Cyclist runs over child and rides off

[Judith[_4_]]

An 18-month-old toddler is covered in blood after being dragged face first for
3ft along pavement by hit-and-run cyclist

The 18-month-old boy was said to have been caught under the bicycle and pulled
for three feet in front of his horrified parents, who say the female cyclist
showed no remorse before pedalling off.

I thought pedestrians had priority over cyclists on pavements.

Looking forward to the cyclist being caught and prosecuted.

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/8216-Blood-8217-toddler-dragged-Cambridge/story-26297028-detail/story.html

[Justin Thyme]

Judith wrote:
> An 18-month-old toddler is covered in blood after being dragged face first for
> 3ft along pavement by hit-and-run cyclist
>
> The 18-month-old boy was said to have been caught under the bicycle and pulled
> for three feet in front of his horrified parents, who say the female cyclist
> showed no remorse before pedalling off.
>
> I thought pedestrians had priority over cyclists on pavements.

No. The law forbids cycling on the pavement.

> Looking forward to the cyclist being caught and prosecuted.
>
> http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/8216-Blood-8217-toddler-dragged-Cambridge/story-26297028-detail/story.html
>


--
I do not believe in revealed religion — I will have nothing to do
with your immortality; we are miserable enough in this life, without
speculating on another.
Lord Byron, 1778-1824, letter to Rev. Francis Hodgson, 1811

[Bod[_5_]]

On 10/04/2015 12:18, Justin Thyme wrote:
> Judith wrote:
>> An 18-month-old toddler is covered in blood after being dragged face
>> first for
>> 3ft along pavement by hit-and-run cyclist
>>
>> The 18-month-old boy was said to have been caught under the bicycle
>> and pulled
>> for three feet in front of his horrified parents, who say the female
>> cyclist
>> showed no remorse before pedalling off.
>>
>> I thought pedestrians had priority over cyclists on pavements.
>
> No. The law forbids cycling on the pavement.
>
>> Looking forward to the cyclist being caught and prosecuted.
>>
>> http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/8216-Blood-8217-toddler-dragged-Cambridge/story-26297028-detail/story.html
>>
>>
>
I hope she gets caught, she's obviously a heartless person.
The path was a *shared* path though.
So she was riding legally, but obviously not with any care for other users.

"The Cambourne mum said her son was standing on the pavement in Park
Terrace, which is shared by cyclists and pedestrians, when the woman
ploughed into him on Bank Holiday Monday at 11.15am as the young family
parked up to go shopping"

[The Medway Handyman[_4_]]

On 10/04/2015 12:37, Bod wrote:
> On 10/04/2015 12:18, Justin Thyme wrote:
>> Judith wrote:
>>> An 18-month-old toddler is covered in blood after being dragged face
>>> first for
>>> 3ft along pavement by hit-and-run cyclist
>>>
>>> The 18-month-old boy was said to have been caught under the bicycle
>>> and pulled
>>> for three feet in front of his horrified parents, who say the female
>>> cyclist
>>> showed no remorse before pedalling off.
>>>
>>> I thought pedestrians had priority over cyclists on pavements.
>>
>> No. The law forbids cycling on the pavement.
>>
>>> Looking forward to the cyclist being caught and prosecuted.
>>>
>>> http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/8216-Blood-8217-toddler-dragged-Cambridge/story-26297028-detail/story.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
> I hope she gets caught, she's obviously a heartless person.
> The path was a *shared* path though.
> So she was riding legally, but obviously not with any care for other users.

Which just goes to show what a daft idea shared paths are. Why we pander
to the demands of a sponging minority I'll never know.
>
> "The Cambourne mum said her son was standing on the pavement in Park
> Terrace, which is shared by cyclists and pedestrians, when the woman
> ploughed into him on Bank Holiday Monday at 11.15am as the young family
> parked up to go shopping"
>


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

[Rob Morley]

On Fri, 10 Apr 2015 12:37:24 +0100
Bod > wrote:

> I hope she gets caught, she's obviously a heartless person.
> The path was a *shared* path though.
> So she was riding legally, but obviously not with any care for other
> users.
>
Not really legally - she seems to think pedestrians aren't allowed on
the cycling part of a shared use path when it's marked as such, but this
is not the case.
I'm slightly surprised that the law regarding injury caused by
a traffic collision doesn't apply to pedal cycles, only to "mechanically
propelled vehicles" (a.k.a. "motor vehicles").
Clearly she still might be liable to a civil claim for damages.
At the very least she should come forward to apologise.

[Simon Jester]

On Friday, April 10, 2015 at 5:22:40 PM UTC+1, The Medway Handyman wrote:

> Which just goes to show what a daft idea shared paths are

Bicycles belong on the road, thanks for your support.

> Why we pander
> to the demands of a sponging minority I'll never know.

You think we shouldn't provide footways?

[Peter Keller[_3_]]

On Fri, 10 Apr 2015 17:23:46 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote:

> Which just goes to show what a daft idea shared paths are. Why we pander
> to the demands of a sponging minority I'll never know.

True.
On "shared paths" pedestrians have precedence.

[The Medway Handyman[_4_]]

On 10/04/2015 21:02, Simon Jester wrote:
> On Friday, April 10, 2015 at 5:22:40 PM UTC+1, The Medway Handyman wrote:
>
>> Which just goes to show what a daft idea shared paths are
>
> Bicycles belong on the road, thanks for your support.

I agree, providing they keep out of motorist's way. And they should pay
to use it like everybody else does. We could call it 'Road Tax' or
something.
>
>> Why we pander
>> to the demands of a sponging minority I'll never know.
>
> You think we shouldn't provide footways?

Pedestrians aren't a minority and they aren't 'vehicles'.

Of course, f pedestrians were like cyclists they would claim that the
VAT on shoes pays for pavements.



--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

[jnugent]

On 10/04/2015 12:37, Bod wrote:
> On 10/04/2015 12:18, Justin Thyme wrote:
>> Judith wrote:
>>> An 18-month-old toddler is covered in blood after being dragged face
>>> first for
>>> 3ft along pavement by hit-and-run cyclist
>>>
>>> The 18-month-old boy was said to have been caught under the bicycle
>>> and pulled
>>> for three feet in front of his horrified parents, who say the female
>>> cyclist
>>> showed no remorse before pedalling off.
>>>
>>> I thought pedestrians had priority over cyclists on pavements.
>>
>> No. The law forbids cycling on the pavement.
>>
>>> Looking forward to the cyclist being caught and prosecuted.
>>>
>>> http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/8216-Blood-8217-toddler-dragged-Cambridge/story-26297028-detail/story.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
> I hope she gets caught, she's obviously a heartless person.
> The path was a *shared* path though.
> So she was riding legally, but obviously not with any care for other users.

Then it was illegal.

> "The Cambourne mum said her son was standing on the pavement in Park
> Terrace, which is shared by cyclists and pedestrians, when the woman
> ploughed into him on Bank Holiday Monday at 11.15am as the young family
> parked up to go shopping"

[Judith[_4_]]

On Fri, 10 Apr 2015 17:23:46 +0100, The Medway Handyman
> wrote:

>On 10/04/2015 12:37, Bod wrote:
>> On 10/04/2015 12:18, Justin Thyme wrote:
>>> Judith wrote:
>>>> An 18-month-old toddler is covered in blood after being dragged face
>>>> first for
>>>> 3ft along pavement by hit-and-run cyclist
>>>>
>>>> The 18-month-old boy was said to have been caught under the bicycle
>>>> and pulled
>>>> for three feet in front of his horrified parents, who say the female
>>>> cyclist
>>>> showed no remorse before pedalling off.
>>>>
>>>> I thought pedestrians had priority over cyclists on pavements.
>>>
>>> No. The law forbids cycling on the pavement.
>>>
>>>> Looking forward to the cyclist being caught and prosecuted.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/8216-Blood-8217-toddler-dragged-Cambridge/story-26297028-detail/story.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> I hope she gets caught, she's obviously a heartless person.
>> The path was a *shared* path though.
>> So she was riding legally, but obviously not with any care for other users.
>
>Which just goes to show what a daft idea shared paths are. Why we pander
>to the demands of a sponging minority I'll never know.


Hello, hello, hello

Welcome back.

[Judith[_4_]]

On Fri, 10 Apr 2015 12:40:25 -0700 (PDT), Simon Mason >
wrote:

<snip>

>Looks like the 18 month old child was not under proper supervision.

You show us where the law says that a child on a pavement at the side of the
road needs to be under direct and close supervision by a parent just in case a
cyclist breaks the law by running in to the child - and then ****s off without
leaving their details.

Just a typical cyclist.