Hit a small child

opinions4u

Let's assume it's a cycle path.

Is it right or sensible for a cyclist to ride dangerously between two kids?

Sorry OP, if you'd caused more severe damage there's a reasonable chance you'd be in court.

You are completely in the wrong.

(If it was a car on the road, would it be right to drive in a way that runs the risk of hitting a child?)

wolvoman wrote: »

Under which law would you do that? I think if your kids were wandering around in a random way and there wasn't a specific 'no-cycling' sign then you'd get laughed out of court. Actually you wouldn't get there.

Civil law places a reponsility on all of us to act in a way that isn't negligent to others. Common sense should tell us children can be unpredictable.

poontang wrote: »

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

The OP confirms stupidity by telling us that a law was written outlawing something that hadn't been invented.

property.advert

Bikes should stay on the road. I'll happily waste an umbrella between the wheel of any bike which wants to invade my piece of pathway. If they hit my child, I'd throw the book at them, prosecution and all.

poontang

opinions4u wrote: »

The OP confirms stupidity by telling us that a law was written outlawing something that hadn't been invented.

The law was designed for horses. Heard of those?

It prohibits 'riding' on the footway.

Norman_Castle

Unfortunately the six year old moved into my path as I was passing and got hit in the face by my brake lever (no damage done, didn't cry, didn't get knocked over).

This could have been much worse, you were very brave not to cry.

poontang

property.advert wrote: »

Bikes should stay on the road. I'll happily waste an umbrella between the wheel of any bike which wants to invade my piece of pathway.

You have your piece of pathway and I'll have mine.

I think you'll find the average cyclist is fitter and stronger than you and won't take too kindly to your assaults.