Pavement or not pavement

[addictfreak]

Cyclist, 81, hurt in hit-and-run

Published Date: 14 August 2009

A PENSIONER is recovering at home after being knocked off his bike by a hit-and-run driver.
The 81-year-old was heading on to the A19 from the Lindisfarne roundabout in Jarrow, when he was clipped by the wing mirror of a Ford Transit van, knocking him off his cycle.

The driver didn't stop, and left him lying on the roadside.

He was taken to South Tyneside District Hospital and treated for cuts and bruising to his arm and leg and was later discharged.

Police are urging anyone who saw the accident, which happened at 1.05pm yesterday, to contact them.

The van is described as silvery white with banding around the roof.

Police say it could be a contractors' van, possibly with a London address on its front door.

Anyone with information is asked to contact South Tyneside Motor Patrols on 03456 043 043 ext 65946.

http://www.shieldsgazette.com/news/Cyclist-81-hurt-in-hitandrun.5555422.jp


A lot of debate recently about cyclists on pavements. Many posters saying cycling on the pavement is an absolute no no!

Here we have an elderly gent, who could quite easily have been killed. In my opinion he should have been on the path. Or maybe some may think he should not have been on a bike at all.

 

[MacB]

I'd personally ignore the cyclist here, the problem is anyone driving a vehicle in such a way that they can't avoid coming into contact with other road users or road furniture. Barring mishap, mechanical. medical, impossible to anticipate road conditions, a driver should never hit anything. The driving is the problem.

 

[asterix]

Maybe he wasn't that doddery. These things happen across the age spectrum anyway.

 

[ComedyPilot]

The old man on the bike is a road hazard. As is a loose dog, a small child, a pot hole, a horse, et al.

It is the 'responsibility' of EVERY driver of a motor vehicle to drive in such a manner as to not endanger vulnerable road users, and to drive in an anticipatory manner to avoid conflicts with hazards. Not to do this is driving without due care and attention.

To knock someone down, whether a ped or an elderly cyclist and drive away is deplorable. The driver in this incident needs banning and locking up.

Not that the 'SPINELESS' scum will own up and take responsibility for their actions.

 

[joolsybools]

Exactly, the driver is the issue here, I hope they catch him or her.

 

[summerdays]

The driver should be off the road.

 

[Arch]

[Here we have an elderly gent, who could quite easily have been killed. In my opinion he should have been on the path. Or maybe some may think he should not have been on a bike at all.

No, the driver should have been driving with more care. The age of the cyclist has nothing to do with it, it could have been any of us.

I know plenty of pension age cyclists, and most of them could ride me into the ground any day.

 

[simon_brooke]

Another cyclist was recently killed after being hit by a car. Why is that interesting? He was on the pavement. Cycling on the pavement is dangerous - more dangerous than cycling on the road, according to published research - and also against the law.

Yes, cycling on the road is more dangerous than it should be. But the solution is to deal with the problem drivers and the problem driving behaviour. No other 'solution' is going to work.

 

[addictfreak]

Was not an attempt to bring up the whole pavement cycling debate again. Merely to get some views.
Interestingly everyone seems to blame the driver for the accident, he/she is certainly at fault for not stopping. But it could also be that the cyclist may have moved in to the path of the van.

 

[ComedyPilot]

Was not an attempt to bring up the whole pavement cycling debate again. Merely to get some views.
Interestingly everyone seems to blame the driver for the accident, he/she is certainly at fault for not stopping. But it could also be that the cyclist may have moved in to the path of the van.

At all times when driving/riding/walking around others you should be prepared for the 'what if' scenario.

The fact people aren't prepared shows in traffic collision statistics.

Even if, and I say 'IF', the cyclist had 'moved into the path of the van', a prepared and competent driver would

a) have been overtaking with enough room to take that into account
would have risk assessed the scene on approach anyway (is that cyclist wobbling into my path?)
c) would have stopped after the incident.

The fact the driver did none of the above shows them for what they are, spineless scum.

People might post saying the driver might not have realised they'd collided.

Balls.

You hear it if a stone hits your car on a chipped road, so if you don't see a cyclist on the road in front of you, you hit him, and drive away without stopping, then IMO you are an oxygen robbing piece of scum.

Driving license? I wouldn't trust a driver like that with a pigging shopping trolley.

 

[gavintc]

I'm not blaming the driver. There isn't enough information there to come to that conclusion.

LOL - hit by the wing mirror.

 

[addictfreak]

Agreed Paul and it was not the intention of the thread to apportion blame.

With so many posters seemingly totally against pavement riding, I was just curious as to what those people who may be elderly, young or lack confidence etc are supposed to do in the absence of cycle paths.
I know the area where this accident happened very well, and dispite all my years of cycling ( and yes im 100% confident) I would only use this route if it was totally unavoidable.
I not suggesting be any means that people should cycle on any pavement anywhere, but maybe there needs to be an element of commonsense. I know you will always get those who will flout the law whatever it maybe (i have myself), but with so many cyclists being killed or seriously injured it has to be something to look at. Just to have a closed mind and say the law is the law is not the right way to go in my opinion.

 

[wafflycat]

With so many posters seemingly totally against pavement riding, I was just curious as to what those people who may be elderly, young or lack confidence etc are supposed to do in the absence of cycle paths.
.

I know plenty of elderly and young cyclists who are perfectly confident and able cyclists, cycling on the road. It's a bit patronising to suggest, as you do, that they require special farcilities just due to their age. Just because someone is elderly does not mean that they are decrepit. Indeed many an elderly cyclist I know is far less decrepit than much younger folk who do no exercise. As for youth, as they grow, cycle training is a darned good idea (loads of us had the cycling proficiency test as kids). As for gaining ocnfidence - cycling training is the answer, either formally or with a more experienced cyclist.

 

[addictfreak]

I know plenty of elderly and young cyclists who are perfectly confident and able cyclists, cycling on the road. It's a bit patronising to suggest, as you do, that they require special farcilities just due to their age. Just because someone is elderly does not mean that they are decrepit. Indeed many an elderly cyclist I know is far less decrepit than much younger folk who do no exercise. As for youth, as they grow, cycle training is a darned good idea (loads of us had the cycling proficiency test as kids). As for gaining ocnfidence - cycling training is the answer, either formally or with a more experienced cyclist.

Please show me in my post where I say all elderly cyclists are decrepit, or that special facilities are are required purely on grounds of age.
I find it somewhat surprising that you think everyone has the same capability as you may have. It seems somewhat intolerent, a sort of im all right jack attitude.
I do however agree with the training aspect for all ages. It does of course have to be quality training. Even with training there are still those times where cycling on pavement would be safer. Saying as the law clearly states you must not cycle on the pavement, it would be interesting to know at what you think children should be on the road for example.

 

[addictfreak]

I went out with my boys yesterday. The eldest is 7 and a pretty good rider. The youngest is 4 and, while he can ride on 2 wheels he's not confident or quick enough for getting places at the moment, so he was on the back of mine.

On anything but the busiest roads we ride on the road, me behind and out to the right of boy number 1. I find that this is easier than single riding, as we take up more width on the road so are clearer to see, and then drivers notice the boys and are much more appropriate around us.

On the busiest (trunk) roads however I'll not ride on them with the boys unless there's a bus lane we can use. If there isn't then we're on the pavement, making sure that the eldest prioritises pedestrians and causes no trouble. I make no apology for this, the police I've spoken to say that it's ok, no pedestrian has ever complained, and above all I'll continue to do so where there are no alternative, separate cycling facilities.

At last this is what im getting at. Its about commonsense.