On 05/09/2019 12:15, JNugent wrote:
On 05/09/2019 00:06, TMS320 wrote:
On 04/09/2019 12:37, JNugent wrote:

The report clearly states that the victim was on foot on the
"pavement" (properly known as the "footway" for good and rather
obvious reasons) and that the offender was also on the footway, on a
bicycle.

What did the "offender" do to the "victim"?

The "victim" was threatened by the "offender's" dangerous behaviour, of course.

(Note I have put back the quotes.)

You're making a rather big leap to assume that if something is not
permitted it is necessarily dangerous. Shared paths, created by the
stroke of a bureaucrat's pen on previously ordinary footways,
demonstrate it is not so.

There's a reason why cycling along footways is not allowed. Have a think
and see whether you can guess what it is.

But in any event, any citizen is entitled to point out that an
offender's illegal behaviour is... er... illegal, and to remonstrate
with the offender.

That is true. That is not the same as attempted murder.

Not that offending cyclists are susceptible to any
sense of shame or social responsibility, of course.
It certainly is not peculiar to cyclists.