Perhaps it depends how much Lycra they're wearing:D
Nothing to do with clothing. I've seen plenty of cyclists in "normal" clothes, and plenty of people on bikes in full lycra.
Indeed, it's the ones in full lycra that act like arseholes that particularly annoy me, because their appearance gives them an air of "professionalism" which further reinforces the hatred that some quarters have towards cyclists.
I make a personal distinction. A cyclist is someone who obeys the rules; a person on a bike isn't.
Reminds me of a comment made by my husband when we were watching a builder's truck making a pig's ear of trying to reverse a 7 or 8 ton truck through an enormous gap.
He said, "Let's be fair, he's not a driver, he's a labourer who may have a driver's licence."
Nothing to do with clothing. I've seen plenty of cyclists in "normal" clothes, and plenty of people on bikes in full lycra.
Indeed, it's the ones in full lycra that act like arseholes that particularly annoy me, because their appearance gives them an air of "professionalism" which further reinforces the hatred that some quarters have towards cyclists.
I think this is shocking. He shouldn't have been on the pavement in the first place. To not even stop to make sure she was ok is terrible. I guess if it had been a dog that he'd knocked over there would be an outrage.
Or a cat. The twittersphere would be calling for the cyclists head!
Unfortunately, despite the above law, it hasn't stopped the cyclists from riding on the pavements as there has been incidents of this kind happening to other people in the media recently.
If anything, it seems to be getting more common.
I nearly got flattened by one today. I was having a **** outside work, and stepped about 18" to one side so that I was in the sun. I thought I was going to have a heart attack as this cyclist sped past me from behind, so close I could have grabbed her sleeve as she passed. It was about 20 yards from the entrance to a park where are always kids and dogs around. I reckon she must have been doing at least 20 mph.
God knows why she was on the pavement, it's a perfectly safe road with good visibility and there was no traffic on it at the time.
I'm not sure which is the most disturbing. The mean spirited, thoughtless and irresponsible actions of the cyclist or the Daily Mail's shameless manipulation of the Highway Act 1835.
You've got the answer to your bafflement in your own OP.
Perhaps if this incident is widely publicised in a national newspaper it will inform those "plenty of people" who irresponsibly and illegally cycle on pavements of the sort of potentially dangerous incidents that can arise from their illegal behaviour.
This child was basically hit by a vehicle travelling on a thoroughfare that it was not legally supposed to be on. It's a crime, which could have resulted in serious harm.
The sooner "plenty of people" realise this, perhaps by reading about such incidents in a national newspaper, the better.
Sat here rather baffled as to how this minor event even made the news.. but then again it is the Daily Mail.
Summary.. child stepped out onto a pavement just as a cyclist was passing... knocked her to the ground (to be fair he had 1 second notice to brake) and she tumbled a short distance with the bike.
Thankfully it was all caught on CCTV. Phew. Family aren't too happy cyclist left the scene. Not sure what they were hoping for.. an exchange of insurance details? Hubby sorting him out?
Shouldn't have been on the pavement really although plenty of people do it. The child seems oblivious to the world wide attention she is now receiving.
Yes how dare a pedestrian step onto a pavement.
The report says that the child was dragged long the road for 10 feet, on her face.Hardly a 'tumble'.
Sat here rather baffled as to how this minor event even made the news.. but then again it is the Daily Mail.
Summary.. child stepped out onto a pavement just as a cyclist was passing... knocked her to the ground (to be fair he had 1 second notice to brake) and she tumbled a short distance with the bike.
Thankfully it was all caught on CCTV. Phew. Family aren't too happy cyclist left the scene. Not sure what they were hoping for.. an exchange of insurance details? Hubby sorting him out?
Shouldn't have been on the pavement really although plenty of people do it. The child seems oblivious to the world wide attention she is now receiving.
You don't knock a child down and then race off. You turn a simple accident into people getting mad and using the phrase "Hit and run"
The cyclist was going too fast anyway. You should always go at a cautious speed when passing houses because you never know what could happen. He should have slowed down as soon as he saw the woman coming out of the gate, because she could very easily have doubled back and went back inside. The cyclist was totally in the wrong because of the speed he was going at. He's very lucky he hasn't got into trouble with the police for this.
So in terms of legality, he's perfectly fine to cycle along the pavement. Him hitting the toddler was an accident (one that could have been avoided if he was going slower or if the toddler was being supervised better), but if he didn't actually check on the child then he's an arse of the highest order. That's just basic manners and consideration - bugger all to do with being a cyclist.
He's very lucky he hasn't got into trouble with the police for this.
Well they'd have to find him first. Then what? Cycling on the pavement usually a £50 fixed penalty (maximum fine £500) or under the Road Traffic Act 1991 dangerous cycling (maximum fine £2,500) or careless cycling (maximum fine £1,000). Hardly going to trouble your average MAWMIL.
So in terms of legality, he's perfectly fine to cycle along the pavement. Him hitting the toddler was an accident (one that could have been avoided if he was going slower or if the toddler was being supervised better), but if he didn't actually check on the child then he's an arse of the highest order. That's just basic manners and consideration - bugger all to do with being a cyclist.
That looks like a rectangular sign to me not a circular one
Comments
I make a personal distinction. A cyclist is someone who obeys the rules; a person on a bike isn't.
He should be riding in the pros if he was.
Indeed, it's the ones in full lycra that act like arseholes that particularly annoy me, because their appearance gives them an air of "professionalism" which further reinforces the hatred that some quarters have towards cyclists.
Reminds me of a comment made by my husband when we were watching a builder's truck making a pig's ear of trying to reverse a 7 or 8 ton truck through an enormous gap.
He said, "Let's be fair, he's not a driver, he's a labourer who may have a driver's licence."
"All the gear, no idea" ;-)
Or a cat. The twittersphere would be calling for the cyclists head!
A lame cyclist? You should have seen if they needed any help.:D
If anything, it seems to be getting more common.
I nearly got flattened by one today. I was having a **** outside work, and stepped about 18" to one side so that I was in the sun. I thought I was going to have a heart attack as this cyclist sped past me from behind, so close I could have grabbed her sleeve as she passed. It was about 20 yards from the entrance to a park where are always kids and dogs around. I reckon she must have been doing at least 20 mph.
God knows why she was on the pavement, it's a perfectly safe road with good visibility and there was no traffic on it at the time.
Cycling on pavements is an absolute menace imo.
Not a chance, maybe have a word with her for not looking both ways maybe, but she was on a path...somewhere a cyclist should not be.
Damn predictive text >:(:(
This is one reason why shared pathways are a bad idea and why some cyclists don't use them.
Horrible people, cyclists. Think they're above the law, and common rules of decency too.
Yeah, because as we all know, all cyclists are the same.
Yes how dare a pedestrian step onto a pavement.
The report says that the child was dragged long the road for 10 feet, on her face.Hardly a 'tumble'.
You don't knock a child down and then race off. You turn a simple accident into people getting mad and using the phrase "Hit and run"
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=2057911
If you look at the grainy zoomed in image of his face, you can just about make out a dual-use cycle path in the distance (top right).
Daily Mail image
Dual-use cycle path
So in terms of legality, he's perfectly fine to cycle along the pavement. Him hitting the toddler was an accident (one that could have been avoided if he was going slower or if the toddler was being supervised better), but if he didn't actually check on the child then he's an arse of the highest order. That's just basic manners and consideration - bugger all to do with being a cyclist.
Well they'd have to find him first. Then what? Cycling on the pavement usually a £50 fixed penalty (maximum fine £500) or under the Road Traffic Act 1991 dangerous cycling (maximum fine £2,500) or careless cycling (maximum fine £1,000). Hardly going to trouble your average MAWMIL.