- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Still from CCTV footage of cyclist hitting toddlerBlackpool cyclist involved in collision with toddler summonsed for dangerous cycling
A 23-year-old man from Blackpool has been reported for summons for dangerous cycling following a collision with a toddler last week, reports the Blackpool Gazette. The incident was captured on home CCTV footage and led to a media backlash which saw the man involved labelled ‘the most callous cyclist in Britain’.
In the video footage, which has appeared on a number of websites, Andrew Holland can be seen colliding with three-year-old Lucie Wilding and subsequently dragging her along the pavement. Lucie’s father, Matt, claimed that Holland didn’t apologise, but had sworn at them before leaving the scene.
Holland disputes this version of events. He says he apologised moments after the incident and has also emailed the family since. He claims it wasn’t a hit and run and that he stayed around until being driven away by his father, who happened to be passing by. The police have also confirmed that he voluntarily attended a police station the day after the incident.
Media coverage of the incident is said to have led to Holland being verbally attacked and threatened by members of the public and he has said that his life has been ‘destroyed’ since the footage was released. He also believes that a full version of the video would show that he remained at the scene.
Under section 28 of the Road Traffic Act 1991, "a person is to be regarded as riding dangerously if (and only if) (a) the way he rides falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful cyclist, and (b) it would be obvious to a competent and careful cyclist that riding in that way would be dangerous."
Holland said he had been cycling on the pavement because the roads were busy with school traffic, and added: “I didn’t know it was illegal. I usually use cycle paths or the roads.”
Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.
Latest Comments
- slc 48 min 52 sec ago
TBH the west (Barton Hill) part of the scheme looks like a much larger change than the east (Beaufort Rd) part. Some drivers living in the west...
- Rendel Harris 24 min 50 sec ago
If you bothered looking at the link you would see that it is not one of their reflective jackets, it is fluorescent with only a small number of...
- Owd Big 'Ead 7 hours 32 min ago
You need to get out of Derby then. Go somewhere else, because while not perfect, Derby is streets ahead of the vast majority of places I've lived...
- HoarseMann 9 hours 48 min ago
Driver injured after car flips onto its roof https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy0g9rpp8x9o
- mark1a 10 hours 5 min ago
I don't think he wants to talk about it...
- Rendel Harris 10 hours 35 min ago
Ach, dinnae fret...
- Matt Page 10 hours 43 min ago
The Prevelo Alpha Three on the main feature image is 20".
- eburtthebike 10 hours 54 min ago
£100 bonus.
- chrisonabike 11 hours 3 min ago
To be fair if this is our usual revenant they've got form in rewriting history...
- chrisonabike 11 hours 4 min ago
"At the going down of the sun, and in the morning, we will remember them ... we have to because some numpty destroyed the roll of names"....
Add new comment
28 comments
If you cycle on the Pavement it is illegal.
If you're going to chance it you shouldn't cycle any faster than walking pace.
If you are going to film the street you should have to show what you are recording to anybody that asks.
Anyway what sort of punishment will the cyclist get ? Will he be let off for this mistake ?
Or will he be burnt at the stake !
I disagree, the toddler seems to cause the collision. But that's not really the point. The cyclist shouldn't have been using the pavement, but given that he was, he should have been way more cautious to ensure that something like this couldn't have happened. I think both parties have probably learnt from their mistake. I'm not sure the media outrage, witch hunt and police action was warranted over a few cuts and bruises.
There is a lot of discussion regarding the cyclists speed so lets look at that.
[Disclaimer: I admit here and now that I am making a lot of assumptions here and that the results can at best be described as rough.]
Assumption 1. Camera is recording in real time.
Assumption 2. Length of front garden wall 12 feet.
Assumption 3. Cyclists breaking is constant.
The cyclist comes to a halt just past property line as it appears on video - so it takes cyclist 12 feet to come to a halt.
The time taken travel this distance is 2 to 3 seconds.
Average speed therefore is between 4 and 6 feet per second which is (rounding up) between 3 and 4 miles per hour.
If we assume therefore that his initial speed is twice this then his initial speed was between 6 and 8mph.
I leave it to you to decide if that is a reckless speed. Most people would regard 10mph as a reasonable speed for a shared facility, and the pavement looks wider than most shared facilities.
If we go back to "Assumption 1" and the camera is not recording in real time (or the video has been edited or compressed) - the movement appears 'jerky' - then his speed will be lower.
I think all of this is masking the real travesty that is the fathers decision to wear that baseball cap and vest.
I think the CPS should be pushing to prosecute on sartorial manslaughter charges.
Riding on the pavement. That's one of my biggest peeves. If you have to take to a pavement, get off and walk.
Or most likely just drive. That'll help make the roads safe...
Another way of looking at this might be to assume that there is a kid waiting behind every gate and ride accordingly.
Just sayin'...
Anyone who's ever met any young child would expect exactly that. I don't believe any adult thinks it's legal to ride on a footpath (let alone acceptable), anymore than I believe the "fat and ugly" local PhD student ( Google "fat, Tesco and York") didn't know she needed a blue badge to park in a disabled bay (despite having applied for one...)
It's easy to plead ignorance, but it's no excuse for being a dick.
If someone did that to my kid it'd be me getting arrested.
I think he's quite right to use this sort of language when I see the exaggerated language used by the anti-cycling members of the public.
#FightFireWithFire
And yes, that kid should have been under control.
Ah! Joeinpool I've missed you, nice to see you've crawled out from under your rock.
Please inform me how you can equate the violent, repugnant, cowardly and premeditated attack on a vulnerable member of society and this story.
I'll save you the trouble: You can't!
If the cyclist (and yes he is a cyclist) has any brains he will instruct his solicitor that he cannot receive a fair trial due to the sensationalist coverage in the media.
Was he cycling on the pavement? Yes.
Did he have good reason for cycling on the pavement? Probably not.
Was he riding recklessly? No (other than the fact that he shouldn't have been on the pavement).
Was his speed excessive? No.
Did he react immediately when the toddler ran into him? Yes. (Bear in mind that a motorist gets a 2 second reaction time as enshrined in the Highway Code.)
[Toddler impact (Toddler runs into the side of the cyclist not the cyclist running into the toddler) to complete standstill probably not more than 10 feet.]
Did he stop at the scene? Yes (photograph by father proves this).
Was toddler seriously injured? No (superficial cuts and bruises only).
Was toddler traumatised? No (parents milking it for effect, children are much more resilient than you think, they have to be told they're traumatised).
Did cyclist leave scene because he felt threatened. Yes.
Does cyclist have a case to answer? Yes. Riding on the pavement, nothing else is relevant.
I don't see that he has a case to answer.
Well the mugging of Alan Barnes certainly received 'sensationalist coverage' and that didn't help defendant Richard Gatiss at all. The judge threw the book at him and quite rightly so.
Holland has been summoned for 'dangerous cycling' and, in my view, that was exactly what he was doing. It is only by good fortune that the child was not more seriously injured. At that speed she certainly could have been killed or suffered life-changing injuries. Holland shouldn't have been on the pavement and, more importantly, shouldn't have been going so fast whilst on it.
Define "fast" and "life-changing injuries". I got hit by a taxi travelling at speed (probably over 40mph closing speed), lost a kidney amongst all the other trauma.
What if it had been a mobility scooter, road sweeper or me jogging along at 12mph? Perspective can be useful, this is just an unfortunate accident, he wasn't issuing the toddler with a punishment pass. Who would expect a kid to come running out in front of you?
Ok then. 'Fast', at least in my area, is defined as above 10mph on a shared-use path. Holland was on a pavement, not a shared-use path, and appeared to riding at closer to 20mph judging by the video.
"Life-changing injuries" means exactly that. Use Google if you are unsure of what the individual words actually mean. You might also check what "thick cunt" means whilst you're at it.
Who would expect a cyclist on the pavement?
Are you implying that cyclists on pavements are rare and not really a serious problem to cause some of the petty arguments in this thread while two cyclists died in Road Collisions yesterday? Or are you suggesting that toddlers should look both ways before running out onto a pavement because something or someone could be coming from either direction?
Good luck getting a toddler to do anything. If you've taught them not to run into the road you're doing well, and part of that is teaching them that the pavement is a safe place to be. Cyclists shouldn't be on the pavement and it's not unreasonable to expect them not to be there. This is 100% the cyclist's fault, because he was where he shouldn't have been. There's no two ways about that.
Sorry, have to disagree with a couple of your points.
Was his speed excessive? Most certainly yes, he was riding on a pavement and he was travelling at the same speed as the cars on the road - which you can clearly see in the video. Unless the footage is sped up, the cars would appear to be travelling in excess of 15mph ... too fast for a pavement, especially passing driveways and gates. He should have been slowing down as soon as the mother appeared, as by his own admission he was cycling on the pavement as the roads were busy with school run traffic. So it would be logical to assume that if a parent appears from a gate that there may also be a child nearby.
In that regard, his riding could be classed as reckless.
I'm with you on the "unfair trial" due to sensationalist media coverage though.
Just as a matter of interest, has anyone asked why that family has a camera filming the street outside their home?
That's a very good point. I thought if you had CCTV you had to follow certain guidelines and were only allowed to film your own property and not a public space. As this footage covers more of the road than it does of the front of the persons house do that then mean this footage is illegal. If that's the case can the footage still be used as evidence in any court case ?
Because they live in Blackpool?
So a home CCTV tape is sufficient grounds for investigation and prosecution but a helmet cam showing a clear number plate and dangerous driving is not? Or are police now investigating all the helmet cam footage they get?
I'm guessing it was the confession he *probably* made when he voluntarily attended a police station the day after that lead to the summons being issued.
Good.
"he has said that his life has been ‘destroyed’ since the footage was released."
Even if he is getting some grief, 'destroyed' is surely over-egging it. If you live for social media then it might feel that way.
Perhaps if he spent more time in the real world instead then he may feel differently.
We all make mistakes, it's what you do afterwards that matters most.
If you are used to social media its not over-egging it as that's a default way to communicate with friends (whether it's yours or not!). What he claims he did after wasn't released on-line, so he's being berated over a far worse set of circumstances than an accident (hit & run)..
The after-bit was possibly omitted to make the video more sensational, after all its hard to make a video go viral when someone makes an error and apologises for it..
Alternatively he could be "that guy" giving the rest of us a bad name!
Not at all, the media has the power to make or break lives, businesses, reputations... Look at how much politicians pander to it and use it to spin their agenda. Look at the reach that a photo on Twitter or Facebook can have.
This story has gone viral, the papers have shouted all their usual anti-cyclist stuff, it's spawned a phone-in on Radio 4. When did you hear of that happening for a much more common death by car?
One tweet managed to get Emma Way fired from her job and facing a storm of abuse online. This is a much more dramatic video footage, the papers can replay this all month and stoke the fires to get clicks and responses.
I'm willing to bet that the poor guy will get a substantial sentence and/or fine. Far higher than a driver would get. One of those "make an example" cases. Please the media, allow and justify "crackdowns" and so on.
Sadly, given the number of instances of driver transgressions against cyclists that have resulted in drivers having their personal details posted online (including on this website), their employers harassed and in some cases losing their jobs, it wouldn't be surprising if the rabblement hadn't reached for their pitch forks and gone to work on this cyclist - especially if a sensationalised version of events had appeared on the likes of the Daily Mail. Helping to catch people who commit criminal acts is one thing - becoming judge, juror and executioner is something else entirely.