Pebble wrote:The child is the most vulnerable road/path user here so it is the responsibility of the cyclist to avoid collision.
In the spirit of presumed liability we need to be on the side of the most vulnerable until otherwise proved beyond doubt by the more powerful road user. Remember the new hierarchy; Pedestrian -> Cyclist -> Car -> Lorry, and I would put 'toddler' in front of pedestrian....
That's it for me.
Anybody uncomfortable with that analysis might reflect on the usual line taken by the Daily Mail on the subject.
Explain with facts how pedestrians -not toddlers, are more vulnerable than people on bikes when these two parties are in a collision?
Similar vulnerability, but one is brining a lot more momentum to the party. And that the “next differentiator” in terms of the hierarchy. In a similar way you always “give way to those downhill” when skiing/snowboarding - ie it is always the faster skiers responsibility to avoid a collision with a slower skier.
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way.No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse. There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
The video of the gob with the phone seriously harassing the poor girl on the bike should never have been released on social media, but just handed to police.
The footage and media coverage could be considered libelous (ianal), and also if it went to court could be flagged as predjudicial to any outcome. It's why police tell you not to post videos of cycle or dash camera footage online.
We don't know the specifics of the Incident. I can't envisage a situation where a person on a bike would ride into a young child, and as a grandfather of a 4 yr old it's not long since I was surprised at how quickly a very young child can move.
For whatever reason the cyclist in the video clearly stayed at the scene.
The person who tweeted that she was the mother is also very pro-car, and anti-ltn and cyclist on twitter, so could well be over egging the whole situation to suit prior motives.
This kind of kangaroo court I'd why I always now run cameras even on shared use paths. Regardless of how considerate or careful you are, it only takes one idiot with an out of control kid or dog to cause a collision and then go all frothy and even potentially sue or want to press charges.
gazza_d wrote:The video of the gob with the phone seriously harassing the poor girl on the bike should never have been released on social media, but just handed to police.
The footage and media coverage could be considered libelous (ianal), and also if it went to court could be flagged as predjudicial to any outcome. It's why police tell you not to post videos of cycle or dash camera footage online.
We don't know the specifics of the Incident. I can't envisage a situation where a person on a bike would ride into a young child, and as a grandfather of a 4 yr old it's not long since I was surprised at how quickly a very young child can move.
For whatever reason the cyclist in the video clearly stayed at the scene.
The person who tweeted that she was the mother is also very pro-car, and anti-ltn and cyclist on twitter, so could well be over egging the whole situation to suit prior motives.
This kind of kangaroo court I'd why I always now run cameras even on shared use paths. Regardless of how considerate or careful you are, it only takes one idiot with an out of control kid or dog to cause a collision and then go all frothy and even potentially sue or want to press charges.
Indeed, I felt very sorry for the young lady and the way she was being harangued.... Some years ago we were with a junior cycle club ride on a shared use path..... everyone knew the club used this route most Saturday's inc the regular dog walkers, but they never liked it. One day a dog had been called to heel, but was not on a lead, as my son passed it ran between front and back wheel.... terrified my son, made even worse by owner yelling and shouting at him.... he shot off frightened.... I had to go after him while one of the other club officials spoke to and calmed situation with the owner......
I stand and rejoice everytime I see a woman ride by on a wheel the picture of free, untrammeled womanhood. HG Wells
Carlton green wrote:From time to time I read the Daily Mail, well if I come across a copy that’s free for me to read - it’s not a paper I’d want to spend money on. I’m sure it serves its regular readers well enough but IMHO it’s not a reliable source of impartial information, to balance things out I’m not a Guardian reader either ...
To my mind any Cyclist on a shared use path needs to moderate their speed to take account of other users - they might want to make progress but they do not have any right to speed along regardless. If a Cyclist hits a child then the Cyclist is at fault in some way though in some circumstances liability for the event might logically be shared with the Parent. Parents have a duty of care for their children and to others impacted by what they and their children do; IMHO small children should be either in a push chair or walking either on reins or with a hand held (that is what responsible and loving parents do to protect and care for their child).
On a different tack, slightly, re 'Vulnerable people,' I was cycling in central Greenwich on Saturday. They have some abysmally large plastic bollards which are quite high and obscure prams, pushchairs, toddlers AND wheelchair users. Turning left towards the Cutty Sark and riding at 5mph [Garmin] first a teenager ran out across to the opposite side followed by a wheelchair user. Neither had looked to their right. One was obviously focussed on it's parents across the street, the wheelchair user was most focussed on balancing her coffee cup as she hit the road from the pavement. Asking both of them to bother looking was responded to by me being told rudely that it was my responsibility. Do folk ever take responsibility for their own lives?
carlislemike wrote: Do folk ever take responsibility for their own lives?
Absolutely, that's why they drive about in cars. I mean from a safety point of view, that's them taking responsibility for their own lives I'm still with Syd on this one. Be polite, slow right down and be prepared to stop. If we're asking motorists to do the same for us when they're in their cars and I'm on my bike, then I'm prepared to show them that I'm prepared to do the same when they're on foot and I'm still on the bike. After all Syd avoided an incident which could have turned out the same, simply by being thoughtful and level headed.
It is my understanding that the small child had a rather incriminating tyre mark on it's face where a tyre must have made contact with it. I should imagine any parent would be distressed and angry if their child was run over or struck by a vehicle and want to make sure their child is ok.
Irrespective of who might or might not have been responsible for this collision, I think the most sensible way to ride in a park where children and people might be about is with great care. I should imagine a child as young as the one in the pictures cannot grasp risk or the need to behave in such a manner so as not to get run over. They have yet to develop spatial awareness. It is my feeling that in these types of locations a cyclist should be riding with extra care toward those around them and certainly if there is possibility of encountering very young children. I am also mindful that cycling is now a high profile means of transport and there are many cycle haters in the UK. It is probably better for all cyclists if each of us ride in a manner that cannot be called into question or criticised. So for me I would have been riding dead slow or indeed walking my bike through that park certainly being able to stop if a young child unexpectedly appeared in front of my bike. I would be mortified if I hit a small child where ever and my concern would be for the wellbeing of the child that it was ok. You have to ride at speed appropriate to the location and a speed at which you can see the way to be clear to proceed and also in which you can safely stop. Coming to a stop if you have to, to let people with young families pass by or across you. Crashing into people where ever they are is not going to make their or indeed your day go well. There is enough cycle hatred out their without creating more simply because you can't slow down or ride in a considerate and safe manner.
For me the cyclist should not have collided with the young child. Period. No excuse.
Carlton green wrote:From time to time I read the Daily Mail, well if I come across a copy that’s free for me to read - it’s not a paper I’d want to spend money on. I’m sure it serves its regular readers well enough but IMHO it’s not a reliable source of impartial information, to balance things out I’m not a Guardian reader either ...
To my mind any Cyclist on a shared use path needs to moderate their speed to take account of other users - they might want to make progress but they do not have any right to speed along regardless. If a Cyclist hits a child then the Cyclist is at fault in some way though in some circumstances liability for the event might logically be shared with the Parent. Parents have a duty of care for their children and to others impacted by what they and their children do; IMHO small children should be either in a push chair or walking either on reins or with a hand held (that is what responsible and loving parents do to protect and care for their child).
On a different tack, slightly, re 'Vulnerable people,' I was cycling in central Greenwich on Saturday. They have some abysmally large plastic bollards which are quite high and obscure prams, pushchairs, toddlers AND wheelchair users. Turning left towards the Cutty Sark and riding at 5mph [Garmin] first a teenager ran out across to the opposite side followed by a wheelchair user. Neither had looked to their right. One was obviously focussed on it's parents across the street, the wheelchair user was most focussed on balancing her coffee cup as she hit the road from the pavement. Asking both of them to bother looking was responded to by me being told rudely that it was my responsibility. Do folk ever take responsibility for their own lives?
As a wheelchair user... It's a bit like being a white van man. When I drive a white van everyone stops at junctions and waits for me to go, as a wheelchair user people apologise for getting in my way whatever the situation is.
It's also quite difficult to carry a drink safely (something that people walking don't find difficult at all), and that does require concentration.. when I expect to have a drink around I put a drinks holder on one of the front legs on the chair so I don't have to think about it (a spill onto the floor doesn't burn me) and always have a lidded cup.
I can't work out where in greenwich this is, so can't comment on the specific junction.
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way.No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse. There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
Carlton green wrote:From time to time I read the Daily Mail, well if I come across a copy that’s free for me to read - it’s not a paper I’d want to spend money on. I’m sure it serves its regular readers well enough but IMHO it’s not a reliable source of impartial information, to balance things out I’m not a Guardian reader either ...
To my mind any Cyclist on a shared use path needs to moderate their speed to take account of other users - they might want to make progress but they do not have any right to speed along regardless. If a Cyclist hits a child then the Cyclist is at fault in some way though in some circumstances liability for the event might logically be shared with the Parent. Parents have a duty of care for their children and to others impacted by what they and their children do; IMHO small children should be either in a push chair or walking either on reins or with a hand held (that is what responsible and loving parents do to protect and care for their child).
On a different tack, slightly, re 'Vulnerable people,' I was cycling in central Greenwich on Saturday. They have some abysmally large plastic bollards which are quite high and obscure prams, pushchairs, toddlers AND wheelchair users. Turning left towards the Cutty Sark and riding at 5mph [Garmin] first a teenager ran out across to the opposite side followed by a wheelchair user. Neither had looked to their right. One was obviously focussed on it's parents across the street, the wheelchair user was most focussed on balancing her coffee cup as she hit the road from the pavement. Asking both of them to bother looking was responded to by me being told rudely that it was my responsibility. Do folk ever take responsibility for their own lives?
Billy007 wrote:It is my understanding that the small child had a rather incriminating tyre mark on it's face where a tyre must have made contact with it. I should imagine any parent would be distressed and angry if their child was run over or struck by a vehicle and want to make sure their child is ok.
If my child ran out in front of a car I would be very distressed but I'm not sure I would be angry with the driver.
Yes I do Going out in a bit in fact. Taking a slight long lunch break from work.
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way.No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse. There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
