3 year old mown down on the pavement

On 05/06/2015 17:46, Mrcheerful wrote:

On 05/06/2015 17:35, Adia wrote:
Mrcheerful wrote:

The cyclist then swore at the parents and rode away...

Apparently, he didn't.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-10274249.html

From experience and from many other confirmed reports from other
incidents...

....including early reports of this incident...

... it seems more credible that the cyclist did swear at the
parents and ride away. However, even if we ignore the allegation of
swearing, a crime occurred, was witnessed and filmed.

What is particularly incredible is the claim that he did not know that
it was illegal to ride on the footway.

....and he's supposed to be a clever chap.

What is indisputable is that he WAS riding on the footway and that he
did crash into and injure a small child...

....and then rode away.

Had he not ridden away, there would be no reason for the Independent to
report that he handed himself in at the police station the next day.

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 05/06/2015 17:35, Adia wrote:

Mrcheerful wrote:

The cyclist then swore at the parents and rode away...

Apparently, he didn't.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-10274249.html

That report says nothing about what he actually said to the victim's
parents. Just a load of old tosh about the cyclist feeling sorry for
himself.

The swearing at the parents was reported immediately, not in the Indy a
week later.

I guess that the parents must have been lying.
Who do we believe then?
The parents who saw their little girl mowed down on the footpath?
Or the word of the word of a ****** who is going to be charged with
dangerous cycling?

On 05/06/2015 19:44, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:

"JNugent" wrote:
On 05/06/2015 17:35, Adia wrote:
Mrcheerful wrote:

The cyclist then swore at the parents and rode away...

Apparently, he didn't.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-10274249.html

That report says nothing about what he actually said to the victim's
parents. Just a load of old tosh about the cyclist feeling sorry for
himself.

The swearing at the parents was reported immediately, not in the Indy a
week later.

I guess that the parents must have been lying.
Who do we believe then?
The parents who saw their little girl mowed down on the footpath?
Or the word of the word of a ****** who is going to be charged with
dangerous cycling?

Well, exactly.

On Friday, 5 June 2015 18:35:05 UTC+2, Adia wrote:

Apparently, he didn't.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-10274249.html

FOUR pedestrians mown down here - surely a case for walking helmets?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...cted-wasp.html

"Alycidon" wrote in message
...

On Friday, 5 June 2015 18:35:05 UTC+2, Adia wrote:

Apparently, he didn't.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-10274249.html

FOUR pedestrians mown down here - surely a case for walking helmets?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...cted-wasp.html


The main difference being:

'The car carried on up the road and parked up on the corner 100 yards away.
The driver came back to see if they were okay. He was in his early 20s and
was in a bit of shock.'

Unlike the cyclist who screamed abuse before just scarpering, and only
giving himself up when he realised his photograph had been pasted all over
social media.

On Friday, 5 June 2015 22:30:21 UTC+2, Tarcap wrote:
"Alycidon" wrote in message
...

On Friday, 5 June 2015 18:35:05 UTC+2, Adia wrote:

Apparently, he didn't.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-10274249.html

FOUR pedestrians mown down here - surely a case for walking helmets?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...cted-wasp.html


The main difference being:

'The car carried on up the road and parked up on the corner 100 yards away.
The driver came back to see if they were okay. He was in his early 20s and
was in a bit of shock.'

In shock due to a big, bad wasp? Bwahahaha.
What a dweeb.

On 05/06/2015 21:07, Alycidon wrote:
On Friday, 5 June 2015 18:35:05 UTC+2, Adia wrote:

Apparently, he didn't.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-10274249.html

FOUR pedestrians mown down here - surely a case for walking helmets?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...cted-wasp.html


Why are cyclists so incredibly dim?

Ask an adult to read you the definition of the word 'vehicle'.

On Fri, 05 Jun 2015 17:46:10 +0100
Mrcheerful wrote:

What is particularly incredible is the claim that he did not know
that it was illegal to ride on the footway.

Indeed - what an idiot. But many people seem to think it's OK, or at
least preferable to using the road. Public education is required, a
clampdown like those against unlit bikes might be good.

Rob Morley wrote:

On Fri, 05 Jun 2015 17:46:10 +0100
Mrcheerful wrote:

What is particularly incredible is the claim that he did not know
that it was illegal to ride on the footway.

Indeed - what an idiot. But many people seem to think it's OK, or at
least preferable to using the road.

It could be that quite a few cyclists are still of the opinion that
they may ride on the footway provided they do so considerately, and
feel that in such circumstances police officers should exercise their
discretion. I don't think they appreciate how serious an issue this
can become, especially if they are involved in an accident with a
pedestrian.

Public education is required, a clampdown like those against unlit
bikes might be good.

There are still some mixed messages coming out, like this one from
last year:

http://road.cc/content/news/108119-t...-ride-pavement

On 06/06/2015 09:23, Adia wrote:
Rob Morley wrote:

On Fri, 05 Jun 2015 17:46:10 +0100
Mrcheerful wrote:

What is particularly incredible is the claim that he did not know
that it was illegal to ride on the footway.

Indeed - what an idiot. But many people seem to think it's OK, or at
least preferable to using the road.

It could be that quite a few cyclists are still of the opinion that
they may ride on the footway provided they do so considerately, and
feel that in such circumstances police officers should exercise their
discretion. I don't think they appreciate how serious an issue this
can become, especially if they are involved in an accident with a
pedestrian.

Public education is required, a clampdown like those against unlit
bikes might be good.

There are still some mixed messages coming out, like this one from
last year:

http://road.cc/content/news/108119-t...-ride-pavement



Irrelevant, the law has not been changed.
The relevant information is all in the Highway Code (which can be read
free online), which everybody that leaves their home ought to be
familiar with.
It also has special sections of extra important information for every
type of road user, the section for cyclists includes:
Rule 64 You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.
[Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129].
Note that there is no 'if you are frightened of the road it is OK' or
any other get out of jail free card.