MIDNIGHT DEADLINE to reply to Highway Code consultation; "Nobody who lives in London needs an SUV" - Twitter debate rages as Keir Starmer hits cyclist; Council accused of hypocrisy over cycleway + more on the live blog

Captain Badger wrote:

Hope that old boy makes a recovery, as much as he can. Road CC, it might be the case that there are single-digit percentage serious iinjuries on pavements due to cyclists, but it's kn0bheads like that that cause it to be >0%....

I've just watched again. I'm staggered, at no point did he go and see to the old boy. WTF???

Captain Badger wrote:

I've just watched again. I'm staggered, at no point did he go and see to the old boy. WTF???

Likewise, that seemed utterly callous and uncaring.  If I'd hit a pedestrian walking legally on the footpath while illegally and dangerously riding my bike on that footpath, I'd be rushing to their assistance.  Would have been very enlightening to hear what they were saying.

I know from bitter experience that not all cyclists are angels, but this guy has just given the anti-cycling lobby a year's worth of ammunition.

Captain Badger wrote:

I've just watched again. I'm staggered, at no point did he go and see to the old boy. WTF???

At one point he does examine his own hand to make sure it's okay.

To me it looks like this thoughtless jerk cycled where he shouldn't have, too fast, knocked someone down, made no effort to see if they were ok or comfort them, call an ambulence etc.

Dolt in the extreme ;-(

NZ Vegan Rider wrote:

To me it looks like this thoughtless jerk cycled where he shouldn't have, too fast, knocked someone down, made no effort to see if they were ok or comfort them, call an ambulence etc.

Dolt in the extreme ;-(

Quite

On the basis of that Vid, the rider certainly appears to be a bit of a callous knob. Never even approaced the casualty, and the body language all looks very defensive
 

I was thinking "Don't you dare just check your bicycle and ride off", but his apparent lack of concern and failure to render assistance was almost as bad. Maybe he was worried about making a bad situation worse? Hope the elderly gentleman makes a swift recovery from any injuries he received during the incident and most importantly a full apology from the cyclist involved.

Mungecrundle wrote:

I was thinking "Don't you dare just check your bicycle and ride off",

I know, the bike would have been fine anyway as it was wearing a helmet [ducks]

HoarseMann wrote:

I know, the bike would have been fine anyway as it was wearing a helmet [ducks]

Helmet ducks? Y'mean like this?

I feel a bit of caution needs to be applied before putting the boot in too hard here. 

The error of the day was cycling on the pavement, everything else is  projection. 

It appears as if words were quickly exchanged between the two, which may have had an influence on the cyclists stand off demenour. He might be a callous git, he might have been nervous about getting too close... he might have simply been in shock! 

We don't know, so I'm all good for saying, the guys an idiot for riding on the pavement, not so good questionning his morality beyond that. 

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

I feel a bit of caution needs to be applied before putting the boot in too hard here. 

You're clearly more charitable than I, however, your caution is commendable

I agree. We are only hearing one side here and on the video he is talking to the old lady quite calmly from what I can see. If he wanted to be incognito, why even tell them he worked for the Police and the Police have mentioned he gave his name at the time. 

He was defininite a knob for the initial cycling though.

Not defending that cyclist, who should have been taking more care before and after the collision, and appears to be committing an offence by cycling on a footway. BUT:

Successive ministers have advised ACPO/NPCC not to prosecute footway cycling where it is in fear of motor traffic and is otherwise done considerately.  So let's not make this about all cyclists on any footway anywhere.  It's just that one, right there.

Also, one of my pet peeves, as a pedestrian, is people stepping from a shop door right out into the middle of the pavement without looking where they are going or who's coming.  They force me to dodge them as I walk, and it's inconsiderate.  It could have been any pedestrian, runner, child buggy who hit him. Rule 1 (for pedestrians) ends, "Always show due care and consideration for others."  He did not appear to take much effort to look.  He might have been entitled to be there, but he contributed to his own misfortune.

And finally... the cameo appearance of irony in this shot is the "No Waiting; No Loading; No Parking" bollard adjacent, carefully guarded by a parked van, a parked motor bike and a nearby parked car (partially parked on the footway), all making the carriageway much narrower and more hostile for cycling.

GMBasix wrote:

.... He did not appear to take much effort to look.  He might have been entitled to be there, but he contributed to his own misfortune.

And finally... the cameo appearance of irony in this shot is the "No Waiting; No Loading; No Parking" bollard adjacent, carefully guarded by a parked van, a parked motor bike and a nearby parked car (partially parked on the footway), all making the carriageway much narrower and more hostile for cycling.

Welcome to the comments. 

I'm usually firmly on the side of riders (not tribally of course, just cos mutter mutter) and am not averse to hopping on pavements myself with caution. However, when on my bike it is my job to ensure I don't hurt anyone. I don't think we would entertain the argument about contributing to his own misfortune had he been hit by a car, and I don't think it's unreasonable to expect to be able to step out of a shop without being knocked off your feet - particularly considering elderly, disabled, partially sighted or hard of hearing pedestrians

Agreed on the parking issue - that should have been enforced, but it does not carry any bearing re absolving the rider from responsibility. When cycling I believe you are supposed to take into account local conditions

Captain Badger wrote:

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect to be able to step out of a shop without being knocked off your feet - particularly considering elderly, disabled, partially sighted or hard of hearing pedestrians

I think it's reasonable to expect somebody to look before they step out of a shop and not just assume the way is clear.  It is not reasonable to expect to be able to step out of a property onto the highway without looking.  Not doing so could mean you collide with anybody already using the footway.  In this instance it was a person on a bicycle (may the fleas of a thousand camels infest his padded shorts); another time he could have ploughed into a toddler running away from its vexed parent.  To that extent, he contributed, albeit partially, to his misfortune.

GMBasix wrote:

I think it's reasonable to expect somebody to look before they step out of a shop and not just assume the way is clear.  It is not reasonable to expect to be able to step out of a property onto the highway without looking.  Not doing so could mean you collide with anybody already using the footway.  In this instance it was a person on a bicycle (may the fleas of a thousand camels infest his padded shorts); another time he could have ploughed into a toddler running away from its vexed parent.  To that extent, he contributed, albeit partially, to his misfortune.

I'm pretty sympathetic to the pedestrian here, and I say that as a guy who always looks before stepping out. It's been ingrained on me at work, where not doing so may get me creamed by anything from a 5 tonne forklift to a 100 tonne track-type tractor.

99.9% of pedestrians walking on that pavement would have had no trouble avoiding him. Nor would the vast majority of pavement cyclists. "Oops, sorry, that was close" and we're both on our way.

It looked to me as if the pedestrian walked into the side of the cyclist, who still should have been taking more care.

ChasP wrote:

It looked to me as if the pedestrian walked into the side of the cyclist, who still should have been taking more care.

It's a view. Of course the hierarchy of liability (that doesn't yet exist in teh UK, but whose foundations are being put in place with the current amendments to the highway code) would probably side with those on foot. 

That must be one of those Lycra Clad Louts I keep on hearing about.

Hope the gentleman is okay.

He was going too fast and too close to the shop doorway, end of. If you must ride on the pavement then you do it at little more than walking pace when anything like this can happen (peds about)...and you should be prepared to stop and wait/walk at all times where necessary

EddyBerckx wrote:

He was going too fast and too close to the shop doorway, end of. If you must ride on the pavement then you do it at little more than walking pace when anything like this can happen (peds about)...and you should be prepared to stop and wait/walk at all times where necessary

Exactly

eburtthebike wrote:

So a motorcyclist hits a pedestrian, the pedestrian is blocking motor vehicles, so the passersby move them?  WTAF?  And then, as if that wasn't bad enough (it is) the local car addicts use it to prove that cycle facilities are dangerous because they inhibit motor vehicles?

I thought the world was quite fu***d up enough already, without totally stupid, ignorant, crass, incompetent, insane f*****rs f******ing it up even more.

...and breathe.

To retain being abe to breathe, keep away from any media concerning One Wandsworth and similar 'local' groups like One Oval.  They follow the same infuriating logic and despite managing to recruit a minority of loud angry locals to their cause, their funding and origin is suspect and almost certainly didn't originate in the local areas they are supposedly fighting for.

markieteeee wrote:

To retain being abe to breathe, keep away from any media concerning One Wandsworth and similar 'local' groups like One Oval.  

I doubt that "they" are "local", are "they" even "groups"? Or is it some mouth-breathing cellar-dweller, who is only ever outdoors to get from the cave to the car.

Bugger, I've worn out my " " " key..... 

That - and the mind-numbing ignorance insisting that more space for cars = freer flowing cars. Twats.

*Motorbike hits pedestrian