Hit a small child

johnfarquhar74

JQ. wrote: »

I am a cyclist and would never dream of cycling on the pavement as it's far more dangerous than the road.

Agreed but if the OP(or troll) is to be taken for his word, it would appear that this was a shared use path, cyclists should expect peds as mush as peds should expect cyclists. In Edinburgh there are clearly marked shared use paths with dividing lines in an area called 'The Meadows', a very large park, cyclists can travel very fast through there but the lines don't stop the pedestrians from wandering over.

JQ. wrote: »

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.

Mmm, in one of my previous posts on this thread I raise an issue of 'courtesy', I don't think it's alright for pedestrians to stop/turn/reverse without having a look around them first, nothing to do with cyclists but have a little bit awareness for fellow peds!

JQ. wrote: »

The likelihood is that the pedestrian will suffer more injuries than the cyclist through not fault of their own.

Sorry, I agree in the chain of responsibility where the pedestrian sits at the top but if a pedestrian, or any road user, causes an accident through their unpredictable changes in direction/speed, then they are surely not without fault?

reduceditem

So, due to a tight squeeze on a path a child get's clipped by a bike.


How did we get to 112 responses?

POPPYOSCAR

reduceditem wrote: »

So, due to a tight squeeze on a path a child get's clipped by a bike.


How did we get to 112 responses?

Obviously a thread of interest to a lot of people.

reduceditem

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

Obviously a thread of interest to a lot of people.

I'd gathered that.


Just bemused that such a minor, run of the mill-type occurance can cause such rancour. But this is an internet forum, so.....

Norman_Castle

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.

I did witness it. It happened between Fabrication Lane and Made Up road.

avstar

reduceditem wrote: »

So, due to a tight squeeze on a path a child get's clipped by a bike.


How did we get to 112 responses?

Because people including you wrote replies to the original post

cyclonebri1

Gandalfthesecond wrote: »

Double standards then.

IT DID'NT HAPPEN, only in your imagination, :wall::wall:

If it had, I would have had as much sympathy with the child as you are trying to portray.

johnson293

Regardless of right of way on this path, I think the fact the OP decided to try and ride between the mum and kids instead of trying to go around them is proof enough that he was in the wrong.

When walking through town, if you see a group of people walking toward you, do you go around them, or try and pass/barge through/between the group? The principal is the same.

If you felt you shouldn't have to/didn't want to stop/wait, why didn't you try to go around the mum and the kids?

Is it walled on each side? And was there really no room to go around them? If so, you should have still waited instead of riding between them.... as the majority on here have already told you, of course.

halibut2209

Clearly a wind up. No one in their right mind would post on an open forum that they'd hit a child and it was completely their fault.

Might as well give my "bad cyclist" story.

I was in the right hand lane at a junction waiting for a gap so I could turn right. 2 cyclist pulled up alongside in the left hand lane. As soon as there was a gap I pulled out, and the two cyclists came out right across the front of me and turned right! They were lucky they didn't get hit.

poontang

johnson293 wrote: »

Regardless of right of way on this path, I think the fact the OP decided to try and ride between the mum and kids instead of trying to go around them is proof enough that he was in the wrong.

I couldn't go round them because they were blocking the whole path, which was brick-built and slightly elevated above the grasy hill, so had I gone off the path I would have been heading down a grassy hill. Had they moved either to the left or the right I would have gone on that side, but they didn't, so through the middle was the best option.