Cyclist knocks over child ON THE PAVEMENT...
Discussion
Johnnytheboy said:
I love the way a thread about a cyclist running over a child ends up with cyclists blaming motorists.
Madness! I don't understand why people can't just accept that lots of people are inconsiderate road users regardless of the form of transport they're using. Every thread like this ends up with people generalising about "cyclists" or "motorists" as if each are some homogeneous group who all behave the same way. It would be far more accurate to generalise about imbeciles or idiots on the roads, but I guess that doesn't allow people to rant about their favourite "THEM".There is no excuse for what the cyclist in the OP did. He shouldn't have been riding on the pavement. If there was any justification for him using the pavement (which I don't really think there is), he should never have been going that fast.
And lastly, having done what he'd done, there is absolutely no excuse for not stopping.
Hopefully we can all agree on those basic points without too much mud-slinging.
And lastly, having done what he'd done, there is absolutely no excuse for not stopping.
Hopefully we can all agree on those basic points without too much mud-slinging.
ewenm said:
Johnnytheboy said:
I love the way a thread about a cyclist running over a child ends up with cyclists blaming motorists.
Madness! I don't understand why people can't just accept that lots of people are inconsiderate road users regardless of the form of transport they're using. Every thread like this ends up with people generalising about "cyclists" or "motorists" as if each are some homogeneous group who all behave the same way. It would be far more accurate to generalise about imbeciles or idiots on the roads, but I guess that doesn't allow people to rant about their favourite "THEM".Johnnytheboy said:
ewenm said:
Johnnytheboy said:
I love the way a thread about a cyclist running over a child ends up with cyclists blaming motorists.
Madness! I don't understand why people can't just accept that lots of people are inconsiderate road users regardless of the form of transport they're using. Every thread like this ends up with people generalising about "cyclists" or "motorists" as if each are some homogeneous group who all behave the same way. It would be far more accurate to generalise about imbeciles or idiots on the roads, but I guess that doesn't allow people to rant about their favourite "THEM".
Johnnytheboy said:
ewenm said:
Johnnytheboy said:
I love the way a thread about a cyclist running over a child ends up with cyclists blaming motorists.
Madness! I don't understand why people can't just accept that lots of people are inconsiderate road users regardless of the form of transport they're using. Every thread like this ends up with people generalising about "cyclists" or "motorists" as if each are some homogeneous group who all behave the same way. It would be far more accurate to generalise about imbeciles or idiots on the roads, but I guess that doesn't allow people to rant about their favourite "THEM".
t, he's a coward too? lauda said:
There is no excuse for what the cyclist in the OP did. He shouldn't have been riding on the pavement. If there was any justification for him using the pavement (which I don't really think there is), he should never have been going that fast.
And lastly, having done what he'd done, there is absolutely no excuse for not stopping.
Hopefully we can all agree on those basic points without too much mud-slinging.
I agree.And lastly, having done what he'd done, there is absolutely no excuse for not stopping.
Hopefully we can all agree on those basic points without too much mud-slinging.
But shouldn't cyclists pay some sort of road tax?
Steve
PoleDriver said:
From the Highway code:-
You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.
Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129
Also from the HC:You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.
Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129
244
You MUST NOT park partially or wholly on the pavement in London, and should not do so elsewhere unless signs permit it. Parking on the pavement can obstruct and seriously inconvenience pedestrians, people in wheelchairs or with visual impairments and people with prams or pushchairs.
Law GL(GP)A sect 15
145
You MUST NOT drive on or over a pavement, footpath or bridleway except to gain lawful access to property, or in the case of an emergency.
Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & RTA 1988 sect 34
Yet the sheer amount of cars you see parked on the pavement is an indication of a great deal of driving on the pavement.
I knew I'd find the usual wholesale hypocrisy here.
Johnnytheboy said:
I love the way a thread about a cyclist running over a child ends up with cyclists blaming motorists.
It's a valid point. Why do some people cycle on the pavement? Idiots are idiots and will always do stupid things. However, I do know some people who won't cycle on the road because of idiot drivers.heebeegeetee said:
Also from the HC:
244
You MUST NOT park partially or wholly on the pavement in London, and should not do so elsewhere unless signs permit it. Parking on the pavement can obstruct and seriously inconvenience pedestrians, people in wheelchairs or with visual impairments and people with prams or pushchairs.
Law GL(GP)A sect 15
145
You MUST NOT drive on or over a pavement, footpath or bridleway except to gain lawful access to property, or in the case of an emergency.
Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & RTA 1988 sect 34
Yet the sheer amount of cars you see parked on the pavement is an indication of a great deal of driving on the pavement.
I knew I'd find the usual wholesale hypocrisy here.
I assume you are referring to London here?244
You MUST NOT park partially or wholly on the pavement in London, and should not do so elsewhere unless signs permit it. Parking on the pavement can obstruct and seriously inconvenience pedestrians, people in wheelchairs or with visual impairments and people with prams or pushchairs.
Law GL(GP)A sect 15
145
You MUST NOT drive on or over a pavement, footpath or bridleway except to gain lawful access to property, or in the case of an emergency.
Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & RTA 1988 sect 34
Yet the sheer amount of cars you see parked on the pavement is an indication of a great deal of driving on the pavement.
I knew I'd find the usual wholesale hypocrisy here.
There are many places where parking on (or partially on) the pavement is compulsory. Parking on a verge next to a pavement is also necessary in some places, but it does mess up the verge!
However, parking off the road like this does free up more space for cyclists to ride on the road.
I've never seen a car driving along the pavement though (moving in to a parking spot at a low speed hardly constitutes 'driving along the pavement'!)
PoleDriver said:
I assume you are referring to London here?
There are many places where parking on (or partially on) the pavement is compulsory. Parking on a verge next to a pavement is also necessary in some places, but it does mess up the verge!
However, parking off the road like this does free up more space for cyclists to ride on the road.
I've never seen a car driving along the pavement though (moving in to a parking spot at a low speed hardly constitutes 'driving along the pavement'!)
A takeaway vehicle was driven past our house last night along the pavement. He didn't just use a bit of the pavement either. He came past our house and carried on until I couldn't see him, still on the pavement.There are many places where parking on (or partially on) the pavement is compulsory. Parking on a verge next to a pavement is also necessary in some places, but it does mess up the verge!
However, parking off the road like this does free up more space for cyclists to ride on the road.
I've never seen a car driving along the pavement though (moving in to a parking spot at a low speed hardly constitutes 'driving along the pavement'!)
Crazy!
funkyrobot said:
A takeaway vehicle was driven past our house last night along the pavement. He didn't just use a bit of the pavement either. He came past our house and carried on until I couldn't see him, still on the pavement.
Crazy!
Quite, it's illegal and should be reported, just like the cyclists who drive on the pavement.Crazy!
Not sure what point you are trying to make here? Two wrongs don't make a right?
PoleDriver said:
funkyrobot said:
A takeaway vehicle was driven past our house last night along the pavement. He didn't just use a bit of the pavement either. He came past our house and carried on until I couldn't see him, still on the pavement.
Crazy!
Quite, it's illegal and should be reported, just like the cyclists who drive on the pavement.Crazy!
Not sure what point you are trying to make here? Two wrongs don't make a right?
lauda said:
There is no excuse for what the cyclist in the OP did. He shouldn't have been riding on the pavement. If there was any justification for him using the pavement (which I don't really think there is), he should never have been going that fast.
And lastly, having done what he'd done, there is absolutely no excuse for not stopping.
Hopefully we can all agree on those basic points without too much mud-slinging.
I completely agree with you.And lastly, having done what he'd done, there is absolutely no excuse for not stopping.
Hopefully we can all agree on those basic points without too much mud-slinging.
Having watched the video again, the child runs out on to the pavement and doesn't look to be stopping (with parent looking away). It could have been much worse if she'd have ran on to the road.
The Count said:
I completely agree with you.
Having watched the video again, the child runs out on to the pavement and doesn't look to be stopping (with parent looking away). It could have been much worse if she'd have ran on to the road.
You'd be surprised at how many people think the child running out to the car on her own isn't an issue. Personally, I don't agree with it because you simply do not know what is on the pavement (as shown in this example), and you can't trust a child to go where you want it to.Having watched the video again, the child runs out on to the pavement and doesn't look to be stopping (with parent looking away). It could have been much worse if she'd have ran on to the road.
It seems like I'm in the minority in thinking this isn't good practice. Doesn't bother me really as people are entitled to look after their children how they wish to. When my daughter starts walking, she won't be going anywhere near a road without being looked after properly.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff