Cyclist hit and run

[Cyclone]

There's nothing to admit, I've said all along that it's illegal and it shouldn't be. As the government quite clearly agree's even though it can't be bothered to change the law.

 

Road TRaffic act 1988 and 1991 contain specific exceptions that state it is legal to drive over pavements in order to reach private properties.

 

Fair enough... Not presumably though to park on them?

 

---------- Post added 26-05-2015 at 21:46 ----------

 

They should just get the law changed to allow cyclists to use pavements safely.

Of course what's 'safe', that's a matter of opinion, and perhaps why they didn't change it.

 

I quite clearly acknowledge way back here that it's illegal... And have done throughout.

[WalkleyIan]

The Blackpool gazette reports that a 23-year-old local man has been reported for summons for dangerous cycling following a collision with a toddler last week.

 

The police have also confirmed that he voluntarily attended a police station the day after the incident.

 

The cyclist is claiming that it wasn't a hit and run and that he stayed around until being driven away by his father.

 

The maximum penalty for dangerous cycling is a £2500 fine

 

http://www.cyclelaw.co.uk/cycling-offences-riding-dangerously-recklessly-carelessly-or-inconsiderately

[geared]

The video has a pretty clear shot of the incident area, I assume if the cyclist stayed around he would have wondered into shot.

 

I wonder if the DM edited that part out to make their story???

[Cyclone]

The video has a pretty clear shot of the incident area, I assume if the cyclist stayed around he would have wondered into shot.

 

I wonder if the DM edited that part out to make their story???

 

It was a pretty narrowly focussed video though. By the time he'd stopped the cyclist would have been well out of frame, so if the father was aggressive the cyclist might well never have come back towards the house.

 

Edit - still totally inappropriate to be doing that speed on a pavement either way.

[alchemist]

As the government quite clearly agree's even though it can't be bothered to change the law.

 

Nope. The government quite clearly did NOT agree with a mere couple of mps stating their own, possibly biased, opinion otherwise they would have changed the law. The government obviously do not consider it safe for cyclists to use pavements

 

---------- Post added 27-05-2015 at 20:01 ----------

 

It was a pretty narrowly focussed video though. By the time he'd stopped the cyclist would have been well out of frame, so if the father was aggressive the cyclist might well never have come back towards the house.

 

Edit - still totally inappropriate to be doing that speed on a pavement either way.

 

possibly he had been listening to home secretaries telling him it was OK to use pavements if it was safe, and after all, it was perfectly safe for HIM to be on the pavement wasnt it?

[Cyclone]

Not just MPs, two Home Secretaries, giving official guidance to the police. Not MPs stating personal opinions. I know you don't want it to be true, but it is.

 

He wasn't listening very closely then, it could have been safe, but clearly wasn't due to his speed.

[alchemist]

Not just MPs, two Home Secretaries, giving official guidance to the police. Not MPs stating personal opinions. I know you don't want it to be true, but it is.

 

He wasn't listening very closely then, it could have been safe, but clearly wasn't due to his speed.

 

So why wasnt the law changed?? No matter what their government post was they didnt change the law. If they were TRULEY convinced that they were right they would have changed the law, its as simple as that. I know you dont want that to be true but thats how it stands. Sorry

[Cyclone]

I can't read minds, so I don't know.

 

I know they didn't change the law, I haven't denied or implied otherwise. I know that I rarely cycle on the pavement, and then I do it at walking pace for a short time. Get over it, because I'm going to carry on doing it when I decide to.