Hit a small child

poontang

Penny_Farthing wrote: »

OP sounds miffed that they didn't get out of his way.

Well yes, possibly. I don't need the whole path, but some part of it would be nice.

Bit of ego trouble there, I'd say. They could have moved aside to let you pass but, hey - the world doesn't revolve around you.

Perhaps they will next time, eh?

poontang

bob_a_builder wrote: »

No mention of activating the device on a bike to alert people of your presence

i.e. the Bell !!

Yes I have one of those, but when I'm cycling uphill in the opposite direction and looking you in the eye I assume you've seen me.

bigmuffins

Never ASSUME anything as it only makes an !!! out of U and ME

Rolandtheroadie

poontang wrote: »

Yes I have one of those, but when I'm cycling uphill in the opposite direction and looking you in the eye I assume you've seen me.

Assumption is the mother of all !!!! ups.

Oh, and 2 wrongs dont make a right.

mikey72

I must admit, I move my kids to the side away from the cyclist, and then we make eye contact as well. They stop for me. But, if you had injured my child, I'd sue you personally for damages.

JQ.

poontang wrote: »

Perhaps they will next time, eh?

What a pathetic comment. You hit a child in the face! Do you punch your own kids in the face to teach them a lesson.

Wig

chris_n_tj wrote: »

I do hope this is a wind up

With a name like poontang, and the unlikliest of stories, I'd have to go with wind up

Wig

So Poontang, What exactly is the problem? AFAICS you hit some kid, had a barney with the parent and nothing else happened....

Were plod called? Did you exchange contact details? Did you give your true details? Why?

marleyboy

poontang wrote: »

The path is wide enough for at least two bikes, so it was not me that was causing the obstruction, it was the three people walking in a row blocking the whole path.



The mother was in the middle of the path, I didn't think it advisable to pass on the outside of the children.




I couldn't 'move aside', if they want to walk three-abreast it's not possible when anything is coming the other way. OTOH, not walking three-abreast was an option for them.

Sorry, but your making feeble excuses to claim you had a right of way, the fact is YOU DIDNT - were it a shared cycle\footpath there would be a sign indicating such, including clear markings on the very path, this is not only to let a cyclist know they are allowed to cycle on it, but to warn pedestrians to be aware of cyclists.

The simple and basic fact was that unless indicated (regardless of what you think) the path is for pedestrians NOT CYCLISTS, this means that pedestrians have the right of way, they can walk 2,3,4,5 abreast if need be, blocking the entire pathway, should another pedestrian be walking the opposite direction, they step to one side, should a pedestrian be jogging up from behind, a quick "excuse me" is all it takes.

Unless specifically notified, a cyclist has no say whatsoever, your duty therefore would be to dismount your bicycle and NOT ride between people. Had it been my child you would be wearing the bike, as clearly you were in the wrong.

If it was not possible to move to the side of this "Footpath", you should have applied the brakes, take your foot off the pedal, lift your leg over the frame, and either waited, or pushed.

Instead of looking for an excuse to justify your actions, its probably a good idea to just accept you was in the wrong, you asked for advice, it has been given to you throughout this thread, I am sorry it does not fit with your approval, but facts are facts.

baza52

OP
What would YOU have done if someone rode into your small child. Would you have scolded the child for not moving or blamed the person on a bike?.

Does the swimming pool not have any car access you could have used?
This "bike park" is it really like a car park for bikes or just some metal stands to lock your bike into?
Why could you not have gone around them? is the path walled at the sides?