Hit a small child

johnfarquhar74

flea72 wrote: »

the OP has yet to confirm whether this path is a shared path, with the appropriate signage (their lack of evidence most likely confirms it is not a cycle path)

I think most of us know what really happened here but it's all too easy to jump to conclusions. The OP has made various posts, they refuse to give location details so we can find out for ourself so all the 'facts' we know are those given in their post.

flea72 wrote: »

they just assume that as there is a bike park at the end of the path, it makes sense that a cyclist should be able to ride up it, because bikes are meant for riding, not pushing
F

In all honesty, if the path was wide enough and long enough, and was the only means to enter the leisure facility and their was a cycle shed at the end, I think I would assume it would be a shared use path. Not all paths are suitably signed, I can think of one just outside my work that is part of a cycle network, it is not signed as shared use with the relevant blue sign.

FakeIrish

If a stupid mother was using her kids to block my progress, I would aim directly for her.

JQ.

Strider590 wrote: »

^^ An "Airzound" would be better, they'd dive off into the bushes when you give em a blast on that baby

I find mine is just as effective on cars and lorries. :beer:

baza52

SVM wrote: »

If a stupid mother was using her kids to block my progress, I would aim directly for her.

Thats what the OP did

FakeIrish

baza52 wrote: »

Thats what the OP did

Without condoning what the OP did, I blame the mother. As others have said, I would've taken action to avoid putting the kids at risk in the first place.

Seriously, assuming the cyslist was allowed to cycle there, why the heck should he have to stop and walk his bike around pig ignorant mothers who will not remove their kids from potential risks.

The OP did not mean to hit the kid as the kid stepped into his way at the last minute - the mother should have removed them out of harm's way!

FakeIrish

PS - a bell on a bike? a complete waste when my bark is louder and more penetrative.

Heliflyguy

SVM wrote: »

Seriously, assuming the cyslist was allowed to cycle there, why the heck should he have to stop and walk his bike around pig ignorant mothers who will not remove their kids from potential risks.

Using you assumption because the highway code advises you should...oh no wait your using a cyclist mentality.

62
Cycle Tracks. These are normally located away from the road, but may occasionally be found alongside footpaths or pavements. Cyclists and pedestrians may be segregated or they may share the same space (unsegregated). When using segregated tracks you MUST keep to the side intended for cyclists as the pedestrian side remains a pavement or footpath. Take care when passing pedestrians, especially children, older or disabled people, and allow them plenty of room. Always be prepared to slow down and stop if necessary. Take care near road junctions as you may have difficulty seeing other road users, who might not notice you.

FakeIrish

Heliflyguy wrote: »

Using you assumption because the highway code advises you should...oh no wait your using a cyclist mentality.

62
Cycle Tracks. These are normally located away from the road, but may occasionally be found alongside footpaths or pavements. Cyclists and pedestrians may be segregated or they may share the same space (unsegregated). When using segregated tracks you MUST keep to the side intended for cyclists as the pedestrian side remains a pavement or footpath. Take care when passing pedestrians, especially children, older or disabled people, and allow them plenty of room. Always be prepared to slow down and stop if necessary. Take care near road junctions as you may have difficulty seeing other road users, who might not notice you.

No I am not talking from a cyclist's perspective. I was talking from a parent's perspective - I would remove my child from the impending danger/risk - not keep them there taking a chance!

And before you quote any further legislation/codes at me - parents will understand that when it comes to protecting your kids, common sense prevails - not legislations/codes.

johnfarquhar74

Heliflyguy wrote: »

Using you assumption because the highway code advises you should...oh no wait your using a cyclist mentality.

62
Cycle Tracks. These are normally located away from the road, but may occasionally be found alongside footpaths or pavements. Cyclists and pedestrians may be segregated or they may share the same space (unsegregated). When using segregated tracks you MUST keep to the side intended for cyclists as the pedestrian side remains a pavement or footpath. Take care when passing pedestrians, especially children, older or disabled people, and allow them plenty of room. Always be prepared to slow down and stop if necessary. Take care near road junctions as you may have difficulty seeing other road users, who might not notice you.

Highway code can be used by pedestrians as well, Rule 13 in this instance

13

Routes shared with cyclists. Some cycle tracks run alongside footpaths or pavements, using a segregating feature to separate cyclists from people on foot. Segregated routes may also incorporate short lengths of tactile paving to help visually impaired people stay on the correct side. On the pedestrian side this will comprise a series of flat-topped bars running across the direction of travel (ladder pattern). On the cyclist side the same bars are orientated in the direction of travel (tramline pattern). Not all routes which are shared with cyclists are segregated. Take extra care where this is so (see Rule 62).

Clearly this did not happen from both parties.
We are still not clear if this is a shared use path but let's take the OP's word for it until proven otherwise!

Norman_Castle

I can almost see the headline.

Any ideas?

Cyclist victimised in online witch hunt