- 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
news
Still from CCTV footage of cyclist hitting toddlerPavement cyclist who hit toddler in incident captured on CCTV handed fine for dangerous cycling
A cyclist who was captured on CCTV hitting a toddler while riding on the pavement has been fined after admitting dangerous cycling. The footage, in which three-year-old Lucie Wilding is seen being dragged along the floor after getting caught by Andrew Holland’s bike, received widespread media attention earlier in the year with one newspaper branding Holland ‘the most callous cyclist in Britain’.
The Lytham St Annes Express reports that Holland pleaded guilty to riding a bicycle dangerously at Lancaster Magistrates Court and was ordered to pay a total of £829 in fines and costs.
Describing the footage, Mike Wallbank, prosecuting, said:
“At about 3.10pm on May 18 you saw Lauren Howarth come out of the house where she lived and it was her intention to check everything was clear for her partner to go out to the car. You then see Lucie step out onto the pavement where she is hit and dragged along. You then see the mother’s partner jump over the wall. He collects her and takes her straight to the car. Her face was covered in blood and she was taken straight to A&E.”
Holland had previously said that he apologised moments after the incident and also emailed the family subsequently. Leaving court, he again said he had written to the family to apologise, but this is denied by Lucie's parents.
In a victim impact statement read to the court, Lucie’s mum, Lauren Howarth said:
“Since this incident my daughter suffers from anxiety, especially when leaving the house. She refuses to walk to the car and has to be carried. Every time she sees a bike now she runs to me and wants ‘up’.
“She used to have nightmares about it and would wake up screaming. The incident has knocked her confidence. She used to do ballet every Saturday but now it is a struggle to get her up to do it.”
Deputy District Judge Pam Baldwin told Holland:
"You have admitted you rode a bicycle in a manner that falls below that of a competent cyclist. You were riding on a pavement in a residential area and the footage shows the road condition was of no danger to you. There was no indication that you slowed the vehicle or took evasive action. It was very lucky indeed the child avoided very serious injury."
Holland has claimed that media coverage of the incident led to his being verbally attacked and threatened by members of the public and that his life had been ‘destroyed’ since the footage was released.
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 24 min 4 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 2 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 8 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 23 min ago
Driver injured after car flips onto its roof https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy0g9rpp8x9o
- mark1a 9 hours 41 min ago
I don't think he wants to talk about it...
- Rendel Harris 10 hours 10 min ago
Ach, dinnae fret...
- Matt Page 10 hours 18 min ago
The Prevelo Alpha Three on the main feature image is 20".
- eburtthebike 10 hours 30 min ago
£100 bonus.
- chrisonabike 10 hours 38 min ago
To be fair if this is our usual revenant they've got form in rewriting history...
- chrisonabike 10 hours 39 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
30 comments
Further to the fallout from the inquest. The driver has had his HGV licence suspended for 10 years and his standard licence for a year. He judge has also stated that it is possible that he be charged for 'common law fraud'
It would have been fine if it had been 'end of'. The problem is that it wasn't, was it? It was accompanied by acres of news-coverage on both print and broadcast media.
I think that's what people are complaining about. In the months after the incident there were many cases of drivers driving onto pavements at speed and seriously injuring people (including a child, if I remember correctly). None of those got anywhere near the coverage that this much more minor incident did.
I don't care about the guy being convicted, that doesn't bother me, its the ludicrous double-standards regarding the media coverage that is the issue. Just google "car mounts pavement" to see how absurd was the coverage given to this incident.
I do not condone the cyclist, especially since he didn't stop to see if she was ok...
However, someone out for an afternoon run could easily have hit the child, or what about someone on a mobility scooter?
Another issue is cycle lanes and shared use paths that turn into pavements without much warning. I have occasionally ended up on pavements because shared use paths suddenly end, or drop you off on a dodgy bit of road.
I'm sympathetic to all who are injured by buses, trucks, cars, bikes, kicked by the odd horse....etc...
Swerving onto pavements to avoid red lights...using their phones...not checking mirrors...the list of inconsiderate, potentially dangerous, behaviour is a long one and not exclusive to any one group.
My wife and I were sworn at on Saturday by a middle aged man driving a 4x4, travelling in the opposite direction, his words were "cycle on the pavement, you F***ers" I think he believed we were holding traffic up, which, even if it were the case, was only for a hundred yards or so. I'm not a child so riding on the pavement isn't something I'll do. If a road is simpy too dangerous I'll not cycle down it. I'm not going to spin down any pavement on a road bike at above 15mph and not think it doesn't present a risk to both pedestrians and myself.
Often people are just careless, they make the odd mistake while others are entrenched in activity that puts others at risk. Clearly the judge thought this cyclist fell into the latter category, perhaps it will be appealed or reviewed in some way. As for lower penalities for others doing even more dangerous things (in cars etc), well I can only hope that this judge and his peers will take the same hardline approach to them in the future. I'm holding my breath.....look I'm going blue...it will be a just and considerate world...
So the guy who hit a kid on a pavement with his bike gets a fine, sounds about right.
However, the guy who lies about having blackouts behind the wheel gets aways with nothing for killing 6 people on the pavement and putting more than 20 in hospital with a bin lorry.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jul/29/bin-lorry-crash-avoided-d...
Apparently it was "tragic accident"
The original decision by Police Scotland was not to charge the driver at the time. Now all this has come to light in the inquest. If the police were aware of the drivers condition they would have had him charged. Now he most likely will face a host of charges as a result of the inquest.
Maybe the question they are asking is why this story was considered newsworthy at all? People are killed on the road every day and the story is unlikely to make front page of the local paper.
Cyclist causes cuts and bruises and it is national news?
When a motorist gets a £70 fine and points on their licence for causing death by dangerous driving (and little publicity) and a cyclist gets an £800 fine for causing injury (and national publicity) you have to ask what is going wrong with our attitudes/justice system?
So an idiot cycling on the pavement hits a pedestrian and most of the comments on here go on about how motorists are evil and their crimes go unpunished!
I don't see how we can have any credibility having a go at the daily mail or similar and their pathetic anti cyclist BS, when some of us are just as bad the other way!
Two wrongs don't make a right. The guy was a tw@t, broke the law, got convicted. End of.
Statistically 6 people were killed by cars yesterday, 6 will die today, 6 will die tomorrow. hundreds more will be injured, so where are the news articles? Where is the media condemning the actions of motorists? When do you see articles about speeding, unless it is about speed cameras infringing on rights? Where are the articles on RLJing amongst car drivers? What of the 60 people last year killed by cars whilst on the pavement?
What of the detail that even when drivers do get caught the punishment for killing is actually less than what this idiot got?
Yes he was an idiot and he got punished, the elephant in the room that this only further reinforces is that if you want to kill and maim make sure you use a car.
Poor toddler.
I am afraid that this sort of cyclist gives the rest of us a bad name and provides supportive evidence to the petrol head anti-cyclist brigade.
It does nothing of the sort. What perpetuates cyclists having a bad name because of the actions of one is people saying that it gives cyclists a bad name.
We can't have our cake and eat it. We can't ask for space on the road as vulnerable users and then not offer the same when riding on the pavement.
However I am puzzled by the statement of events, the mother went to check it was clear first, we'll that failed then.
Obviously I don't condone aggressive cycling on pavements but this sounds like an unfortunate accident to me.
Around my way I've seen people drive down the pavements and park all over them which people seem to think is OK. Same thing could have happened.
Difficult to understand the mentality of cyclists using pavements or shared paths. Knowing that pedestrians use them should require extra care: low speed and plenty of warning (bell?). My observation is that cyclists IN GENERAL do NOT reduce speed or give any consideration. When cyclists will be banned from using them, they will only have themselves to blame. Cyclists need educating too.
This, is the biggest load of bollocks, it would fit in great on the daily mail comments section prefixed by, "I'm a cyclist and a motorist".
All cyclist could roll out the red carpet for each and every pedestrian and it would have about 0.02 percent improvement in the road injury and death statistics. The week following this heinous crime 26 people were killed by motor vehicles, a couple of them on the pavement. Most of this carnage hardly even made it to the local papers. Having a go at cyclist about the dangers they cause to other road users is like shuffling deck chairs on the titanic. Let's deal with the real problem, if we're REALLY bothered about road safe rather than just trying to appeasing the baying mob at the daily mail.
Nah. The solution is to get rid of most shared paths. They are generally a bad idea, other than in places with very low pedestrian traffic. Crap for both cycling and walking.
Of course the cyclist should have been extra careful when riding on the pavement. He's lucky that it wasn't worse.
On the other hand, living next to the road like this, how did this child manage to run out like that?
What would have happened if she ran out into the road? Would it have been the drivers fault?
Riding on the pavement has been illegal in the UK since 1835.
So, he shouldn't need to be "extra careful", he shouldn't be doing it at all!
And yet loads of people do it, because as far as they're concerned riding on the road is too dangerous.
This guy, who was stupid but unlucky, gets a severe fine, but a fuckwit who deliberately pushed a cyclist off a bike was essentially let off.
http://www.eadt.co.uk/news/man_filmed_himself_pushing_defenceless_cyclis...
Would appear that justice is not really a thing for cyclists in this benighted country.
Good result... I wonder if it will act as deterrent to others, though...
I'll give you two guesses, but you won't need both of them...
Mind you, I wonder if all the fines handed to motorists act as a deterrent to the others.
Motorist consider them a "tax" that just how pathetic they are as deterrent.
Probably best thing that has ever happened to the parents look at all the articles in the daily fails of the world
It is unfortunate the little girl got hurt as it is quite clear the cyclist did not have such intent, I hope she recovers quickly.
If she had run out of her gate into someone walking by, would the walker have been convicted of assault? - I doubt it.
But this is a classic failure of the system we have invented to manage society -
We have elected Politicians to create laws.
We have Police to catch individuals breaking the laws.
We have (overpaid) lawyers & judges to argue & dish out the sentences for breaking the laws.
I would propose that each of these groups is proportionally not very cycling 'supportive'.
This chap should not have been on the pavement, but his sentence is not consistent with the crime (not dangerous cycling); especially when compared directly against the avoidable carnage inflicted on the cycling community by motorised vehicles.
The judge needs retired off without a golden parachute and if the cyclist had a lawyer, then he did not do a very good job.
I, like many today, have little confidence in these three groups that we have invented to deal with such issues.
Meanwhile...its business as usual but not on the 6 o'clock news.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/kingsland-road-crash-man-30-killed-...
Goodness. That's more than if he'd killed someone while driving a car...
So riding on the footpath is now officially treated more harshly by the law than driving like a t**t, if in both cases someone is injured but not killed. Not in any way defending this guy, just commenting.
Twat, no sympathy, the sentence is just about right.
Can't help but think the parents are milking it a bit though.
Why are we not getting a breakdown of the fines and costs?
Why the headline figure only?
Why was he not allowed to plead the charge down to careless instead of dangerous like car drivers are?
Why did this story make the national news when a Blackpool cyclist is left in a critical condition with a shattered skull by a hit & run driver does not?
"Man bites dog"