Prosecutors claim cyclist deliberately kneed five-year-old girl; RBKC councillor says segregated cycle lanes will get "jammed"; Geraint Thomas leads Ineos at the Tour; Free Lime ride to your vaccination + more on the live blog

I thought they got jammed up with all the parked cars !

Let's not start with speed differentials or 2 ways streets !

Is a lobotomy a prerequisite for being a RBKC councillor ?

No, that's just to help you become a Tory and Brexiteer! A lobectomy and certified subscription to the Mail are necessary if you aspire to be a RKBC councillor.

It looked to me like the muck all over the road probably caused them to start sliding out. if anything, the fact that they were strung out round a roundabout at the time probably limited the knock-on impact as compared to if it had been in a full bunch charging down a straight.

alansmurphy wrote:

Glad one of the Nantwich robbers was wearing hi viz but how did they see the second one all in black?

What second one?

I did wonder. Heavy duty, so I shouldn't worry about my 22 year old Abus D-lock that has seen 9 bike come and go.

"I activated my 120-decibel horn"

On Christmas Day, at a small child, that's an aggravating factor my opinion!

I do have some sympathy for the cyclist, he was impatiant but I would have expected the childs parent to take some responsibility for allowing him room to pass rather than just stand there.

No no no. More vulnerable path user. For goodness' sake, is anyone's training or exercise or travel worth knocking down a child for? Or a cyclist?

How can we be outraged at sun / A pillar defences if this is ok? At the very least the cyclist must take responsibility for his knee.

I'm not saying he was right just that a cyclepath isn't the same as a park/playground and parents/dog owners need to take some responsibility for sharing the space and allowing room to get past.

ChasP wrote:

I'm not saying he was right just that a cyclepath isn't the same as a park/playground and parents/dog owners need to take some responsibility for sharing the space and allowing room to get past.

Just like a cyclist's responsibly to get out of a driver's way, eh?

ChasP wrote:

I'm not saying he was right just that a cyclepath isn't the same as a park/playground and parents/dog owners need to take some responsibility for sharing the space and allowing room to get past.

I don't have sympathy for him. The don't need to allow anyone to get past - it is polite for pedestrians to be aware of other path users and make space for them, but it isn't a requirement. He put himself and the child in great danger - it could have ended much worse for both/either of them had the child moved into his path.

I do agree that these parents need to take greater responsibility though - not for the collision - but what sort of parent moves to protect themselves and without any thought for their child?

I use shared paths quite often, and it is not uncommon for parents to be completely ignorant of other path users - and of their own children.  I accept this for the risk (to myself and the child) that it is and exercise extreme caution. When see parents engrossed in their phones while their child wanders (say) next to the river, I see it for the extreme risk that it is.

When I see three pedestrians and I slow down and ring my bell, I don't ride through the gap created when two move one way and the third the other way - because I know that one or more will change their mind just as I pass.

Likewise, when I see an oncoming cyclist on a shared path, and their 'side' of the path is obstructed by pedestrians, I don't assume priority.  I give priority to the other cyclist, if they are the one who the pedestrians are facing.  Because I know if they slow down and give me priority, the pedestrians will likely assume the other cyclist is waiting for them to move out of their way and will move into my path as I try to pass them (with out even thinking to glance over their shoulder).

Pedestrians (especially children) and dogs are serious risks on shared paths and should always be treated with upmost caution. 

Well it's zero sympathy from me. It's not even like the kid ran out in front of him, they were established on the path ahead the whole time.

On a narrow path like that it's just plain rude to expect pedestrians to dive into the bushes with a couple of seconds notice from the blast of a horn.

Even a horn is really rude, does he think he's a freight train?! Surely you would just slow down and say excuse me, could I squeeze past, then follow up with a merry christmas as they kindly let you pass.

To my eye the knee looks deliberate - he's not looking where he's going, he's looking at where his knee is going!

ChasP wrote:

I do have some sympathy for the cyclist, he was impatiant but I would have expected the childs parent to take some responsibility for allowing him room to pass rather than just stand there.

Sorry, I can't agree with that at all. It doesn't matter how slow they were to get out of the way, he shouldn't have tried to pass until it was clear to do so. Exactly the same as for a driver passing a cyclist.

No sympathy, this is a small child on a shared use path.

1) he says he didn't see her, so why use the horn? Evryone else was not close to being in his way. Also bright pink coat, not hard to see.

2) on the approach and after passing, knees in a pefectly normal in line position, but at 7s at the point of impact, the knee is really extended outwards.

3) there isn't a gap there, he needs to wait.

4) If this was footage of a driver, nudging ayoung cyclist out of their way because they were too impatient to wait, there would be universal condemnation on here. (post socrati)

It's true the mother hears the horn, sees the cyclist, moves to the side of the path and makes no action to move or protect the child, but that is no reason to knock the child out of the way.

I'll repeat I don't think the rider was in the right, but the parent contributed, moving to the side is a signal for the cyclist to pass, who would assume she would take her child with her. The cyclist was impatient, going too fast for the conditions and should have been able to stop.

ChasP wrote:

I'll repeat I don't think the rider was in the right, but the parent contributed, moving to the side is a signal for the cyclist to pass, who would assume she would take her child with her. The cyclist was impatient, going too fast for the conditions and should have been able to stop.

It's not particularly relevant what the parents do or don't do as it's the cyclist's responsibility to make a safe overtake. I'd be inclined to slow down, ask them politely to let me through and if they don't immediately take control of their kids/dogs etc., just wait a few seconds until they do (or ask politely if they can keep an eye on their kid).

It's similar to if a dog comes running towards you - it's the owner's responsibility to keep their dog under control, but that doesn't mean that you have any right to run it over (plus it'll usually involve some loss of control of your bike).

ChasP wrote:

I do have some sympathy for the cyclist, he was impatiant but I would have expected the childs parent to take some responsibility for allowing him room to pass rather than just stand there.

As the child's parents didn't act promptly to my requirements, I knocked the child over. Well what else could I do?....

Steve K wrote:

I don't think you can say from that clip whether he deliberately kneed the child, but I think we can all agree he rode like a twat.

Sums up my thoughts pretty well... I've watched the video a few times and it doesn't really make any sense. I certainly couldn't say it was a deliberate knee to the toddler, but equally I couldn't exactly say what it was.

Benefit of the doubt, the chap moves right to pass the pedestrians, knee comes out to steady balance, and at the last minute he becomes aware his knee is on a contact trajectory with the girl. He looks as though he tries to bring his leg back to avoid the girl, but in doing so, changes what would have been a graze into a proper bash.

That's giving the benefit of the doubt. 

All completely avoidable if he'd paid more attention in the first place, and just like our own convicted killer,  if he'd first gone for the brakes to slow down rather than ring his super duper bell. 

I can imagine the reason he didn't was that he was making a point about his passage being blocked. Problem was he was doing it on snow/ice which left little opportunity to make provisions once he was done makign his scene. 

However... I think the charge is very emotional and arguably excessive... not sure what would be more appropriate... cycling without due care and attention... I don't know.  In the UK, the chap will be doing time, but they love cycling in Belgium, so I don't see a jury biting. 

lesterama wrote:

If G keeps his head and gets in tip-top shape beforehand, G vs Primoz at Le Tour could be tasty

G + Tao + ? vs Roglic vs Pogacar?

It's a bit early for too much speculation but it's good that Geraint is able to have another chance at the Tour.