Be Excellent To Each Other

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11657376



I mean, if anything sue the parents for letting their children do this, but I don't think you can expect a 4 year old to know about the risk of death of hitting someone with a bike?

Malc

I blame America.

What are they expecting the kid to pony up for compensation? His Lego?

It does strike me as both needlessly malicious and largely pointless.

Well in a country where they kill adults who murder when they've got a mental age of four, why not sue actual four year olds?

Thing is we don't know whether the child cycled straight into the woman, eyes fixed on her and laughing, in which case as a relative I'd want some sort of punishment and then sue the parents, or whether the child was just not looking in the direction it was cycling, in which case the parents are very much at fault.

I bloody hate that when children aren't looking where they're going and smash into you. When I was recovering from a broken foot, it came home to me how often we subconsciously move out of the way of children whose parents have armed them with those metal scooters, plastic carts, etc then gazed into a shop window. Can't expect the kids to look where they're going if the parents aren't willing to. But when you're old or broken, you can't necessarily get out of the way.

Anyone cycling on the pavement should be publicly executed.

Just last week I witnessed a family of four, cycling the wrong way up a one way street and then mounting the pavement so pedestrians had to dive out of their way

Agreed. Yesterday, Newland in Hull, urchin of about 12 on mountain bike twice his size mounts bike on pavement and veers out into street without looking behind him at all to see if traffic was coming. He was so quick doing this that even at 15-20 mph I'd not have been able to avoid him, he'd have come out from behind stuff almost perpendicular to traffic before lurching back across to the kerbline and wobbling off into the distance. Fortunately I was on the pavement but this is why I don't dive in Hull unless i absolutely have to. If any poor driver had hit this kid I'm assuming there'd have been all sorts of liabilities.

Things where you are automatically at fault and the law should agree with me:

Riding bikes on the pavement
Riding a bike with the wrong frame
Crossing anywhere as a pedestrian when you are within sight of a pedestrian crossing
Any incident where you were driving a chelsea tractor, BMW or car modified in such a way as it distracts people.
Making a child that's too daft to walk in a straight line looking where it is going, then arming it with metal, wheeled implements.

Add riding bikes at night without lights to that list. Not quite so bad if they're wearing hi-vis, but the sort of people who wear hi-vis are the sort of people who put lights on their bikes anyway.

Isn't this possibly a question of legal chicanery? If you sue the parents, you have to prove them liable in not teaching their kids how to ride a bike safely. If you sue the kid, he's unmistakebly guilty of not riding carefully, and you end up de-facto suing the parents because they are legally responsible for him, but you've got a much stronger case.

Cyclists that batter full pelt up a shared use path piss me off. They usually fly past inches away from people that haven't noticed them & have dared to still be on the path. In short they're cunts & it's slower folk like me that take the shit for it

There is a rule (not sure if it's a written one though) that says something like if you're going faster than 20 or so you belong on the road, but most folk don't seem to care.

EDIT: Aye, "Ride at a sensible speed for the situation and ensure you can stop in time. As a general rule, if you want to cycle quickly, say in excess of 18 mph/30 kph, then you should be riding on the road." says the DOT guidelines.
http://cyclinginfo.co.uk/blog/cycle-lan ... use-paths/

Ditto cycling too slowly. I didn't buy a bike to sit behind someone in a Cycle lane going 6mph, and slow cyclists never, ever pull over to let a faster cycling through.

Use a bell & they will. A wee ring when your still a fair bit away usually gets them moving, but if they've not noticed by the time you're hitting the brakes another wee ring usually makes them jump out your way. Easier than having to shout too, save your voice for cunts in cars

Crossing the road at dusk yesterday, I didn't see a cyclist among the traffic. She hadn't made an effort to look particularly visible. Anyway, she had to jam on her brakes as I crossed.

I felt bad.

Until she rode through a red light. Silly bitch.

They do, though, pile past you at the lights, go over the stop line (at the front of the nice, separate, bike box) and then sit in front of you. Piling stupidity onto law breaking (well, perhaps going over a stop line isn't illegal, but...) onto getting into my way and forcing me to overtake them. Again.

Yeah, never understood that. If there's five bikes, fair enough, sit abreast of one another in front of cars in that 'bike box' at lights, as then the non-dawdlers can take off and get in front, back over to the left. But one cyclist, in front of cars, planting themselves squarely in front of them is just a massive piss take I unless they're turning right.

Oh, and cyclists - if you have x many inches clearance of the kerb you're cycling alongside you're getting the same amount on the other side from me because that's clearly how much you need. Don;t be two feet from the kerb expecting me to give you four on the other side, I've got traffic coming towards me in the opposite lane and frankly I'd sooner clip you than them.

Tell you what confuses me though - it's wrong for a cyclist to, a a junction, signalled or otherwise, mount the kerb, cut across the corner and back onto the road, cutting out the junction completely. As a cyclist, pedestrian and driver I can see that that's a dumb idea. But when I'm on a bike and I get to the lights, want to turn left so dismount, wheel my bike across the pavement legally, then remount and cycle off once past the corner, what's the problem? There isn't one, seeing as I'm doing it right, but some drivers seem to become apoplectic at the thought of this, possibly because they can't, but then they don;t have a go at other pedestrians, which is all I'm being at that point, so that's strange.

I have a rear light + a flasher for my helmet and two lights on the front.

I don't intentionally go out in the dark but I can be getting dark my way home at this time of year. Because the roads around here are unlit, not only do I need to be visible but I need to see where I am going. You can have one light on the distance, one for just directly in front so you can see potholes and the kerb.

On my this: http://www.falconcycles.co.uk/CORP/HYBR ... uator.html , the handlebars have grips, gears, brakes, then there was space for a little bell which was shit so went off, and with that gone there's juuuuuust room for one tiny light at the front. My rear light is very close to the axle, on the diagonal tube leading to that on the left, nowhere else I can put it. I'd love three lights.

/Edit actually that picture's bollocks because there's no reflectors on that and the two places I could put a light, I've got reflectors, which iirc you have to have on a bike by law.

This does seem a little bizarre that they want to sue a child of that age that has no assets.
Not quite as bizarre as the decision to let it go ahead, but that's the Americans for you...

Maybe they'll ask for her bike as reparation. That'll learn her.

I hardly see how she'll learn to ride a bike safely without her bike!

Absolutely crazy...the kids, especially at that age, should be riding their bikes on the road.

Besides, isn't it 400 credits (Carmageddon) for an old biddy?

Only if she shouts "I was in the war!" as she hobbles desperately away.

Bikes only need be sold with reflectors. I have none on mine.

Can probably claim from insurance. My view us somewhere along the lines of seeing some form restitution for the damage done. I'm unsure of the specific laws that operate in NY, but it seems to be somewhat just.

Liverpool is really bad for this sort of thing. It's a very discourteous place at the best of times but I'd say 99.9% of cyclists there ride on the pavement. It's particularly fucking annoying in Bootle. They speed down the pavement along The Strand, even though the road itself is only accessible to buses and taxis, so it's pretty quiet. Whereas the pavements are full of kids and old people. The majority of whom seem to be pricks but even so.

This is so fucked up its untrue. Cant add more than that, well I could but dont want to rant.