Child mown down by hi-speed pavement cyclist

"Mrcheerful" wrote
Paul Cummins wrote:
In article ,
(Mrcheerful) wrote:

Oscar Sowden was walking home from Caversham Festival last Sunday
with his family when the cyclist ploughed into him at speed on the
footpath running beneath Reading Bridge.

1) It's not a footpath, it's a bridleway along the edge of the thames

2) What was a five year old doing there alone, unsupervised by an
adult.

3) As it's a bridleway, there is no need for an adjacent cycle path,
and there isn't one.

So it is OK to mow down unaccompanied children ?

Accidents happen. Standard motorist excuse.

In any case it would appear that the crash happened on the bridge, where
the pavement has a cycle path.

Under the bridge is all shared space. There is no cycle path or shared space
over the bridge. Don't you ever look at locations on Streetview before you
post your comments?

TMS320 wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote
Paul Cummins wrote:
In article ,
(Mrcheerful) wrote:

Oscar Sowden was walking home from Caversham Festival last Sunday
with his family when the cyclist ploughed into him at speed on the
footpath running beneath Reading Bridge.

1) It's not a footpath, it's a bridleway along the edge of the
thames 2) What was a five year old doing there alone, unsupervised by an
adult.

3) As it's a bridleway, there is no need for an adjacent cycle path,
and there isn't one.

So it is OK to mow down unaccompanied children ?

Accidents happen. Standard motorist excuse.

In any case it would appear that the crash happened on the bridge,
where the pavement has a cycle path.

Under the bridge is all shared space. There is no cycle path or
shared space over the bridge. Don't you ever look at locations on
Streetview before you post your comments?

I saw a pavement with cycle path on Google Earth. Which bridge are you
looking at?

"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...
TMS320 wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote
Paul Cummins wrote:
In article ,
(Mrcheerful) wrote:

Oscar Sowden was walking home from Caversham Festival last Sunday
with his family when the cyclist ploughed into him at speed on the
footpath running beneath Reading Bridge.

1) It's not a footpath, it's a bridleway along the edge of the
thames 2) What was a five year old doing there alone, unsupervised by
an
adult.

3) As it's a bridleway, there is no need for an adjacent cycle path,
and there isn't one.

So it is OK to mow down unaccompanied children ?

Accidents happen. Standard motorist excuse.

In any case it would appear that the crash happened on the bridge,
where the pavement has a cycle path.

Under the bridge is all shared space. There is no cycle path or
shared space over the bridge. Don't you ever look at locations on
Streetview before you post your comments?

I saw a pavement with cycle path on Google Earth.

Oh that bit. Before the bridge starts at the southerly end there is a 40
metre section that is divided. (There is no will in the world that can
describe it as going under or over the bridge.) Except that not only does it
not go anywhere useful for cyclists that know where they're going but
pedestrians trying to cross George Street between the north sides of Vastern
Road and Kings Meadow Road are forced into the cycle side. Even at the
Vastern Road end of the path, Google Earth shows two pedestrians using the
wrong bit.

Which bridge are you looking at?

TMS320 wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...
TMS320 wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote
Paul Cummins wrote:
In article ,
(Mrcheerful) wrote:

Oscar Sowden was walking home from Caversham Festival last Sunday
with his family when the cyclist ploughed into him at speed on
the footpath running beneath Reading Bridge.

1) It's not a footpath, it's a bridleway along the edge of the
thames 2) What was a five year old doing there alone,
unsupervised by an
adult.

3) As it's a bridleway, there is no need for an adjacent cycle
path, and there isn't one.

So it is OK to mow down unaccompanied children ?

Accidents happen. Standard motorist excuse.

In any case it would appear that the crash happened on the bridge,
where the pavement has a cycle path.

Under the bridge is all shared space. There is no cycle path or
shared space over the bridge. Don't you ever look at locations on
Streetview before you post your comments?

I saw a pavement with cycle path on Google Earth.

Oh that bit. Before the bridge starts at the southerly end there is a
40 metre section that is divided. (There is no will in the world that
can describe it as going under or over the bridge.) Except that not
only does it not go anywhere useful for cyclists that know where
they're going but pedestrians trying to cross George Street between
the north sides of Vastern Road and Kings Meadow Road are forced into
the cycle side. Even at the Vastern Road end of the path, Google
Earth shows two pedestrians using the wrong bit.

Which bridge are you looking at?

So why would a pavement cyclist be going so fast/so out of control that they
run down a small child? and is that OK?

In article ,
(Mrcheerful) wrote:

I saw a pavement with cycle path on Google Earth. Which bridge are
you looking at?

That's Caversham Bridge - Reading bridge is the next one east.

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981

---- If it's below this line, I didn't write it ----

"Mrcheerful" wrote
TMS320 wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote

I saw a pavement with cycle path on Google Earth.

Oh that bit. Before the bridge starts at the southerly end there is a
40 metre section that is divided. (There is no will in the world that
can describe it as going under or over the bridge.) Except that not
only does it not go anywhere useful for cyclists that know where
they're going but pedestrians trying to cross George Street between
the north sides of Vastern Road and Kings Meadow Road are forced into
the cycle side. Even at the Vastern Road end of the path, Google
Earth shows two pedestrians using the wrong bit.

Which bridge are you looking at?

So why would a pavement cyclist be going so fast/so out of control that
they run down a small child?

Probably for the same reason that motorists go so fast/so out of control
that they run down large numbers of small children, adults and OAPs.

and is that OK?

Well, whatever's OK for motorists...

On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 13:44:16 +0100, GB wrote:

snip


Please try harder: what do you think is the significance of the words "court
judgment".


Have it your own way, then. So, based on a chance remark on usenet, do
you really think that *all* insurance companies run *all* these claims
right the way to court and never offer to settle?



You really are struggling now aren't you.

Why not go back and actually read what I said. Here it is again:

Do you have any more info' (or pointer to same) on the matter; if what you say
is true (and I have no reason to disbelieve it) then that is really quite
interesting.

On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 12:21:52 +0100, Peter Parry wrote:

On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 23:29:50 +0100, Judith
wrote:

On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 22:43:37 +0100, Peter Parry wrote:

snip

Few are
covered by insurance and even when they are it is often only allied
with house contents cover which won't pay out without the claimant
paying to get a court judgment allocating legal responsibility.

Interesting comment there. Many people have previously claimed that cyclists
are covered by their house contents insurance (hence the "he'll claim off his
fridge freezer insurance" comments).

What you say about the insurance company not paying out unless there is a court
judgment is quite significant and interesting.

Do you have any more info' (or pointer to same) on the matter; if what you say
is true (and I have no reason to disbelieve it) then that is really quite
interesting.

Home content cover usually includes some degree of personal liability
cover for the occupier. The wording of most policies is something
like

"Legal liability for damages and claimants’ costs and expenses
incurred by the Family in respect of accidents resulting in
Injury to any person or loss of or damage to property"

Motor insurance largely works without court intervention. Claims are
handled directly by insurance companies and they assess them and pay
accordingly. Usually who is to blame isn't a major issue.

Personal Liability insurance protects the insured against civil law
claims that are brought against them on the basis of statutory
liability provisions. They only cover the insured's legal liability
for their negligence so the first thing a claimant must do is
establish that the policy holder was negligent and has legal liability
for the accident. This is often difficult for the claimant to do
unaided. Even the insured can spoil a claimants case for example by
admitting at the time that the accident was their fault they may
invalidate their own cover leaving the claimant to try to recover
money from the individual.

Insurance companies also deal with relatively few such claims and are
well aware that a simple way of both discouraging them and avoiding
paying is to automatically deny the claim and require the claimant to
establish liability in court before they pay. This can be an
expensive and intimidating process for the claimant even if the
insurer gives way at the court door.

There really is no comparison between using the relatively simple
motor claims system and trying to pursue a case for personal
liability.




Many thanks - at least *you* seem to know what you are talking about.

Let's hope that others Read, Mark, Learn, and Inwardly Digest!

Appreciated.

On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 13:44:16 +0100, GB wrote:

On 22/07/2013 12:19, Judith wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 10:28:28 +0100, GB wrote:

On 22/07/2013 10:02, Judith wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 09:05:22 +0100, GB wrote:

On 21/07/2013 23:29, Judith wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 22:43:37 +0100, Peter Parry wrote:

snip

Few are
covered by insurance and even when they are it is often only allied
with house contents cover which won't pay out without the claimant
paying to get a court judgment allocating legal responsibility.


Interesting comment there. Many people have previously claimed that cyclists
are covered by their house contents insurance (hence the "he'll claim off his
fridge freezer insurance" comments).

What you say about the insurance company not paying out unless there is a court
judgment is quite significant and interesting.

Do you have any more info' (or pointer to same) on the matter; if what you say
is true (and I have no reason to disbelieve it) then that is really quite
interesting.


Which bit is interesting?


Sorry - I forgot that some are not bright. Here it is again - just for you:

What you say about the insurance company not paying out unless there is a court
judgment is quite significant and interesting.

Could that perhaps be the bit I found interesting?


Why is that interesting? Before this revelation, what did you expect?
Person says they are hurt, and insurance company immediately admits
liability, maybe?

Oh dear.


Please try harder: what do you think is the significance of the words "court
judgment".


Have it your own way, then. So, based on a chance remark on usenet, do
you really think that *all* insurance companies run *all* these claims
right the way to court and never offer to settle?

Sorry - who claimed that?

Just for the sake of an argument, you are making a clearly daft point.


Do you think that Peter Parry and R Mark Clayton are perhaps being daft with
their comments then?

On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 16:54:10 +0100, "TMS320" wrote:

snip

Even at the
Vastern Road end of the path, Google Earth shows two pedestrians using the
wrong bit.


The "wrong bit"? is there some law against them using part of it then?