On 30/03/2016 17:50, colwyn wrote:
On 30/03/2016 17:29, JNugent wrote:
On 30/03/2016 17:19, colwyn wrote:
On 30/03/2016 16:59, JNugent wrote:
On 30/03/2016 16:48, colwyn wrote:
On 30/03/2016 15:56, JNugent wrote:
On 30/03/2016 13:41, MrCheerful wrote:

http://www.lincolnshireecho.co.uk/Cy...ail/story.html







QUOTE:
"It happened at around 7.50pm on Thursday, March 17, when the young
boy
was walking out of a front gate.

"The cyclist, who was riding on the pavement, hit him.
"He is described as a man, dressed all in black riding a black cycle.
"The cyclist didn't stop and was seen to ride off towards the city
centre.
"The boy was taken to hospital and suffered a broken leg.
"Sergeant Tom Richardson is appealing for the cyclist to get in
touch."

Describing the cyclist as a "man" is probably a little OTT.

Male, maybe. Fully-grown, maybe.

"Sergeant Tom Richardson is appealing for the cyclist to get in
touch."

Male and fully-grown he might be, but a "man"?

It would take a man to own up to his disgusting behaviour.

So there's no chance.

I've always maintained "shared pavements" are dangerous.
The answer is to report all transgressions to the police and the local
authorities.
It is an improvement on just salivating!

You can be fairly certain that there are very few - if any - cycle
paths
which adjoin garden gates.


I bow to Omniscience!

It is obvious.

Same for shop doorways.


Are you having difficulty with the word "share"? ( Whether legal or not)

I doubt that Cannon Street is shared use footway, it is a tiny little
residential rd. Shared use is just a red herring. However, whether it
was shared use, a dedicated cycle path or the main road, to run into a
child heavily enough to break his leg and then run/cycle away is despicable.