Thirty quid fine for pavement cyclist that mowed down a four yearold.

“The woman came around the corner and rode straight into him,” Kristie,
38, recalled. “I could see her coming and just thought she was going to
stop but the brake went straight into his head and cut it open.

“You could see his skull. If he’d been any taller it would have taken
his eye out.” Vinnie needed six stitches.

A parent Kristie was with at the time of the incident spotted the brazen
cyclist riding on the pavement again just three days later.

She approached the woman and asked for her details. As a result, the
police later fined her £30.

“I don’t think it’s enough,” said Kristie.

“She’s back to riding on the pavement after she hit a child. I wouldn’t
even have been able to get back on that bike.”

Warning: Close up injury picture.

http://www.barkinganddagenhampost.co...oy_4_1_3833822

On 18/11/2014 11:23, Mrcheerful wrote:

“The woman came around the corner and rode straight into him,” Kristie,
38, recalled. “I could see her coming and just thought she was going to
stop but the brake went straight into his head and cut it open.
“You could see his skull. If he’d been any taller it would have taken
his eye out.” Vinnie needed six stitches.
A parent Kristie was with at the time of the incident spotted the brazen
cyclist riding on the pavement again just three days later.
She approached the woman and asked for her details. As a result, the
police later fined her £30.
“I don’t think it’s enough,” said Kristie.
“She’s back to riding on the pavement after she hit a child. I wouldn’t
even have been able to get back on that bike.”

Warning: Close up injury picture.
http://www.barkinganddagenhampost.co...oy_4_1_3833822

That'll be a prominent scar for the rest of that child's life.

Far too severe to have been inflicted by a bike, which we all know can't
develop enough kinetic energy to cause such damage.

On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 11:23:10 +0000, Mrcheerful
wrote:

snip

Warning: Close up injury picture.

http://www.barkinganddagenhampost.co...oy_4_1_3833822


A police spokesman said riding on the pavement was illegal.

I'm glad we've cleared that up.

On Tuesday, November 18, 2014 11:23:07 AM UTC, Mrcheerful wrote:
"The woman came around the corner and rode straight into him," Kristie,
38, recalled. "I could see her coming and just thought she was going to
stop but the brake went straight into his head and cut it open.


Why was the child not wearing a helmet.

"You could see his skull. If he'd been any taller it would have taken
his eye out." Vinnie needed six stitches.


Why was the child not wearing safety glasses.


These questions would be asked if the child had been on a pedal cycle.

On 19/11/2014 20:43, Simon Jester wrote:
On Tuesday, November 18, 2014 11:23:07 AM UTC, Mrcheerful wrote:
"The woman came around the corner and rode straight into him," Kristie,
38, recalled. "I could see her coming and just thought she was going to
stop but the brake went straight into his head and cut it open.


Why was the child not wearing a helmet.

"You could see his skull. If he'd been any taller it would have taken
his eye out." Vinnie needed six stitches.


Why was the child not wearing safety glasses.


These questions would be asked if the child had been on a pedal cycle.

But he wasn't so they weren't (relevant).

Is there a problem with that?

You might as well blame a burglary victim for possessing items coveted
by a criminal.

Perhaps you already have done so.

On Wednesday, November 19, 2014 8:54:41 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:


But he wasn't so they weren't (relevant).

Is there a problem with that?

You might as well blame a burglary victim for possessing items coveted
by a criminal.

Perhaps you already have done so.

Thank you for proving my point.

"Simon Jester" wrote in message
...

On Wednesday, November 19, 2014 8:54:41 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:


But he wasn't so they weren't (relevant).

Is there a problem with that?

You might as well blame a burglary victim for possessing items coveted
by a criminal.

Perhaps you already have done so.

Thank you for proving my point.

I'm glad that you can see a point to your post, because nobody else can.

On Wednesday, November 19, 2014 10:10:22 PM UTC, Tarcap wrote:

I'm glad that you can see a point to your post, because nobody else can.

The point was obvious to anyone with an IQ greater than their shoe size.

"Simon Jester" wrote in message
...

On Wednesday, November 19, 2014 10:10:22 PM UTC, Tarcap wrote:

I'm glad that you can see a point to your post, because nobody else can.

The point was obvious to anyone with an IQ greater than their shoe size.


How on earth were you able to understand the point you were failing to make,
then?

On Thursday, November 20, 2014 11:28:47 AM UTC, Tarcap wrote:

How on earth were you able to understand the point you were failing to make,
then?

w^5