Pavement perils

brat

I absolutely cannot condone the actions of the cyclist here. His speed was too high for taking the liberty of cycling on the quiet pavement. His actions after the event, namely shouting at the family then cycling off are pathetic and despicable.

It looks to me like he's moved slightly towards the left to avoid mother's move to the car door, causing him to be nearer the gate entrance than he would normally be. But his speed and lack of care and consideration are the primary faults.

The road concerned is Collingwood Avenue Blackpool. From Streetview it looks like the house from which the child has emerged is No55. The pavement outside is 3 metres wide and the road is about 8 metres wide, narrowed to 4/4.5 metres by the presence of parked vehicles. There is no off road parking, so the road will have a lot of parked cars

Just 50m north of the incident is a blue cyclist sign on the pavement, next to a road edge cycle path. That probably indicates the roadedge cycle path, but it is quite ambiguous.

60 metres further on is a blue sign offering cyclists a 'route to schools'. That sign is well away from the road, and would seem to offer cyclists the right to avoid the traffic lights and use a path away from the busy road. It also implies that cyclists need to be on the pavement at that point to be able to see and benefit from that sign.

The available width of the road, the volume of traffic, the parked cars, the 3m wide empty pavement and the permission implicit in the (poor) signage all lend themselves to the likelihood that many commuter cyclists will use the pavement rather than the road.
In general I'd have no issue with that if done safely, because, as 'mad' rightly recognises, there are many aggressive motorists who either ignorantly or intentionally make urban cycling a miserable, sometimes dangerous activity. But this cyclist was taking insufficient care in the circumstances.

I'm intrigued, not so much by the owner's need for cctv outside their house, but that they were able during the resulting terrifying ordeal to have the presence of mind to take a picture of the offender.

Judging the parenting is a side issue. Pavements should be safe places for people to walk. But leaving a two year old with the freedom to run towards a busy road does ask questions of the parents. Additionally, joggers/runners have legitimate use of that pavement at speeds approaching that of the cyclist. The cyclist may well be able to argue that his use of the pavements was encouraged by positive signage on the pavement.
In my view some responsibility for this incident does need to be borne by the parents. But the primary burden of responsibility definitely lies with the cyclist.

Mr_Singleton

Strider590 wrote: »

I mean how irresponsible, the mother didn't even look right/left before going over to the car

Your so right.... think what would have happened if it had been an HGV driving on the pavement instead of a speeding bike..... nasty!

frisbeej

Mr_Singleton wrote: »

Your so right.... think what would have happened if it had been an HGV driving on the pavement instead of a speeding bike..... nasty!

It would have taken out the whole family?

Like happened in Bath a few months ago...

moneyistooshorttomention

I don't understand those posts by people who seem to be on the side of the cyclist???

Presumably the pavement is a pedestrian-only one - as are most pavements.

Therefore, quite obviously, the cyclist is 101% in the wrong here and there was no requirement whatsoever for the parents (or their child) to watch out for the childs safety. The child was perfectly safe - they were on a PAVEMENT (not the road).

Therefore it was up to the cyclist to be the one doing the "watching out" (ie by being where they belonged = on the road).

I never watch out for cyclists either on the pavement - unless there is an official sign up saying its one of the ones that pedestrians are having to share with cyclists. If its a pedestrian-only pavement (like most of them then...) then I don't watch out - because I don't have to.

Johno100

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

I don't understand those posts by people who seem to be on the side of the cyclist???

Cyclist? He wasn't a cyclist, he was a person on a bike (AKA as a POB).

frisbeej

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

I don't understand those posts by people who seem to be on the side of the cyclist???

Presumably the pavement is a pedestrian-only one - as are most pavements.

Therefore, quite obviously, the cyclist is 101% in the wrong here and there was no requirement whatsoever for the parents (or their child) to watch out for the childs safety. The child was perfectly safe - they were on a PAVEMENT (not the road).

Therefore it was up to the cyclist to be the one doing the "watching out" (ie by being where they belonged = on the road).

I never watch out for cyclists either on the pavement - unless there is an official sign up saying its one of the ones that pedestrians are having to share with cyclists. If its a pedestrian-only pavement (like most of them then...) then I don't watch out - because I don't have to.

Even a small child on a bike with stabilizers, supervised by a parent? You want them on the road as well? Would you be so outraged that you would drag little Susie off of her shiny pink bike and pummel her?


Oh noes, I've mentioned cyclist and pavement in the same sentence! That means I must support the moronic idiot that ran over some poor kid. But wait you mentioned cyclist and pavement as well, so that means you do to!

brat

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

I don't understand those posts by people who seem to be on the side of the cyclist???.

Who are they then...?

Can you highlight their posts, because I can't see them? :think:

Strider590

Johnmcl7 wrote: »

I frequently ride down roads like that without issue (and with a lot more parked cars) and the pavement is clearly considerably less suitable for riding on as the camera does show. If I have to go on a pavement of that type then I get off and walk the bike, there is no justification for the type of riding shown in the video.

John

I didn't say there was...... The cyclist shouldn't have been there at all!

What I implied is that the mother behaved irresponsibly considering there is a busy road so near to that house.

Nobody here can honestly tell me they'd let their children run out unsupervised and nobody here can tell me they would walk out onto a pavement without checking left/right for hazards.

At my ex's place, you used to step out onto the path, you had to be bloody careful there wasn't some chav flying down there on a quad/monkey bike or mini-moto...... Or even just children on bicycles!!

A stereotypical ditsy blonde, with no awareness and no common sense.




And to those that claim a pavement should always be "safe", yes it should, BUT it might not be. You should NEVER assume something is safe just because it "should be". The world is full of idiots who will happily prove you wrong.

Johnmcl7

Strider590 wrote: »

I didn't say there was...... The cyclist shouldn't have been there at all!

I never made such a claim in the first place, there is no reference to you or any part of your post in the text you've bolded unless you're mixing me up for someone else.

I don't agree with your points about it being a 'ditsy' blonde either but given your rambling and mostly irrelevant rant there's little point discussing that.

John

brat

Strider590 wrote: »

And to those that claim a pavement should always be "safe", yes it should, BUT it might not be. You should NEVER assume something is safe just because it "should be". The world is full of idiots who will happily prove you wrong.

This is the mantra that people bat back ad nauseam at cyclists - like we don't already know - that there's no point being in the right, but dead. We get this constant victim blaming barked back at us in respect of dark clothing, poor road positioning, assertive cycling, nervous cycling, cycling on the road rather than a cycle path, etc etc.

It takes nothing away from the guilt of the cyclist. His only mitigation (in my view) is that the dodgy signage might imply that it was OK for cyclists to use the pavement.
But if I was the parent of that child, I would be feeling guilty about allowing her to become a victim to the cyclist. The parents should have ensured that this accident never happened.