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.Hands up all them cyclists that have never ever cycled on a footpath!!!
I reckon if one of them did it by driving at speed on the pavement, past kids front gates...they would.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.
That's a very good point.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.
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.
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.
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.