Police deliver perfect mic drop reply to cyclist-bashing comment; Comedy gold Olympic mugshots; Cav wins again; Phil Gaimon calls out ESPN report of NFL coach's 'bicycling accident'; Pog touches down in Tokyo + more on the live blog

And why, just out of interest, wasn't it an accident?  What malice was in the background between riders which made it intentional?  What exactly do you think drove Groenewegen to act in such a manner and to also risk his own life?

He clearly intentionally ran him into the barrier. If this were a car and a bicycle, no one would be calling it an accident, because it wasn't. And poor baby Groenewegen had so much adversity because of it. Spare me. He put a cyclist into a coma because he intentionally put him into the barrier.

yep, download the official Tokyo olympics app, go to the athlete section, filter on the sport, and browse to your hearts content.

each athletes bio comes with a surprising amount of detail, from their jobs,hobbies,ambitions to listing significant injuries, milestones, reasons for being in the sport, and even pre competition rituals, and some even have links to their Strava profiles, as well as the usual social media listings.

No, not a cyslist. Not a driver either.

You'll find most folk here have a clear idea of the hierarchy of responsibility, but if you need a refresher read why it should be in the highway code 

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

Not a cyclist but:-

E-scooter crash leaves girl, 3, seriously injured - BBC News

There's a lot missing from that story:

• Where are the parents and why weren't they watching the child?
• Was this a licenced or unlicenced scooter?
• Was the scooter on the pavement or road?

Looks like it happened in a park where it's reasonable to let children run around so I don't think it's appropriate to blame the parents.

We've only got very limited trials of rental scooters, so all private scooters are unlicensed and illegal to use on pavement or road (or park). The rental ones (we've got a Voi trial here in Bristol) are only for use on the roads and if the GPS detects that you're in a park, they shut off the motor.

I'd guess that if there is a e-scooter trial in the area, then the police would probably have contacted the company involved for GPS/rental information so I'd presume that this was a private e-scooter.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Looks like it happened in a park where it's reasonable to let children run around so I don't think it's appropriate to blame the parents.

I didn't blame the parents. I think you've misread. It's a valid question to ask where the parents were since we don't know the circumstances in an article lacking much detail.

Jenova20 wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

Looks like it happened in a park where it's reasonable to let children run around so I don't think it's appropriate to blame the parents.

I didn't blame the parents. I think you've misread. It's a valid question to ask where the parents were since we don't know the circumstances in an article lacking much detail.

Sorry - I didn't mean to imply that you were blaming the parent(s). I just don't think it's relevant where the parent(s) were as long as they were somewhere nearby as kids should be allowed to run wild and free in parks without needing constant supervision.

Jenova20 wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

Looks like it happened in a park where it's reasonable to let children run around so I don't think it's appropriate to blame the parents.

I didn't blame the parents. I think you've misread. It's a valid question to ask where the parents were since we don't know the circumstances in an article lacking much detail.

Jenova20 wrote:

There's a lot missing from that story:

Where are the parents and why weren't they watching the child?
Was this a licenced or unlicenced scooter?
Was the scooter on the pavement or road?

There's a lot of assumption going here, especially as the article is so lacking in detail, as you rightly point out. Yet your comment "Where are the parents..." can very much be interpreted as a suggestion that the parents were somehow potentially responsible through inaction or inattentiveness. For all we know the parents may have been stood right next to the child, holding their hand even, or maybe the kid was running around uncontrolled, we simply don't know.

Let's stop assuming and leave the Police to do what they can with their investigation shall we?

Actually, the scooter rider may also be a child (it's not clear). So there may well be a case for looking at parental responsibility from the other side.

Jenova20 wrote:

Where are the parents and why weren't they watching the child?

I don't see the relevance, it's the rider's responsibility not to ride into three year olds, not the parents'.

Quote:

Was this a licenced or unlicenced scooter?

No e-scooter is licenced to ride in a park

Quote:

Was the scooter on the pavement or road?

see previous answer

[/quote]No e-scooter is licenced to ride in a park

I would have to double check buy I believe that the hire scooter scheme in Milton Keynes are licensed for shared use "redways" so they would definitely be allowed in parks.

Ok for cycle lanes but not for tracks I think

Cycle lanes: regulatory changes by DfT

We will make amendments to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (that will apply to England only) to include e-scooters within the definition of vehicles permitted to use cycle lanes.

We will amend the definition of cycle lane to read ‘part of a carriageway of a road reserved for pedal cycles and/or electric scooters that is separated from the rest of the carriageway—’ or similar. This will permit e-scooters to be used in cycle lanes. It also means that the cycle symbol on signs will apply to e-scooters.

Cycle tracks: regulatory changes by DfT

The definition of cycle track is contained in primary legislation so we cannot amend this before trials will start.

Cycle tracks: actions required by local authorities

Local authorities can designate road space as either cycle lanes or cycle tracks. To enable e-scooter use, cycle tracks would need to be redesignated as cycle lanes.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/e-scooter-trials-guidance-for...

I think the Redways in Milton Keynes are pretty unique, but they are all shared use, not paricularly wide (a couple of meters) and run through all of the parks. 

https://www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/pressreleases/2020/aug/electric-scooter...

Interesting to note that they are geofenced against use on any of the grid roads which are all over 30mph.

Sriracha wrote:

Jenova20 wrote:

Where are the parents and why weren't they watching the child?

I don't see the relevance, it's the rider's responsibility not to ride into three year olds, not the parents'.

Quote:

Was this a licenced or unlicenced scooter?

No e-scooter is licenced to ride in a park

Quote:

Was the scooter on the pavement or road?

see previous answer

I missed the part where this was in a park. I'm assuming the article was updated since i last looked. In any case the scooter rider is at fault for the crash, but that doesn't mean there couldn't also be blame on behalf of whoever should have been watching the child.

Sriracha wrote:

No e-scooter is licenced to ride in a park

You might want to check that.  Bird has been running a trial in the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park since November 2018.

A mode of transport with a motor - definitely not a bicycle; so another bad motorist causing serious injury to a more vulnerable person.

DaveHemm wrote:

A mode of transport with a motor - definitely not a bicycle; so another bad motorist causing serious injury to a more vulnerable person.

Well, you're technically correct (the best kind of correct), but you're not taking into account the principle of "2 wheels good, 4 wheels bad" (apologies to trike riders). I think e-scooters are much closer to cyclists in terms of speed, danger to others etc. and the riders aren't just viewing life through a windscreen so they're more likely to be paying attention.

The BBC don't state clearly whether the scooter is a legal hire one or an illegal privately owned one. Equally, they don't say whether the area is open to hire scooters.

However, a bit like road safety, the problem stems from the Police not enforcing low level criminality eg privately owned scooters, scooters on pavements, close passes, and even speeding. They only seem to wake up when there are actually consequences that arise from these problems. This is not what anyone would call prevention.

The way the police operate is an interesting one. I was stopped by the police recently in the City of London because I was carrying a camera (not actually taking any photos). He wanted to look at the photos on my camera to check for hostile reconnaissance. Anyway, while talking to him I mentioned the various illegal scooters zooming past. His response was that they are only illegal because of a "loophole" and that it is just because the laws haven't kept up with technology. So in his view he wouldn't stop people on scooters despite it currently being illegal unless they are on hire versions. He was a City of London police officer.

I can't see any way that the use of motorised scooters is going to be legal on pavements or when used by minors and it's highly likely that you'll need insurance. Those factors are already covered by the hire scooter trials. He's, therefore, wrong in his analysis.

squired wrote:

The way the police operate is an interesting one. I was stopped by the police recently in the City of London because I was carrying a camera (not actually taking any photos). He wanted to look at the photos on my camera to check for hostile reconnaissance.

Can they do that?

I'd thought that on public land/highways you can take photos of whatever you want.

Can only be stopped for it on private land where the police don't have powers anyway (that's why they have private security).

Section 43 of the Terrorism Act 2000 https://www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/ph/photography-a...

Clearly squired is a very dodgy looking chap(ess).

Or bearded