This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=23&v=p6sfDbPOzLU
Really really hope that this idiot is caught and has the preverbal library thrown at him!
Looking at the version on YouTube its jaw dropping the number of people blaming the parents.
Post edited at 10:43
2
In reply to Indy:
While that idiot should not have been on the pavement, especially riding at such speed, the child was left unattended and could easily walk into the road with no one stopping her. As a parent, I know it's hard to look after young children 100% of the time, so there it is another good reason to live in the countryside.
While that idiot should not have been on the pavement, especially riding at such speed, the child was left unattended and could easily walk into the road with no one stopping her. As a parent, I know it's hard to look after young children 100% of the time, so there it is another good reason to live in the countryside.
1
2
In reply to Indy:
Rolling on a pavement at slow speed is fine if you're pulling in to somewhere (I think so at least)... but this cyclist was gunning down the pavement. There's only one solution when you encounter these sorts of dangerous people... kick 'em while they're rolling!
Rolling on a pavement at slow speed is fine if you're pulling in to somewhere (I think so at least)... but this cyclist was gunning down the pavement. There's only one solution when you encounter these sorts of dangerous people... kick 'em while they're rolling!
2
In reply to odari:
She was heading towards her mum who was already out by the car. In that scenario I might have been happy to have her in front of me as the dad. I would not be expecting a cyclist to mow her down on the pavement!
She was heading towards her mum who was already out by the car. In that scenario I might have been happy to have her in front of me as the dad. I would not be expecting a cyclist to mow her down on the pavement!
3
1
In reply to odari:
Victim blaming?
> the child was left unattended and could easily walk into the road.
Victim blaming?
1
1
In reply to Indy:
No. Adult blaming. The small child was the victim and was failed by adults.
Small children generally don't get exposed to enough risk - and consequence - around here to develop the sense they weren't born with (good.) That is why every adult in a public place has a responsibility towards small children, and an exercise of such responsibility by any of the adults in this video would have prevented the child's horrid mauling at the hands of the idiot cyclist.
> Victim blaming?
No. Adult blaming. The small child was the victim and was failed by adults.
Small children generally don't get exposed to enough risk - and consequence - around here to develop the sense they weren't born with (good.) That is why every adult in a public place has a responsibility towards small children, and an exercise of such responsibility by any of the adults in this video would have prevented the child's horrid mauling at the hands of the idiot cyclist.
2
3
In reply to Jim C:
me too, every day on my commute . they even look quite smug when I give them a puzzled look. I wonder if I would get a pleasant greeting if rode next to them
me too, every day on my commute . they even look quite smug when I give them a puzzled look. I wonder if I would get a pleasant greeting if rode next to them
In reply to odari:
Or the child could be walking to her mum at the car, which is more likely.
I could easily imagine the same thing happening to an adult. A couple of weeks ago I saw a cyclist hit someone because they mounted the pavement as people were getting off a bus.
Or the child could be walking to her mum at the car, which is more likely.
I could easily imagine the same thing happening to an adult. A couple of weeks ago I saw a cyclist hit someone because they mounted the pavement as people were getting off a bus.
In reply to squirrel00:
Scotland wants to ban parking on the pavement, but annoyingly Scotland has to ask Westminster to legislate for that.
Even stranger, It seems that it is illegal to DRIVE on the pavement, but not to PARK.
But they have to DRIVE onto the pavement to park, (that should then lead to a prosecution)
My wife with a buggy and wheelchair users often have to go onto the road in some streets locally, and cyclists are just a further hazard. ( I am a cyclist, and yes I have on occasion rode on a 'clear' pavement in the past)
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmtran/writev/pa...
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/transport/motorists-in-scotland-face-fin...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30740630
> me too, every day on my commute . they even look quite smug when I give them a puzzled look. I wonder if I would get a pleasant greeting if rode next to them
Scotland wants to ban parking on the pavement, but annoyingly Scotland has to ask Westminster to legislate for that.
Even stranger, It seems that it is illegal to DRIVE on the pavement, but not to PARK.
But they have to DRIVE onto the pavement to park, (that should then lead to a prosecution)
My wife with a buggy and wheelchair users often have to go onto the road in some streets locally, and cyclists are just a further hazard. ( I am a cyclist, and yes I have on occasion rode on a 'clear' pavement in the past)
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmtran/writev/pa...
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/transport/motorists-in-scotland-face-fin...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30740630
In reply to Jim C:
What, riding on the pavement, or victim blaming...?
I've seen cycling Police riding in the gutter, and with inadequate rear lights. You'd think they'd get sent on a Bikeability course...
What, riding on the pavement, or victim blaming...?
I've seen cycling Police riding in the gutter, and with inadequate rear lights. You'd think they'd get sent on a Bikeability course...
In reply to captain paranoia:
( but on the whole I am pretty supportive of the police, that help me with my elderly mother when she wanders off in the early hours, loses handbags etc. ( and of course family members school friends that are/ were in the police )
> What, riding on the pavement, or victim blaming...?
A football match comes to mind now that you mention it ........( but on the whole I am pretty supportive of the police, that help me with my elderly mother when she wanders off in the early hours, loses handbags etc. ( and of course family members school friends that are/ were in the police )
> I've seen cycling Police riding in the gutter, and with inadequate rear lights. You'd think they'd get sent on a Bikeability course...
There is a police van in our area that has had a headlight out for over a week now. In reply to wintertree:
I have to admit I disagree. The child was between two parents and I think this was entirely reasonable given the situation. The only person at fault here is the cyclist.
> No. Adult blaming. The small child was the victim and was failed by adults.
> Small children generally don't get exposed to enough risk - and consequence - around here to develop the sense they weren't born with (good.) That is why every adult in a public place has a responsibility towards small children, and an exercise of such responsibility by any of the adults in this video would have prevented the child's horrid mauling at the hands of the idiot cyclist.
I have to admit I disagree. The child was between two parents and I think this was entirely reasonable given the situation. The only person at fault here is the cyclist.
4
In reply to Indy:
Yebbut why does the family have CCTV on the street? Are we sure this isn't a new variation on Cash for Crash?
(That's a joke, before anybody flames me!)
Yebbut why does the family have CCTV on the street? Are we sure this isn't a new variation on Cash for Crash?
(That's a joke, before anybody flames me!)
1
In reply to Monk:
The parent in front did not look around to assess hazards for a child running out without looking and kept their back turned to the child. The one behind couldn't see hazards approaching.
If that was me I would be blaming myself for the child's injuries - I could have prevented them easily. Nice to know that you disagree and would not be feeling at all bad about it and would therefore take no actions to prevent a repeat of it.
When I look after small people they categorically are not going to go running around next to a road, especially out of a gate I can't see around or with my back turned.
I am always blown away by the response from people who think most accidents have one single person whose actions contributed to the accident. If you want to cycle with that mentality, it's no skin of *my* nose when the inevitable happens, but when it comes to small children...
> I have to admit I disagree. The child was between two parents and I think this was entirely reasonable given the situation. The only person at fault here is the cyclist.
The parent in front did not look around to assess hazards for a child running out without looking and kept their back turned to the child. The one behind couldn't see hazards approaching.
If that was me I would be blaming myself for the child's injuries - I could have prevented them easily. Nice to know that you disagree and would not be feeling at all bad about it and would therefore take no actions to prevent a repeat of it.
When I look after small people they categorically are not going to go running around next to a road, especially out of a gate I can't see around or with my back turned.
I am always blown away by the response from people who think most accidents have one single person whose actions contributed to the accident. If you want to cycle with that mentality, it's no skin of *my* nose when the inevitable happens, but when it comes to small children...
Post edited at 20:16
2
1
In reply to Indy:
I'm sure the parents are devastated and are blaming themselves, but to be riding on a pavement at that speed and not stopping is unforgivable. I hope they nail him.....
I'm sure the parents are devastated and are blaming themselves, but to be riding on a pavement at that speed and not stopping is unforgivable. I hope they nail him.....
6
In reply to Indy:
I have just had a similar discussion with my 80 year old FIL, about our local foot/cycle path.
The areas of agreement were that cyclists should not be cycling on 'pavements ' (meant only for pedestrians) however, where there is a shared access pavement , I get shouted at for passing people without ringing my bell.
The truth is, I DO ring my bell , and in plenty of time for people to react, but often older , slightly deaf people, don't hear the early warnings and if I then ring when almost upon them, they often jump, sometimes into my path, so If they don't hear me ringing at a distance , I just stop ringing when up close, and slip past at a safe speed/clearance without alarming them with a bell( and I just accept the dogs abuse that I did not ring and warn them!)
You just can't win sometimes.
I have just had a similar discussion with my 80 year old FIL, about our local foot/cycle path.
The areas of agreement were that cyclists should not be cycling on 'pavements ' (meant only for pedestrians) however, where there is a shared access pavement , I get shouted at for passing people without ringing my bell.
The truth is, I DO ring my bell , and in plenty of time for people to react, but often older , slightly deaf people, don't hear the early warnings and if I then ring when almost upon them, they often jump, sometimes into my path, so If they don't hear me ringing at a distance , I just stop ringing when up close, and slip past at a safe speed/clearance without alarming them with a bell( and I just accept the dogs abuse that I did not ring and warn them!)
You just can't win sometimes.
In reply to JamButty:
+1
appalling.
stepping out your front door to your car, an action you take every day, and nothing ever happens, so it gets labelled 'low risk' by your brain
then this happens. should be a prison term for the cyclist, that could have been a fatality.
+1
appalling.
stepping out your front door to your car, an action you take every day, and nothing ever happens, so it gets labelled 'low risk' by your brain
then this happens. should be a prison term for the cyclist, that could have been a fatality.
2
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
I agree. Almost.
Kids bounce pretty well.
Adults don't pay much attention to their surroundings. Maybe lulled into a false sense of security, it's a pavement, it's a familiar place, etc.
Cyclist is obviously in shock and reacts aggressively like most people do when they're in shock.
We don't need a lynch mob but we do need a method for cyclists to be more identifiable as unlike pedestrians they can flee the scene very quickly.
> +1
> appalling.
> stepping out your front door to your car, an action you take every day, and nothing ever happens, so it gets labelled 'low risk' by your brain
> then this happens. should be a prison term for the cyclist, that could have been a fatality.
I agree. Almost.
Kids bounce pretty well.
Adults don't pay much attention to their surroundings. Maybe lulled into a false sense of security, it's a pavement, it's a familiar place, etc.
Cyclist is obviously in shock and reacts aggressively like most people do when they're in shock.
We don't need a lynch mob but we do need a method for cyclists to be more identifiable as unlike pedestrians they can flee the scene very quickly.
In reply to wintertree:
Okaaay. .. You've read a lot into my response there. I simply meant that given the average dangers associated with a pavement it is not unreasonable to allow a three year old to walk towards its mother at a car a metre away.
Okaaay. .. You've read a lot into my response there. I simply meant that given the average dangers associated with a pavement it is not unreasonable to allow a three year old to walk towards its mother at a car a metre away.
2
In reply to Indy:
This is the reason why "shared use" pavements are such a monumentally stupid idea. I'm guessing this wasn't such a pavement, but its easy to see why someone might think it might be given the way they seem to be completely random these days.
Cyclist was clearly going too fast, and was no doubt fixated on Mum as the "hazard" you even see him swerve a little towards the wall and the little girl. If he wants to ride at that speed he should be on the road, I have no problem with people pootling on the pavement but they shouldn't be moving much more than walking pace
However, the parents really do need to think about the girls safety, and use this as a valuable lesson learned - the little girl will now think twice before running out, they will no doubt think more about controlling the kid around the road.
In reality, the kid has a few minor scuffs and bruises and a bit of shock. There's no need for them to start getting the pitch forks out
This is the reason why "shared use" pavements are such a monumentally stupid idea. I'm guessing this wasn't such a pavement, but its easy to see why someone might think it might be given the way they seem to be completely random these days.
Cyclist was clearly going too fast, and was no doubt fixated on Mum as the "hazard" you even see him swerve a little towards the wall and the little girl. If he wants to ride at that speed he should be on the road, I have no problem with people pootling on the pavement but they shouldn't be moving much more than walking pace
However, the parents really do need to think about the girls safety, and use this as a valuable lesson learned - the little girl will now think twice before running out, they will no doubt think more about controlling the kid around the road.
In reality, the kid has a few minor scuffs and bruises and a bit of shock. There's no need for them to start getting the pitch forks out
1
In reply to balmybaldwin:
In reality, the kid has a few minor scuffs and bruises and a bit of shock. There's no need for them to start getting the pitch forks out
Strange, in lesser circumstances where a cyclist has been involved with a motorist, the cycling fraternity has been all too happy to ruin someone's life with a vendetta against them and their business, etc.
In reality, the kid has a few minor scuffs and bruises and a bit of shock. There's no need for them to start getting the pitch forks out
Strange, in lesser circumstances where a cyclist has been involved with a motorist, the cycling fraternity has been all too happy to ruin someone's life with a vendetta against them and their business, etc.
11
In reply to FactorXXX:
I was thinking the same thing. Imagine if it'd been a cyclist, minding his own business in a cycle lane, who was knocked over by a motorist who then got all huffy and drove off. The internet would melt with all the bleating.
The cycling community would be better served in finding the @rsehole and bending his spokes.
I was thinking the same thing. Imagine if it'd been a cyclist, minding his own business in a cycle lane, who was knocked over by a motorist who then got all huffy and drove off. The internet would melt with all the bleating.
The cycling community would be better served in finding the @rsehole and bending his spokes.
9
> I am always blown away by the response from people who think most accidents have one single person whose actions contributed to the accident. If you want to cycle with that mentality, it's no skin of *my* nose when the inevitable happens, but when it comes to small children...
Same old winter tree response no matter what the situation. Do you stare out the window in highrise buildings in case a terrorist has hijacked a plane in the hope you'll be able to spot it coming towards you?
I don't think I'd bother looking both ways (a fairly long way) when I walk out of the front door to go to the car. I'd never see that cyclist because I wouldn't be looking 2-300 yards down the pavement for a hazard. I'm sure she'll take a long hard look everytime she walks out the font door now but the sad thing is, it shouldn't be neccessary.
Post edited at 11:49
2
In reply to FreshSlate:
I never said that it should be necessary.
I also look both ways when stepping through a gate onto a pavement of a door into a corridor. Doing so isn't exactly hard and has - so far as I can tell - no negative impact on my life in any way.
As for your comment on high rise buildings and terrorists, what on earth are you on about? Is taking a moment to check that a thoroughfare is clear - as much out of wanting not to inconvenience others by displaying a total lack of situational awareness, as it is about my safety - is that really analogous to worrying about uncontrollable terrorist actions in your mind? I can assure you that it isn't in mine.
You continue about your ways not looking - because you shouldn't have to, and because it might start you on a pathway to quivering at home in fear at the dangers in the world. No skin of *my* nose when one day you don't look and someone is doing something they shouldn't be doing.
> I don't think I'd bother looking both ways (a fairly long way) when I walk out of the front door to go to the car. I'd never see that cyclist because I wouldn't be looking 2-300 yards down the pavement for a hazard. I'm sure she'll take a long hard look everytime she walks out the font door now but the sad thing is, it shouldn't be neccessary.
I never said that it should be necessary.
I also look both ways when stepping through a gate onto a pavement of a door into a corridor. Doing so isn't exactly hard and has - so far as I can tell - no negative impact on my life in any way.
As for your comment on high rise buildings and terrorists, what on earth are you on about? Is taking a moment to check that a thoroughfare is clear - as much out of wanting not to inconvenience others by displaying a total lack of situational awareness, as it is about my safety - is that really analogous to worrying about uncontrollable terrorist actions in your mind? I can assure you that it isn't in mine.
You continue about your ways not looking - because you shouldn't have to, and because it might start you on a pathway to quivering at home in fear at the dangers in the world. No skin of *my* nose when one day you don't look and someone is doing something they shouldn't be doing.
Post edited at 13:07
1
In reply to Jim C:
The police in Sheffield don't seem to mind people doing it, having cycled past a few while I have been. I literally go at walking pace if I'm going by people if I'm cycling on the pavement in places where roads are particularly busy or I'm too sleepy to feel safe, or I'll pause and lean on a wall to wait for the way ahead to clear.
I take the approach of rules existing to achieve a certain outcome, and make sure that pedestrians still feel safe (I watch out for them changing step and that kind of thing) and aren't put in any danger by me cycling on the pavement. Though most of the time I don't.
I take the same approach to rules for other road users too, like car drivers who park on especially wide parts of the pavement near to the curb where it's not allowed, things which don't disrupt other people doing their thing.
I hope for better cycling infrastructure in the near future so I don't feel I have to, and so more younger people cycle and it helps the obesity problem to decrease.
> I have seen police doing it.
The police in Sheffield don't seem to mind people doing it, having cycled past a few while I have been. I literally go at walking pace if I'm going by people if I'm cycling on the pavement in places where roads are particularly busy or I'm too sleepy to feel safe, or I'll pause and lean on a wall to wait for the way ahead to clear.
I take the approach of rules existing to achieve a certain outcome, and make sure that pedestrians still feel safe (I watch out for them changing step and that kind of thing) and aren't put in any danger by me cycling on the pavement. Though most of the time I don't.
I take the same approach to rules for other road users too, like car drivers who park on especially wide parts of the pavement near to the curb where it's not allowed, things which don't disrupt other people doing their thing.
I hope for better cycling infrastructure in the near future so I don't feel I have to, and so more younger people cycle and it helps the obesity problem to decrease.
Post edited at 13:41
In reply to Monk:
Totally out of order. They should have curved mirrors on the gate posts so they can see the path is clear from their garden. Once the mirror's have been checked one of the parents should carefully stick their head out just far enough to look up and down.
If all is clear said parent should then proceed on to the path (obviously wearing a high viz jacket) and erect warning barriers and cones from the gate to the car.
At this point 2 further adults should stand on either side of the child and escort the kid to the car. (again high viz required got the adults and kid and the kid should also wear a helmet, gloves, knee and elbow pads)
This might seem a bit ott but it's the only way to keep the kid safe.
> Okaaay. .. You've read a lot into my response there. I simply meant that given the average dangers associated with a pavement it is not unreasonable to allow a three year old to walk towards its mother at a car a metre away.
Totally out of order. They should have curved mirrors on the gate posts so they can see the path is clear from their garden. Once the mirror's have been checked one of the parents should carefully stick their head out just far enough to look up and down.
If all is clear said parent should then proceed on to the path (obviously wearing a high viz jacket) and erect warning barriers and cones from the gate to the car.
At this point 2 further adults should stand on either side of the child and escort the kid to the car. (again high viz required got the adults and kid and the kid should also wear a helmet, gloves, knee and elbow pads)
This might seem a bit ott but it's the only way to keep the kid safe.
3
In reply to Indy:
There's some pretty shocking comments on here - Neither the child or the mother are to blame for a cyclist goingat speed illegally on a pavement. To suggest the mother is in any way negligent for allowing her daughter to run out of the house really misses the point of what happened - some douche thought he could cycle on a pavement, hit a child and then plead ignorance in defense of his actions. Fair enough to him for handing himself in to the police - he's lucky she didn't die or get worse injuries than a few grazes. I hope the magistrate tears him a new one.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/cyclist-who-knocked-down-threeye...
There's some pretty shocking comments on here - Neither the child or the mother are to blame for a cyclist goingat speed illegally on a pavement. To suggest the mother is in any way negligent for allowing her daughter to run out of the house really misses the point of what happened - some douche thought he could cycle on a pavement, hit a child and then plead ignorance in defense of his actions. Fair enough to him for handing himself in to the police - he's lucky she didn't die or get worse injuries than a few grazes. I hope the magistrate tears him a new one.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/cyclist-who-knocked-down-threeye...
Post edited at 15:58
1
In reply to higherclimbingwales:
I know. Shockingly ZERO people have said the mother and/or child are to blame for the cyclists actions.
All I said is that an increased exercise of responsibility by any of the adults could have prevented this. I made it pretty clear what I thought of the cyclist's actions.
I am always shocked by the posts that seek to turn such a statement round and incorrectly pretend it's shifting the blame for one person's stupid actions onto another.
> There's some pretty shocking comments on here - Neither the child or the mother are to blame for a cyclist goingat speed illegally on a pavement.
I know. Shockingly ZERO people have said the mother and/or child are to blame for the cyclists actions.
All I said is that an increased exercise of responsibility by any of the adults could have prevented this. I made it pretty clear what I thought of the cyclist's actions.
I am always shocked by the posts that seek to turn such a statement round and incorrectly pretend it's shifting the blame for one person's stupid actions onto another.
1
In reply to wintertree:
"The parent in front did not look around to assess hazards for a child running out without looking and kept their back turned to the child. The one behind couldn't see hazards approaching.
If that was me I would be blaming myself for the child's injuries - I could have prevented them easily."
> I know. Shockingly ZERO people have said the mother and/or child are to blame for the cyclists actions.
"The parent in front did not look around to assess hazards for a child running out without looking and kept their back turned to the child. The one behind couldn't see hazards approaching.
If that was me I would be blaming myself for the child's injuries - I could have prevented them easily."
1
2
In reply to GrantM:
Yes. High climber suggests the parents are being blamed for the cyclists actions. Where did I say that? Nowhere. Nobody else said that.
This is the part where most accidents take the (in)action of more than one person to come about.
I find it pathetic when this rather obvious fact is met by cries of "victim blaming." Ignorant and short sighted.
It is entirely reasonable to discuss at what point does it cease to be reasonable to take action yourself against the dangerous behaviour of others - and thereby use your power to stay out of an accident that is someone else's fault.
Some on this thread consider keeping a child at close control near a main road as a step to far, and tantamount to wearing full PPE, using mirrors and the like. Go them - we may disagree on what is a reasonable action to preserve the safety of little people, even in the face of video evidence, but at least they have understood enough to argue a sensible point.
Yes. High climber suggests the parents are being blamed for the cyclists actions. Where did I say that? Nowhere. Nobody else said that.
This is the part where most accidents take the (in)action of more than one person to come about.
I find it pathetic when this rather obvious fact is met by cries of "victim blaming." Ignorant and short sighted.
It is entirely reasonable to discuss at what point does it cease to be reasonable to take action yourself against the dangerous behaviour of others - and thereby use your power to stay out of an accident that is someone else's fault.
Some on this thread consider keeping a child at close control near a main road as a step to far, and tantamount to wearing full PPE, using mirrors and the like. Go them - we may disagree on what is a reasonable action to preserve the safety of little people, even in the face of video evidence, but at least they have understood enough to argue a sensible point.
1
In reply to wintertree:
What people don't know in talking about the parents not being on hand to stop her running into the road is the awareness of the little girl to do with traffic and busy roads, as two children of the same age can be very different with that kind of thing.
With that in mind I blame the cyclist and not the parents. A Forest Schools teacher I was talking to said she can trust some three year olds with a knife sharp enough to cut them where she wouldn't trust another child who is six.
What people don't know in talking about the parents not being on hand to stop her running into the road is the awareness of the little girl to do with traffic and busy roads, as two children of the same age can be very different with that kind of thing.
With that in mind I blame the cyclist and not the parents. A Forest Schools teacher I was talking to said she can trust some three year olds with a knife sharp enough to cut them where she wouldn't trust another child who is six.
Post edited at 17:29
In reply to odari:
The child was hardly unattended. In any case, I trust my three year old not to walk into the road. In fact, I trust my three year old to cycle on the pavement, neatly bringing this thread full circle.
> While that idiot should not have been on the pavement, especially riding at such speed, the child was left unattended and could easily walk into the road with no one stopping her. As a parent, I know it's hard to look after young children 100% of the time, so there it is another good reason to live in the countryside.
The child was hardly unattended. In any case, I trust my three year old not to walk into the road. In fact, I trust my three year old to cycle on the pavement, neatly bringing this thread full circle.
In reply to Indy:
The more I read this forum the more I am coming to the conclusion that all cyclists (except me?) are tossers!
The more I read this forum the more I am coming to the conclusion that all cyclists (except me?) are tossers!
1
In reply to GrantM:
Hmmn, you don't see from the camera whether the mum looks at what's on the road before she emerges into view of the camera, and you don't know how well the child can be trusted not to run out into the road.
> "The parent in front did not look around to assess hazards for a child running out without looking and kept their back turned to the child. The one behind couldn't see hazards approaching.
> If that was me I would be blaming myself for the child's injuries - I could have prevented them easily."
Hmmn, you don't see from the camera whether the mum looks at what's on the road before she emerges into view of the camera, and you don't know how well the child can be trusted not to run out into the road.
Post edited at 17:37
In reply to Removed User:
I hope I'm not a tosser in cycling on the pavement very carefully, I'm naturally/instinctly a little bit against rules always being followed, but I apply this to others in cars and people doing different things in life as well, I see outcomes as being key, rather then the strict following of rules.
Perhaps I'll change my mind if I get knocked over by a cyclist on the pavement while walking along
> The more I read this forum the more I am coming to the conclusion that all cyclists (except me?) are tossers!
I hope I'm not a tosser in cycling on the pavement very carefully, I'm naturally/instinctly a little bit against rules always being followed, but I apply this to others in cars and people doing different things in life as well, I see outcomes as being key, rather then the strict following of rules.
Perhaps I'll change my mind if I get knocked over by a cyclist on the pavement while walking along
Post edited at 17:42
1
In reply to wintertree:
I know you didn't say the parents were to blame for the cyclists actions, you as near damn it suggest they were at least partially to blame for their child being hit by the cyclist
Who's to say the parents were not excercising due responsibility? you can't see the whole picture.
I know you didn't say the parents were to blame for the cyclists actions, you as near damn it suggest they were at least partially to blame for their child being hit by the cyclist
> That is why every adult in a public place has a responsibility towards small children, and an exercise of such responsibility by any of the adults in this video would have prevented the child's horrid mauling at the hands of the idiot cyclist.
Who's to say the parents were not excercising due responsibility? you can't see the whole picture.
In reply to Timmd:
I guess your expressed concern for your 'own' safety might not go down too well on here !
I do know that if you cycled past my gate , you would have no chance of seeing or reacting to my Grandaughter walk out from behind the hedge.
However, my daughter's horrible little Yappy excuse for dogs , both regularly run out onto the pavement outside my house.
(so you can come to my street anytime you like with your bike
Edit Yappy for Happy
I guess your expressed concern for your 'own' safety might not go down too well on here !
I do know that if you cycled past my gate , you would have no chance of seeing or reacting to my Grandaughter walk out from behind the hedge.
However, my daughter's horrible little Yappy excuse for dogs , both regularly run out onto the pavement outside my house.
(so you can come to my street anytime you like with your bike
Edit Yappy for Happy
Post edited at 19:39
In reply to Indy: the parents were being responsible - she was on the pavement , exactly where she's meant to be. It's the point of them
4
1
In reply to wbo:
Yes, pavements next to busy roads are inherently safe places, as this video clearly shows/ oh, wait a minute...
So I guess I'm the only weirdo who sees a pavement next to a busy road as a potentially dangerous place where small children - and dogs - should be under close control, both for their own sakes and out of consideration for other legitimate users (excluding idiots like the cyclist.)
If I was in charge, I'd give out a prizes for such nice minded behaviour - like never getting wiped out by asshats cycling or parking dangerously or kids on scooters or runners not looking where they're going or one of many other not uncommon hazards. Despite the interpretation of some on here this'd not extend to wearing PPE, looking out for terrorists or quivering at home in fear of the world.
I know it's a short video with a fixed view but IMO if the kid didn't have the sense to use the pavement safely - in a world full of asshat cyclists and others - they didn't have the nonce to be running around that close to a road. Sometimes parents learn a much crueler lesson without the child having any chance to learn, thankfully the child got of lightly here, but for the grace of god it could have been very different, and then it doesn't really matter who is to blame, does it? Y'all keep that in mind when sticking to your principles that XYZ activity should be safe and that you can therefore treat it as safe because it won't be your fault.
> the parents were being responsible - she was on the pavement , exactly where she's meant to be. It's the point of them
Yes, pavements next to busy roads are inherently safe places, as this video clearly shows/ oh, wait a minute...
So I guess I'm the only weirdo who sees a pavement next to a busy road as a potentially dangerous place where small children - and dogs - should be under close control, both for their own sakes and out of consideration for other legitimate users (excluding idiots like the cyclist.)
If I was in charge, I'd give out a prizes for such nice minded behaviour - like never getting wiped out by asshats cycling or parking dangerously or kids on scooters or runners not looking where they're going or one of many other not uncommon hazards. Despite the interpretation of some on here this'd not extend to wearing PPE, looking out for terrorists or quivering at home in fear of the world.
I know it's a short video with a fixed view but IMO if the kid didn't have the sense to use the pavement safely - in a world full of asshat cyclists and others - they didn't have the nonce to be running around that close to a road. Sometimes parents learn a much crueler lesson without the child having any chance to learn, thankfully the child got of lightly here, but for the grace of god it could have been very different, and then it doesn't really matter who is to blame, does it? Y'all keep that in mind when sticking to your principles that XYZ activity should be safe and that you can therefore treat it as safe because it won't be your fault.
2
In reply to wintertree:
Huh?
Everyone looks. You're not the only one. The difference is, noone is looking for a cyclist which is a considerable distance away on the pavement. By the same measure a car or motorbike could have mounted the pavement from the road and took them all out. No one looks out for that either. Funny you don't mention the cyclist's hazard awareness, who spots a person waiting at side of car but carries on at a speed where he could not stop. However, thats not the contrarian position.
Yeah it's perfectly analagous, just higher up in degree of unlikelyness. You think people didn't look for suspicious people on the tube after the london bombings? Do you think the people who were killed were responsible for their own deaths for not looking for dodgy bags on the train? Pretty obvious the tube is a high value terrorist target. It is certainly more unlikely but definitely fits with your 'you are at fault not being aware of the hazards' principle.
I haven't heard many stories about kids getting dragged around by cyclists on the pavement, not an everyday occurence.
I'll keep an eye out for pedestrians or maybe a little girl on a scooter as I leave my door. Maybe not a cyclist doing a fair bit, or a motorbike, or something else stupid pretty illegal and unlikely.
> I never said that it should be necessary.
Huh?
> I also look both ways when stepping through a gate onto a pavement of a door into a corridor. Doing so isn't exactly hard and has - so far as I can tell - no negative impact on my life in any way.
Everyone looks. You're not the only one. The difference is, noone is looking for a cyclist which is a considerable distance away on the pavement. By the same measure a car or motorbike could have mounted the pavement from the road and took them all out. No one looks out for that either. Funny you don't mention the cyclist's hazard awareness, who spots a person waiting at side of car but carries on at a speed where he could not stop. However, thats not the contrarian position.
> As for your comment on high rise buildings and terrorists, what on earth are you on about? Is taking a moment to check that a thoroughfare is clear - as much out of wanting not to inconvenience others by displaying a total lack of situational awareness, as it is about my safety - is that really analogous to worrying about uncontrollable terrorist actions in your mind? I can assure you that it isn't in mine.
Yeah it's perfectly analagous, just higher up in degree of unlikelyness. You think people didn't look for suspicious people on the tube after the london bombings? Do you think the people who were killed were responsible for their own deaths for not looking for dodgy bags on the train? Pretty obvious the tube is a high value terrorist target. It is certainly more unlikely but definitely fits with your 'you are at fault not being aware of the hazards' principle.
I haven't heard many stories about kids getting dragged around by cyclists on the pavement, not an everyday occurence.
> You continue about your ways not looking - because you shouldn't have to, and because it might start you on a pathway to quivering at home in fear at the dangers in the world. No skin of *my* nose when one day you don't look and someone is doing something they shouldn't be doing.
I'll keep an eye out for pedestrians or maybe a little girl on a scooter as I leave my door. Maybe not a cyclist doing a fair bit, or a motorbike, or something else stupid pretty illegal and unlikely.
Post edited at 21:05
1
In reply to tony:
No I didn't. I coinsidered them during my risk assessment process.
To be effective the sirens would need to loud and that would affect the hearing of the people so they would need ear protection.
With ear protection on they might miss important audible clues of approaching danger.
> You forgot the sirens.
No I didn't. I coinsidered them during my risk assessment process.
To be effective the sirens would need to loud and that would affect the hearing of the people so they would need ear protection.
With ear protection on they might miss important audible clues of approaching danger.
In reply to FreshSlate:
Yes, because I have made it clear on multiple occasions that I consider them stupid, wrong, at fault and an asshat. Their hazard awareness was clearly very sub-par as they were cycling at speed past pedestrian portals that they couldn't possibly see in to, so regardless of cycling illegally on the pavement they have big issues that if cycling were regulated and anybody ever enforced anything should see them off the road as a menace. That however almost goes without saying, no?
I was alluding to wider injuries and deaths associated with traffic and near traffic hazards, which include cyclists and cars using the pavement as it suits them. That kid was running within a meter of a road demonstrating poor awareness for their safety (perfectly usual at that age), not under close control, and that could have ended far worse.
I'm all for the argument that someone shouldn't be doing something, but as these threads trout out time and again, people are doing them and other people are paying the price - time and time and time again.
I personally don't have a problem looking a bit further, and keeping closer control, when it comes to small, erratic and unpredictable people who are much more vulnerable to the actions of total muppets.
> Funny you don't mention the cyclist's hazard awareness,
Yes, because I have made it clear on multiple occasions that I consider them stupid, wrong, at fault and an asshat. Their hazard awareness was clearly very sub-par as they were cycling at speed past pedestrian portals that they couldn't possibly see in to, so regardless of cycling illegally on the pavement they have big issues that if cycling were regulated and anybody ever enforced anything should see them off the road as a menace. That however almost goes without saying, no?
> I haven't heard many stories about kids getting dragged around by cyclists on the pavement, not an everyday occurence.
I was alluding to wider injuries and deaths associated with traffic and near traffic hazards, which include cyclists and cars using the pavement as it suits them. That kid was running within a meter of a road demonstrating poor awareness for their safety (perfectly usual at that age), not under close control, and that could have ended far worse.
I'm all for the argument that someone shouldn't be doing something, but as these threads trout out time and again, people are doing them and other people are paying the price - time and time and time again.
I personally don't have a problem looking a bit further, and keeping closer control, when it comes to small, erratic and unpredictable people who are much more vulnerable to the actions of total muppets.
In reply to wintertree:
Have you ever jogged or ran on the pavement? I'm not sure if the kid was showing particularly any worse awareness than an adult.
If you can point me to the other threads about children being hit by a cyclist on the pavement... can't just lump all traffic related incidents together...
The thing is, look a bit further than what? The average person?
> Yes, because I have made it clear on multiple occasions that I consider them stupid, wrong, at fault and an asshat. Their hazard awareness was clearly very sub-par as they were cycling at speed past pedestrian portals that they couldn't possibly see in to, so regardless of cycling illegally on the pavement they have big issues that if cycling were regulated and anybody ever enforced anything should see them off the road as a menace. That however almost goes without saying, no?
... The problem with this last sentence is that you place all of you focus away from the person who is 'obviously' wrong. > I was alluding to wider injuries and deaths associated with traffic and near traffic hazards, which include cyclists and cars using the pavement as it suits them. That kid was running within a meter of a road demonstrating poor awareness for their safety (perfectly usual at that age), not under close control, and that could have ended far worse.
Have you ever jogged or ran on the pavement? I'm not sure if the kid was showing particularly any worse awareness than an adult.
> I'm all for the argument that someone shouldn't be doing something, but as these threads trout out time and again, people are doing them and other people are paying the price - time and time and time again.
If you can point me to the other threads about children being hit by a cyclist on the pavement... can't just lump all traffic related incidents together...
> I personally don't have a problem looking a bit further, and keeping closer control, when it comes to small, erratic and unpredictable people who are much more vulnerable to the actions of total muppets.
The thing is, look a bit further than what? The average person?
The cyclist wasn't going that fast.
An adult would have seen the cyclist out of their periphery vision and jumped out of the way.
The cyclist would have seen an adult walking down the path.
The wall and pillars obscure both the child's view and the cyclist's view of the child.
Four people who should each have been taking more care. Each blaming the other person. Typical England.
Post edited at 21:26
In reply to FreshSlate:
Why is that a problem? I am not a judge or a jury, we are not here to determine guilt. I initially jumped in to a claim of "victim blaming" to point out that the child, the actual victim, shoulders the least blame of all and that if any of the adults had exercised more responsibility then the victim would have not had a horrific experience.
People jump on this - I defend my view point - and now you're accusing me of diverting focus away from the person who was clearly wrong. What do you want me to do, organise a lynch mob and hang'um from the neck till they're dead? State the really blindingly obvious fact that they are the cause of all the problems here and that they're a very naught person who deserves a sound telling off and most likely an appearance in court? Well I for one thought that was pretty bloody obvious with bells on.
Let us step back - I suggest that any of the adults could have prevented this horrific accident. You and others appear to want to use this to suggest I am shifting blame from the obvious miscreant to the parents. I fundamentally and strongly disagree with that interpretation.
As I said clearly I'm the odd one out in seeing pavements as a dangerous place for small people to run around not under close control. I'd rather be the odd one out who is overly cautious 99 times out of 100 that the one in A&E with a broken small person.
Given your comment of "typical winter tree answer" earlier I'd have thought that you of all people would have made the mental jump with me to the fact I am discussing the very many "accident > victim blaming!!!111!" threads on UKC that generally - but not exclusively - involve a cyclist as the one on the receiving end of injury.
> The problem with this last sentence is that you place all of you focus away from the person who is 'obviously' wrong.
Why is that a problem? I am not a judge or a jury, we are not here to determine guilt. I initially jumped in to a claim of "victim blaming" to point out that the child, the actual victim, shoulders the least blame of all and that if any of the adults had exercised more responsibility then the victim would have not had a horrific experience.
People jump on this - I defend my view point - and now you're accusing me of diverting focus away from the person who was clearly wrong. What do you want me to do, organise a lynch mob and hang'um from the neck till they're dead? State the really blindingly obvious fact that they are the cause of all the problems here and that they're a very naught person who deserves a sound telling off and most likely an appearance in court? Well I for one thought that was pretty bloody obvious with bells on.
Let us step back - I suggest that any of the adults could have prevented this horrific accident. You and others appear to want to use this to suggest I am shifting blame from the obvious miscreant to the parents. I fundamentally and strongly disagree with that interpretation.
As I said clearly I'm the odd one out in seeing pavements as a dangerous place for small people to run around not under close control. I'd rather be the odd one out who is overly cautious 99 times out of 100 that the one in A&E with a broken small person.
> If you can point me to the other threads about children being hit by a cyclist on the pavement... can't just lump all traffic related incidents together..
Given your comment of "typical winter tree answer" earlier I'd have thought that you of all people would have made the mental jump with me to the fact I am discussing the very many "accident > victim blaming!!!111!" threads on UKC that generally - but not exclusively - involve a cyclist as the one on the receiving end of injury.
Post edited at 21:41
In reply to DancingOnRock:
The cyclist wasn't going that fast.
Are you joking?
An adult would have seen the cyclist out of their periphery vision and jumped out of the way.
The cyclist would have seen an adult walking down the path.
The wall and pillars obscure both the child's view and the cyclist's view of the child.
Four people who should each have been taking more care. Each blaming the other person. Typical England.
How many more reasons are you going to give to try and explain that it wasn't the cyclists fault?
The cyclist wasn't going that fast.
Are you joking?
An adult would have seen the cyclist out of their periphery vision and jumped out of the way.
The cyclist would have seen an adult walking down the path.
The wall and pillars obscure both the child's view and the cyclist's view of the child.
Four people who should each have been taking more care. Each blaming the other person. Typical England.
How many more reasons are you going to give to try and explain that it wasn't the cyclists fault?
In reply to DancingOnRock:
One person breaks the law and nearly causes serious injury to a child, and some people spend days arguing that the incident wasnt entirely his responsibility. Typical England.
One person breaks the law and nearly causes serious injury to a child, and some people spend days arguing that the incident wasnt entirely his responsibility. Typical England.
In reply to FactorXXX:
Watch the CCTV. It's stobing. Makes everything look faster than it is.
Where did I say it wasn't the cyclist's fault?
I'm pointing out the sequence of events.
We could always blame society in general for the over use of the motor car and children not out playing in the street.
Let's all blame someone. It has to be someone's fault.
Watch the CCTV. It's stobing. Makes everything look faster than it is.
Where did I say it wasn't the cyclist's fault?
I'm pointing out the sequence of events.
We could always blame society in general for the over use of the motor car and children not out playing in the street.
Let's all blame someone. It has to be someone's fault.
Post edited at 21:50
2
In reply to DancingOnRock:
The cyclist is going as fast, if not faster, than the red car that passes the mum's car at the same time. I don't know the road but I can't imagine that would be less than 15mph.
On a pavement.
At a busy time in the morning.
According to the telegraph he's voluntarily attended a police station and claimed that he didn't know cycling on the pavement is an offence and that the mother's version of events in the YouTube video is inaccurate. I accept that there is no objective evidence that he was abusive following the collision, but he certainly doesn't come back and check that the three year old girl whose face he just smashed with his pedal is ok, which you would assume any normal contrite human would do. The telegraph also reports that he says his life is ruined and he has been verbally abused in the street after being recognised. Whilst this report may not be entirely accurate it suggests that he has gone to the police at best because of public pressure and at worst out of fears for his own safety, rather than out of any sense of remorse or concern. I really really hope he is charged.
> The cyclist wasn't going that fast.
The cyclist is going as fast, if not faster, than the red car that passes the mum's car at the same time. I don't know the road but I can't imagine that would be less than 15mph.
On a pavement.
At a busy time in the morning.
According to the telegraph he's voluntarily attended a police station and claimed that he didn't know cycling on the pavement is an offence and that the mother's version of events in the YouTube video is inaccurate. I accept that there is no objective evidence that he was abusive following the collision, but he certainly doesn't come back and check that the three year old girl whose face he just smashed with his pedal is ok, which you would assume any normal contrite human would do. The telegraph also reports that he says his life is ruined and he has been verbally abused in the street after being recognised. Whilst this report may not be entirely accurate it suggests that he has gone to the police at best because of public pressure and at worst out of fears for his own safety, rather than out of any sense of remorse or concern. I really really hope he is charged.
4
In reply to DancingOnRock:
Yes, it does. and invariably, when one of the people has broken the law, which is in place specifically to try to prevent this sort of incident taking place, then its theirs.
Yes, it does. and invariably, when one of the people has broken the law, which is in place specifically to try to prevent this sort of incident taking place, then its theirs.
In reply to gazhbo:
Look at the speed the mother crosses the path. That gives a better idea. The video give a false sense of how fast everything is going.
Look at the speed the mother crosses the path. That gives a better idea. The video give a false sense of how fast everything is going.
1
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
Yes. And while we continue to hide behind the law everytime there is an accident we never learn anything from accidents.
> Yes, it does. and invariably, when one of the people has broken the law, which is in place specifically to try to prevent this sort of incident taking place, then its theirs.
Yes. And while we continue to hide behind the law everytime there is an accident we never learn anything from accidents.
1
1
In reply to Indy:
Anyone else noticed a blue cycle lane sign in the background of the photo of the cyclist. Do we know the status of the footway he was cycling on. What's the location, and was he legally riding there?
Anyone else noticed a blue cycle lane sign in the background of the photo of the cyclist. Do we know the status of the footway he was cycling on. What's the location, and was he legally riding there?
In reply to DancingOnRock:
What's to learn?
Cycling on the pavement is unlawful, because this can happen.
Very low frequency events are very hard for humans to successfully protect against, as our attention is constantly facing competition from other things that are going on, and we can't successfully stay on alert for them on a continuous basis.
Society knows this, that's why the law is in place, and wheeled transport and pedestrians are kept apart.
What's to learn?
Cycling on the pavement is unlawful, because this can happen.
Very low frequency events are very hard for humans to successfully protect against, as our attention is constantly facing competition from other things that are going on, and we can't successfully stay on alert for them on a continuous basis.
Society knows this, that's why the law is in place, and wheeled transport and pedestrians are kept apart.
1
In reply to DancingOnRock:
The video give a false sense of how fast everything is going.
So how can you say he wasn't going that fast then? He keeps pace with the car that passes at exactly the same time as him. So I reckon he's going at the same speed as it.
The video give a false sense of how fast everything is going.
So how can you say he wasn't going that fast then? He keeps pace with the car that passes at exactly the same time as him. So I reckon he's going at the same speed as it.
2
In reply to gazhbo:
It's possible, of course, that it was made clear that his continued presence in the vicinity was not welcome. But, without sound, and with a short video clip, it's hard to say much other than he should not have been cycling on the pavement.
From the short clip, I'd have winced if I'd seen the girl run out onto the pavement like that, or seen the cyclist going past concealed openings at speed; my imagination seems to be morbid.
> but he certainly doesn't come back and check that the three year old girl whose face he just smashed with his pedal is ok, which you would assume any normal contrite human would do.
It's possible, of course, that it was made clear that his continued presence in the vicinity was not welcome. But, without sound, and with a short video clip, it's hard to say much other than he should not have been cycling on the pavement.
From the short clip, I'd have winced if I'd seen the girl run out onto the pavement like that, or seen the cyclist going past concealed openings at speed; my imagination seems to be morbid.
Post edited at 22:10
In reply to Jim C:
To be honest it's only ever really on roads where there's 2 or 3 lanes and people doing 40 mph that I generally ride on the pavement, and in those kinds of environments the pavements seem to be double width, meaning there's room to give people a wide berth, and little in the way of hidden places for people to emerge from.
Having once fallen over a little girl through not being alert while walking along and chatting in my local park, which resulted in her crying, and me feeling awful, anything to do with the possibility of causing children to cry is one of my worst nightmares.
It's funny, as I've got older it seems to have become something I disapprove of myself doing a little bit, unless it's on a wide pavement which is easier to anticipate things on. When I first started doing conservation volunteering during the winter though, the hard work and the early starts left me feeling like I had to go on the pavement to not end up under a bus, and I was tired enough to be happy to cycle at walking pace, and lean on railings to let the way ahead become clear, and give people room and things.
Enjoy the little dogs.
> I guess your expressed concern for your 'own' safety might not go down too well on here !
> I do know that if you cycled past my gate , you would have no chance of seeing or reacting to my Grandaughter walk out from behind the hedge.
To be honest it's only ever really on roads where there's 2 or 3 lanes and people doing 40 mph that I generally ride on the pavement, and in those kinds of environments the pavements seem to be double width, meaning there's room to give people a wide berth, and little in the way of hidden places for people to emerge from.
Having once fallen over a little girl through not being alert while walking along and chatting in my local park, which resulted in her crying, and me feeling awful, anything to do with the possibility of causing children to cry is one of my worst nightmares.
It's funny, as I've got older it seems to have become something I disapprove of myself doing a little bit, unless it's on a wide pavement which is easier to anticipate things on. When I first started doing conservation volunteering during the winter though, the hard work and the early starts left me feeling like I had to go on the pavement to not end up under a bus, and I was tired enough to be happy to cycle at walking pace, and lean on railings to let the way ahead become clear, and give people room and things.
> However, my daughter's horrible little Yappy excuse for dogs , both regularly run out onto the pavement outside my house.
> (so you can come to my street anytime you like with your bike
> Edit Yappy for Happy
Enjoy the little dogs.
Post edited at 22:24
In reply to gazhbo:
As I say. The video is time-lapse. How fast is the car going.
How fast is the mother going when she crosses the pavement? How fast does that dad move when he jumps over the wall?
None of these can really be determined accurately. Cars do appear to be turning right. It's also rush hour.
It doesn't really matter.
What can we learn? As adults we wouldn't have run out into the street through a gap when we couldn't see what's coming from the left or the right of us. So as adults we've already learned that.
We also cut back hedges near junctions for the same reasons.
> The video give a false sense of how fast everything is going.
> So how can you say he wasn't going that fast then? He keeps pace with the car that passes at exactly the same time as him. So I reckon he's going at the same speed as it.
As I say. The video is time-lapse. How fast is the car going.
How fast is the mother going when she crosses the pavement? How fast does that dad move when he jumps over the wall?
None of these can really be determined accurately. Cars do appear to be turning right. It's also rush hour.
It doesn't really matter.
What can we learn? As adults we wouldn't have run out into the street through a gap when we couldn't see what's coming from the left or the right of us. So as adults we've already learned that.
We also cut back hedges near junctions for the same reasons.
In reply to DancingOnRock:
Nonsense. I walk out of my drive onto the pavement behind my house every day and don't look down the hill in anything other than the most cursory way, because I could do it my whole life and not get hit in a life threatening way by anything.
Whereas the front of my house opens directly onto a road, with no pavement, and my life expectancy would be a matter of days if I didn't look, so I look carefully every time
We adjust our behaviour based on the likelihood of something bad happening, and when the likelihood is low, we have to work bloody hard to keep up levels of vigilance as we quickly return to taking 'short cuts' unless there is continual reinforcement of the necessity of the behaviour. This is why in many situations where there are low frequency but potentially catastrophic outcomes, there are protocols and checklists to follow, because people just can't keep up their guard all the time
And its why it's an offense to cycle on the pavement, because, apart from you and winter tree, the rest of the population wont be expecting there to be a bike there
Nonsense. I walk out of my drive onto the pavement behind my house every day and don't look down the hill in anything other than the most cursory way, because I could do it my whole life and not get hit in a life threatening way by anything.
Whereas the front of my house opens directly onto a road, with no pavement, and my life expectancy would be a matter of days if I didn't look, so I look carefully every time
We adjust our behaviour based on the likelihood of something bad happening, and when the likelihood is low, we have to work bloody hard to keep up levels of vigilance as we quickly return to taking 'short cuts' unless there is continual reinforcement of the necessity of the behaviour. This is why in many situations where there are low frequency but potentially catastrophic outcomes, there are protocols and checklists to follow, because people just can't keep up their guard all the time
And its why it's an offense to cycle on the pavement, because, apart from you and winter tree, the rest of the population wont be expecting there to be a bike there
Post edited at 22:31
2
2
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
Or a runner.
Come on. Your peripheral vision would have picked that up easily. You may not think you're looking but you are. It's not like it's coming from behind.
In any case as I wrote above the cyclist would have seen you as you're two feet higher than the pillar. If you're not you'll have learned to look by now.
I will admit there are some very stupid people around who just step out of shop doorways and get angry when people walking along the street bump into them but I'm sure you're not one of them.
Or a runner.
Come on. Your peripheral vision would have picked that up easily. You may not think you're looking but you are. It's not like it's coming from behind.
In any case as I wrote above the cyclist would have seen you as you're two feet higher than the pillar. If you're not you'll have learned to look by now.
I will admit there are some very stupid people around who just step out of shop doorways and get angry when people walking along the street bump into them but I'm sure you're not one of them.
1
In reply to gazhbo:
It takes him 2 seconds to cover the same distance the mum walks in 4 seconds. So twice walking speed. Maybe 6mph?
It takes him 2 seconds to cover the same distance the mum walks in 4 seconds. So twice walking speed. Maybe 6mph?
Post edited at 22:35
In reply to DancingOnRock:
It's nothing to do with stupidity. We always have more inputs to our attention that our brains can deal with at any one point, so it selects the ones that it regards as most salient. Its not that we take a conscious decision not to look when we step out of a doorway or when I emerge from behind my 12ft hedge; its that our brains judge the amount of attention to allocate to risk assessing that action based on our previous experience of that activity and ones like it. I could walk out of my driveway onto the pavement every day for the next 20 years and not get hit by a fast moving cyclist, so as much as I could try to train myself to look carefully every time, my brain will continuously be working against that and downgrading the importance, and I will be thinking about what I will have to do at work, or why my phone isn't working, or something else that gets higher priority at that time
I won't be thinking about those when I step out of the front gate
It's just psychology. And it's why the law, the one the cyclist broke, is in place, and so why it's his fault.
It's nothing to do with stupidity. We always have more inputs to our attention that our brains can deal with at any one point, so it selects the ones that it regards as most salient. Its not that we take a conscious decision not to look when we step out of a doorway or when I emerge from behind my 12ft hedge; its that our brains judge the amount of attention to allocate to risk assessing that action based on our previous experience of that activity and ones like it. I could walk out of my driveway onto the pavement every day for the next 20 years and not get hit by a fast moving cyclist, so as much as I could try to train myself to look carefully every time, my brain will continuously be working against that and downgrading the importance, and I will be thinking about what I will have to do at work, or why my phone isn't working, or something else that gets higher priority at that time
I won't be thinking about those when I step out of the front gate
It's just psychology. And it's why the law, the one the cyclist broke, is in place, and so why it's his fault.
Post edited at 22:48
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
It's not why it's law.
The law is there to apportion blame.
They could just as easily as make it law for you not to step out without looking.
In some countries it's even illegal to cross the road unless you're at a crossing and the crossing light is green.
You're really overthinking this and imagining something that just didn't happen.
If that cyclist had been travelling at high speed that child would have had much more serious injuries.
It's not why it's law.
The law is there to apportion blame.
They could just as easily as make it law for you not to step out without looking.
In some countries it's even illegal to cross the road unless you're at a crossing and the crossing light is green.
You're really overthinking this and imagining something that just didn't happen.
If that cyclist had been travelling at high speed that child would have had much more serious injuries.
1
In reply to DancingOnRock:
Ps paradoxically if cycling on the pavement was more common, it may in some ways be *less* dangerous- as we would be expecting it and have learned to anticipate it happening.
Ps paradoxically if cycling on the pavement was more common, it may in some ways be *less* dangerous- as we would be expecting it and have learned to anticipate it happening.
In reply to DancingOnRock:
The law, by and large, is there to prevent negative outcomes, in most areas it covers. The most effective way of doing this to prevent most harm to pedestrians is to keep foot and wheeled traffic separated. Lawmakers didnt have to have a deep understanding of psychology to arrive at that conclusion, but their conclusion would be supported by psychology.
The alternative- allow cyclists and pedestrians to mix freely *might* be safer, once everyone got used to it; but from a lawmakers position, why take the chance- this way is simple and from their point of view, risk free.
The law, by and large, is there to prevent negative outcomes, in most areas it covers. The most effective way of doing this to prevent most harm to pedestrians is to keep foot and wheeled traffic separated. Lawmakers didnt have to have a deep understanding of psychology to arrive at that conclusion, but their conclusion would be supported by psychology.
The alternative- allow cyclists and pedestrians to mix freely *might* be safer, once everyone got used to it; but from a lawmakers position, why take the chance- this way is simple and from their point of view, risk free.
Post edited at 23:02
In reply to gazhbo:
Yeah he is, he has to be to drag a little girl for ten feet before stopping.
Assuming he started braking as soon as he realised what was happening, from (subjective) experience I'd guess he's doing around 20mph in the video or close to that, definitely somewhere between 15mph and 20mph*, which is far too fast for somewhere that pedestrians could be encountered. He is flying along.
*Keeping in mind the perspective of the camera might distort things and all that jazz.
> Are we watching the same video? He's flying along.
Yeah he is, he has to be to drag a little girl for ten feet before stopping.
Assuming he started braking as soon as he realised what was happening, from (subjective) experience I'd guess he's doing around 20mph in the video or close to that, definitely somewhere between 15mph and 20mph*, which is far too fast for somewhere that pedestrians could be encountered. He is flying along.
*Keeping in mind the perspective of the camera might distort things and all that jazz.
Post edited at 23:22
In reply to DancingOnRock:
Or people with mental health problems or brain injuries and that kind of thing.
I encountered a lady who started to go off the deep end for nearly bumping into her (as another pedestrian) and I nearly reacted before I realised she didn't seem quite all there, and that the guy with her could have been her support worker.
> I will admit there are some very stupid people around who just step out of shop doorways and get angry when people walking along the street bump into them but I'm sure you're not one of them.
Or people with mental health problems or brain injuries and that kind of thing.
I encountered a lady who started to go off the deep end for nearly bumping into her (as another pedestrian) and I nearly reacted before I realised she didn't seem quite all there, and that the guy with her could have been her support worker.
Post edited at 23:25
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
I find it very odd that apparently so few pedestrians maintain an awareness for the possibility of the unexpected.
When I am driving or riding a motor vehicle, or cycling, awareness of the unexpected is a key part of my behaviour - where could someone appear without advanced visual warning? where is there too much visual complexity and confusion for my vision to be trusted at normal levels? etc - basically where do I need to slow down and take more care?
I actively work at that behaviour when driving/riding, and I find that it becomes increasingly automatic, and that I can't turn it of when being a pedestrian. I am left with three possibilities to interpret many other people's comments:
1) When driving/riding/cycling they do not engage in active thought about the potential and unseen hazards around them, despite being in control of lethal quantities of kinetic energy and momentum.
2) Somehow that part of their brain that runs constant hazard anticipation when driving/riding/cycling just disengages when being a pedestrian - perhaps so, as this is a skill learned in life at a far more unthinking/automatic stage of youth than the others.
3) They they intentionally do not do simple thinks like looking out for the unexpected, because The Law is on their side and the other person is in the wrong, so it'll not be their fault if they get clobbered.
I can normally empathise with the other views on UKC even if I disagree strenuously, but this one puzzles me. I don't want to live a live of getting clobbered on my bike or on the pavement because The Law says it is someone else's fault.
> And its why it's an offense to cycle on the pavement, because, apart from you and winter tree, the rest of the population wont be expecting there to be a bike there
I find it very odd that apparently so few pedestrians maintain an awareness for the possibility of the unexpected.
When I am driving or riding a motor vehicle, or cycling, awareness of the unexpected is a key part of my behaviour - where could someone appear without advanced visual warning? where is there too much visual complexity and confusion for my vision to be trusted at normal levels? etc - basically where do I need to slow down and take more care?
I actively work at that behaviour when driving/riding, and I find that it becomes increasingly automatic, and that I can't turn it of when being a pedestrian. I am left with three possibilities to interpret many other people's comments:
1) When driving/riding/cycling they do not engage in active thought about the potential and unseen hazards around them, despite being in control of lethal quantities of kinetic energy and momentum.
2) Somehow that part of their brain that runs constant hazard anticipation when driving/riding/cycling just disengages when being a pedestrian - perhaps so, as this is a skill learned in life at a far more unthinking/automatic stage of youth than the others.
3) They they intentionally do not do simple thinks like looking out for the unexpected, because The Law is on their side and the other person is in the wrong, so it'll not be their fault if they get clobbered.
I can normally empathise with the other views on UKC even if I disagree strenuously, but this one puzzles me. I don't want to live a live of getting clobbered on my bike or on the pavement because The Law says it is someone else's fault.
1
In reply to wintertree:
I haven't used the term victim blaming. You seem hung up on this. How's the child a victim? If she had been looking where she's going... Not sure why being a minor gets a pass with you.
It's not the blindingly obvious, believe it or not a lot a putting the bulk of the blame on the parents. Nothing is obvious when it comes to blame/fault. However what is blindingly obvious is the comment 'had they seen the cyclist...', I guess we better write the parents an email instructing them about how to leave the front door. You seem to suggest you are misinterpreted and haven't said a great deal of things, why are we talking about lynch mobs?
You clearly are. There's always a could, and we could apply that could to any victim (or parents) of crime.
Pavements shouldn't be a dangerous place, the whole idea of having pavements is relatively safety from the road, most pavements are fine. Children do play out, maybe a little older but still not with perfect risk assessment skills the vast majority avoid getting squashed, not because they can commando roll out of the way of cyclists but because there just isn't that threat. I'm sure these parents are overly cautious in most things they do, I'm not going to judge them because they didn't spot a cyclist one time whilst moving about 3 feet from their front garden to their car.
I'm not making the point that you are anti/pro cyling. Just that you consistently focus on the 'minority blame' party, and then as you would expect criticism of this approach comes your way.
> Why is that a problem? I am not a judge or a jury, we are not here to determine guilt. I initially jumped in to a claim of "victim blaming" to point out that the child, the actual victim, shoulders the least blame of all and that if any of the adults had exercised more responsibility then the victim would have not had a horrific experience.
I haven't used the term victim blaming. You seem hung up on this. How's the child a victim? If she had been looking where she's going... Not sure why being a minor gets a pass with you.
> People jump on this - I defend my view point - and now you're accusing me of diverting focus away from the person who was clearly wrong. What do you want me to do, organise a lynch mob and hang'um from the neck till they're dead? State the really blindingly obvious fact that they are the cause of all the problems here and that they're a very naught person who deserves a sound telling off and most likely an appearance in court? Well I for one thought that was pretty bloody obvious with bells on.
It's not the blindingly obvious, believe it or not a lot a putting the bulk of the blame on the parents. Nothing is obvious when it comes to blame/fault. However what is blindingly obvious is the comment 'had they seen the cyclist...', I guess we better write the parents an email instructing them about how to leave the front door. You seem to suggest you are misinterpreted and haven't said a great deal of things, why are we talking about lynch mobs?
> Let us step back - I suggest that any of the adults could have prevented this horrific accident. You and others appear to want to use this to suggest I am shifting blame from the obvious miscreant to the parents. I fundamentally and strongly disagree with that interpretation.
You clearly are. There's always a could, and we could apply that could to any victim (or parents) of crime.
> As I said clearly I'm the odd one out in seeing pavements as a dangerous place for small people to run around not under close control. I'd rather be the odd one out who is overly cautious 99 times out of 100 that the one in A&E with a broken small person.
Pavements shouldn't be a dangerous place, the whole idea of having pavements is relatively safety from the road, most pavements are fine. Children do play out, maybe a little older but still not with perfect risk assessment skills the vast majority avoid getting squashed, not because they can commando roll out of the way of cyclists but because there just isn't that threat. I'm sure these parents are overly cautious in most things they do, I'm not going to judge them because they didn't spot a cyclist one time whilst moving about 3 feet from their front garden to their car.
> Given your comment of "typical winter tree answer" earlier I'd have thought that you of all people would have made the mental jump with me to the fact I am discussing the very many "accident > victim blaming!!!111!" threads on UKC that generally - but not exclusively - involve a cyclist as the one on the receiving end of injury.
I'm not making the point that you are anti/pro cyling. Just that you consistently focus on the 'minority blame' party, and then as you would expect criticism of this approach comes your way.
In reply to FreshSlate:
No. I was reiterating my role in the discussion. I came in to argue against calling anything "victim blaming" when somebody else said that, on the grounds that the victim shouldered no blame in this.
Are you trying to make a point here, or are you being spectacularly dim? Getting your face smacked in and then dragged along a pavement is pretty victim-like to me. A victim of the cyclist's stupidity.
Then re-read my comments. As I said, at 3 years old you haven't in this day and age been exposed to enough consequences to look after yourself on a pavement - which is why - as I said - an exercise of more responsibility from any of the adults could have prevented it. Or do you disagree with this statement?
Go back and read my comment if you're not clear on why. It seems pretty bloody obvious to me that I was labouring an obviously stupid point as you are unable to spot any criticism of the cyclist in my words - you claim I need to be explicitly, but clearly not to explicit.
Agreed
Most pavements are fine most of the time. If that's where you draw the line at safety for a 3 year old, that's fine. I have a different line. Clearly that makes me the bad person here.
No - I generally echo the common sentiment that the fault, the blame, the wrong doing lies with one party but that more than just that one party's actions lead to the accident. People then jump on this and pull the "victim blaming" card. Then, because of this, I strive to explain the reason for my comment as clearly as possible, which inevitably invokes exploring the role of the actions of those other than the villain - not to blame them, but to explain my position that was challenged or attacked.
Asking "how could each person there present have prevented an accident" is very different to asking "whose fault is the accident".
I'm sorry that you feel that I am shifting blame from the asshat idiot who caused it all to the parents. Largely I am trying to explain the reasons why I jumped in to say that an early comment was *not* victim blaming, and that as ever many peoples actions contributed to this accident.
Like I said - if you want to argue that as a matter of course guardians of small children should let them run onto a pavement without close control because pavement's are safe enough that is one thing. However, to argue that they should do this because pavement's should be safe enough is another, and to argue with my comment that every adult there present could have prevented this is to argue with a bloody obvious fact. At no point have I said that every adult there present should have prevented this - if I had there would be plenty of scope for a reasonable argument. I did say that I would have felt bad if I had been the adult, and I would, not least because my level of care would have dropped below a standard that I try and hold myself to.
> I haven't used the term victim blaming. You seem hung up on this.
No. I was reiterating my role in the discussion. I came in to argue against calling anything "victim blaming" when somebody else said that, on the grounds that the victim shouldered no blame in this.
> How's the child a victim?
Are you trying to make a point here, or are you being spectacularly dim? Getting your face smacked in and then dragged along a pavement is pretty victim-like to me. A victim of the cyclist's stupidity.
> If she had been looking where she's going... Not sure why being a minor gets a pass with you.
Then re-read my comments. As I said, at 3 years old you haven't in this day and age been exposed to enough consequences to look after yourself on a pavement - which is why - as I said - an exercise of more responsibility from any of the adults could have prevented it. Or do you disagree with this statement?
> It's not the blindingly obvious, believe it or not a lot a putting the bulk of the blame on the parents. Nothing is obvious when it comes to blame/fault. However what is blindingly obvious is the comment 'had they seen the cyclist...', I guess we better write the parents an email instructing them about how to leave the front door.
> You seem to suggest you are misinterpreted and haven't said a great deal of things, why are we talking about lynch mobs?
Go back and read my comment if you're not clear on why. It seems pretty bloody obvious to me that I was labouring an obviously stupid point as you are unable to spot any criticism of the cyclist in my words - you claim I need to be explicitly, but clearly not to explicit.
> Pavements shouldn't be a dangerous place,
Agreed
> the whole idea of having pavements is relatively safety from the road, most pavements are fine.
Most pavements are fine most of the time. If that's where you draw the line at safety for a 3 year old, that's fine. I have a different line. Clearly that makes me the bad person here.
> I'm not making the point that you are anti/pro cyling. Just that you consistently focus on the 'minority blame' party, and then as you would expect criticism of this approach comes your way.
No - I generally echo the common sentiment that the fault, the blame, the wrong doing lies with one party but that more than just that one party's actions lead to the accident. People then jump on this and pull the "victim blaming" card. Then, because of this, I strive to explain the reason for my comment as clearly as possible, which inevitably invokes exploring the role of the actions of those other than the villain - not to blame them, but to explain my position that was challenged or attacked.
Asking "how could each person there present have prevented an accident" is very different to asking "whose fault is the accident".
I'm sorry that you feel that I am shifting blame from the asshat idiot who caused it all to the parents. Largely I am trying to explain the reasons why I jumped in to say that an early comment was *not* victim blaming, and that as ever many peoples actions contributed to this accident.
Like I said - if you want to argue that as a matter of course guardians of small children should let them run onto a pavement without close control because pavement's are safe enough that is one thing. However, to argue that they should do this because pavement's should be safe enough is another, and to argue with my comment that every adult there present could have prevented this is to argue with a bloody obvious fact. At no point have I said that every adult there present should have prevented this - if I had there would be plenty of scope for a reasonable argument. I did say that I would have felt bad if I had been the adult, and I would, not least because my level of care would have dropped below a standard that I try and hold myself to.
Post edited at 00:01
2
In reply to Timmd:
Good point, I'm going to my sister's farm this weekend for a BBQ. I might take the dogs with me.
(popular in Korea, why not here)
> Enjoy the little dogs.
Good point, I'm going to my sister's farm this weekend for a BBQ. I might take the dogs with me.
(popular in Korea, why not here)
1
In reply to wintertree:
I'm sorry but the cyclist was totally reckless and they totally disregarded any other pavement user. There is no excuse for cycling that fast along a pavement in a clearly residential area. Accidents are usually a mixture of different factors but this was 98% the cyclists fault.
I'm sorry but the cyclist was totally reckless and they totally disregarded any other pavement user. There is no excuse for cycling that fast along a pavement in a clearly residential area. Accidents are usually a mixture of different factors but this was 98% the cyclists fault.
1
In reply to blackmountainbiker:
Indeed. I agree completely with everything you said. I thought that was pretty clear. The other 2% - it's not a lot to ask for looking after small people, is it? Well I didn't think so but the UKC collective has put me right on that.
Edit: I wish I'd not got drawn in to this. Someone else made a comment like this, it was called "victim blaming" and I jumped in to point out that the parents were not the victim. Beyond that I should have learnt that any attempt at a nuanced view is jumped on.
> I'm sorry but the cyclist was totally reckless and they totally disregarded any other pavement user. There is no excuse for cycling that fast along a pavement in a clearly residential area. Accidents are usually a mixture of different factors but this was 98% the cyclists fault.
Indeed. I agree completely with everything you said. I thought that was pretty clear. The other 2% - it's not a lot to ask for looking after small people, is it? Well I didn't think so but the UKC collective has put me right on that.
Edit: I wish I'd not got drawn in to this. Someone else made a comment like this, it was called "victim blaming" and I jumped in to point out that the parents were not the victim. Beyond that I should have learnt that any attempt at a nuanced view is jumped on.
Post edited at 21:17
1
1
In reply to wintertree:
The UKC seem to love that term. I don't know who made it up. Ironically I suspect it was a cyclist.
The other one that gets over used is confirmation bias. That's when you look for things that support your view and disregard things that don't.
The UKC seem to love that term. I don't know who made it up. Ironically I suspect it was a cyclist.
The other one that gets over used is confirmation bias. That's when you look for things that support your view and disregard things that don't.
Post edited at 21:46
1
1
In reply to Indy:
Good grief - the cyclist was almost certainly riding the pavement illegally (It's illegal unless the local authority says different and puts up signs to that effect). There is no excuse. If cyclists want on the pavement get off and walk. The fault here was 100% cyclist
Good grief - the cyclist was almost certainly riding the pavement illegally (It's illegal unless the local authority says different and puts up signs to that effect). There is no excuse. If cyclists want on the pavement get off and walk. The fault here was 100% cyclist
In reply to Stone Idle:
The ministers who wrote that law would disagree, as would the subsequent ones who have reiterated the advice given at the time.
> There is no excuse.
The ministers who wrote that law would disagree, as would the subsequent ones who have reiterated the advice given at the time.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...