anyone know this cyclist?

[Joffey]

You may well think that but if I was a parent that child would be the most precious thing in my life, I wouldn't be leaving it to chance that my little girl could run out of our front garden into a pavement alongside a busy road.

It's obviously the cyclists fault but I think the parents should have kept a better eye on her. I bet they do from now on.

 

[cd365]

The mother was in front by a couple of seconds, the father was behind by a couple of seconds, the child was not unattended.
The last thing they would have expected was some idiot on a bike to come flying down a pavement. But you put a portion of the blame onto them if that makes you feel better. The cyclist was 100% at fault, he should not have been on the pavement. He was a 23 year old man, he should have known better. There is no excuse for him and no reason to blame anyone else.

 

[Hitchington]

It was an accident. The parents took their eye off the kid for a few seconds. The chap on the bike made a mistake. The kid got a few grazes. No one died. The family are quids in. Can we put the corks back on the pitchforks now please?

 

[glenn forger]

I'm not so sure. I dislike the Daily Mail just as much if not more than most, but I don't think we can make that call based on the evidence we have.

We have on side (family) saying he rode off afterwards.

We have the cyclist saying he 'hung around', apologised, and was picked up by his Dad.

And that's about it. We also have a photo taken by the mother of him on his bike, looking backwards over his shoulder which gives the impression he may have been riding off, but could just as easily have been taken a good ten minutes later, so doesn't prove a lot.

With what we've got, I'm not overly willing to give him the immediate benefit of the doubt...

They have put "hit and run" in quotation marks. That's an old Mail trick, prevents litigation, so they could say:

"Outrage after Copper cyclist "caught snorting horse off a midget prostitute"" and it wouldn't be actionable because it's reporting what someone else has said.

 

[Pale Rider]

What we can be certain of is the Daily Mail would have paid the family for their story and they would've been paraphrased for by the journalist for "narrative impact"

You can be far from certain of that.

It appears the story was picked up first by the Blackpool Gazette - the parents went to their local paper as local people often do.

The next stage is it was picked up and hawked around by a news agency - not a shop, a business involved in selling stories to other media outlets.

The evidence for that is the copyright imprint on the pic - Ross Parry, an established agency.

It is possible the parents received some money, but if they did, it is unlikely they were paid directly by the Mail.

Further evidence of it being a free for all is no one has an exclusive, all the media outlets have the same stuff.

If the Mail - or anyone else - paid - they would want exclusivity, or at least an exclusive line.

As regards paraphrasing for impact, the words are direct quotes and the mother speaks on the video, again in her own words.

Other than the above, your post is entirely accurate and therefore could appear on Mail Online.

 

[CopperCyclist]

They have put "hit and run" in quotation marks. That's an old Mail trick, prevents litigation, so they could say:

"Outrage after Copper cyclist "caught snorting horse off a midget prostitute"" and it wouldn't be actionable because it's reporting what someone else has said.

Yes I know, and as it's the Daily Mail you are probably right.

However, they are paraphrasing the mother herself, who in the full quote is said to have stated:

'As soon as he got up he started swearing at us, as if it was Lucie's fault that he had hit her. The next thing we knew he'd gone and we've not heard from him since.'

In the absence of hearing that she retracted this, we are left with "he says she says" as to whether it truly was "hit and run" or "hit and hang around".

 

[Julia9054]

He should not have been cycling at that speed on the pavement and the accident is completely his fault. However, 23 year old males are not the best judge of what is and what isn't risky behaviour. The bits of their brains that do that are not finished yet hence the price insurers make them pay for their car insurance.
We all have an incident eventually which makes us reassess our risky behaviour. For most of us, although not for this chap, they fall into the near miss category.
My own, at not much older, involved me filtering far too fast down the outside of a line of stationary traffic in a built up area when a blind man and his dog stepped out from behind a van. I came very close to wiping them out which would have made me the very worst type of human! This certainly altered my behaviour.
This young man, as is right and proper, will have to face the legal consequences of his choices. The little girl and her parents will, eventually, get over it. Hopefully, it won't put all of them off cycling for life. The media frenzy won't help any of them do this

 

[glenn forger]

"The next thing we knew he'd gone" but not before they managed to take a photo of him standing there.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

You may well think that but if I was a parent that child would be the most precious thing in my life, I wouldn't be leaving it to chance that my little girl could run out of our front garden into a pavement alongside a busy road.

It's obviously the cyclists fault but I think the parents should have kept a better eye on her. I bet they do from now on.

In all likelihood the child would have been heading from the gate straight for the car as she does every other morning. If pedestrians (especially children) can't even navigate a pavement without having to compensate for vehicles that ought not to be there then our priorities are seriously farked.


GC

 

[User6179]

Did anybody notice in the picture of the cyclist standing there is someone standing with a dark coloured jacket on but it doesn't match what either parent was wearing in the clip , so either someone else was there or the cyclist stood there long enough for one of the parents to put a jacket on , either way it looks like the cyclist never just jumped back on his bike straight away and cycle off .

 

[Pale Rider]

Did anybody notice in the picture of the cyclist standing there is someone standing with a dark coloured jacket on but it doesn't match what either parent was wearing in the clip , so either someone else was there or the cyclist stood there long enough for one of the parents to put a jacket on , either way it looks like the cyclist never just jumped back on his bike straight away and cycle off .

The guy in the jacket was hiding behind the grassy knoll.

 

[.stu]

In all likelihood the child would have been heading from the gate straight for the car as she does every other morning. If pedestrians (especially children) can't even navigate a pavement without having to compensate for vehicles that ought not to be there then our priorities are seriously farked.


GC

If you watch the video, the mother wanders across the pavement in a zombie-like trance, apparently without looking. She also seems completely oblivious to the young child following her. The child is only copying the (bad) example given by her mother, who, if she had been a bit more observant, could have prevented the whole accident from occurring.

The point is, parents are responsible for their children when in public, meaning they have to both prevent the child being a nuisance to others as well as keep that child out of harm's way, regardless of whether the danger is caused by legal or illegal actions on the part of others. That's just normal.

 

[glenn forger]

The only person we know for sure has lied is the mum.

 

[John the Monkey]

Oh perlease. Calm the fark down.

This is the internet though.

 

[jarlrmai]

How about I phrase it like this, We as a community should not publicly blame the parents in this case and then turn around and accuse the papers of victim blaming the next time someone gets called out for not wearing high vis in a bicycle - car collision. It is not our place as a cycling community, other non cycling people can have a go at the parents if they want. But in the wider PR war for cycling we need to stay away from this type of accusation it only hurts our cause. I accept that people here are not all involved in cycling activism and are speaking as parents and members of the public.

We have to accept that the cyclist should not have been on the pavement, and use this case as an example to those who would have us ride off the roads and on the pavement, and also to ask the question why did this cyclist not feel it appropriate to ride on the road here.