Hit a small child

Inactive

baza52 wrote: »

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?

The OP refuses to give a Google Maps location, for obvious reasons I suspect..

custardy

BillTrac wrote: »

For crying out loud..what next? Expecting cyclists to have lights at night?.....:rotfl:

And just what is it with those bleeding flashing lights cyclists seem to prefer?

noticed them have you? theres your answer

cyclonebri1

Gandalfthesecond wrote: »

So you'd have been a happy man had one of your children/grandchildren been left crying in similar circumstances?

But they weren't left crying, no one was hurt and it wasn't a tradegy. Leaves it open to a humourous remark imho.

Under other circumstances, ie, if it actually was serious and if the younster had of been one of "mine" I would have ripped every spoke out of his wheels, but it didn't happen:shhh:

pwllbwdr

rev_henry wrote: »

No you probably didn't. Momentum is a function of mass as well as velocity (mv^2), and your total mass would have been much greater as it was both you and the bike.

rev_henry clearly didn't study physics at the university of life.

Gandalfthesecond

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

But they weren't left crying, no one was hurt and it wasn't a tradegy. Leaves it open to a humourous remark imho.

Under other circumstances, ie, if it actually was serious and if the younster had of been one of "mine" I would have ripped every spoke out of his wheels, but it didn't happen:shhh:

Double standards then.

Gloomendoom

I'm convinced this thread is a wind up.

However, I was under the impression that it doesn't matter whether it is a footpath, motorway or the middle of a ploughed field, the pedestrian always has right of way. If you can't safely pass then you must stop and wait until it is safe to do so.

It was one of the questions on my driving test.

Norman_Castle

Your obviously feeling GUILTY!! That child will now be scarred for life and will probably have nightmares and bad dreams about the bike man !! lol

I expect the op does feel guilty. I also expect the childs parent also felt guilt for not supervising her child properly, hence the outburst. The op says he was at near walking pace and the parent and children could clearly see him. He decided it was safe to pass between the child and parent, unfortunately the child decided it needed to stand next to its mother and wrongly walked in front of the bike. If the cyclist had been going too fast the child could have been hurt, fortunately the cyclist was being cautious. Children walk in front of people, shopping trolleys, cars, bikes and anything else that moves and berating a cautious cyclist after being involved in an accident with a dozy child simply because they are older and on a bike is unfair.

JQ.

Norman_Castle wrote: »

I expect the op does feel guilty. I also expect the childs parent also felt guilt for not supervising her child properly, hence the outburst. The op says he was at near walking pace and the parent and children could clearly see him. He decided it was safe to pass between the child and parent, unfortunately the child decided it needed to stand next to its mother and wrongly walked in front of the bike. If the cyclist had been going too fast the child could have been hurt, fortunately the cyclist was being cautious. Children walk in front of people, shopping trolleys, cars, bikes and anything else that moves and berating a cautious cyclist after being involved in an accident with a dozy child simply because they are older and on a bike is unfair.

Sounds like you must have witnessed the whole incident - perhaps you could tell us where it took place - the OP does not appear too forthcoming on that front.

jaydeeuk1

I like the way that pedestrians are painted as 'far more unpredictable that other road users' on this thread. Can't the Govt ban them from pavements instead as they're such a danger?

Don't get me wrong, I hate cyclists as much as the next driver, but the old 'think of the children' routine has gotten old. If the parents can't look after them properly and keep them in control when walking on an effing pavement, perhaps they aren't fit to be parents after all.

Can't believe I'm sticking up for a cyclist :eek:

JQ.

jaydeeuk1 wrote: »

I like the way that pedestrians are painted as 'far more unpredictable that other road users' on this thread. Can't the Govt ban them from pavements instead as they're such a danger?

Don't get me wrong, I hate cyclists as much as the next driver, but the old 'think of the children' routine has gotten old. If the parents can't look after them properly and keep them in control when walking on an effing pavement, perhaps they aren't fit to be parents after all.

Can't believe I'm sticking up for a cyclist :eek:

I think you misunderstood my comments - I was not having a go at pedestrians I was having a go at cyclists on the pavement.

I am a cyclist and would never dream of cycling on the pavement as it's far more dangerous than the road. Pedestrians are far more unpredictable because they generally all travel at the same slow speed so sudden movements don't cause any issues. Pedestrians stop for no reason, suddenly turn right, suddenly turn left then right then stop then turnaround then start again. All of this while on their ipod or chatting on the phone. Whilst that would not cause any issues to fellow pedestrians, it would cuase a serious hazard to a cyclist travelling at a much faster rate, who does not have the time to get out of the way. The likelihood is that the pedestrian will suffer more injuries than the cyclist through not fault of their own.

Pavements are for pedestrians the road is for bikes, cars, trucks etc.