Pensioner left unconcious for two days by cyclist (From Daily Echo)

Oh great here we go, sit back and watch usual dribble about cyclists having to pay non existant road tax and jumping red lights etc.
.
ECHO this article has been deliberatley written and phrased so as to make cyclist look bad. Why couldnt the headline be, member of public struck down by idiot moron riding a bike. Rather than use the glam words like "pensioner" & "cyclist".

Pretty good of the cyclist to pose in the photo alongside Eileen. Balls of steel that guy!

Push bikes should not be on the pavements, end of - fine 'em.

Anyone seen wearing headphones or on a mobile device - fine 'em.

We don't tolerate this in cars so why should we put up with it on bikes?

The Salv wrote:
Oh great here we go, sit back and watch usual dribble about cyclists having to pay non existant road tax and jumping red lights etc.
.
ECHO this article has been deliberatley written and phrased so as to make cyclist look bad. Why couldnt the headline be, member of public struck down by idiot moron riding a bike. Rather than use the glam words like "pensioner" & "cyclist".

#ECHO this article has been deliberatley written and phrased so as to make cyclist look bad.'

Did you mean 'cyclists'? Pls tell me you did.

Because this guy put her lights out for 2 days, what's the good in that!

The Salv wrote:
Oh great here we go, sit back and watch usual dribble about cyclists having to pay non existant road tax and jumping red lights etc.
.
ECHO this article has been deliberatley written and phrased so as to make cyclist look bad. Why couldnt the headline be, member of public struck down by idiot moron riding a bike. Rather than use the glam words like "pensioner" & "cyclist".

Do you ride a bike, do you ride it on the pavement? There is no need for cyclists to pay any sort of tax, all we ask is that they ride sensibly, I would appreciate it if cyclists who ride on pavements, to do it sensibly, fit lights and a bell so that the rest of us can see and hear them coming, not too much to ask is it?

Would like to know what pavement it was on, Was it a shared pavement Echo???

Anyway before the anti lycra brigade start read this http://ipayroadtax.c
om/

The Salv wrote:
Oh great here we go, sit back and watch usual dribble about cyclists having to pay non existant road tax and jumping red lights etc.
.
ECHO this article has been deliberatley written and phrased so as to make cyclist look bad. Why couldnt the headline be, member of public struck down by idiot moron riding a bike. Rather than use the glam words like "pensioner" & "cyclist".

Deep down you know that you are trying to defend the indefensible and are employing the use of attack as the best means of defense. There are responsible cyclists but they are outnumbered by the morons who use the 'anything goes' principle to ignore the normal rules, but are the first to complain when someone else does the same.

“It’s stupid behaviour not to be looking out and aware of others on the pavement"

Not being harsh here but she has completely contradicted herself with this statement, is people should be more aware of others on the pavement why was she not aware of the cyclist?

What does "unconcious" mean?

Not being critical of cyclists as it's a great way of keeping people fit. But this incident does highlight the need for Insurance.

This incident shows how much damage a bike can cause. It's not only vehicles with 4 or more wheels that can ruin someones life.

Had this lady been hit by a car, she would be compensated by the car Insurance Company, can she claim off a cyclist? I don't honestly know the answer to that!

Fortunately I prefer not to ride a bike any more sincel about a year ago. I never however rode on the footpath except on designated paths such as alongside the common, and occasionally pushed the thing along the footpath in Portswood. Unfortunately I still see morons riding on the footpath there to the detriment of safety to oldies and children. Although there are roads where bad car driving puts cyclists at risk that is no excuse for bad cyclists to put pedestrians at risk. Of course whats needed is for drivers, cyclists and pedestrians to show some common sense. In that respect I believe extreme patience will be needed cos it aint gonna happen soon.

The Salv wrote:
Oh great here we go, sit back and watch usual dribble about cyclists having to pay non existant road tax and jumping red lights etc.
.
ECHO this article has been deliberatley written and phrased so as to make cyclist look bad. Why couldnt the headline be, member of public struck down by idiot moron riding a bike. Rather than use the glam words like "pensioner" & "cyclist".

"ECHO this article has been deliberatley written and phrased so as to make cyclist look bad." What a stupid comment, of course this article has been written to make the cyclist look bad. What do you think his actions can be described as? "Young cyclist has unfortunate incident with old and frail person who had the cheek to collide with his bike. They should be banned from the pavement." You said it yourself: "ECHO, Why couldnt the headline be, member of public struck down by idiot moron riding a bike." Thanks for your contribution.

Cyclist shouldn't be on pavements shared, or otherwise! Cyclists shouldn't be using pedestrian crossings either! Why should 20 cars stop for 1 cyclist? Madness. I can't wait for the day when I can drive my car on the pavement and run a cyclist down! Mucking forons!

bazzeroz wrote:
Cyclist shouldn't be on pavements shared, or otherwise! Cyclists shouldn't be using pedestrian crossings either! Why should 20 cars stop for 1 cyclist? Madness. I can't wait for the day when I can drive my car on the pavement and run a cyclist down! Mucking forons!

Is that a threat? You're suggesting violence against cyclists.

Guilty and we sentence you to 3 years!

This article proves what I have been saying that most cyclist are selfish idiots who think that they have a god given right to ride where and at what speed they like without thought to anyone else.
If I was this poor lady I would sue the idiot cyclist for as much as she can, its about time cyclist were held responsible for their dangerous actions.

geoff51 wrote:
This article proves what I have been saying that most cyclist are selfish idiots who think that they have a god given right to ride where and at what speed they like without thought to anyone else.
If I was this poor lady I would sue the idiot cyclist for as much as she can, its about time cyclist were held responsible for their dangerous actions.

What's the point in sueing? They don't have Insurance so would never pay up!

IronLady2010 wrote:

geoff51 wrote:
This article proves what I have been saying that most cyclist are selfish idiots who think that they have a god given right to ride where and at what speed they like without thought to anyone else.
If I was this poor lady I would sue the idiot cyclist for as much as she can, its about time cyclist were held responsible for their dangerous actions.

What's the point in sueing? They don't have Insurance so would never pay up!

No. A court, even a small claims court, works independently of insurers. For example if someone takes you to court for loss of earnings they cant throw it out because of lack of a specific insurance.

Insurance only exists to protect the defendant from legal costs.

If the Police, her or her lawyer know the person responsible it is perfectly acceptable if they were to end up in court.

IronLady2010 wrote:

geoff51 wrote:
This article proves what I have been saying that most cyclist are selfish idiots who think that they have a god given right to ride where and at what speed they like without thought to anyone else.
If I was this poor lady I would sue the idiot cyclist for as much as she can, its about time cyclist were held responsible for their dangerous actions.

What's the point in sueing? They don't have Insurance so would never pay up!

And your point is what?
If they have any assets they should be used to compensate this poorlady.
Whilst I dislike Ambulance Chasers as much as I dislike arrogant cyclists this is time for where theres blame theres a claim

BTW I wonder if those having a pop at Salv have considered that it might be a spelling mistake?

I do think its sad that Bike Week in the Echo gets just stories like this when other papers are talking about all of the benefits of riding, too.

geoff51 wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

geoff51 wrote:
This article proves what I have been saying that most cyclist are selfish idiots who think that they have a god given right to ride where and at what speed they like without thought to anyone else.
If I was this poor lady I would sue the idiot cyclist for as much as she can, its about time cyclist were held responsible for their dangerous actions.

What's the point in sueing? They don't have Insurance so would never pay up!

And your point is what?
If they have any assets they should be used to compensate this poorlady.
Whilst I dislike Ambulance Chasers as much as I dislike arrogant cyclists this is time for where theres blame theres a claim

Geoff, with no Insurance, the victim will have to take legal matters into their own hands as in County Court which will cost the victim.

A County Court will simply place a judgement if successful but will not enforce payment unless the victim pays for bailiff fees.

So Cyclists get a free ride as they are uninsured!

downfader wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

geoff51 wrote:
This article proves what I have been saying that most cyclist are selfish idiots who think that they have a god given right to ride where and at what speed they like without thought to anyone else.
If I was this poor lady I would sue the idiot cyclist for as much as she can, its about time cyclist were held responsible for their dangerous actions.

What's the point in sueing? They don't have Insurance so would never pay up!

No. A court, even a small claims court, works independently of insurers. For example if someone takes you to court for loss of earnings they cant throw it out because of lack of a specific insurance.

Insurance only exists to protect the defendant from legal costs.

If the Police, her or her lawyer know the person responsible it is perfectly acceptable if they were to end up in court.

The Lady and her family asked for a caution. She is probably mature enough to understand that getting some money doesnt make the situation better....by being kind to the cyclist he cannot pay off his regret... by forgiving the cyclist she can get better and move on.

The 18 year old in question will have hopefully learned a very painful guilt ridden lesson

BTW i nearly got run over today...I don't think that all car drivers are idiots. And when accidents are reported it is generally "man" or "woman" not motorist that is used.... I'm sure that there are even some reasonable BMW drivers out there somewhere!

Jesus_02 wrote:

downfader wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

geoff51 wrote:
This article proves what I have been saying that most cyclist are selfish idiots who think that they have a god given right to ride where and at what speed they like without thought to anyone else.
If I was this poor lady I would sue the idiot cyclist for as much as she can, its about time cyclist were held responsible for their dangerous actions.

What's the point in sueing? They don't have Insurance so would never pay up!

No. A court, even a small claims court, works independently of insurers. For example if someone takes you to court for loss of earnings they cant throw it out because of lack of a specific insurance.

Insurance only exists to protect the defendant from legal costs.

If the Police, her or her lawyer know the person responsible it is perfectly acceptable if they were to end up in court.

The Lady and her family asked for a caution. She is probably mature enough to understand that getting some money doesnt make the situation better....by being kind to the cyclist he cannot pay off his regret... by forgiving the cyclist she can get better and move on.

The 18 year old in question will have hopefully learned a very painful guilt ridden lesson

BTW i nearly got run over today...I don't think that all car drivers are idiots. And when accidents are reported it is generally "man" or "woman" not motorist that is used.... I'm sure that there are even some reasonable BMW drivers out there somewhere!

As the lady is retired, she has possibly lost no income. Had this have been a working person, who would result in taking sick pay, how would they have been compensated for loss of income?

Cyclist need Insurance if they are to use the roads.

Jesus_02 wrote:

downfader wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

geoff51 wrote:
This article proves what I have been saying that most cyclist are selfish idiots who think that they have a god given right to ride where and at what speed they like without thought to anyone else.
If I was this poor lady I would sue the idiot cyclist for as much as she can, its about time cyclist were held responsible for their dangerous actions.

What's the point in sueing? They don't have Insurance so would never pay up!

No. A court, even a small claims court, works independently of insurers. For example if someone takes you to court for loss of earnings they cant throw it out because of lack of a specific insurance.

Insurance only exists to protect the defendant from legal costs.

If the Police, her or her lawyer know the person responsible it is perfectly acceptable if they were to end up in court.

The Lady and her family asked for a caution. She is probably mature enough to understand that getting some money doesnt make the situation better....by being kind to the cyclist he cannot pay off his regret... by forgiving the cyclist she can get better and move on.

The 18 year old in question will have hopefully learned a very painful guilt ridden lesson

BTW i nearly got run over today...I don't think that all car drivers are idiots. And when accidents are reported it is generally "man" or "woman" not motorist that is used.... I'm sure that there are even some reasonable BMW drivers out there somewhere!

If you had of been ran over, you could get compensation for your injuries from the car Insurance Company.

But if you get hit by a cyclist, you have to take matters into your own hands and take on a Civil Court action. Which doesn't guarantee payment.

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

The Salv wrote:
Oh great here we go, sit back and watch usual dribble about cyclists having to pay non existant road tax and jumping red lights etc.
.
ECHO this article has been deliberatley written and phrased so as to make cyclist look bad. Why couldnt the headline be, member of public struck down by idiot moron riding a bike. Rather than use the glam words like "pensioner" & "cyclist".

Do you ride a bike, do you ride it on the pavement? There is no need for cyclists to pay any sort of tax, all we ask is that they ride sensibly, I would appreciate it if cyclists who ride on pavements, to do it sensibly, fit lights and a bell so that the rest of us can see and hear them coming, not too much to ask is it?

Yes, I used to ride a lot on the road but have lost my nerve a bit with the countless near collisions I have had from bad drivers. Infact one of them did eventually get me and put me in hospital for the day. You know you can ride on the pavement in certain situations, it's not completely illegal.

Sir Ad E Noid wrote:

The Salv wrote:
Oh great here we go, sit back and watch usual dribble about cyclists having to pay non existant road tax and jumping red lights etc.
.
ECHO this article has been deliberatley written and phrased so as to make cyclist look bad. Why couldnt the headline be, member of public struck down by idiot moron riding a bike. Rather than use the glam words like "pensioner" & "cyclist".

"ECHO this article has been deliberatley written and phrased so as to make cyclist look bad." What a stupid comment, of course this article has been written to make the cyclist look bad. What do you think his actions can be described as? "Young cyclist has unfortunate incident with old and frail person who had the cheek to collide with his bike. They should be banned from the pavement." You said it yourself: "ECHO, Why couldnt the headline be, member of public struck down by idiot moron riding a bike." Thanks for your contribution.

yeah... its cyclists, not the cyclist in questing. I thought Shoong pointed this out to people!

Huffter wrote:
What does "unconcious" mean?

A slight mis-spelling and you can't figure it out? Aww, never mnid!

Since when have pavements been cycle paths? they are FOOTPATHS

Portswood Road is horrendous. Several people have been knocked down by bullies on bikes on pavements. Burgess Road between Hill Lane and The Avenue is a complete nightmare - I have been knocked over by bullies on bkes on the pavements. Southampton City Council cares nothing at all for pedestrian's safety. I am a full time carer and I have been taken to hospital three times in the last six weeks due to aggressive bullies on bikes. The Avenue is another horrendous area where it is not safe for pedestrians. Councillors are not interested in the safety of pedestrians.

Bullies on bikes do not even move out of the way for people in wheelchairs. There should be no shared paths. Shared paths should only be used by those who have demonstrated their competence and respect for pedestrians.

Sadly Winchester now has its share of bullies on bikes on pavements.

bazzeroz wrote:
Cyclist shouldn't be on pavements shared, or otherwise! Cyclists shouldn't be using pedestrian crossings either! Why should 20 cars stop for 1 cyclist? Madness. I can't wait for the day when I can drive my car on the pavement and run a cyclist down! Mucking forons!

HOW DARE YOU INCONVENIENCE ME!!
NOW I WILL KILL YOU AND LEAVE A GRIEVING FAMILY IN MY WAKE.

I CANNOT BEAR TO BE INCONVENIENCED EVEN IN THE SLIGHTEST.

The Salv wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

The Salv wrote:
Oh great here we go, sit back and watch usual dribble about cyclists having to pay non existant road tax and jumping red lights etc.
.
ECHO this article has been deliberatley written and phrased so as to make cyclist look bad. Why couldnt the headline be, member of public struck down by idiot moron riding a bike. Rather than use the glam words like "pensioner" & "cyclist".

Do you ride a bike, do you ride it on the pavement? There is no need for cyclists to pay any sort of tax, all we ask is that they ride sensibly, I would appreciate it if cyclists who ride on pavements, to do it sensibly, fit lights and a bell so that the rest of us can see and hear them coming, not too much to ask is it?

Yes, I used to ride a lot on the road but have lost my nerve a bit with the countless near collisions I have had from bad drivers. Infact one of them did eventually get me and put me in hospital for the day. You know you can ride on the pavement in certain situations, it's not completely illegal.

Yeah I do it it if there's a chance I might get smashed in by a cars or lorries.

Why should I risk my life when I can just take a little shortcut? It's not like I expect people to get out of my way or anything.

bravebeth wrote:
Portswood Road is horrendous. Several people have been knocked down by bullies on bikes on pavements. Burgess Road between Hill Lane and The Avenue is a complete nightmare - I have been knocked over by bullies on bkes on the pavements. Southampton City Council cares nothing at all for pedestrian's safety. I am a full time carer and I have been taken to hospital three times in the last six weeks due to aggressive bullies on bikes. The Avenue is another horrendous area where it is not safe for pedestrians. Councillors are not interested in the safety of pedestrians.

Bullies on bikes do not even move out of the way for people in wheelchairs. There should be no shared paths. Shared paths should only be used by those who have demonstrated their competence and respect for pedestrians.

Sadly Winchester now has its share of bullies on bikes on pavements.

I totally agree its horrible and I despise those who ride on those busy pavements.

We'd only need the occasional PCSO to watch out for it.

Sorry to hear you've been knocked down. Keep up the good work.

I think a distinction should be made between cyclists and little scrotes on BMX's on the pavements.

Did you know that lots of those bikes don't even have brakes? They just shove their foot on the wheel.

None of this would be a problem if the police actually did their job.

Don't give me that rubbish about cutbacks.

Just one copper walking around at busy times would be enough.

-stiv- wrote:
I think a distinction should be made between cyclists and little scrotes on BMX's on the pavements.

Did you know that lots of those bikes don't even have brakes? They just shove their foot on the wheel.

None of this would be a problem if the police actually did their job.

Don't give me that rubbish about cutbacks.

Just one copper walking around at busy times would be enough.

I was walking along the pavement in Portswood about a month ago when I decided to cross the road, for some reason I looked over my shoulder before I changed direction and a guy, about 20 to 25 was riding along the footpath with no hands on the handlebars. This was not a BMX but a full sized bike that had I not looked would have collected me as it went past. I must admit that I was very tempted to be an irresponsible pedestrian and stop one side of the handlebar as it went past, think I will next time.

As a cyclist - I only cycle on the pavement if it is a designed shared space (you know, those blue round signs with people and bikes on?) because the roads are not safe for cyclists.

The amount of times I almost end up underneath a taxi or car because they aren't looking for cyclists is unbelievable.

What this city needs to do is install proper cycle paths that separate the road carriageway from the cycle path - take a lesson from The Netherlands.

You know what really does p!ss me off though - when pedestrians walk in the segregated Cycle Paths - there is no need to...

In closing - Motorists need to have consideration for pedestrians and cyclists, Cyclists need to have consideration for motorists and pedestrians, and, pedestrians need to have consideration for cyclists and motorists.

See where I am going with this one?

IronLady2010 wrote:

bazzeroz wrote:
Cyclist shouldn't be on pavements shared, or otherwise! Cyclists shouldn't be using pedestrian crossings either! Why should 20 cars stop for 1 cyclist? Madness. I can't wait for the day when I can drive my car on the pavement and run a cyclist down! Mucking forons!

Is that a threat? You're suggesting violence against cyclists.

Guilty and we sentence you to 3 years!

Worth every second.

bravebeth wrote:
Portswood Road is horrendous. Several people have been knocked down by bullies on bikes on pavements. Burgess Road between Hill Lane and The Avenue is a complete nightmare - I have been knocked over by bullies on bkes on the pavements. Southampton City Council cares nothing at all for pedestrian's safety. I am a full time carer and I have been taken to hospital three times in the last six weeks due to aggressive bullies on bikes. The Avenue is another horrendous area where it is not safe for pedestrians. Councillors are not interested in the safety of pedestrians.

Bullies on bikes do not even move out of the way for people in wheelchairs. There should be no shared paths. Shared paths should only be used by those who have demonstrated their competence and respect for pedestrians.

Sadly Winchester now has its share of bullies on bikes on pavements.

Wide Lane has two pavements, one shared, the other not, guess which side the cyclists rid on! Clue: Fords is on the none shared side.

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

bravebeth wrote:
Portswood Road is horrendous. Several people have been knocked down by bullies on bikes on pavements. Burgess Road between Hill Lane and The Avenue is a complete nightmare - I have been knocked over by bullies on bkes on the pavements. Southampton City Council cares nothing at all for pedestrian's safety. I am a full time carer and I have been taken to hospital three times in the last six weeks due to aggressive bullies on bikes. The Avenue is another horrendous area where it is not safe for pedestrians. Councillors are not interested in the safety of pedestrians.

Bullies on bikes do not even move out of the way for people in wheelchairs. There should be no shared paths. Shared paths should only be used by those who have demonstrated their competence and respect for pedestrians.

Sadly Winchester now has its share of bullies on bikes on pavements.

Wide Lane has two pavements, one shared, the other not, guess which side the cyclists rid on! Clue: Fords is on the none shared side.

that should read "ride on", sticky "e" key.

As far as I can tell from articles on the internet, unless otherwise designated a shared use path, it is illegal, punishable by fixed penalty fine or up to £500 in court, to cycle on a pavement or more correctly a footway, running alongside a road. End of.
Better provision for cyclists is another matter. This cyclist broke the law (if it was solely a footway) if he hd been in a car and caused an accident through bad driving I suspect he would have been dealt with much more severely.

Jovin1 wrote:
As far as I can tell from articles on the internet, unless otherwise designated a shared use path, it is illegal, punishable by fixed penalty fine or up to £500 in court, to cycle on a pavement or more correctly a footway, running alongside a road. End of.
Better provision for cyclists is another matter. This cyclist broke the law (if it was solely a footway) if he hd been in a car and caused an accident through bad driving I suspect he would have been dealt with much more severely.

You might be suprised, unfortunately, us real 'cyclists' are all too familiar with the consequences motorists face when they kill or injure.
Recently a bus driver was let off for killing two brothers who were cycling along a road. The bus driver was driving too fast in the conditions and with an obscured windscreen, he faces no fine, no jail time and only a 12month suspended drivers licence.
My sister-in-law was hit by a taxi who drove through a red-light over a crossing breaking her arm and shoulder, he cannot be charged with dangerous driving because she didnt die, the maximum he can get is a suspended licence.
In 2009 there were 2500 deaths caused by motorvehicles, there were 0 caused by bicycles.
Cycling on the pavement is illegal, and should be stopped.
People break the law, not specific to a method of transport.
Cyclist insurance would require a registration/licence service, this would make cycling illegal anywhere for those without a licence, which would be an atrocity.