Cyclist aged 5 injured after adult rider crashes into him then rides off

dobbo996 wrote:

Hmm. My take on this incident is as follows. If you're riding a bike around children, or dogs for that matter, slow down and be prepared to stop. Kids are unpredictable and might (will) do something unexpected. Is your journey so important you can't spare a few seconds?

Completely agree.  We're meant to cycle (or drive) in a way appropriate to the conditions.  If you can't stop in time to avoid a collision, you are going to fast.

And we live in a shared space.  Sick and tired of people banging on about their "rights" whether it's car drivers, mainly, or cyclists.  There was an argument on another forum about the cyclist who headbutted a pedestrian after the cyclist jumped a red light.  Couldn't believe the number of cyclists who claimed this was Ok as the cyclist had a "right" to keep moving.

dmack wrote:

And we live in a shared space.  Sick and tired of people banging on about their "rights" whether it's car drivers, mainly, or cyclists.  There was an argument on another forum about the cyclist who headbutted a pedestrian after the cyclist jumped a red light.  Couldn't believe the number of cyclists who claimed this was Ok as the cyclist had a "right" to keep moving.

I see this incident as 'man headbutts man'. Of course being a local tussle it shouldn't have made the national press but, hey, add 'cyclist' and it becomes perfect clickbait. Whatever, the bloke doing the headbutting is a thug, pure and simple.

dobbo996 wrote:

Hmm. My take on this incident is as follows. If you're riding a bike around children, or dogs for that matter, slow down and be prepared to stop. Kids are unpredictable and might (will) do something unexpected.

^^ This. I sometimes ride on a shared use path which is full of people on a sunny day. For kids and dogs, I unclip and slow right down to 1-2mph, and smile or have a chat with the adults sometimes. I'd never forgive myself if I hit a child ...

It's just not useful to say people should or shouldn't, because people aren't perfect and don't! Just anticipate and cope with it and enjoy being on a bike 

jaysa wrote:

dobbo996 wrote:

Hmm. My take on this incident is as follows. If you're riding a bike around children, or dogs for that matter, slow down and be prepared to stop. Kids are unpredictable and might (will) do something unexpected.

^^ This. I sometimes ride on a shared use path which is full of people on a sunny day. For kids and dogs, I unclip and slow right down to 1-2mph,

Are you sure?  At that speed a bicycle is unstable and you would fall off; doesn't sound safe for the kids, you could land on them.  And the pedestrians would be overtaking you, seeing as they would be travelling at least twice as fast.

[/quote]

^^ This. I sometimes ride on a shared use path which is full of people on a sunny day. For kids and dogs, I unclip and slow right down to 1-2mph,

[/quote]

Are you sure?  At that speed a bicycle is unstable and you would fall off; doesn't sound safe for the kids, you could land on them.  And the pedestrians would be overtaking you, seeing as they would be travelling at least twice as fast.

[/quote]

1-2 mph is wobbly, I'd agree. What's an average walking speed, 3mph? Jogging, 7-8mph? I'd say slowing to a quick walking speed, 4mph, would do the job. You can stop very quickly from 4mph, and any impact, to both parties, would be minimal. Let's just say sticking to a walking pace around kids, and dogs, usually does the trick.

I've had to stop several times in the last few weeks, on a particular shared path, because a child is wandering about in front of me, on a bike or walking, which is what kids do. I am not prepared to hurt a child for my own self-entitlement. Dogs too but I will have 'words' with the owner asking them to use a short lead when on shared space. It's not the dog's fault.........usually get told to f*** off though.

dobbo996 wrote:

I've had to stop several times in the last few weeks, on a particular shared path, because a child is wandering about in front of me, on a bike or walking, which is what kids do. I am not prepared to hurt a child for my own self-entitlement. Dogs too but I will have 'words' with the owner asking them to use a short lead when on shared space. It's not the dog's fault.........usually get told to f*** off though.

Yes, those extendable leads should be banned - an unpredictable dog on one end and an idiot on the other, it's essentially a trip wire for cyclists and other pedestrians.

Kendalred wrote:

dobbo996 wrote:

I've had to stop several times in the last few weeks, on a particular shared path, because a child is wandering about in front of me, on a bike or walking, which is what kids do. I am not prepared to hurt a child for my own self-entitlement. Dogs too but I will have 'words' with the owner asking them to use a short lead when on shared space. It's not the dog's fault.........usually get told to f*** off though.

Yes, those extendable leads should be banned - an unpredictable dog on one end and an idiot on the other, it's essentially a trip wire for cyclists and other pedestrians.

I've an extendable lead for my dog, though I don't use it. They're not a good idea IMHO as a dog can get running and then when the lead unspools to its maximum, both you and the pooch get an unpleasant surprise that can cause an injury to both. My dog's a whippet and if he sees a squirrel and engages prey drive, then he'll hit warp factor whippet and reach up to 64km/h in very little time. On the end of an extendable lead, he'd do himself and me some harm. 

Shared spaces are just that. I cycle through them carefully. Pedestrians do have priority under most UK bylaws. Children and dogs are particularly unpredictable and as a rider, it's your responsibility to be more careful around them. Even if my dog's on a short lead, he can still pull fast and hard if he sees a squirrel he wants to chase. His rotweiller buddy is a big strong dog and she takes a lot of stopping if she decides to change direction fast when she sees a squirrel. Anyone who rides fast and close to a child or dog is stupid and irresponsible.

I've little time for cyclists who charge along a shared use path and I've been known to give them an earful, whether I'm riding, jogging or walking the dog.

dobbo996 wrote:

Dogs too but I will have 'words' with the owner asking them to use a short lead when on shared space. It's not the dog's fault.........usually get told to f*** off though.

Next time you can quote the HC to them, and point out that if their dog causes you injury, you will be sueing them:

"56
Dogs. Do not let a dog out on the road on its own. Keep it on a short lead when walking on the pavement, road or path shared with cyclists or horse riders."

Rick_Rude wrote:

Idiot parents letting everyone ride in bomber squadron formation. Looks like we much their fault.

Much as it pains me to agree with you, I do.  Too many parents assume that they don't need to supervise their children on a cycle path, because it's safe isn't it?  At least as much their fault as the adult rider, who seems to have checked that there wasn't a problem before leaving.  Still, this is the Mail, recently proved to be the most inaccurate of all the media, so they aren't going to report anything to do with cycling fairly.

burtthebike wrote:

Rick_Rude wrote:

Idiot parents letting everyone ride in bomber squadron formation. Looks like we much their fault.

Much as it pains me to agree with you, I do.  Too many parents assume that they don't need to supervise their children on a cycle path, because it's safe isn't it?  At least as much their fault as the adult rider, who seems to have checked that there wasn't a problem before leaving.  Still, this is the Mail, recently proved to be the most inaccurate of all the media, so they aren't going to report anything to do with cycling fairly.

I think that’s a bit unfair to the parents in this case. They do seem to be supervising the kids, but as anyone who has taken young kids out on a bicycle ride knows, there’s a limit to how much controlling you can do. You really do need other drivers, cyclists and pedestrians to take extra care.

If you are going to cycle on a pavement, you have to be prepared to slow to a stop. This did not look reckless, but just really badly judged. Even though the solo rider had stopped pedalling, they were still going a bit too quick and could have given the kid a lot more room.

HoarseMann wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

Rick_Rude wrote:

Idiot parents letting everyone ride in bomber squadron formation. Looks like we much their fault.

Much as it pains me to agree with you, I do.  Too many parents assume that they don't need to supervise their children on a cycle path, because it's safe isn't it?  At least as much their fault as the adult rider, who seems to have checked that there wasn't a problem before leaving.  Still, this is the Mail, recently proved to be the most inaccurate of all the media, so they aren't going to report anything to do with cycling fairly.

I think that’s a bit unfair to the parents in this case. They do seem to be supervising the kids, but as anyone who has taken young kids out on a bicycle ride knows, there’s a limit to how much controlling you can do. You really do need other drivers, cyclists and pedestrians to take extra care.

If you are going to cycle on a pavement, you have to be prepared to slow to a stop. This did not look reckless, but just really badly judged. Even though the solo rider had stopped pedalling, they were still going a bit too quick and could have given the kid a lot more room.

Totally agree.
The only person to blame here is the cyclist.
Let's just take it on the chin, just like every other type of road user cyclists sometimes ride without paying enough attention to their surroundings or enough consideration to other - more vulnerable road users including other cyclists – in this case some very young kids and their parents cycling home from school.
As for his post crash concern for the child it seems momentary at best… 2 maybe 3 seconds before he hopped on his bike and got out of there. My guess more out of embarrassment than fear of the law or retribution or indeed the Hull Daily Mail.

HoarseMann wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

Rick_Rude wrote:

Idiot parents letting everyone ride in bomber squadron formation. Looks like we much their fault.

Much as it pains me to agree with you, I do.  Too many parents assume that they don't need to supervise their children on a cycle path, because it's safe isn't it?  At least as much their fault as the adult rider, who seems to have checked that there wasn't a problem before leaving.  Still, this is the Mail, recently proved to be the most inaccurate of all the media, so they aren't going to report anything to do with cycling fairly.

I think that’s a bit unfair to the parents in this case. They do seem to be supervising the kids, but as anyone who has taken young kids out on a bicycle ride knows, there’s a limit to how much controlling you can do. You really do need other drivers, cyclists and pedestrians to take extra care. If you are going to cycle on a pavement, you have to be prepared to slow to a stop. This did not look reckless, but just really badly judged. Even though the solo rider had stopped pedalling, they were still going a bit too quick and could have given the kid a lot more room.

If you are riding with kids, you ride outside of them, so they can't stray into the path of oncoming traffic.  The parents in this case signally failed to do that, they allowed their son to pull into the path of the other cyclist, they are at least equally to blame.

burtthebike wrote:

HoarseMann wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

Rick_Rude wrote:

Idiot parents letting everyone ride in bomber squadron formation. Looks like we much their fault.

Much as it pains me to agree with you, I do.  Too many parents assume that they don't need to supervise their children on a cycle path, because it's safe isn't it?  At least as much their fault as the adult rider, who seems to have checked that there wasn't a problem before leaving.  Still, this is the Mail, recently proved to be the most inaccurate of all the media, so they aren't going to report anything to do with cycling fairly.

I think that’s a bit unfair to the parents in this case. They do seem to be supervising the kids, but as anyone who has taken young kids out on a bicycle ride knows, there’s a limit to how much controlling you can do. You really do need other drivers, cyclists and pedestrians to take extra care. If you are going to cycle on a pavement, you have to be prepared to slow to a stop. This did not look reckless, but just really badly judged. Even though the solo rider had stopped pedalling, they were still going a bit too quick and could have given the kid a lot more room.

If you are riding with kids, you ride outside of them, so they can't stray into the path of oncoming traffic.  The parents in this case signally failed to do that, they allowed their son to pull into the path of the other cyclist, they are at least equally to blame.

There is no way they could have managed that. There were more kids than parents. One towing a trailer and the other with a child seat. All on a narrow path. Not exactly the perfect situation to demonstrate the formation and manoeuvrability equivalent to the red arrows.

Just like motorists need to give cyclists a wide berth when overtaking on the road, in case they need to swerve to avoid a pothole. Cyclists need to give kids, dogs and pedestrians a wide berth on paths, because their behaviour can be unpredictable.

HoarseMann wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

HoarseMann wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

Rick_Rude wrote:

Idiot parents letting everyone ride in bomber squadron formation. Looks like we much their fault.

Much as it pains me to agree with you, I do.  Too many parents assume that they don't need to supervise their children on a cycle path, because it's safe isn't it?  At least as much their fault as the adult rider, who seems to have checked that there wasn't a problem before leaving.  Still, this is the Mail, recently proved to be the most inaccurate of all the media, so they aren't going to report anything to do with cycling fairly.

I think that’s a bit unfair to the parents in this case. They do seem to be supervising the kids, but as anyone who has taken young kids out on a bicycle ride knows, there’s a limit to how much controlling you can do. You really do need other drivers, cyclists and pedestrians to take extra care. If you are going to cycle on a pavement, you have to be prepared to slow to a stop. This did not look reckless, but just really badly judged. Even though the solo rider had stopped pedalling, they were still going a bit too quick and could have given the kid a lot more room.

If you are riding with kids, you ride outside of them, so they can't stray into the path of oncoming traffic.  The parents in this case signally failed to do that, they allowed their son to pull into the path of the other cyclist, they are at least equally to blame.

There is no way they could have managed that.

Clearly they could have, and next time they probably will, but hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Rick_Rude wrote:

Idiot parents letting everyone ride in bomber squadron formation. Looks like we much their fault.

Some motorists feel exactly the same about groups of cyclists on the road, they are expected to leave a considerable clearance when overtaking and to hold back until it is safe to do so. I see no reason why cyclists should consider themselves under no obligation to do the same. I am frequently overtaken with cm to spare at speed on London cycleways, a wobble from me or a pot hole and we would both be off and potentially under the wheels of an adjacent vehicle. Strava segment time hunting cyclists can be a dangerous menace.

Rick_Rude wrote:

Idiot parents letting everyone ride in bomber squadron formation. Looks like we much their fault.

Only a complete cu*t would think that. The normal response to such a situation would be to slow down and safely navigate through the family before proceeding.

It's entitled pricks like you that give cyclists a bad name.