out of narrow pavements. They satisfy neither pedestrians who have to share a small pavement with cyclists. Cyclists are left with the worst of both worlds. They have to be very cautious on the ‘cycle path’ because of pedestrians. But, if they don’t use these useless ‘cycle paths’ they get criticised by motorists for being on the road. They are kind of left with a no win situation. It is this kind of cycle path that is often worse than nothing.


Unless it is path on a pavement designed to avoid an awkward junction.
See: shared use paths
*Dangers of cycling on pavement*
I regularly reverse my car out of the drive. I also frequently see kids (often teenagers) cycle bikes very fast on the pavement. This is actually very dangerous. Many motorists are not expecting cyclists on the pavement, they expect people to moving at walking pace. By cycling on pavements, cyclists put themselves at greater danger from collisions. and crossing junctions.

Cycling on a pavement is several times more dangerous than on a road. (William Moritz, 1998) Another study says it’s twice as dangerous. (Bicycling Life, 1985-89)

*Dangers to pedestrians*

If a cyclist cycles furiously on the pavement, I can understand why pedestrians get annoyed. If they went at walking pace and were willing to give way to pedestrians then it wouldn’t be such a nuisance. Cyclists can cause injury and even death in rare cases.





_Many cyclists use the pavement at this junction because there is quite a long wait at the lights. However, it can’t be justified on the grounds of being safer. Here using the pavement does not help cyclists._

*Legalising cycling on pavements*
Should it be legal to cycle on pavements? Probably not. Though, where appropriate pavements can be made shared use cycle paths. To help cyclists avoid dangers road junctions. But, perhaps designed in a way to discourage high speed – just get from place to place.

Many people on bikes will abuse the law and cycle faster than is prudent.

Cyclists need to fight for the right to use roads in a safe way, not be moved onto walkways and inferior cycle paths.

On the other hand, there are times when the common sense thing is to use the pavement, so the law should make allowances. A cyclist travelling slowly, short distances on pavements and who gives way to pedestrians is not causing any real problems.

*Should cyclists be fined for cycling on pavements?*




Cycling on the pavement, could in theory leave you with a fixed penalty charge of £30. If the police did this in Oxford, they could make a nice profit.

If the cyclist is riding fast and if there is no real necessity for cycling on the pavement, Fining is a good thing.

I wouldn’t mind seeing cyclists fined for this kind of action. (Although I would love to see motorists similarly fined for much more dangerous driving manoeuvres they usually get away with.)

Although cycling on pavements is a real nuisance, it’s not actually the worst offence on our roads (as the Daily Tabloids may have us believe) It’s certainly not the cause of the 2,300 road deaths every year (though isolated serious accidents can occur with bikes involved in collisions with pedestrians)

I would love to see people on bikes be more considerate and not give ‘cyclists’ a bad name. Though have you noticed when people drive a car inconsiderately, we don’t label all ‘motorists’ as bad. But, when a person on a bike rides inconsiderately all ‘cyclists’ tend to be tarred with the same brush.

But, I would also love our roads to be made safer, so that people can cycle on the road without risk of being run over by careless and negligent driving.

I would also like to see better road planning, so more proper cycle lanes are provided which provide safe routes for people to cycle into town.


----------



## HOU5EY (26 May 2015)

Kids bump into things, we all do. That child will learn from that. She was very lucky and I hope she makes a speedy recovery bless her but the way I see it these things happen, just like these bees 

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DrqT7MrvwHQ


----------



## Hitchington (26 May 2015)

"'I thought she was dead. There was blood coming from everywhere. She was hysterical, screaming at the top of her lungs"

I'm no expert, but dead kids don't usually scream...do they?


----------



## PK99 (26 May 2015)

Hitchington said:


> "'I thought she was dead. There was blood coming from everywhere. She was hysterical, screaming at the top of her lungs"
> 
> *I'm no expert*, but dead kids don't usually scream...do they?



no, you are a complete farkwit making stupid fatuous comments


----------



## mickle (26 May 2015)

PK99 said:


> no, you are a complete farkwit making stupid fatuous comments



Oh perlease. Calm the fark down.


----------



## anothersam (27 May 2015)

Dan B said:


> The point is [kids] shouldn't have to think of the dangers when they're on the pavement because there shouldn't be any dangers on the pavement.


There shouldn't be, but unfortunately once in a while there are, so ultimately I think the point is to learn from the bees, as @HOU5EY suggests.

Actually, I think


HOU5EY said:


> it seems a lot of people that saw this will think about riding more carefully


might be the best lesson from this. Pavement cyclists will want to be careful so as not to follow Andrew onto the stage of public condemnation; fewer Lucies will be run over. Win-win. Unfortunately the loss column includes one less cyclist, at least for now. According to the Mirror,


> Lucie is "now very nervous of bikes, and we've had to tell her daddy has got rid of the bike to make her feel better.



Andrew, barely out of kidhood himself (though of sufficiently advanced years to have acquired better hazard perception, the hazard in this case being toddlers who can be excused for their lack of same), did something reckless, and he's paying for it. I shudder to think about the headlines that would've been made by all the stunts my contemporaries pulled if the national press had taken note way back when; enough skin left on the ground over the years to make even Ed Gein wince…


----------



## Hitchington (27 May 2015)

PK99 said:


> no, you are a complete farkwit making stupid fatuous comments


*sigh*


----------



## PK99 (27 May 2015)

Hitchington said:


> *sigh*



The mum said:
_'I thought she was dead. There was blood coming from everywhere. She was hysterical, screaming at the top of her lungs"
_
Which you could have interpreted as: "I thought my child was dying before my eyes..."

Instead, you chose to make a snide joke

_"I'm no expert, but dead kids don't usually scream...do they?"_

As I said, stupid and fatuous


----------



## .stu (27 May 2015)

Dan B said:


> I have two young kids - actually one of them isn't walking yet, so that's not really relevant, but anyway. The point is they shouldn't _have_ to think of the dangers when they're on the pavement because there shouldn't _be_ any dangers on the pavement.



They shouldn't have to be aware of dangers on the pavement, but you, the adult responsible for them, should, especially given that a lot of pavements are right next to roads. It is not unheard of for drivers to lose control of their cars and mount the pavement, so don't be lulled into a false sense of security just because it is supposed to be for pedestrians only.


----------



## Profpointy (27 May 2015)

.stu said:


> They shouldn't have to be aware of dangers on the pavement, but you, the adult responsible for them, should, especially given that a lot of pavements are right next to roads. It is not unheard of for drivers to lose control of their cars and mount the pavement, so don't be lulled into a false sense of security just because it is supposed to be for pedestrians only.



that's right - keep the kids locked up indoors.


----------



## .stu (27 May 2015)

Profpointy said:


> that's right - keep the kids locked up indoors.



That's right - with the missus to keep an eye on them.


----------



## Dan B (27 May 2015)

Profpointy said:


> that's right - keep the kids locked up indoors.


That might be the best idea. Keep them inside until they're old enough to drive cars, then they can learn road sense in a safe environment with roll cages and seatbelts and airbags etc


----------



## glasgowcyclist (27 May 2015)

The young man has now been summonsed for dangerous cycling.

http://road.cc/content/news/152726-...collision-toddler-summonsed-dangerous-cycling


GC


----------



## cd365 (27 May 2015)

I've read a few times that he has emailed the family since. I keep wondering where he got their email address!


----------



## w00hoo_kent (27 May 2015)

Hitchington said:


> "'I thought she was dead. There was blood coming from everywhere. She was hysterical, screaming at the top of her lungs"
> I'm no expert, but dead kids don't usually scream...do they?


This was the reason the ambulance men refused to remove my wife's crash helmet when she threw her ZZR600 down the road at 70, she was screaming 'I can't breathe' and they were replying 'pretty sure you're managing it' or words to that effect...



.stu said:


> They shouldn't have to be aware of dangers on the pavement, but you, the adult responsible for them, should, especially given that a lot of pavements are right next to roads. It is not unheard of for drivers to lose control of their cars and mount the pavement, so don't be lulled into a false sense of security just because it is supposed to be for pedestrians only.



You mean responsible like the mother of the 4 year old playing 'swings on the chain between the bollards by the traffic lights on Trafalgar Rd this lunchtime while she stood a couple of metres away and the traffic thundered past?

Nobody got hurt, so it was all good.


----------



## Hitchington (27 May 2015)

PK99 said:


> The mum said:
> _'I thought she was dead. There was blood coming from everywhere. She was hysterical, screaming at the top of her lungs"
> _
> Which you could have interpreted as: "I thought my child was dying before my eyes..."
> ...



To be honest the Daily Mail report is stupid and fatuous


----------



## glenn forger (27 May 2015)

The article still claims it was a hit-and-run when it's clear it wasn't. It's despicable click-bait designed to inflame morons.


----------



## glenn forger (27 May 2015)

http://www.therantyhighwayman.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/we-need-to-move-this-tired-old.html?m=1


----------



## Dogtrousers (27 May 2015)

glenn forger said:


> The article still claims it was a hit-and-run when it's clear it wasn't._* It's despicable click-bait designed to inflame morons*_.


On that we can agree. 

But "Daily Mail eggs on morons" is rather "dog bites man" isn't it.


----------



## jarlrmai (27 May 2015)

Yes and it's tedious but it needs to be called out each time unfortunately.


----------



## glenn forger (27 May 2015)

Eight people have been hurt on that road, two of them cyclists. It's a rat run with on-street parking and a 30 limit. Victims considered unworthy garner no headlines.


----------



## Joffey (28 May 2015)

When I saw the video I thought why are the parents allowing their child to run out onto the pavement next to a road. I think they are not blameless in this.

The cyclist is an idiot mind. No need to be on the pavement, he should be prosecuted.


----------



## CopperCyclist (28 May 2015)

glenn forger said:


> The article still claims it was a hit-and-run when it's clear it wasn't. It's despicable click-bait designed to inflame morons.



I'm not so sure. I dislike the Daily Mail just as much if not more than most, but I don't think we can make that call based on the evidence we have. 

We have on side (family) saying he rode off afterwards. 

We have the cyclist saying he 'hung around', apologised, and was picked up by his Dad.

And that's about it. We also have a photo taken by the mother of him on his bike, looking backwards over his shoulder which gives the impression he may have been riding off, but could just as easily have been taken a good ten minutes later, so doesn't prove a lot. 

With what we've got, I'm not overly willing to give him the immediate benefit of the doubt...


----------



## Hitchington (28 May 2015)

What we can be certain of is the Daily Mail would have paid the family for their story and they would've been paraphrased for by the journalist for "narrative impact"


----------



## cd365 (28 May 2015)

Joffey said:


> When I saw the video I thought why are the parents allowing their child to run out onto the pavement next to a road. I think they are not blameless in this.
> 
> The cyclist is an idiot mind. No need to be on the pavement, he should be prosecuted.


Blaming the parents for someone running their child over whilst illegally riding on the pavement. Quality.


----------



## Joffey (28 May 2015)

You may well think that but if I was a parent that child would be the most precious thing in my life, I wouldn't be leaving it to chance that my little girl could run out of our front garden into a pavement alongside a busy road.

It's obviously the cyclists fault but I think the parents should have kept a better eye on her. I bet they do from now on.


----------



## cd365 (28 May 2015)

The mother was in front by a couple of seconds, the father was behind by a couple of seconds, the child was not unattended.
The last thing they would have expected was some idiot on a bike to come flying down a pavement. But you put a portion of the blame onto them if that makes you feel better. The cyclist was 100% at fault, he should not have been on the pavement. He was a 23 year old man, he should have known better. There is no excuse for him and no reason to blame anyone else.


----------



## Hitchington (28 May 2015)

It was an accident. The parents took their eye off the kid for a few seconds. The chap on the bike made a mistake. The kid got a few grazes. No one died. The family are quids in. Can we put the corks back on the pitchforks now please?


----------



## glenn forger (28 May 2015)

CopperCyclist said:


> I'm not so sure. I dislike the Daily Mail just as much if not more than most, but I don't think we can make that call based on the evidence we have.
> 
> We have on side (family) saying he rode off afterwards.
> 
> ...




They have put "hit and run" in quotation marks. That's an old Mail trick, prevents litigation, so they could say:

"Outrage after Copper cyclist "caught snorting horse off a midget prostitute"" and it wouldn't be actionable because it's reporting what someone else has said.


----------



## Pale Rider (28 May 2015)

Hitchington said:


> What we can be certain of is the Daily Mail would have paid the family for their story and they would've been paraphrased for by the journalist for "narrative impact"



You can be far from certain of that.

It appears the story was picked up first by the Blackpool Gazette - the parents went to their local paper as local people often do.

The next stage is it was picked up and hawked around by a news agency - not a shop, a business involved in selling stories to other media outlets.

The evidence for that is the copyright imprint on the pic - Ross Parry, an established agency.

It is possible the parents received some money, but if they did, it is unlikely they were paid directly by the Mail.

Further evidence of it being a free for all is no one has an exclusive, all the media outlets have the same stuff.

If the Mail - or anyone else - paid - they would want exclusivity, or at least an exclusive line.

As regards paraphrasing for impact, the words are direct quotes and the mother speaks on the video, again in her own words.

Other than the above, your post is entirely accurate and therefore could appear on Mail Online.


----------



## CopperCyclist (28 May 2015)

glenn forger said:


> They have put "hit and run" in quotation marks. That's an old Mail trick, prevents litigation, so they could say:
> 
> "Outrage after Copper cyclist "caught snorting horse off a midget prostitute"" and it wouldn't be actionable because it's reporting what someone else has said.



Yes I know, and as it's the Daily Mail you are probably right. 

However, they are paraphrasing the mother herself, who in the full quote is said to have stated:

'As soon as he got up he started swearing at us, as if it was Lucie's fault that he had hit her. The next thing we knew he'd gone and we've not heard from him since.'

In the absence of hearing that she retracted this, we are left with "he says she says" as to whether it truly was "hit and run" or "hit and hang around".


----------



## Julia9054 (28 May 2015)

He should not have been cycling at that speed on the pavement and the accident is completely his fault. However, 23 year old males are not the best judge of what is and what isn't risky behaviour. The bits of their brains that do that are not finished yet hence the price insurers make them pay for their car insurance.
We all have an incident eventually which makes us reassess our risky behaviour. For most of us, although not for this chap, they fall into the near miss category.
My own, at not much older, involved me filtering far too fast down the outside of a line of stationary traffic in a built up area when a blind man and his dog stepped out from behind a van. I came very close to wiping them out which would have made me the very worst type of human! This certainly altered my behaviour.
This young man, as is right and proper, will have to face the legal consequences of his choices. The little girl and her parents will, eventually, get over it. Hopefully, it won't put all of them off cycling for life. The media frenzy won't help any of them do this


----------



## glenn forger (28 May 2015)

"The next thing we knew he'd gone" but not before they managed to take a photo of him standing there.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (28 May 2015)

Joffey said:


> You may well think that but if I was a parent that child would be the most precious thing in my life, I wouldn't be leaving it to chance that my little girl could run out of our front garden into a pavement alongside a busy road.
> 
> It's obviously the cyclists fault but I think the parents should have kept a better eye on her. I bet they do from now on.



In all likelihood the child would have been heading from the gate straight for the car as she does every other morning. If pedestrians (especially children) can't even navigate a pavement without having to compensate for vehicles that ought not to be there then our priorities are seriously farked.


GC


----------



## User6179 (28 May 2015)

Did anybody notice in the picture of the cyclist standing there is someone standing with a dark coloured jacket on but it doesn't match what either parent was wearing in the clip , so either someone else was there or the cyclist stood there long enough for one of the parents to put a jacket on , either way it looks like the cyclist never just jumped back on his bike straight away and cycle off .


----------



## Pale Rider (28 May 2015)

Eddy said:


> Did anybody notice in the picture of the cyclist standing there is someone standing with a dark coloured jacket on but it doesn't match what either parent was wearing in the clip , so either someone else was there or the cyclist stood there long enough for one of the parents to put a jacket on , either way it looks like the cyclist never just jumped back on his bike straight away and cycle off .



The guy in the jacket was hiding behind the grassy knoll.


----------



## .stu (28 May 2015)

glasgowcyclist said:


> In all likelihood the child would have been heading from the gate straight for the car as she does every other morning. If pedestrians (especially children) can't even navigate a pavement without having to compensate for vehicles that ought not to be there then our priorities are seriously farked.
> 
> 
> GC



If you watch the video, the mother wanders across the pavement in a zombie-like trance, apparently without looking. She also seems completely oblivious to the young child following her. The child is only copying the (bad) example given by her mother, who, if she had been a bit more observant, could have prevented the whole accident from occurring. 

The point is, parents are responsible for their children when in public, meaning they have to both prevent the child being a nuisance to others as well as keep that child out of harm's way, regardless of whether the danger is caused by legal or illegal actions on the part of others. That's just normal.


----------



## glenn forger (28 May 2015)

The only person we know for sure has lied is the mum.


----------



## John the Monkey (28 May 2015)

mickle said:


> Oh perlease. Calm the fark down.


This is the internet though.


----------



## jarlrmai (28 May 2015)

How about I phrase it like this, We as a community should not publicly blame the parents in this case and then turn around and accuse the papers of victim blaming the next time someone gets called out for not wearing high vis in a bicycle - car collision. It is not our place as a cycling community, other non cycling people can have a go at the parents if they want. But in the wider PR war for cycling we need to stay away from this type of accusation it only hurts our cause. I accept that people here are not all involved in cycling activism and are speaking as parents and members of the public.

We have to accept that the cyclist should not have been on the pavement, and use this case as an example to those who would have us ride off the roads and on the pavement, and also to ask the question why did this cyclist not feel it appropriate to ride on the road here.


----------



## John the Monkey (28 May 2015)

.stu said:


> They shouldn't have to be aware of dangers on the pavement, but you, the adult responsible for them, should, especially given that a lot of pavements are right next to roads. It is not unheard of for drivers to lose control of their cars and mount the pavement, so don't be lulled into a false sense of security just because it is supposed to be for pedestrians only.


I've seen plenty quite cheerfully mount pavements while in full control of their vehicle, whether to park without blocking the carriageway, or to bypass queueing traffic to reach a turn or roundabout exit ahead of them, without all that tedious waiting in the flow of traffic.


----------



## Arrowfoot (28 May 2015)

glenn forger said:


> The only person we know for sure has lied is the mum.



What did the mother lie about?


----------



## jarlrmai (28 May 2015)

My girlfriend nearly had her feet ran over by someone mounting the pavement outside a shop, they just rolled up the kerb while we were walking past.


----------



## John the Monkey (28 May 2015)

jarlrmai said:


> My girlfriend nearly had her feet ran over by someone mounting the pavement outside a shop, they just rolled up the kerb while we were walking past.


There's a belter at the Crewe Station roundabout.

As the traffic waiting to go straight on invariably queues across the left hand exit, less patient drivers will mount the (shared use) pavement at speed to take the first exit. It results in some interesting avoiding actions, as the cars/trucks (sometimes busses) usually occupy all of the space allotted to the cycle part of the path as they cross it.


----------



## PK99 (28 May 2015)

Hitchington said:


> *What we can be certain *of is the Daily Mail would have paid the family for their story and they would've been paraphrased for by the journalist for "narrative impact"




don't you mean what you can guess at?


----------



## PK99 (28 May 2015)

Hitchington said:


> I*t was an accident*. The parents took their eye off the kid for a few seconds. The chap on the bike made a mistake. The kid got a few grazes. No one died. The family are quids in. Can we put the corks back on the pitchforks now please?



No! it was not an accident!

Collisions between cars and bikes on the road are not accidents a point that is made vociferously on here whenever the press so report.

It was the result of a deliberate, illegal act by the cyclist who acted without any regard for the safety of pedestrians.


----------



## PK99 (28 May 2015)

glenn forger said:


> The only person we know for sure has lied is the mum.



How do we know that?


----------



## Pumpkin the robot (28 May 2015)

If the cyclist did just ride off, surely the CCTV would show that? Why was it cut short? That to me makes me believe the cyclists account of events after the incident rather than the mothers.


----------



## Hitchington (28 May 2015)

PK99 said:


> No! it was not an accident!
> 
> Collisions between cars and bikes on the road are not accidents a point that is made vociferously on here whenever the press so report.
> 
> It was the result of a deliberate, illegal act by the cyclist who acted without any regard for the safety of pedestrians.



I ride on plenty of shared ped/bike paths during my travels. Through parks, beside the river and there have been a few times when I have nearly knocked into someone (small children included) because they or I haven't been paying enough attention. I've even ridden my bike on paths that I'm not supposed to. Accidents happen. This chap was reckless for sure, but it was an accidental collision. The kid was ok, a few grazes and bumps. I was sent flying by a bike when I was 11 because I walked through parked cars onto the pavement and a cyclist came flying up the inside. I was hurt but I didn't die and there were no lasting effects.

What we have here is a symptom of the "blame culture" which has infested our society and people feeling that they need to CCTV or film every moment of our lives. Plus the Daily Mail whipping normally sane people up into a frenzy.

Let it go, if there was no cctv no one would give a f*ck.


----------



## cd365 (28 May 2015)

I'm sure the child knocked over and the parents would give a f*ck.
Basically you are a pavement cyclist and you think that sort of thing is OK. Well done.


----------



## HOU5EY (28 May 2015)

Joffey said:


> You may well think that but if I was a parent that child would be the most precious thing in my life, I wouldn't be leaving it to chance that my little girl could run out of our front garden into a pavement alongside a busy road.
> 
> It's obviously the cyclists fault but I think the parents should have kept a better eye on her. I bet they do from now on.


If you were a parent of a child of roughly that age then you would know that it's not easy to stop their every move incase something bad happens. Kids are full of energy and sometimes it just goes unnoticed. These things can't be helped, I'm sure every single person on here injured themself as a kid and I bet hardly anyone blames their parents for it. This was an accident pure and simple


----------



## PK99 (28 May 2015)

HOU5EY said:


> If you were a parent of a child of roughly that age then you would know that it's not easy to stop their every move incase something bad happens. Kids are full of energy and sometimes it just goes unnoticed. These things can't be helped, I'm sure every single person on here injured themself as a kid and I bet hardly anyone blames their parents for it. This was an accident pure and simple



It was not an accident is was the consequence of deliberate illegal behaviour.


----------



## Profpointy (29 May 2015)

PK99 said:


> It was not an accident is was the consequence of deliberate illegal behaviour.




many accidents are caused by doing something stupid. Still an accident, and still blameworthy


----------



## PK99 (29 May 2015)

Profpointy said:


> many accidents are caused by doing something stupid. Still an accident, and still blameworthy



Why, then, the feeding frenzy in here whenever a car- cyclist interaction is referred to in the press as an accident?

One rule for them.....


----------



## ufkacbln (29 May 2015)

Profpointy said:


> many accidents are caused by doing something stupid. Still an accident, and still blameworthy





PK99 said:


> Why, then, the feeding frenzy in here whenever a car- cyclist interaction is referred to in the press as an accident?
> 
> One rule for them.....



That was the big problem, and why many people accept death, injury and carnage on the roads, as no matter how culpable the participants it was a case of "It was an accident", and therefore we don't need to either learn from it or take responsibility for the actions leading up to the incident

An accident is "unexpected" or "unintentional"

If someone does something stupid then they shoukd "expect" something to go wrong and the use of the word "accident" is inappropriate

.. and that applies to everyone


----------



## Profpointy (29 May 2015)

Cunobelin said:


> That was the big problem, and why many people accept death, injury and carnage on the roads, as no matter how culpable the participants it was a case of "It was an accident", and therefore we don't need to either learn from it or take responsibility for the actions leading up to the incident
> 
> An accident is "unexpected" or "unintentional"
> 
> ...



that's re-defining the meaning of an existing word.
There's the over-used "accident waiting to happen" which expresses a considerable degree of blame.

Use of "accident" whether "waiting to happen" or not does not in any way absolve blame.

Just out of interest, in your new meaning of accident which is now reduced I guess to "act of God" accidents only, what word is left to cover a blameworthy accident?


----------



## PK99 (29 May 2015)

Profpointy said:


> that's re-defining the meaning of an existing word.
> There's the over-used "accident waiting to happen" which expresses a considerable degree of blame.
> 
> Use of "accident" whether "waiting to happen" or not does not in any way absolve blame.
> ...



My view is much as yours, but the feeding frenzy wrt cyclist/car accidents is real.


----------



## anothersam (29 May 2015)




----------



## Hitchington (29 May 2015)

cd365 said:


> I'm sure the child knocked over and the parents would give a f*ck.
> Basically you are a pavement cyclist and you think that sort of thing is OK. Well done.


Ah, you got me there. I've been found out as a pavement cycling kiddy murderer. As bad as Savile, perhaps?


----------



## HOU5EY (29 May 2015)

This world seems to be going crazy if you ask me. People can no longer accept that accidents are going to happen. Oh no we must play the blame game instead and rant on about how much of a hooligan some guy is riding home. Its like you've never made a mistake in your life. It must feel great to sit on top of the world knowing how perfect you are and how every split decision you make is always going to be the right one. Well sadly that isn't true so as much as the guy in this scenario made a bad decision I'm afraid he won't be the only one. It's called life, we're all moving around trying to get places and sometimes human nature causes us to take our eye off the ball and yes if two people do it at the same time they may just bump into each other. Some people must think they can walk on water if they don't think they're ever going to make a mistake


----------



## HOU5EY (30 May 2015)

Hitchington said:


> I ride on plenty of shared ped/bike paths during my travels. Through parks, beside the river and there have been a few times when I have nearly knocked into someone (small children included) because they or I haven't been paying enough attention. I've even ridden my bike on paths that I'm not supposed to. Accidents happen. This chap was reckless for sure, but it was an accidental collision. The kid was ok, a few grazes and bumps. I was sent flying by a bike when I was 11 because I walked through parked cars onto the pavement and a cyclist came flying up the inside. I was hurt but I didn't die and there were no lasting effects.
> 
> What we have here is a symptom of the "blame culture" which has infested our society and people feeling that they need to CCTV or film every moment of our lives. Plus the Daily Mail whipping normally sane people up into a frenzy.
> 
> Let it go, if there was no cctv no one would give a f*ck.



Could not agree more!


----------



## classic33 (30 May 2015)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> Use radio antenna on the outside of the vehicle to pick up phone signal, bluetooth connection inside the car.
> 
> Should allow for hands free usage, while stopping people texting and facebooking while driving.
> 
> Problem solved.



Ericsson had just such a system, 15 years ago. Never caught on for some reason.


----------



## anothersam (30 May 2015)

HOU5EY said:


> This world seems to be going crazy if you ask me. People can no longer accept that accidents are going to happen. Oh no we must play the blame game instead and rant on about how much of a hooligan some guy is riding home. Its like you've never made a mistake in your life. It must feel great to sit on top of the world knowing how perfect you are and how every split decision you make is always going to be the right one. Well sadly that isn't true so as much as the guy in this scenario made a bad decision I'm afraid he won't be the only one. It's called life, we're all moving around trying to get places and sometimes human nature causes us to take our eye off the ball and yes if two people do it at the same time they may just bump into each other. Some people must think they can walk on water if they don't think they're ever going to make a mistake



The world hasn't gone crazy, you've just stayed sane.


----------



## Hitchington (30 May 2015)

Please remember all those who want a public lynching of this chap or for him to be "torn apart limb to limb" the Daily Mail has history and a massive anti-cycling agenda
http://road.cc/content/news/68530-d...r-petronella-wyatt-mother-hit-cyclists-column
The Mail (and other media outlets, including local news) are very selective with how much or how little information they attach to a "news" story.


----------



## Tin Pot (30 May 2015)

HOU5EY said:


> This world seems to be going crazy if you ask me. People can no longer accept that accidents are going to happen. Oh no we must play the blame game instead and rant on about how much of a hooligan some guy is riding home. Its like you've never made a mistake in your life. It must feel great to sit on top of the world knowing how perfect you are and how every split decision you make is always going to be the right one. Well sadly that isn't true so as much as the guy in this scenario made a bad decision I'm afraid he won't be the only one. It's called life, we're all moving around trying to get places and sometimes human nature causes us to take our eye off the ball and yes if two people do it at the same time they may just bump into each other. Some people must think they can walk on water if they don't think they're ever going to make a mistake



Which is the same attitude that lets drivers kill cyclists and get away with it.


----------



## Arrowfoot (30 May 2015)

The guy was riding fast on a pavement without keeping a proper lookout. He is going to be charged for sure. Pointless delving into semantics and throwing in Jimmy Saville in is not going to change anything. These are all irrelevant and steers the argument away from where it should be.

Whether he ran away, his father picked him up or he stood there apologising is best left to the Police to figure out.

I ride on pavement when there is a need. However if I hit a pedestrian let alone a child, shame on me. I certainly not going to tell the parents that accidents will happen. If I did, you have my approval to call me a moron and sock it to me.


----------



## anothersam (30 May 2015)

Arrowfoot said:


> However if I hit a pedestrian let alone a child, *shame on me*.



In a national publication, then worldwide coverage. Proportionality?


----------



## Lemond (30 May 2015)

[QUOTE="Hitchington, post: 3720151, member: 23944 the Daily Mail has history and a massive anti-cycling agenda.[/QUOTE]

Seriously? That's a tad melodramatic, isn't it?


----------



## ufkacbln (30 May 2015)

glenn forger said:


> That was The Times, and their figures were nonsense, they included motorway miles. No peds on motorways.



No it wasn't.......

... and there are pedestrians on motorways













These two show the dangers faced by workers (also pedestrian) on motorways


----------



## ufkacbln (30 May 2015)

glenn forger said:


> But 65% of traffic volume was on motorways. You can't compare the two if 2/3 of the distance traveled by one group is on a motorway where pedestrian collisions are impossible.
> 
> There were 79 pedestrians killed or seriously injured (KSI) by bikes in urban areas in 2012, so that’s one KSI per 75 million miles walked.
> 
> ...



... and how much of that pedestrian activity was in areas where vehicles are not allowed...... these also need to be excluded surely?

After all the distance travelled by this group is in parks, footpaths and pedestrian areas where pedestrian / vehicle collisions are impossible.

Why are you not correcting for this factor?


----------



## Thomk (30 May 2015)

This disagreement about "accident" and "blame" is the tip of a philosophical debate which has been going on for decades (at least). A couple of quick points worth touching on:

Blame does not have to add up to 100% - it depends on the perspective of the "blamer". E.g. from our perspective as cyclists on a cycle forum it may be appropriate for us to apportion all of the blame to the cyclist as he apparently did something stupid, illegal and reckless and we can adjust our own behavior accordingly to everyone's future benefit. But, if I were the parent of the toddler and I had discussed with her nanny the danger of allowing my daughter onto the path unsupervised because of reckless idiots on bikes and she allowed the situation to unfold as it did I might apportion some blame to the nanny, some to the cyclist and some to myself (for employing a careless nanny). I might even shuffle some of the "blame" in the direction of my daughter if I had warned her of the dangers, harsh though it sounds, if I thought that she was at the stage where it was appropriate for her to start taking some responsibility for her actions. This apportioning of "blame" (it is a bad word really) does not have to add up to 100%. From the perspective of the toddler she might blame her mother mostly, figuring that the world is full of dangers and it is her responsibility to protect her from them. Others might blame the designers of the shared cycle path. Chomsky might blame American right wing Republicans (he would find some sort of credible sounding argument).
You can define an accident as being an unknown unknown, an unknown or a known..... etc. In this instance it could be argued that the cyclist was on shakier moral ground (given that he should have been aware of the risks but didn't seem to give a damn as though toddlers running on pavements were nothing more than insects) than someone who went out deliberately to run someone over (who would have at least acknowledged the humanity of his/her victim). This is not my stance but is a respectable position in philosophy circles.

Anyway, in short, there is some truth in what most people are posting on here but as usual the views have become entrenched and seemingly polar opposite.


----------



## glenn forger (30 May 2015)

Lemond said:


> [QUOTE="Hitchington, post: 3720151, member: 23944 the Daily Mail has history and a massive anti-cycling agenda.



Seriously? That's a tad melodramatic, isn't it?[/QUOTE]

They have a long history of printing lies to demonise cyclists. Wyatt is a good example, the paper eventually printed a correction after Wyatt claimed her mum had been attacked twice by cyclists. The Mail also labeled a cyclist as a hit and runner when no running whatsoever took place. They've done that twice. Simon Hoggart also claimed to have been attacked by a rider but offered zero evidence (he claimed the rider was doing thirty mph). It was the Mail that described a rider killed by a driver on the wrong side of the road as a "novice cyclist" when she was nothing of the kind. It was the Mail that allows comments that describe riders as "vermin" and "parasites" and threaten to deliberately run over cyclists. It was Simon Heffer in the Mail who called for cyclist registration, it was the Mail that chucks a few terrorism terms at those who ride their bikes to work, saying among them are ‘extremists’, ‘hard-line militants’ and ‘fundamentalists’.


----------



## ufkacbln (30 May 2015)

Profpointy said:


> that's re-defining the meaning of an existing word.
> There's the over-used "accident waiting to happen" which expresses a considerable degree of blame.
> 
> Use of "accident" whether "waiting to happen" or not does not in any way absolve blame.
> ...



The Police and Emergency services now refer to "Incidents" or Collisions"


If there is a contributory factor then it is not an accident


----------



## shouldbeinbed (30 May 2015)

Profpointy said:


> that's re-defining the meaning of an existing word.
> There's the over-used "accident waiting to happen" which expresses a considerable degree of blame.
> 
> Use of "accident" whether "waiting to happen" or not does not in any way absolve blame.
> ...



Accident waiting to happen is in the same colloquial category as talking about road tax though. Its not a formal nor even a correct assertion simply common parlance from a population that doesn't know better.

Official definitions, terminology & used by law enforcement and judiciary have ceased to use accident for @Cunobelin's reasoning.

Here it is absolutely within the bounds of reason to think that houses on clearly residential streets at school chucking out time with 2 schools in very close proximity to that road (google maps it) where a young woman is attending to a car might well have small children somewhere in the vicinity and one should moderate ones speed and hazard awareness accordingly. Notwithstanding that the cyclist speed and hazard awareness for being on a residential pavement would appear to be well out of reasonable boundaries at any time

*EDIT cross post with above*


----------



## shouldbeinbed (30 May 2015)

Hitchington said:


> Ah, you got me there. I've been found out as a pavement cycling kiddy murderer. As bad as Savile, perhaps?


The 21st century incarnation of Godwins Law.


----------



## Tin Pot (30 May 2015)

Thomk said:


> This disagreement about "accident" and "blame" is the tip of a philosophical debate which has been going on for decades (at least). A couple of quick points worth touching on:
> 
> Blame does not have to add up to 100% - it depends on the perspective of the "blamer". E.g. from our perspective as cyclists on a cycle forum it may be appropriate for us to apportion all of the blame to the cyclist as he apparently did something stupid, illegal and reckless and we can adjust our own behavior accordingly to everyone's future benefit. But, if I were the parent of the toddler and I had discussed with her nanny the danger of allowing my daughter onto the path unsupervised because of reckless idiots on bikes and she allowed the situation to unfold as it did I might apportion some blame to the nanny, some to the cyclist and some to myself (for employing a careless nanny). I might even shuffle some of the "blame" in the direction of my daughter if I had warned her of the dangers, harsh though it sounds, if I thought that she was at the stage where it was appropriate for her to start taking some responsibility for her actions. This apportioning of "blame" (it is a bad word really) does not have to add up to 100%. From the perspective of the toddler she might blame her mother mostly, figuring that the world is full of dangers and it is her responsibility to protect her from them. Others might blame the designers of the shared cycle path. Chomsky might blame American right wing Republicans (he would find some sort of credible sounding argument).
> You can define an accident as being an unknown unknown, an unknown or a known..... etc. In this instance it could be argued that the cyclist was on shakier moral ground (given that he should have been aware of the risks but didn't seem to give a damn as though toddlers running on pavements were nothing more than insects) than someone who went out deliberately to run someone over (who would have at least acknowledged the humanity of his/her victim). This is not my stance but is a respectable position in philosophy circles.
> ...



There are two approaches to take when something untoward has happened;

1. Find someone to blame
2. Figure out how to reduce the probability and impact of it happening again

I have never found approach one to be useful.


----------



## glenn forger (30 May 2015)

So, you would describe a drunk-driving collision as an "accident"?


----------



## Lemond (30 May 2015)

glenn forger said:


> Seriously? That's a tad melodramatic, isn't it?



They have a long history of printing lies to demonise cyclists. Wyatt is a good example, the paper eventually printed a correction after Wyatt claimed her mum had been attacked twice by cyclists. The Mail also labeled a cyclist as a hit and runner when no running whatsoever took place. They've done that twice. Simon Hoggart also claimed to have been attacked by a rider but offered zero evidence (he claimed the rider was doing thirty mph). It was the Mail that described a rider killed by a driver on the wrong side of the road as a "novice cyclist" when she was nothing of the kind. It was the Mail that allows comments that describe riders as "vermin" and "parasites" and threaten to deliberately run over cyclists. It was Simon Heffer in the Mail who called for cyclist registration, it was the Mail that chucks a few terrorism terms at those who ride their bikes to work, saying among them are ‘extremists’, ‘hard-line militants’ and ‘fundamentalists’.[/QUOTE]

More hysterical nonsense. Why am I not surprised.


----------



## glenn forger (30 May 2015)

It was of course the Mail that published the James Martin piece about the hilarity to be had by aiming your car at riders to force them off the road:



> Before long, Martin's Wikipedia entry had been hacked, the Daily Mail website had removed the facility to comment on the story so that no one else could call him a moron and cyclists' organisation the CTC had waded in, urging the cyclists terrorised by Martin to contact the organisation's accident line. An inevitable Facebook group was formed, with over 1,000 people signing up to declare I Hate James Martin, and dozens of angry cyclists began to bombard his agent and publisher with emails.



http://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-blog/2009/sep/15/james-martin-cyclists


----------



## Hitchington (30 May 2015)

glenn forger said:


> It was of course the Mail that published the James Martin piece about the hilarity to be had by aiming your car at riders to force them off the road:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-blog/2009/sep/15/james-martin-cyclists


What a dick.


----------



## Pale Rider (30 May 2015)

Hitchington said:


> What a dick.



Spotted dick in his case.


----------



## Thomk (30 May 2015)

Tin Pot said:


> There are two approaches to take when something untoward has happened;
> 
> 1. Find someone to blame
> 2. Figure out how to reduce the probability and impact of it happening again
> ...


You will find that both are addressed in the post you quoted and 1 is simply a method of gathering information to achieve 2.


----------



## PK99 (30 May 2015)

Tin Pot said:


> There are two approaches to take when something untoward has happened;
> 
> 1. Find someone to blame
> 2. Figure out how to reduce the probability and impact of it happening again
> ...



Who was to blame in this case? The cyclist for cycling on the pavement at an unreasonable speed

To reduce repeat probability: said cyclist to ride on road not pavement.


----------



## ufkacbln (30 May 2015)

The more subtle campaign with Martin was with the car company

One of Martin's hobbies was fast cars, and as a result of adverse publicity, Tesla and others refused to allow him vehicles to test drive.


----------



## Tin Pot (30 May 2015)

PK99 said:


> Who was to blame in this case? The cyclist for cycling on the pavement at an unreasonable speed
> 
> To reduce repeat probability: said cyclist to ride on road not pavement.



It really doesn't matter - all you've got to show for it is 23 pages of annoyed people.

For the people involved - they need to learn lessons not blame people.

For society, they need to understand why people choose to ride on roads, what could be done to reduce the risk of this happening again. Blaming a parent or a cyclist will make fark all difference.


----------



## glenn forger (31 May 2015)

https://helenblackman.wordpress.com/2015/05/30/what-you-and-yours-did/


----------



## Tin Pot (31 May 2015)

glenn forger said:


> > Seriously? That's a tad melodramatic, isn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> They have a long history of printing lies to demonise cyclists. Wyatt is a good example, the paper eventually printed a correction after Wyatt claimed her mum had been attacked twice by cyclists. The Mail also labeled a cyclist as a hit and runner when no running whatsoever took place. They've done that twice. Simon Hoggart also claimed to have been attacked by a rider but offered zero evidence (he claimed the rider was doing thirty mph). It was the Mail that described a rider killed by a driver on the wrong side of the road as a "novice cyclist" when she was nothing of the kind. It was the Mail that allows comments that describe riders as "vermin" and "parasites" and threaten to deliberately run over cyclists. It was Simon Heffer in the Mail who called for cyclist registration, it was the Mail that chucks a few terrorism terms at those who ride their bikes to work, saying among them are ‘extremists’, ‘hard-line militants’ and ‘fundamentalists’.



Daily Mail's Honest Citizen






Daily Mail's Fundamentalist Terrorist


----------



## Lemond (31 May 2015)

glenn forger said:


> https://helenblackman.wordpress.com/2015/05/30/what-you-and-yours-did/



Where do you dig these numpties up? Keep em coming. Hilarious stuff.


----------



## HBlack (31 May 2015)

Even a numpty can track back a link to their blog though


----------



## Profpointy (1 Jun 2015)

glenn forger said:


> So, you would describe a drunk-driving collision as an "accident"?



yes, just as I'd call falling over and hitting your head while drunk an accident. The intent / culpability was being drunk driving, which should be severely punished. The accident resulting was a ( likely )outcome, but not the intent. A non accident is if someone knocks you off on purpose - drunkenly or otherwise.

If "accident" isn't an acceptable word, we need a new word. "incident" won't do, as it would cover a road rage shouting match with no harm done or a punch up, or car conked out blocki g the road. "collision" doesn't cover falling off or skidding into a field.

Police use these terms for a reason as they don't want to pre-judge


----------



## Profpointy (1 Jun 2015)

glenn forger said:


> https://helenblackman.wordpress.com/2015/05/30/what-you-and-yours-did/



This is well worth reading. Eloquent and intelligent.


----------



## glenn forger (1 Jun 2015)

Profpointy said:


> yes, just as I'd call falling over and hitting your head while drunk an accident. The intent / culpability was being drunk driving, which should be severely punished. The accident resulting was a ( likely )outcome, but not the intent. A non accident is if someone knocks you off on purpose - drunkenly or otherwise.
> 
> If "accident" isn't an acceptable word, we need a new word. "incident" won't do, as it would cover a road rage shouting match with no harm done or a punch up, or car conked out blocki g the road. "collision" doesn't cover falling off or skidding into a field.
> 
> Police use these terms for a reason as they don't want to pre-judge



Interesting, so if a drunk person threw a fire extinguisher off a roof and killed someone you'd describe the death as an accident?


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (1 Jun 2015)

glenn forger said:


> Interesting, so if a drunk person threw a fire extinguisher off a roof and killed someone you'd describe the death as an accident?



Yes, I guess.

It's the difference between involuntary manslaughter and murder. The outcome is the same, the intent is wholly different.


----------



## Profpointy (1 Jun 2015)

glenn forger said:


> Interesting, so if a drunk person threw a fire extinguisher off a roof and killed someone you'd describe the death as an accident?



I think that's crossed the line just a bit, as the "intent" was to throw it, albeit not hit someone.

But "accidentally" dropping a fire extinguisher off a roof whilst dicking around might be an accident


----------



## midlife (1 Jun 2015)

An accident is not necessarily negligence .......... said Lord Denning of the Rolls 

Shaun


----------



## Profpointy (1 Jun 2015)

midlife said:


> An accident is not necessarily negligence .......... said Lord Denning of the Rolls
> 
> Shaun



Quite, but nor is an accident necessarily not-negligence


----------



## glenn forger (1 Jun 2015)

Profpointy said:


> I think that's crossed the line just a bit, as the "intent" was to throw it, albeit not hit someone.
> 
> But "accidentally" dropping a fire extinguisher off a roof whilst dicking around might be an accident



You mean the fire extinguisher chucker deliberately propelled a heavy metal object where it was likely there would be people?


----------



## glenn forger (1 Jun 2015)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> Yes, I guess.
> 
> It's the difference between involuntary manslaughter and murder. The outcome is the same, the intent is wholly different.



Any death on the roads where the driver is liable should be manslaughter.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (1 Jun 2015)

glenn forger said:


> Any death on the roads where the driver is liable should be manslaughter.



I entirely agree, as it pretty much fits the definition perfectly.


----------



## Profpointy (1 Jun 2015)

glenn forger said:


> Any death on the roads where the driver is liable should be manslaughter.



I do agree with that. Plenty of people are convicted of manslaughter for seemingly quite minor mistakes or at least major mistakes without any malice or in-a-sense intent, whilst gross idiocy driving tends to be far more leniently treated.

Trouble is, juries are reluctant to convict even for (mere) driving offences, eg that poor Polish girl killed by an overtaking doctor - got off entirely.


----------



## Thomk (1 Jun 2015)

It's just a semantic merry-go-round as most of these thread sub plots tend to sink into.

Consider the following scenarios:

Man goes onto a roof sober to fix his roof and without realising it knocks a slate off which kills a dog - he claims it was an accident
Man gets drunk and then goes onto his roof to howl at the moon and without realising it knocks a slate off which kills a dog - he claims it was an accident
Man goes onto a roof in order to pick up a big fat slate he knows is there and throws it at the neighbours dog to scare it. He hits the dog instead and kills it - he says he killed the dog by accident
12 year old child climbs onto the roof (even though she has been warned not to because it's dangerous), knocks off a slate which kills a dog - she says it was an accident
2 year old child climbs onto a roof (even though he has been told not to) and throws a slate off the roof which kills a dog - parent says it was an accident
I could go on but the idea should be clear. In all of those cases an accident can be claimed but all of the cases are different and the cry of "accident" is arguable. The word "accident" means different things to different people at different times.


----------



## Profpointy (1 Jun 2015)

glenn forger said:


> You mean the fire extinguisher chucker deliberately propelled a heavy metal object where it was likely there would be people?



As I said, that has crossed the line, and would be stretching it to call an accident.


----------



## HBlack (1 Jun 2015)

Profpointy said:


> This is well worth reading. Eloquent and intelligent.



Thanks. Actually, I'm also quite happy to deal with constructive criticism but I think if someone's going to call me a numpty, the least I can do is turn up and say hello.


----------



## Profpointy (1 Jun 2015)

HBlack said:


> Thanks. Actually, I'm also quite happy to deal with constructive criticism but I think if someone's going to call me a numpty, the least I can do is turn up and say hello.



If anyone here's called you a numpty, I'd hope it's for something else rather than the (excellent) article.
Welcome by the way !


----------



## cd365 (2 Jun 2015)

HBlack said:


> Thanks. Actually, I'm also quite happy to deal with constructive criticism but I think if someone's going to call me a numpty, the least I can do is turn up and say hello.


I thought it was a good article as well.


----------



## totallyfixed (2 Jun 2015)

HBlack said:


> Thanks. Actually, I'm also quite happy to deal with constructive criticism but I think if someone's going to call me a numpty, the least I can do is turn up and say hello.


Good stuff, enjoyed reading that. The UK government has much it could learn from our continental neighbours regarding cycling, yet at best pays lip service to the subject. The attitude of some drivers towards cyclists is shocking and scarcely credible, yet penalties for inexcusable driving are derisory. Critical articles such as this are a welcome addition in the battle to combat much of the drivel spouted by our media. Thank you, don't stop.


----------



## briantrumpet (2 Jun 2015)

Another very good blog posting about the skewed 'You and Yours' programme on this incident. http://singletrackworld.com/columns/2015/06/bez-them-and-us/ This is one I'll almost certainly send to anyone who brings up the 'menace' of pavement/irresponsible cyclists. Yes, it's wrong, but some perspective...


----------



## HBlack (2 Jun 2015)

Profpointy said:


> If anyone here's called you a numpty, I'd hope it's for something else rather than the (excellent) article.
> Welcome by the way !



Thanks for the welcome! Just starting to find my way around. As for the numpty comment, it appeared to be directed at me but I've been called a lot worse (though other insults have been more accurate, I'm many things but not really a numpty).


----------



## anothersam (3 Jun 2015)

briantrumpet said:


> Another very good blog posting about the skewed 'You and Yours' programme on this incident. http://singletrackworld.com/columns/2015/06/bez-them-and-us/


I liked the beginning


> A collective groan passed as a wave across social media.


and the middle


> One caller, Barry, was given two and a half minutes of national airtime to tell a tale of bicycles that defied his understanding, with “no seats, no bell, nothing, and they’re in gangs, and they just jump out on you”, with this forming the basis for his demands for swathes of additional legislation. (I did enjoy Barry’s contribution, though, largely because his voice was rather Dudley Moore-ish, which conjured up a mental image of these terrifying biker gangs lurking somewhere inside Jayne Mansfield….) And this summed things up; it summed up the whole premise of the programme: that everyone has a tale to tell, their view of the world, their perspective; and that a quick bit of legislation will solve all the problems with all of those tales.


and the end


> We’re going to have to endure more of these myopic, insular and divisive discussions before the issues of freedom of transport become Us and Ours.


so thanks for the heads up.


----------

