Hit a small child

Rolandtheroadie

baza52 wrote: »

we should submit this thread to the Sun. They would have a field day naming and shaming..

I can almost see the headline.

Any ideas?

A cyclist does wrong, wont admit it and has loads of other cyclists who think they can do what they want backing him up?

Hardly headline news.

JQ.

scotsman4th wrote: »

A cyclist does wrong, wont admit it and has loads of other cyclists who think they can do what they want backing him up?

Hardly headline news.

Really, have you read the thread?

It's the cyclist's who've attacked the OP, myself included, along with several others. Wierdly it appears to be parents who are attacking the mother for not controlling the children.

FakeIrish

JQ. wrote: »

Wierdly it appears to be parents who are attacking the mother for not controlling the children.

I wouldn't quite phrase it like that. Replace "controlling" with "protecting".

Rolandtheroadie

JQ. wrote: »

Really, have you read the thread?

It's the cyclist's who've attacked the OP, myself included, along with several others. Wierdly it appears to be parents who are attacking the mother for not controlling the children.

Yep. Initially I was impressed with the responses from cyclists who criticised the OP for what I saw as a 50/50 right/wrong (all being equal assuming the cyclist should be cycling there).
But the tide is slowly turning.

FakeIrish

scotsman4th wrote: »

loads of other cyclists who think they can do what they want backing him up?

Maybe I have missed the relevant posts, but I cannot identify anyone actually condoning the OP's behaviour.

JQ.

SVM wrote: »

Maybe I have missed the relevant posts, but I cannot identify anyone actually condoning the OP's behaviour.

Are you sure?

SVM wrote: »

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

FakeIrish

JQ. wrote: »

Are you sure?

Yes, I am still sure.

poontang

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)

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

As I explained earlier, as it is not a public right of way, merely an access path to a premises, 'shared path' signage is by no means necessary. I do not have a bicycle sign on my driveway, but it's perfectly legal for me to ride on it.

Dozens of cyclists used the path each day, there is really no doubt as to whether it's permitted to ride bikes up the path, it's encouraged by the fact they built the parking at the top. If they had no wanted cyclists to ride up, they would have stuck up a 'cyclists dismount' sign at the same time.

JQ.

So what's the address then?

edited to say:
I see people cycling on pavements every day, it does not mean they are allowed to. There are also pavements with secure cycle stores on them - again that does not thereby constitute permission to ride on the pavement to get to them.

poontang

JQ. wrote: »

So what's the address then?

edited to say:
I see people cycling on pavements every day, it does not mean they are allowed to. There are also pavements with secure cycle stores on them - again that does not thereby constitute permission to ride on the pavement to get to them.

That's utterly specious. Cycling on pavements has been prohibited by law since before bicycles even existed. It's a poor comparison.

There are pavements on which you are permitted to park cars too - and you drive on the road to get to them. A pavement, which sits directly alongside a road, is hardly comparable to a bike park at the top of a steep hill with only one means of access.
If you want to park your bike on the pavement, it's no more convenient if you cycled on the pavement to get there than if you went on the road.