"I fight to survive" - Sagan says he swerved to avoid “square pole” in the barriers; Thomas admits “going through the motions a bit” during lockdown training; Boulting, Millar and Kennaugh go golfing; Van Aert fined for giving Sagan the finger + more

There's so much rotten in that article. Its just one big click-bait hate piece.

>Cyclist was doing 10mph, but 'came flying out of the gate' ?

>Child was apparently hit head-on but caught her arm in the spokes?

Insofar as I can tell, it basically breaks down to a failure to Parent.

The cyclist fled the scene whilst also speaking to an off duty police officer whilst still in the park.

"I ran over and pushed the woman off the bike [...]  she kept shouting that I had assaulted her."

The video of the cyclist doing the rounds for the above. Lets just say she comes across as the person who would always blame someone else no matter whose fault it was for anything. Although still I see the Sun allows racist comments about her. 

However 10mph, dragged along with arm in the spokes until screeched to a halt. Some embellishement from a  distraught mother I suspect on the latter. And the speed is well within guidelines for shared paths although could have been higher or lower as I suspect I couldn't guestimate well. 

Edit, Forgot to mention I'm glad the child is ok and nothing serious occured. 

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

The video of the cyclist doing the rounds for the above. Lets just say she comes across as the person who would always blame someone else no matter whose fault it was for anything. 

A bit harsh; all we see is a young lady who's just been shoved off her bike by an irate mother and being harrassed by possibly the third most obnoxious person on Earth.

She also states she can't report it because she doesn't have a phone, then when she is offered the use of one she gets her out her bag. Simple lie exposed. As I said in this case, both sides don't come out of it well and only real plus is the child has nothing more serious then some scratches.

Im very surprised no-one has yet mentioned the moron who made the video who was doing his best to inflame the situation.  He seems to be the biggest jerk in all of this.

No, I would still argue the cyclist is although the videographer did need to brush up on his law.

Her "I don't have a phone" to "ohh, it means i have to get it out of the bag which is the trouble" shows how much she cared a child was hurt in her vicinity. 

brooksby wrote:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/uknews/12631301/toddler-hit-dragged-cyclis...

Mum claims daughter, 1, was ‘hit and dragged by cyclist’ in park horror

Quote:

Freya Clancy, who is just 16 months old, was walking on a pedestrian path in Victoria Park, East London, when a cyclist travelling at “around 10mph hit her head on”.

They've illustrated it with a picture of a huge wide shared-use roadway...?

Reminds me of the very similar story in the Bristol Evening Post about twenty years ago, with a mother complaining about a cyclist mowing down her child on the Bristol/Bath path and how all cyclists should take more care.  The paper of course, took the opportunity to slag off cyclists.  I was concerned enough about the cyclist's actions to get in touch with the reporter, and discovered that the facts were rather different to those as printed.

The woman and her small son were picking blackberries and he was on one side of the path and she on the other.  When she saw the cyclist approaching, she called her son to her, who then ran out straight in front of the cyclist, who was unable to avoid him.  The cyclist stopped, checked the little boy was ok and rode on.  None of that was reported.

In this case, the parent was at least 50% to blame for allowing a small uncontrolled child loose on a shared use path.

she called her son to her, who then ran out straight in front of the cyclist, who was unable to avoid him. 

This happened to me once on an ordinary quiet road on the outskirts of Garstang- the mother and little *** were on the left pavement, he was on a scooter- I'm assuming it was a 'he'. For no reason I could detect the little *** shot straight across the road at right angles, on the scooter. I braked, went straight over the bars, and broke or cracked some ribs. As ill-luck would have it, I soon contracted a cough which the ribs made very painful.

TBH, I slow right down when children are ahead of me on shared use paths and / or near the edge of the pavement and wait until the parent has them under some control. This is especially done if they are on scooters or bikes as they turn as they turn their head so can easily "move right angles" if they turn to look behind them at a noise. 

Likewise. This is part of realistic hazard awareness.

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

TBH, I slow right down when children are ahead of me on shared use paths and / or near the edge of the pavement and wait until the parent has them under some control. This is especially done if they are on scooters or bikes as they turn as they turn their head so can easily "move right angles" if they turn to look behind them at a noise. 

Which is fair enough, and what I do, but it doesn't absolve the parent of blame, whatever the cyclist does.

Most parents have been there. Anyone operating machinery (fuel or human powered) needs to be aware of this in the public space. We all know the HWC changes (proposed) regarding liability. Perhaps there is a further liability heirarchy regarding the age of those involved....

I was replying to wtjs with him calling a kid a *** for doing something which kids do. He was either going too fast or too close for those injuries. 

I'm not absolving parents of any blame, just treat children as you would a dog or other animal, especially as we are essentially quiet compared to a car so no noise, no danger. 

I did 50-50 on the parent when the child cycled into the adult pedestrian reported a few months ago, were you doing the same? It was pretty much the same thing as happened in the Scum story including a parent immediately agressive and blaming the adult involved. The difference is that the child was on a bike and hit the pedestrian. 

I would have thought that blame rests between the two involved parties - eg the child and the rider.

It's absurd to apportion blame to the child, therefore it sits with the rider

It's always tempting to say that "parents should have control over their children" concerning collisions, but our motivation for that usually rests on "I don't want to have to consider something unpredictable when driving/riding/scooting/skating/running that will make me go slower than I want."

As a rider/driver, there is never a situation where I can assume that a child is under the parent's  "full control" (whatever that is - I don't even know what that would look like). Therefore it is I that have to mitigate the risk. This is by slowing down, and being able to stop in a safe and controlled manner in the space I can see  (and indeed in this case predict) to be clear.

Captain Badger wrote:

I would have thought that blame rests between the two involved parties - eg the child and the rider.

It's absurd to apportion blame to the child, therefore it sits with the rider

That doesn't follow - you're confusing fault with blame. The fault may split between the child and the rider, and it may be absurd to blame the child for their part of the fault, but the rider is still only to blame for their own part of the fault. The child's part of the fault doesn't transfer to the rider - it's just blameless.

Interesting nuance, and certainly worth an exploration.

I would say that fault and blame are interchangeable here as both terms would suggest responsibility. 

It was indeed the child's act to walk (toddle, totter, etc) into the path of the rider, but I wouldn't say that would be "fault", as at that age they can't be expected to recognise that path.

To take an example, some of the keys on my keyboard no longer respond reliably - I sometimes have to press 2 or 3 times for the character to appear. The keyboard definitely has a fault, but it's absurd to say it's blameworthy.

Ah I see, yes. The key is at fault as it is not doing what it should, or what it was designed or manufactured for. It is not fulfilling it's "raison d'etre". But it has no agency of it's own, so it is blameless. Fault is used here in a functional perspective. This is how I would summarise the distinction you are making.

However there is no fault (functional error) with the child's action. They are moving from A to B. Without the presence of the rider there is no issue

The same could be said obversely with the rider, however, (and this is where blame/responsibility comes in) the rider is in the position of responsibility on 2 counts

1. being in control of the machine that increases the risk to others
2. being an adult that can be expected to predict conflict due to their actions

I do see your distinction, however I wouldn't agree that it is an appropriate one in this context, and I would say that for the pruposes of this situation fault/blame/responsibility could all be used to express the same quality.

The distinction I would make is that fault is something you seek to correct; blame is something you judge and/or punish.

The child's behaviour is at fault if they misjudged the situation and took action that was inappropriate to it. However, they can't be blamed for that if they're too young to understand, or haven't been given the appropriate schooling. You can seek to correct the fault as they grow up by teaching them about road safety, risk, etc.

The rider is at fault if they haven't taken reasonable measures to avoid putting others at risk, including allowing for the possibility that children might act unpredictably. They can also be blamed if they are at fault in this way, since they should know better.

Reducing it all to 'blame' tends to lead to the assumption that 'someone must be to blame'. That then potentially leads to absurd situations where (to stick with the current protagonists) a rider has taken all reasonable measures to avoid risk, and a collision still occurs, and the inevitable conclusion is that the rider must be 'to blame'.

I don't see the childs behaviour as being at fault. The child was doing what children do. There would be no reading of the situation from the child's perspective greater than "I am here, I want to be there, I will now take action for that to happen" (I'm assuming a very young child - eg that in OP).

We expect more of the rider. The collision could be said to be caused by both paths crossing at the same point in time - both would be legitimate actions if at different points in time. The fault/blame/responsibility (and I know they can be emotive terms) would lie with the rider, as the ability to prevent a collision needs agency that the child just cannot be expected to exhibit, so the rider must act on behalf of the child.

This by the way is exactly the same (in my opinion) if the rider is replaced with a driver

I think we just have different definitions of 'fault' - to me it's an explanatory factor that contributes to a situation, that you would look to correct - in this case, by educating the child. It doesn't involve any moral or emotive judgement. That's not really relevant to the point I was making, though.

The point was that it's wrong (albeit it's a common response) to say 'we can't blame the child, therefore we must blame the rider'. Any blame attached to the rider should be assessed on its own merits. Sometimes no-one is deserving of blame, or only a small amount of blame is merited, even when a serious situation occurs.

Yes, that's why I'm at pains (and I know it seems semantic) to define terms. Fault/blame etc are emotive words which is why I'm keen to avoid using them in relation to a child, particularly a young one. Again, they have done nothing wrong, they have simply wandered from A to B.

I think it's absolutely correct to say 'we can't blame the child, therefore we must blame the rider', (bearing in mind that "blame" is emotive - perhaps responsible is clearer here). The person with full agency here is the rider, riding in the public space where children are likely to be. The old mantra of being able to stop safely and under control in the space that you can see to be clear is key. The responsibility for any collision lies with the rider.

I remember distinctly doing this at the age of about 3, in front of a car. It's one of my earliest memories. I might have been a little ****, I've certainly grown up since and am now quite a considerable ****. But that wasn't the reason why.

Well done for avoiding him, and at least there's no more lasting damage than a great story to tell. But kids do what kids do, they're unpredictable.

Apparently one requires the reading skills of a 9 year old to navigate an article from The Sun. Having just read the link I can see what they mean. It's like writing for, well, children; simple statements, large pictures to create emotion and to illustrate statements i.e. 'there was a big red house in the forest' (show picture of big red house in a forest) Lots of obvious contradiction and a 'good' and 'bad' in the story without any nuance. And there is always a sympathetic hook (a child is great) to get the 9 year old reader's attention. And then the baddie - preferably someone from an 'out' group so they can easily be stereotyped. Like a witch, or a cyclist. 

I'm definitely slowing up; it's only just occurred to me that if this had been a car, the driver would have been absolved of all blame and the mother charged with neglect and recklessly endangering her child.