Hit a small child

poontang

Gandalfthesecond wrote: »

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

There is a fairly steep hill with bike parking at the bottom, adjoining the road, and the top, adjacent to the swimming pool.

The bike parking at the top of the hill is pointless if cycling is not permitted on the path up the hill, because it would be much more convenient to park at the bottom and then walk up than to push your bike up the hill and lock it there. It's not plausible that they would choose to build bike parking at the top of the path if they didn't intend people to cycle up it.

Gandalfthesecond

poontang wrote: »

There is a fairly steep hill with bike parking at the bottom, adjoining the road, and the top, adjacent to the swimming pool.

The bike parking at the top of the hill is pointless if cycling is not permitted on the path up the hill, because it would be much more convenient to park at the bottom and then walk up than to push your bike up the hill and lock it there. It's not plausible that they would choose to build bike parking at the top of the path if they didn't intend people to cycle up it.

Why not? Is that the only access to the top of the hill?

Post us a google map link so we can see.

chris_n_tj

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.

Cars are easy to hear, but if my memory serves me right bikes have no motors, so thats a bit different to a bike wouldnt you say?

Being the adult in this situation you should always remember a child can jump out, trip, fall over. So its your duty to take a bit more care. Afterall whats a few minutes of your time.

You did say that your brake handle hit the child, so you must have been really close, no matter hopw slow you were going.

rev_henry

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.

No you probably didn't. Momentum is a function of mass as well as velocity (mv^2), and your total mass would have been much greater as it was both you and the bike.

Can you please tell us where this is so we can see for ourselves on google maps.

discplayer

poontang wrote: »

The bike parking at the top of the hill is pointless if cycling is not permitted on the path up the hill, because it would be much more convenient to park at the bottom and then walk up than to push your bike up the hill and lock it there. It's not plausible that they would choose to build bike parking at the top of the path if they didn't intend people to cycle up it.

Whilst I have some sympathy for your confusion - I know of a couple of similar layouts - if there's no sign that it's a (shared) cyclepath you're on very dodgy ground. In fact I understand the reason some cyclists don't like shared paths is that you are supposed to give way to pedestrians and no-one likes hitting people so on some paths that means you're faster to walk than to cycle.

NeverAgain_2

Cyclists are the new lorry drivers.

They think the world's against them.

poontang

rev_henry wrote: »

No you probably didn't. Momentum is a function of mass as well as velocity (mv^2), and your total mass would have been much greater as it was both you and the bike.

I weigh 90kg and the bike about 15kg, so the increase in momentum due to being on a bike is only about 15% - the equivalent of walking at 3.5 mph instead of 3mph - very slight.

Bicycles are no more dangerous than pedestrians at a given speed - the problem is that bicycles can go much faster.

Can you please tell us where this is so we can see for ourselves on google maps.

I had a look, but the pics are old and the layout has changed.

Gordon_Hose

Pedestrians tend to be softer and more rounded than a brake lever though.

I know which I'd prefer to be driven into me at face level.

Gandalfthesecond

poontang wrote: »

I had a look, but the pics are old and the layout has changed.

You mean they don't suit your argument, very convenient.

poontang

Gandalfthesecond wrote: »

You mean they don't suit your argument, very convenient.

I've explained the situation, there is one means of access up to the pool, a path with the bike park at the top. If you don't believe that, I could be lying about anything else too, so you're wasting your time here in the first place.