Hit a small child

poontang

Gandalfthesecond wrote: »

Where does it say in the highway code pedestrians can't use all of the footpath?

Courtesy would suggest that when you are using a public resource you share it with others and avoid making it impossible for them to get past.

I was going no faster than walking pace, I could just as well have brushed the child had I been on foot, but there seems to be a special indignance that people reserve for cyclists - right before they drive off in their 3-tonne SUVs.

rev_henry

Gandalfthesecond wrote: »

Where does it say in the highway code pedestrians can't use all of the footpath?

Had you done it to one of mine you'd have had damage to both yourself and your bike.

Right, so, assuming its a shared footpath and both parties are allowed to be there, do you refuse to walk in such a way that other pedestrians or cyclists cannot get past?

The mother quite possibly just had an instinctive moment of 'you hurt my child, I hate you' and hadn't actually thought about the incident properly. Don't see why she would just ignore you and not walk to one side to let you past though. Either she was being awkward or you had no right to cycle there. I will often walk awkwardly if I see a cyclist coming towards me on the pavement, especially if there's a perfectly serviceable cycle lane right next to them on the road.

Hintza

Gandalfthesecond wrote: »

I hope he had his sash on.

You hope he sang the sash?

Gordon_Hose

lol, you should have stopped and let them past.

If I was the kids father you'd have been wearing your bike.

rev_henry

On a similar note, I really don't think these shared paths are a good idea. At least paint lines down the middle of the path so one side's marked out for pedestrians and the other for bikes. Then everyone knows where they stand (or should stand ) With shared footpaths I can't cycle half as quickly as I want to if there are pedestrians about, and its dangerous because neither pedestrian nor cyclist knows which way to pass each other.

Gandalfthesecond

poontang wrote: »

Courtesy would suggest that when you are using a public resource you share it with others and avoid making it impossible for them to get past.

But if it isn't a cycle path you shouldn't have been there, end of.

rev_henry wrote: »

Right, so, assuming its a shared footpath and both parties are allowed to be there, do you refuse to walk in such a way that other pedestrians or cyclists cannot get past?

The mother quite possibly just had an instinctive moment of 'you hurt my child, I hate you' and hadn't actually thought about the incident properly. Don't see why she would just ignore you and not walk to one side to let you past though. Either she was being awkward or you had no right to cycle there. I will often walk awkwardly if I see a cyclist coming towards me on the pavement, especially if there's a perfectly serviceable cycle lane right next to them on the road.

The OP has provided no evidence to suggest it is shared.

POPPYOSCAR

Even if the mother had stopped or moved her children to one side I would have stopped and walked my bike past. Children can be unpredictable at the best of times.

OP sounds a bit like my teenage son who thinks the roads are only for cars!!

poontang

pgilc1 wrote: »

Also, RE: the path leads to a cycle track, therefore you must be able to cycle up it - theres a stock car track close to me with a path up to it that pedestrians use, by your logic i should be able to drive a stock car up it with total disregard for children and other people?

I didn't have total disregard, I passed the child at walking pace and unfortunately he moved as I went past which meant he got hit. I had less force/momentum than a brisk walker and did him no damage.

I have no idea about the path to your stock car track, but if that is the vehicular means of access to it, then I as a pedestrian would expect stock cars to use it, and if I were walking along it and saw a stock car coming I would certainly exercise due caution.

In this case there is a place for parking bikes at the top and also a place for parking bikes at bottom of the hill and only one path in between. The bike park is the first thing you see when you come out of the pool, and I of course was visible coming up the hill on my bike.

I walk along some very quiet roads/byways sometimes with my children and if I hear/see a car I would make sure they move to the side of the road, it's common sense really.

marleyboy

poontang wrote: »

Technically I don't think it's either, it's a paved access path leading from the road up to the swimming pool entrance and adjacent bike park. It doesn't go anywhere else.

Technically speaking, a cycle path has a sign indicating so, else it is a footpath, as such the pedestrian has right of way.

What you should have done is either rang your bell or verbally let them know your intention, in normal circumstances you should dismount and push, at least until you have passed them safely.

Gandalfthesecond

poontang wrote: »

I didn't have total disregard, I passed the child at walking pace and unfortunately he moved as I went past which meant he got hit. I had less force/momentum than a brisk walker and did him no damage.

I have no idea about the path to your stock car track, but if that is the vehicular means of access to it, then I as a pedestrian would expect stock cars to use it, and if I were walking along it and saw a stock car coming I would certainly exercise due caution.

In this case there is a place for parking bikes at the top and also a place for parking bikes at bottom of the hill and only one path in between. The bike park is the first thing you see when you come out of the pool, and I of course was visible coming up the hill on my bike.

I walk along some very quiet roads/byways sometimes with my children and if I hear/see a car I would make sure they move to the side of the road, it's common sense really.

Shame you didn't take yours out today.