Brighton toddler suffers horrific injuries after cyclist smash (From The Argus)

He looks like a brave little solider, bless him

Poor little soul. No action taken against the cyclist!!!! Why not? Do cyclists have to kill someone before any action is taken? If a cyclist is injured by a motorist, the motorist would be for the high jump.

Get well soon sweetheart.....and cyclists, you don't own the roads even if you think you do!

Well thank goodness the lad will recover. It appears his mother led him to walk out into the road without looking, into the path of an oncoming bike. The mother should be ashamed of herself, and yet she has the gall to admonish the cyclist! She's lucky it wasn't a car coming!

Granny wrote:
Poor little soul. No action taken against the cyclist!!!! Why not? Do cyclists have to kill someone before any action is taken? If a cyclist is injured by a motorist, the motorist would be for the high jump.

How do you know the cyclist committed an offence? Perhaps the mother didn't look when crossing the street, as a lot of people do when they can't hear any traffic noise. It would appear that you consistently jump to conclusions every time you post something.

If he'd been hit by a car or bus, he wouldn't be here today! It was obviously a tragic accident or else the police would have charged the cyclist.

Granny wrote:
Poor little soul. No action taken against the cyclist!!!! Why not? Do cyclists have to kill someone before any action is taken? If a cyclist is injured by a motorist, the motorist would be for the high jump.

I hope the little lad recovers and is well again soon. As soon as I saw this article I knew the anti cycling brigade would make the usual assumptions. From the details in the article this is the same scenario as someone walking out in front of a car. Would you expect the car driver to be charged when no fault can be attributed to him/her?

cyclists must always give way to pedestrians the same as car drivers, in this case it seems the youngster run in front and then stopped giving the cyclist no ability to stop or avoid the accident. so no point in trying to appoint blame just be thankful the lad will survive, and spare athough for the cyclist who has to live with it also,
judging by the accidents and near misses i have witnessed lately in worthing, banning pushchair users from using mobile phones whilst pushing might be a good idea especially since a number of mothers still havent worked out that a heavy shopping bag on the back of some models of buggy over balances them


security word reins or wrist strap

i was in brighton myself today and was closely missed by a cyclist who jumped the red light at the crossing i was on, nobody is saying cyclists are bad, but there are some out there that do not care for anyones safety too. anybody who would think this mum asked for it to happen and that shes lucky it was not worse are very sad indeed, what person would wish that? trying to bring awareness to prevent just one other suffering like this is heroic in my eyes, you go girl, fight for your childs saftey, you have my vote, good luck to you and your children

I hope the kid gets better and sorry he had to suffer this. However from reading the article it sounds like the mother is to blame for crossing the street without paying enough attention. She is in no position to tell cyclists to take care if she is the one who didnt take care in the first place. If it was in any way the cyclists fault the police would have arrested him. She has a cheek to blame anyone else, its her kid who payed for her not paying attention. If i sound a little harsh then thats because her kid could have been even more unlucky, and should serve as a warning to everyone that it is YOUR responsibility to make sure the road is clear, if you arent using a crossing. Pay attention parents because next time it could your your kid. I hope he recovers soon, and the mother learns a leson.

No matter how much "due care and attention" drivers exercise, no matter how much they keep within speed limits, if some idiotic mother pushes their child in front of you with no warning, it will generally be impossible to stop in time. And it will hurt the pedestrian more than it will the driver. That's why Darth Vader tried to teach us all the Green Cross Code. Those who underestimate the power of the Dark Side do so at their peril.

John Steed wrote:
cyclists must always give way to pedestrians the same as car drivers, in this case it seems the youngster run in front and then stopped giving the cyclist no ability to stop or avoid the accident. so no point in trying to appoint blame just be thankful the lad will survive, and spare athough for the cyclist who has to live with it also, judging by the accidents and near misses i have witnessed lately in worthing, banning pushchair users from using mobile phones whilst pushing might be a good idea especially since a number of mothers still havent worked out that a heavy shopping bag on the back of some models of buggy over balances them security word reins or wrist strap

The article doesnt say she was on pedestrian crossing or anything, so the question of giving way doesn't arise. Of course it may be that the article hasn't got the whole story, but i read from it she just crossed the road because she presumably didnt hear traffic.

did the cyclist stop? i cant make that bit out?

While this is a terrible accident, surely the mother should have stopped and looked properly before crossing the road?

ofcourse I feel sorry for the poor lad but horrific injuries?

Look at the daily mail today where a little kid had barely any arms or legs - just stumps (the story is about the uncle who stole her trust fund)
that is TRULY horrific!

Actually whether the cyclist was innocent or guilty is not important - anyone who was even half decent would have stopped, helped given the mother their details and check up on a child who at the time the cyclist did not even know was alive or dead - pure SCUM!

Were any of you people there? How can you sit a judge a mother on her parenting skills after such a horrific thing has just happened to her precious boy? Did any of you stop to consider that maybe this accident was nobodys fault? No. You are all quick to point the finger of blame at a mother when you don't know the facts. The fact of the matter is a young boy was savagely hurt through no fault of his own and instead of the British public coming together and wishing him well, you all blame his mother, it's disgusting. You should all be ashamed of yourselves. This accident wasn't Hadens mothers fault, nor was it the cyclists- IT WAS AN ACCIDENT!

Tye wrote:
ofcourse I feel sorry for the poor lad but horrific injuries?

Look at the daily mail today where a little kid had barely any arms or legs - just stumps (the story is about the uncle who stole her trust fund)
that is TRULY horrific!

Actually whether the cyclist was innocent or guilty is not important - anyone who was even half decent would have stopped, helped given the mother their details and check up on a child who at the time the cyclist did not even know was alive or dead - pure SCUM!

where does it say the cyclist doesn't stop?

Another report from the Argus that is diffiuclt to make sense of. The family was walking along Western Road and crossed the bottom of Spring Street. Why was the cyclist hurting along? He presumably was travelling down the steep hill and failed was going to fast to stop at the junction. That is the only conclusion I can come to, other than he was going in the wrong direction.

hi im hadens mum to answer some questions no the cyclest didnt stop he had to be stop by passers by hes excuess that he didnt relise hed hit anything also like to point out my son was holding the buggy and crossing safley there wsas no traffic and we were at a crossing the cyclest was speeding down a hill near by came round the corner without braking due to the lack of traffic my children and i were only 2foot from the crossing when i spotted him i pulled the buggy bk so fast to protect my boys that haden did loose his grip im filled with guilt for what happened but i couldnt see round the corner so i could not prevent this though i wish i could of you can see by the injurys my son has gained this man was speeding the only reason this man hasnt been arrested is because ive been to busy by my sons side to press charges he has admited fault and sent a lovley appoligy i only did this to raise awearness that no matter how safe you are when crossing you cant see everything id also like to point out cycles are ment to be banned from that street as it is for buses and taxis only id like to thank thos who have wished he well though as it really dose mean alot that evan strangers care so thank you for taking the time to wish my baby well x

No action against the cyclist. Has Sussex Police become completely retarded or something. I hope the mother sues the person in a civil court at the very least.

brightongemma87 wrote:
hi im hadens mum to answer some questions no the cyclest didnt stop he had to be stop by passers by hes excuess that he didnt relise hed hit anything also like to point out my son was holding the buggy and crossing safley there wsas no traffic and we were at a crossing the cyclest was speeding down a hill near by came round the corner without braking due to the lack of traffic my children and i were only 2foot from the crossing when i spotted him i pulled the buggy bk so fast to protect my boys that haden did loose his grip im filled with guilt for what happened but i couldnt see round the corner so i could not prevent this though i wish i could of you can see by the injurys my son has gained this man was speeding the only reason this man hasnt been arrested is because ive been to busy by my sons side to press charges he has admited fault and sent a lovley appoligy i only did this to raise awearness that no matter how safe you are when crossing you cant see everything id also like to point out cycles are ment to be banned from that street as it is for buses and taxis only id like to thank thos who have wished he well though as it really dose mean alot that evan strangers care so thank you for taking the time to wish my baby well x

Gemma. First of all just ignore the idiots who always comment and criticise on things on this site without knowing the full facts. I saw straight away that you were trying to raise awareness. You could have simply laid into the cyclist, but you acknowledged that you were sent a nice letter of apology, and stated quite clearly that you could have done things differently yourself as well. Sometimes things happen to our kids, and it's sometimes down to our carelessness, sometimes down to our lack of concentration, sometimes down to other people's actions. The most important thing with these sort of experiences, and I speak as a parent who is guilty of all the above, is to be thankful that the outcome wasn't as bad as it could have been, learn from anything we could have done differently, and raise awareness so that others stop and think. I believe your reaction to this affair has been well balanced and full of good intention, and try not to feel guilty, as I said most parents have had similar experiences, simply be thankful your lad has pulled through, and enjoy every day with the smiling little chap!!

Good luck to you all for the future!

because he had no tax and insurence there was nothing they could do they offred me the chance to press charges but sadly it was only 20 mins after haden arrived at hosp and theyd pulled me away from hadens side so i told them i could deal with it then i needed to get back to my son we were all in shock and just needed to make sure haden was ok and thats what i did im hes mum i needed to be by hes side i have to say the cyclist has sent us a lovley card to say sorry he nos he was going to fast and from what i can tell the sight of haden will haunt him for life i only hope that other people will slow down to not all people on bikes are bad but everyones seen a cyclist jump a light or go on the pavment and brake the rules a little maybe this help them keep to the rules inplace for everyones saftey x

thank you all for the support and well wishs to my son it really is amazing to see strangers come though i just want to make brighton a little safer no matter how hard any person trys you cant do or see everything and brighton is a very busy place i did my best for my baby and have shared this horrible week with everyone in hope that someone will take note and slow down or a parent to just double check again so thank you all again x

I was on a bus which was turning left into Southover Street from the Lewes Road at the Level a few weeks ago and the bus had already started to turn left when a mother with a buggy suddenly crossed without looking left or right. She was almost hit by the bus which jammed its brakes on sending the passengers sliding off our seats.
The upset driver shouted at her from his window to look next time, but she didn't bat an eyelid. People wearing headphones do exactly the same. I almost hit a lad in Bear Road last week on my motorbike who just didn't look.
I hope the little chap gets better soon.

Cyclists aren't "banned from that street" - if this woman is wrong about such an elementary fact, I don't see how we can trust her on anything else she says. Yet again I remain amazed the Argus will publish such nonsense. Good luck to the cyclist if he decides to sue for libel

Gemma if you were on a zebra crossing then the cyclist was at fault and you are perfectly warranted in issuing a warning. The article wasn't very clear on exactly what happened so im glad you could tell us more. If he ran over your son body then he cant really claim he didnt know. He was commiting an offence as far as i see it. I myself was run over on a zebra crossing years ago and the driver was charged, although surely the law must still apply to a cyclist. I hope your soon recovers well.By the way, as to all the comments about blaming you, im sure you can see that the article really doesnt tell us the whole story, we can only go on what we read.

There is no zebra crossing on Western Road anywhere near Spring Street! Go and look on Google Maps if you want to see for yourself. There are a few traffic islands in the middle of Western Road, to allow pedestrians to cross half the road at a time, perhaps that is what she means.

Tye wrote:
ofcourse I feel sorry for the poor lad but horrific injuries?

Look at the daily mail today where a little kid had barely any arms or legs - just stumps (the story is about the uncle who stole her trust fund)
that is TRULY horrific!

Actually whether the cyclist was innocent or guilty is not important - anyone who was even half decent would have stopped, helped given the mother their details and check up on a child who at the time the cyclist did not even know was alive or dead - pure SCUM!

alot of these comments are blaming the Mother (my step sister) and saying that she didn't look before crossing the road, and that she has no right to spread cycling awareness...

I just want to say, no the cyclist did not actually stop to check on the child (my nephew to be), passers by stopped him after he attempted to ride away and claimed that he didn't know he'd hit anything, and from what I've heard he never checked on the child or anything. I was in a cycle accident not too long ago where 3 cars where damaged and at the age of 16 i had the decency to give my details and make sure the pregnant lady who was unharmed was deffinatly ok before i left. So lets not think about this 'poor' bloke who has to live with this for the rest of his life and lets stop blaming Haden's ever so brave Mum, lets just spread awareness to cyclists as the artical suggests and be happy that this gorgeous happy toddler is safe and still laughing :D

Clearly The Argus needs to re-write the story and clarify the incident.
The story sounds as if the cyclist was coming along Spring Street quite legally when the family crossed it and unfortunately the little boy got hit as the cyclist didn't have time to stop.
Did she step out without looking? Did she assume nothing was coming as she could not 'hear' any traffic as bikes are silent and she meandered across? Was the cyclist committing any offence?
Until we know, we can't really comment accurately.

Cyclists are a pain in this city. Wrong way down one way streets, no lights at night while wearing black clothes, straight through pedestrian crossings when green for pedestrians, they really get on my tits.

Your man-boobs are not the issue here, PeteBrighton.

Clearly the real villain of the piece is Ben Parsons, who as usually has constructed the article so badly that it does little more than libel all parties concerned. Presumeably Parsons thinks this has the best chance creating a baying dystopian lynch mob of readers, intent of vigilante justice. Typical irresponsible muck-raking by the Argus, who clearly won't be happy until every citizen of this town is down on the beach, screaming at the sky and slicing each others' faces off in a return to tribal savagery.

at the end if the day a little boy now has a big scar on his head because a cyclist was speeding down a hill and she was unable to pull him out the way as gemma said she pulled the buggy back and he lost his grip
could you hear a cyclist speeding down a hill??? no didnt think so
and the fact he said he didnt realise he hit someone that must be a lie for the injuries he has and to try and get away
tell me whose in the wrong??? you dont try to run if your in the wrong

cyclists arent all bad but this is just asking for them to take care
its right in the centre of town not the best place to go speeding along on a push bike!!

so get well soon hayden and stuff all you people blaming the mother try the cyclist who looks to have caused it in the first place

We all need to take care on the roads and maybe the adverts for the Green Cross Code should be brought back - stop, look both ways and then cross, and maybe cyclists should have number plates so they can be traced.

I am very sorry to hear that this child was so badly hurt and am glad he is doing well now.
I am both a cyclist but and a pedestrian and I have some major concerns about this city. I fear that we will see more and more of these incidents. More and more people are cycling in the city now with cycle to work schemes etc, but there are no extra provisions for them. It is quite obvious in this city that a lot of pedestrian and drivers seem completely unaware of cyclists!!The daily ride along the seafront is an absolute danger- parents allow their children to walk and run, play in the cycle lane while they do so themselves, parents pushing buggies, couples holding hands, people out for a stroll in the sun all seem to think its ok to walk in the cycle lane. why dont they just walk in the middle of the road where the cars are??! Why do they think it is acceptable to walk there and glare at you while you ring your bell. People continue to do this and I am sure I cant be the only cyclist who is fed up of the seafront cycle lane that is just not suitable! The council need to raise more awareness about the cycle lanes...but I fear it wont be until some one is seriously hurt or killed by a cyclist esp as the summer approaches with even more people on the seafront.

You are right countrygirl about the cycle lane, but remember many people in Brighton are from out of town and overseas and just don't realise there is a cycle lane.
I prefer to wear proper safety kit and cycle with the traffic as it's much safer than mingling with pedestrians with kiddies running free and dogs on those long leads stretching across the lane with their owners oblivious to the cyclists.
It's ok for the early morning commute and winter evening commute but any other time, it's just dangerous.

There are incidents involving the death or mutilation of pedestrians by cars every single week in this paper.
But, judging by the lack of comments on those accidents it seems that everyone chooses largely to ignore these incidents, as if they were somehow acceptable.
Just search the articles and see for yourself.
If you want to save lives and reduce accidents your ineffectual moaning should be directed at the car drivers who cause tens of thousands of horrific injuries each and every year - until then you are just clearly and ignorantly choosing the easy target , whilst ignoring the real dangers on the road.

i agree i have had to tell my son of a few times in the past for running into the cycle lane at the leval befor but sadly he is only 3 and the pic of a bike on the floor just guides there attention to it he hasnt done it in a while tho since hes got bigger there dad is a cycleist so i no the dangers for them to this wasnt me having a go at bike riders at all this bike come from round a corner and the road was clear so this was just a bad accident although i was checking the road as we crossed he came out very fast i did my best to react and protect my kids as my son has been very road safe since doing the beep beep day at school just a few months ago hes very good with roads for hes age and we were using a crossing island to get safley over any parent that runs a risk on roads is dam well silly i always use crossings and neva have anything distracting me if i can help it my boys saftey is always top of the list and so is the safty of others as ive witnessed a few road accidents myself i no this article can be misleading but i was mearly trying to raise a little awearness for both bike riders and others id hate for anyone to have to go though what we have this week.

DougM wrote:
There are incidents involving the death or mutilation of pedestrians by cars every single week in this paper. But, judging by the lack of comments on those accidents it seems that everyone chooses largely to ignore these incidents, as if they were somehow acceptable. Just search the articles and see for yourself. If you want to save lives and reduce accidents your ineffectual moaning should be directed at the car drivers who cause tens of thousands of horrific injuries each and every year - until then you are just clearly and ignorantly choosing the easy target , whilst ignoring the real dangers on the road.

no one is doubting cars cause alot of trouble on roads to but u can genraly hear them comming i had no warning just a few seconds to react ive lost a few people to car accidents thats why i dont drive i dont feel safe in cars and its why there dad uses cycles to im just trying to say that in a busy town like brighton you cant hear bikes and when they come wising round corners the damage to a child in unbelivable i just wanted to make people aweare that cars are not the only dangers ive always thought of cycles as much safer but like i said weve all seen a cycle jump a light or come up on the pavment i just want people to be more carefull for bike users and others

lindaf wrote:
Get well soon sweetheart.....and cyclists, you don't own the roads even if you think you do!

And pedestrians, look both ways before crossing, or stay on the pavement.

corruptive wrote:
Your man-boobs are not the issue here, PeteBrighton.

Clearly the real villain of the piece is Ben Parsons, who as usually has constructed the article so badly that it does little more than libel all parties concerned. Presumeably Parsons thinks this has the best chance creating a baying dystopian lynch mob of readers, intent of vigilante justice. Typical irresponsible muck-raking by the Argus, who clearly won't be happy until every citizen of this town is down on the beach, screaming at the sky and slicing each others' faces off in a return to tribal savagery.

Nicely put sir

Cyclists beware, make sure you get public liability insurance because the most unlikely things can happen at any time as this article proves. Glad the boy was ok.

brightongemma87 wrote:

DougM wrote:
There are incidents involving the death or mutilation of pedestrians by cars every single week in this paper. But, judging by the lack of comments on those accidents it seems that everyone chooses largely to ignore these incidents, as if they were somehow acceptable. Just search the articles and see for yourself. If you want to save lives and reduce accidents your ineffectual moaning should be directed at the car drivers who cause tens of thousands of horrific injuries each and every year - until then you are just clearly and ignorantly choosing the easy target , whilst ignoring the real dangers on the road.

no one is doubting cars cause alot of trouble on roads to but u can genraly hear them comming i had no warning just a few seconds to react ive lost a few people to car accidents thats why i dont drive i dont feel safe in cars and its why there dad uses cycles to im just trying to say that in a busy town like brighton you cant hear bikes and when they come wising round corners the damage to a child in unbelivable i just wanted to make people aweare that cars are not the only dangers ive always thought of cycles as much safer but like i said weve all seen a cycle jump a light or come up on the pavment i just want people to be more carefull for bike users and others

I agree - everyone needs to be more aware of those around them, and the dangers presented by general traffic.
It is a shame that most people whether on foot or using vehicles are in too much of a hurry to be considerate.
Hope your boy recovers quickly.

Whitedot wrote:
Cyclists beware, make sure you get public liability insurance because the most unlikely things can happen at any time as this article proves. Glad the boy was ok.

Public liability insurance! surely your having a laugh.... I don't believe in any type of insurance (except where it is a legal requirement) the whole industry is a con.

thank you for the support and well wishs im sorry this artical wasnt clearer and i agree everyone is in to much of a hurry i avoid town normaly this was our 1st time up there since just before xmas cos i dont like how busy it is should of stuck to london road im glad my point is getting across i dont want to have ago i want all sides to stay safe i really do

lindaf wrote:
Get well soon sweetheart.....and cyclists, you don't own the roads even if you think you do!

You are right, cyclists don't 'own the roads' - that is the role that motorists think they have.
.
The negligent and reckless cyclist that caused these injuries to this child deserves to be penalised heavily but pedestrians AND cyclists daily suffer this same fate at the hands of car, van and lorry drivers - who really DO think THEY own the roads.
.
The £700 fine on a Brighton cyclist last week was right and proper, but let's now see penalties handed out equally to ALL reckless road users.

And let's not forget, whitedot, legally and morally pedestrians ALWAYS have right of way.
.
Vehicles, all vehicles, should travel in a manner and at a speed that is appropriate for the conditions and surroundings.
.
If they did so then 90% of (so called) accidents would not happen.
.
The sooner all town centres are 20mph the better.

i agree everyone should pay just that little more attention that was the point i was trying to make, im so glad haden did the beep beep day at school they made road safty fun and ever since i have no problems with him at roads i think this is somthing all schools should do teach them from a young age i do belive cyclist should have the same rules as over road users do and the same punishments you can see by the pictures how much damage can be done by a bike so please just see the pictures and just be that little more carefull thats people cars bikes everything and one i no ive become suprisingly nervous of roads x

ambassador wrote:
And let's not forget, whitedot, legally and morally pedestrians ALWAYS have right of way. . Vehicles, all vehicles, should travel in a manner and at a speed that is appropriate for the conditions and surroundings. . If they did so then 90% of (so called) accidents would not happen. . The sooner all town centres are 20mph the better.

I don't think you are correct about pedestrian always having right of way. They do on zebra and pelican crossings, but elsewhere it is a different story.
.
Pedestrians are not allowed on motorways at all, for example.
.
Rule 108 of the Highway Code seems appropriate. It says "give way to pedestrians crossing the road into which you are turning". Give way does not mean that pedestrians have a right of way. And the Highway Code is not law (though it does contain points of law). Disobeying it might lead to possibly driving without due care/consideration for other road users.

bibble wrote:

ambassador wrote: And let's not forget, whitedot, legally and morally pedestrians ALWAYS have right of way. . Vehicles, all vehicles, should travel in a manner and at a speed that is appropriate for the conditions and surroundings. . If they did so then 90% of (so called) accidents would not happen. . The sooner all town centres are 20mph the better.

I don't think you are correct about pedestrian always having right of way. They do on zebra and pelican crossings, but elsewhere it is a different story. . Pedestrians are not allowed on motorways at all, for example. . Rule 108 of the Highway Code seems appropriate. It says "give way to pedestrians crossing the road into which you are turning". Give way does not mean that pedestrians have a right of way. And the Highway Code is not law (though it does contain points of law). Disobeying it might lead to possibly driving without due care/consideration for other road users.

Bibble there is no 'bad police' angle here, go back to sleep. We'll wake you when there's a story for you to comment on.

Thank you for that lesson in law bibble.
.
I was not aware that Western Road was a motorway?
.
Of course, if a pedestrian steps out or runs into the road without warning and an accident ensues then that will be taken into account by any court but so too will the manner and speed of the offending vehicle.
.
'Stated cases' demonstrate that any vehicle should always give way to any pedestrian.
.
Rule 108 in the Highway Code - which is widely abused by most drivers - gives ABSOLUTE right of way to pedestrians crossing a side road.
.
The clue bibble is in the wording which you quote yourself "give way to pedestrians crossing the road into which you are turning".
.
That means the pedestrians have right of way - QED. It could not be clearer!
.
And finally, EVERYTHING in the Highway Code is based on the law but the wording is simplified for the ordinary man in the street.
.
All 'so called' 'advice' given in the Highway Code is based directly on law and in many cases based on 'stated cases' but because it is explained and simplified this has lead to the uninformed believing the the Highway Code 'is not law'.
.
It is the law - explained simply - not simply enough for some it seems!

cheezburger, brighton,
.
Well said!
.
I know I said I would not be taking part for much longer on these pages, but I just can't resist when 'you-know-who' tries to convince readers he has some knowledge about.... well about anything really.

ambassador wrote:
And let's not forget, whitedot, legally and morally pedestrians ALWAYS have right of way.
.
Vehicles, all vehicles, should travel in a manner and at a speed that is appropriate for the conditions and surroundings.
.
If they did so then 90% of (so called) accidents would not happen.
.
The sooner all town centres are 20mph the better.

Pedestrians do have right of way generally, but they also have responsibility to cross the road safely, looking both ways.

The cyclist was obviously going too fast down Spring Street which is quite a steep hill & simply had an unavoidable accident.

Big Nasty wrote:

Whitedot wrote:
Cyclists beware, make sure you get public liability insurance because the most unlikely things can happen at any time as this article proves. Glad the boy was ok.

Public liability insurance! surely your having a laugh.... I don't believe in any type of insurance (except where it is a legal requirement) the whole industry is a con.

I know, it is a bit of a con I have to agree, they get you by playing the 'what if' / fear card & it seems to work very effectively!

Anyway my public liability came included with the insurance for my bike, I couldn't face spending another £1.5k for a new one if it got nicked, & I'm glad to have financial protection against damaging property or other people in an accident.

ambassador wrote:
Thank you for that lesson in law bibble. . I was not aware that Western Road was a motorway? . Of course, if a pedestrian steps out or runs into the road without warning and an accident ensues then that will be taken into account by any court but so too will the manner and speed of the offending vehicle. . 'Stated cases' demonstrate that any vehicle should always give way to any pedestrian. . Rule 108 in the Highway Code - which is widely abused by most drivers - gives ABSOLUTE right of way to pedestrians crossing a side road. . The clue bibble is in the wording which you quote yourself "give way to pedestrians crossing the road into which you are turning". . That means the pedestrians have right of way - QED. It could not be clearer! . And finally, EVERYTHING in the Highway Code is based on the law but the wording is simplified for the ordinary man in the street. . All 'so called' 'advice' given in the Highway Code is based directly on law and in many cases based on 'stated cases' but because it is explained and simplified this has lead to the uninformed believing the the Highway Code 'is not law'. . It is the law - explained simply - not simply enough for some it seems!

Let me take apart your argument piece by piece. It will be instructive for you.
.
You wrote earlier that "pedestrians always have right of way", and I gave you an example of a road where pedestrians do not. But you try to connect a motorway with Western Road. That is your problem.
.
Rule 108. That was my little hook to see how far out of date your Highway Code is, and you fell for it. I suggest you get an updated copy before offering any lectures. Rule 108 is about Highways Agency Traffic Officers powers to stop vehicles.
.
The correct rule for "giving way to pedestrians not on crossings" is 206. It does not say anything about giving ABSOLUTE rights of way to pedestrians, it says "give way". Let me remind you that the Highway Code is not law, it does not grant any rights to anyone. It is a guide with some references to law.
.
Rights are granted by law, not by a non-legal document which mentions some laws. Pedestrians do not have RIGHTS of way on roads except on crossings.
.
The Highway Code is not law, no matter how much you try to pretend that it is. E.g. the Highway Code suggests that horse riders SHOULD wear "light-coloured or fluorescent clothing in daylight", but there is no legal requirement to do so. So stop trying to pretend that is some sort of simplified legal guide. It is not.
.
You need to understand the difference between law and a guidebook. When you have done that, please feel free to offer yet more feeble comments.

i cannot believe some of the comments on here, talk about judgemental, a small boy was badly injured by a cyclist that didnt even bother to stop, saying he didnt realise he had hit haden, the cyclist must have known, it doesnt matter whos to blame. if people in a car drove of from the scene of an accident they would be charged by the police, so why not the cyclist, you cannot tell me that you wouldnt feel hitting a child on a bike, because you would, i hope that cyclist saw pictures of haden and has trouble sleeping as he should be ashamed of himself.
Gemma i hope haden gets better soon.

Hope the little lad gets better soon. Very unfortunate. But it has to be sad the UK is one of the worst countries to ride a bike. People have no idea about the rules of the road. Ever tried to cycle along the seafront. The whole set up is wrong. Pedestrians cannot reach traffic lights without standing on the cycling path. Pedestrians also don't understand that you shouldn't walk on a cycling path, cos funny that a cyclist can come and run you over. And yes they can go fast and should be able to as they are riding on a cycling path! ( if sticking to the rule). People are just oblivious to what ever surrounds them. Please, if we all just take a little more care and stick to the traffic rules we can hopefully prevent these horrible accidents.
A cyclist from Holland.

So removing the anti cyclist propaganda and ignoring all the unnecessary sensationalist adjectives
in this piece of journalistic drivel we are left with the startling revelation that 'Crossing the road can be dangerous' Well done Argus, another scoop.

On the seafront cycle path, there are numerous markings that instuct cyclists to give way at certain points. The give way markings generally appear at crossing points, where obviously the intention is to give pedestrians priority as they cross the lane.

These are universally ignored by cyclists.

I notice that in the story of Haden being knocked over, no-one mentions the sound of a bell being rung?

It is good practice in urban environments to drive only as fast as you can stop, i.e., if you can only see 50 yards ahead, you need to be able to stop in that space if someone steps out into the road.

Cyclists are a menace here in Brighton and Hove. The biggest problem is the attitude. They seem to feel the whole world is against them and ride like they don't give a **** about anyone else (which is almost certainly true). How these people get re-educated into the fact that they share the roads with other users and need to care about pedestrians is the biggest challenge we face in managing them. Their attitudes however would change if they were taxed and insured, and could be identified by registration numbers. Whether it's practical to do so or not is another matter.

Sussex Police need to crack down on cyclists asap.

ABC1 wrote:
On the seafront cycle path, there are numerous markings that instuct cyclists to give way at certain points. The give way markings generally appear at crossing points, where obviously the intention is to give pedestrians priority as they cross the lane.

These are universally ignored by cyclists.

I notice that in the story of Haden being knocked over, no-one mentions the sound of a bell being rung?

It is good practice in urban environments to drive only as fast as you can stop, i.e., if you can only see 50 yards ahead, you need to be able to stop in that space if someone steps out into the road.

Cyclists are a menace here in Brighton and Hove. The biggest problem is the attitude. They seem to feel the whole world is against them and ride like they don't give a **** about anyone else (which is almost certainly true). How these people get re-educated into the fact that they share the roads with other users and need to care about pedestrians is the biggest challenge we face in managing them. Their attitudes however would change if they were taxed and insured, and could be identified by registration numbers. Whether it's practical to do so or not is another matter.

Sussex Police need to crack down on cyclists asap.

Utter, utter drivel.

bibble wrote:

ambassador wrote: Thank you for that lesson in law bibble. . I was not aware that Western Road was a motorway? . Of course, if a pedestrian steps out or runs into the road without warning and an accident ensues then that will be taken into account by any court but so too will the manner and speed of the offending vehicle. . 'Stated cases' demonstrate that any vehicle should always give way to any pedestrian. . Rule 108 in the Highway Code - which is widely abused by most drivers - gives ABSOLUTE right of way to pedestrians crossing a side road. . The clue bibble is in the wording which you quote yourself "give way to pedestrians crossing the road into which you are turning". . That means the pedestrians have right of way - QED. It could not be clearer! . And finally, EVERYTHING in the Highway Code is based on the law but the wording is simplified for the ordinary man in the street. . All 'so called' 'advice' given in the Highway Code is based directly on law and in many cases based on 'stated cases' but because it is explained and simplified this has lead to the uninformed believing the the Highway Code 'is not law'. . It is the law - explained simply - not simply enough for some it seems!

Let me take apart your argument piece by piece. It will be instructive for you. . You wrote earlier that "pedestrians always have right of way", and I gave you an example of a road where pedestrians do not. But you try to connect a motorway with Western Road. That is your problem. . Rule 108. That was my little hook to see how far out of date your Highway Code is, and you fell for it. I suggest you get an updated copy before offering any lectures. Rule 108 is about Highways Agency Traffic Officers powers to stop vehicles. . The correct rule for "giving way to pedestrians not on crossings" is 206. It does not say anything about giving ABSOLUTE rights of way to pedestrians, it says "give way". Let me remind you that the Highway Code is not law, it does not grant any rights to anyone. It is a guide with some references to law. . Rights are granted by law, not by a non-legal document which mentions some laws. Pedestrians do not have RIGHTS of way on roads except on crossings. . The Highway Code is not law, no matter how much you try to pretend that it is. E.g. the Highway Code suggests that horse riders SHOULD wear "light-coloured or fluorescent clothing in daylight", but there is no legal requirement to do so. So stop trying to pretend that is some sort of simplified legal guide. It is not. . You need to understand the difference between law and a guidebook. When you have done that, please feel free to offer yet more feeble comments.

Click, click, click, scratch, scratch, click..........
Click, click, click, scratch, scratch, click..........
Click, click, click, scratch, scratch, click..........
Click, click, click, scratch, scratch, click..........
Click, click, click, scratch, scratch, click..........

That's the sound of the bibble nonsense record playing again....

Click, click, click, scratch, scratch, click..........
Click, click, click, scratch, scratch, click..........
Click, click, click, scratch, scratch, click..........
Click, click, click, scratch, scratch, click..........
Click, click, click, scratch, scratch, click..........
Click, click, click, scratch, scratch, click..........
Click, click, click, scratch, scratch, click..........
Click, click, click, scratch, scratch, click..........
Click, click, click, scratch, scratch, click..........
Click, click, click, scratch, scratch, click..........
ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zz

DC78 wrote:

brightongemma87 wrote:

DougM wrote: There are incidents involving the death or mutilation of pedestrians by cars every single week in this paper. But, judging by the lack of comments on those accidents it seems that everyone chooses largely to ignore these incidents, as if they were somehow acceptable. Just search the articles and see for yourself. If you want to save lives and reduce accidents your ineffectual moaning should be directed at the car drivers who cause tens of thousands of horrific injuries each and every year - until then you are just clearly and ignorantly choosing the easy target , whilst ignoring the real dangers on the road.

no one is doubting cars cause alot of trouble on roads to but u can genraly hear them comming i had no warning just a few seconds to react ive lost a few people to car accidents thats why i dont drive i dont feel safe in cars and its why there dad uses cycles to im just trying to say that in a busy town like brighton you cant hear bikes and when they come wising round corners the damage to a child in unbelivable i just wanted to make people aweare that cars are not the only dangers ive always thought of cycles as much safer but like i said weve all seen a cycle jump a light or come up on the pavment i just want people to be more carefull for bike users and others

Hi Gemma, I'm so sorry about what happened to Haden. I hope he recovers well. Don't you think that this was your fault, you didn't hear the bike coming, didn't you open your eyes and look left, look right? You have two kids already, dad(s) still about? Didn't think so. You working? Didn't think so. Please grow up and take responsibility for your life and your actions. PS. Your spelling is horrendous.

What's the child's dad got to do with it? There's no need to make nasty comments like that. As for spelling, your own grammar i rubbish. I think you are the one who needs to grow up you slime.

ABC1 wrote:
On the seafront cycle path, there are numerous markings that instuct cyclists to give way at certain points. The give way markings generally appear at crossing points, where obviously the intention is to give pedestrians priority as they cross the lane. These are universally ignored by cyclists. I notice that in the story of Haden being knocked over, no-one mentions the sound of a bell being rung? It is good practice in urban environments to drive only as fast as you can stop, i.e., if you can only see 50 yards ahead, you need to be able to stop in that space if someone steps out into the road. Cyclists are a menace here in Brighton and Hove. The biggest problem is the attitude. They seem to feel the whole world is against them and ride like they don't give a **** about anyone else (which is almost certainly true). How these people get re-educated into the fact that they share the roads with other users and need to care about pedestrians is the biggest challenge we face in managing them. Their attitudes however would change if they were taxed and insured, and could be identified by registration numbers. Whether it's practical to do so or not is another matter. Sussex Police need to crack down on cyclists asap.

Cyclists are a menace in London too. I saw some idiot cyclist try to undertake a car turning left at a junction, then yell at the driver when he was almost hit.
.
Yes, I think the time has come for number plates on bicycles, and compulsory third party insurance too.

DougM wrote:

ABC1 wrote:
On the seafront cycle path, there are numerous markings that instuct cyclists to give way at certain points. The give way markings generally appear at crossing points, where obviously the intention is to give pedestrians priority as they cross the lane.

These are universally ignored by cyclists.

I notice that in the story of Haden being knocked over, no-one mentions the sound of a bell being rung?

It is good practice in urban environments to drive only as fast as you can stop, i.e., if you can only see 50 yards ahead, you need to be able to stop in that space if someone steps out into the road.

Cyclists are a menace here in Brighton and Hove. The biggest problem is the attitude. They seem to feel the whole world is against them and ride like they don't give a **** about anyone else (which is almost certainly true). How these people get re-educated into the fact that they share the roads with other users and need to care about pedestrians is the biggest challenge we face in managing them. Their attitudes however would change if they were taxed and insured, and could be identified by registration numbers. Whether it's practical to do so or not is another matter.

Sussex Police need to crack down on cyclists asap.

Utter, utter drivel.

Rather than come up with this sort of meaningless response, which makes you look fooolish, why not address my points?

ABC1 wrote:

DougM wrote:

ABC1 wrote:
On the seafront cycle path, there are numerous markings that instuct cyclists to give way at certain points. The give way markings generally appear at crossing points, where obviously the intention is to give pedestrians priority as they cross the lane.

These are universally ignored by cyclists.

I notice that in the story of Haden being knocked over, no-one mentions the sound of a bell being rung?

It is good practice in urban environments to drive only as fast as you can stop, i.e., if you can only see 50 yards ahead, you need to be able to stop in that space if someone steps out into the road.

Cyclists are a menace here in Brighton and Hove. The biggest problem is the attitude. They seem to feel the whole world is against them and ride like they don't give a **** about anyone else (which is almost certainly true). How these people get re-educated into the fact that they share the roads with other users and need to care about pedestrians is the biggest challenge we face in managing them. Their attitudes however would change if they were taxed and insured, and could be identified by registration numbers. Whether it's practical to do so or not is another matter.

Sussex Police need to crack down on cyclists asap.

Utter, utter drivel.

Rather than come up with this sort of meaningless response, which makes you look fooolish, why not address my points?

It's the pedestrians responsibility to look left and right as they approach the cycle lane from either the pavement or road side of the crossing. Why haven't you made any comment about the stretches of cycle lane in between that pedestrians seem to ignore?

I think the most imortant thing is that Haden is back home with his mum Gemma and brother Alfie. It must have been a horrible thing to have happened. So will everyone leave them alone to get over it. Aimee told me all about it, she's a better "reporter" than the Argus xxx

Brightonscouse2 wrote:

ABC1 wrote:

DougM wrote:

ABC1 wrote:
On the seafront cycle path, there are numerous markings that instuct cyclists to give way at certain points. The give way markings generally appear at crossing points, where obviously the intention is to give pedestrians priority as they cross the lane.

These are universally ignored by cyclists.

I notice that in the story of Haden being knocked over, no-one mentions the sound of a bell being rung?

It is good practice in urban environments to drive only as fast as you can stop, i.e., if you can only see 50 yards ahead, you need to be able to stop in that space if someone steps out into the road.

Cyclists are a menace here in Brighton and Hove. The biggest problem is the attitude. They seem to feel the whole world is against them and ride like they don't give a **** about anyone else (which is almost certainly true). How these people get re-educated into the fact that they share the roads with other users and need to care about pedestrians is the biggest challenge we face in managing them. Their attitudes however would change if they were taxed and insured, and could be identified by registration numbers. Whether it's practical to do so or not is another matter.

Sussex Police need to crack down on cyclists asap.

Utter, utter drivel.

Rather than come up with this sort of meaningless response, which makes you look fooolish, why not address my points?

It's the pedestrians responsibility to look left and right as they approach the cycle lane from either the pavement or road side of the crossing. Why haven't you made any comment about the stretches of cycle lane in between that pedestrians seem to ignore?

I hope you aren't riding a bike around town. You have just confirmed that you don't have a clue. You might better understand the markings on the cycle path had you been put through training and testing.

Of course pedestrians shouldn't walk in the cycle lanes, but they do, and you need to anticipate it.

This will be quick because I don't have the time to waste on lost causes or adolescent children - (bibble). Please see >>>>> below.
.
Bibble wrote:
.
"Let me take apart your argument piece by piece. It will be instructive for you.
.
You wrote earlier that "pedestrians always have right of way", and I gave you an example of a road where pedestrians do not. But you try to connect a motorway with Western Road. That is your problem."

>>>>> Not my argument or my problem chap, it's the law. The only thing bibble will instruct me on is just how ill-informed he is. Pedestrians DO have right of way on a motorway. Many pedestrians are authorised to walk on the carriageway on a motorway - emergency services crews, recovery crews, Highways Agency staff and contractors at work, etc.
.
Drivers MUST give way to such pedestrians. However, no one was discussing motorways - except bibble.
.
Bibble wrote:
.
"Rule 108. That was my little hook to see how far out of date your Highway Code is, and you fell for it. I suggest you get an updated copy before offering any lectures. Rule 108 is about Highways Agency Traffic Officers powers to stop vehicles."
.
>>>>> What a sad muppet. A trick an 8 year old WOULD play. I don't pretend to be able to remember the NUMBER of each and every Highway Code rule. YOU'VE GOT ME BANGED TO RIGHTS bibble. However, I do know the rules.
.
Bibble wrote:
.
"The correct rule for "giving way to pedestrians not on crossings" is 206. It does not say anything about giving ABSOLUTE rights of way to pedestrians, it says "give way". Let me remind you that the Highway Code is not law, it does not grant any rights to anyone. It is a guide with some references to law.
.
>>>>> Semantics! The rule (based on law and stated cases) says "give way" to pedestrians. That means the pedestrians have the right of way. No equivocation, they have the right of way - that's pretty absolute. The Highway Code is a user guide to Road Traffic law/legislation and states some legislation and outlines good practice in plain English. It is all based on legislation, legal convention and stated cases. I never said that the Highway Code grants any rights to anyone, but it does explain road users' rights and responsibilities.
.
Bibble wrote:
.
"Rights are granted by law, not by a non-legal document which mentions some laws. Pedestrians do not have RIGHTS of way on roads except on crossings."
.
>>>>> Primary schools obviously don't teach the law. A highway (look up the legal definition) gives 'passengers' (those travelling on an highway by any means), the right to pass and re-pass without let or hindrance. So pedestrians CATEGORICALLY DO have RIGHTS of way on roads/highways AND have priority on crossings and elsewhere." Convention and custom has lead to pedestrians walking on a pavement - if there is one - and vehicles using the road. But there is nothing to stop a pedestrian walking in the road and in that case any vehicle should give way to any pedestrian. And it could be argued - given that copies of the Highway Code are routinely used in and by courts - that it IS a legal document.
.
Bibble wrote:
.
"The Highway Code is not law, no matter how much you try to pretend that it is. E.g. the Highway Code suggests that horse riders SHOULD wear "light-coloured or fluorescent clothing in daylight", but there is no legal requirement to do so. So stop trying to pretend that is some sort of simplified legal guide. It is not.
.
>>>>> Semantics again! I'm pretending nothing. The Highway Code outlines good practice and convention AND legislation - but ALL is based on the law and STATED CASES. A horse rider is not REQUIRED to wear light coloured clothing but if an 'accident' occurred where a vehicle struck a rider & horse and the rider was NOT wearing light coloured clothing that would be taken into account when the court handed down it's judgement. That is why any insurance company compensation would be much less for a rider in such a case because the insurance companies base their awards on legal judgements - THE LAW - as outlined by the Highway Code.
.
Bibble wrote:
.
"You need to understand the difference between law and a guidebook. When you have done that, please feel free to offer yet more feeble comments."
.
>>>>> I do understand the difference - the law is that which is laid down by statute or common law. A guidebook is something you buy if you are lost in Brighton. The Highway Code is an HM Government, Department for Transport publication AND STATES: "Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence." it goes on to state, "Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see 'The road user and the law') to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.
.
So, although not everything within the Highway Code is verbatim law, I think that most intelligent readers will see beyond the semantics of such infantile contributors as bibble and realise that everything contained therein pertains to the law, whether criminal, statutory, common, conventions or judicial procedures.
.
In simple terms, I was trying to explain that in relation to legal matters where pedestrians and vehicles are involved, the law will always say that a vehicle should, where possible, give way to a pedestrian regardless of who has the right of way.
.
To illustrate: if a vehicle is travelling at 29mph along a busy town centre road which is thronging with pedestrians, it may well not be exceeding the speed limit BUT IT COULD BE BREAKING THE LAW. If a pedestrian steps into the road ahead and is struck by the vehicle, then the driver/rider may be prosecuted for careless or dangerous driving. A court will judge that the vehicle's speed was too high for the road conditions and the driver should have stopped and/or given way to the pedestrian.
.
If however, that vehicle was doing only 20mph and a pedestrian steps out IMMEDIATELY in front of the vehicle and is struck, then it is unlikely that the driver/rider would be prosecuted as it would be judged that there was little more a driver/rider could have done in such circumstances.
.
This is not my 'argument' or opinion but is my experience as a result of many years dealing with such matters within the criminal justice system.
.
I wonder what bibble will do when he leaves school?

ambassador wrote:
This will be quick because I don't have the time to waste on lost causes or adolescent children - (bibble). Please see >>>>> below.
.
Bibble wrote:
.
"Let me take apart your argument piece by piece. It will be instructive for you.
.
You wrote earlier that "pedestrians always have right of way", and I gave you an example of a road where pedestrians do not. But you try to connect a motorway with Western Road. That is your problem."

>>>>> Not my argument or my problem chap, it's the law. The only thing bibble will instruct me on is just how ill-informed he is. Pedestrians DO have right of way on a motorway. Many pedestrians are authorised to walk on the carriageway on a motorway - emergency services crews, recovery crews, Highways Agency staff and contractors at work, etc.
.
Drivers MUST give way to such pedestrians. However, no one was discussing motorways - except bibble.
.
Bibble wrote:
.
"Rule 108. That was my little hook to see how far out of date your Highway Code is, and you fell for it. I suggest you get an updated copy before offering any lectures. Rule 108 is about Highways Agency Traffic Officers powers to stop vehicles."
.
>>>>> What a sad muppet. A trick an 8 year old WOULD play. I don't pretend to be able to remember the NUMBER of each and every Highway Code rule. YOU'VE GOT ME BANGED TO RIGHTS bibble. However, I do know the rules.
.
Bibble wrote:
.
"The correct rule for "giving way to pedestrians not on crossings" is 206. It does not say anything about giving ABSOLUTE rights of way to pedestrians, it says "give way". Let me remind you that the Highway Code is not law, it does not grant any rights to anyone. It is a guide with some references to law.
.
>>>>> Semantics! The rule (based on law and stated cases) says "give way" to pedestrians. That means the pedestrians have the right of way. No equivocation, they have the right of way - that's pretty absolute. The Highway Code is a user guide to Road Traffic law/legislation and states some legislation and outlines good practice in plain English. It is all based on legislation, legal convention and stated cases. I never said that the Highway Code grants any rights to anyone, but it does explain road users' rights and responsibilities.
.
Bibble wrote:
.
"Rights are granted by law, not by a non-legal document which mentions some laws. Pedestrians do not have RIGHTS of way on roads except on crossings."
.
>>>>> Primary schools obviously don't teach the law. A highway (look up the legal definition) gives 'passengers' (those travelling on an highway by any means), the right to pass and re-pass without let or hindrance. So pedestrians CATEGORICALLY DO have RIGHTS of way on roads/highways AND have priority on crossings and elsewhere." Convention and custom has lead to pedestrians walking on a pavement - if there is one - and vehicles using the road. But there is nothing to stop a pedestrian walking in the road and in that case any vehicle should give way to any pedestrian. And it could be argued - given that copies of the Highway Code are routinely used in and by courts - that it IS a legal document.
.
Bibble wrote:
.
"The Highway Code is not law, no matter how much you try to pretend that it is. E.g. the Highway Code suggests that horse riders SHOULD wear "light-coloured or fluorescent clothing in daylight", but there is no legal requirement to do so. So stop trying to pretend that is some sort of simplified legal guide. It is not.
.
>>>>> Semantics again! I'm pretending nothing. The Highway Code outlines good practice and convention AND legislation - but ALL is based on the law and STATED CASES. A horse rider is not REQUIRED to wear light coloured clothing but if an 'accident' occurred where a vehicle struck a rider & horse and the rider was NOT wearing light coloured clothing that would be taken into account when the court handed down it's judgement. That is why any insurance company compensation would be much less for a rider in such a case because the insurance companies base their awards on legal judgements - THE LAW - as outlined by the Highway Code.
.
Bibble wrote:
.
"You need to understand the difference between law and a guidebook. When you have done that, please feel free to offer yet more feeble comments."
.
>>>>> I do understand the difference - the law is that which is laid down by statute or common law. A guidebook is something you buy if you are lost in Brighton. The Highway Code is an HM Government, Department for Transport publication AND STATES: "Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence." it goes on to state, "Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see 'The road user and the law') to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.
.
So, although not everything within the Highway Code is verbatim law, I think that most intelligent readers will see beyond the semantics of such infantile contributors as bibble and realise that everything contained therein pertains to the law, whether criminal, statutory, common, conventions or judicial procedures.
.
In simple terms, I was trying to explain that in relation to legal matters where pedestrians and vehicles are involved, the law will always say that a vehicle should, where possible, give way to a pedestrian regardless of who has the right of way.
.
To illustrate: if a vehicle is travelling at 29mph along a busy town centre road which is thronging with pedestrians, it may well not be exceeding the speed limit BUT IT COULD BE BREAKING THE LAW. If a pedestrian steps into the road ahead and is struck by the vehicle, then the driver/rider may be prosecuted for careless or dangerous driving. A court will judge that the vehicle's speed was too high for the road conditions and the driver should have stopped and/or given way to the pedestrian.
.
If however, that vehicle was doing only 20mph and a pedestrian steps out IMMEDIATELY in front of the vehicle and is struck, then it is unlikely that the driver/rider would be prosecuted as it would be judged that there was little more a driver/rider could have done in such circumstances.
.
This is not my 'argument' or opinion but is my experience as a result of many years dealing with such matters within the criminal justice system.
.
I wonder what bibble will do when he leaves school?

You make some excellent points there!, I was going to reply to babbles post but you have done such a good job I could not have put it better, agree with every thing you have said!.

ABC1 wrote:

Brightonscouse2 wrote:

ABC1 wrote:

DougM wrote:

ABC1 wrote:
On the seafront cycle path, there are numerous markings that instuct cyclists to give way at certain points. The give way markings generally appear at crossing points, where obviously the intention is to give pedestrians priority as they cross the lane.

These are universally ignored by cyclists.

I notice that in the story of Haden being knocked over, no-one mentions the sound of a bell being rung?

It is good practice in urban environments to drive only as fast as you can stop, i.e., if you can only see 50 yards ahead, you need to be able to stop in that space if someone steps out into the road.

Cyclists are a menace here in Brighton and Hove. The biggest problem is the attitude. They seem to feel the whole world is against them and ride like they don't give a **** about anyone else (which is almost certainly true). How these people get re-educated into the fact that they share the roads with other users and need to care about pedestrians is the biggest challenge we face in managing them. Their attitudes however would change if they were taxed and insured, and could be identified by registration numbers. Whether it's practical to do so or not is another matter.

Sussex Police need to crack down on cyclists asap.

Utter, utter drivel.

Rather than come up with this sort of meaningless response, which makes you look fooolish, why not address my points?

It's the pedestrians responsibility to look left and right as they approach the cycle lane from either the pavement or road side of the crossing. Why haven't you made any comment about the stretches of cycle lane in between that pedestrians seem to ignore?

I hope you aren't riding a bike around town. You have just confirmed that you don't have a clue. You might better understand the markings on the cycle path had you been put through training and testing.

Of course pedestrians shouldn't walk in the cycle lanes, but they do, and you need to anticipate it.

Ah yes well in that case I should take note of the give way signs on the cycle lane, but I don't, pedestrians need to anticipate that. I love this attitude that cyclists are the anti christ yet pedestrians are blameless when they breach the laws that are set for them i.e not crossing at the designated points, walking on cycle lanes despite having 20 ft of pavement to walk on.

Everyone so quick to blame the cyclist...? Sounds to me like she crossed, THEN looked and saw the cyclist.

Cyclist can be a menace, and the one that got the £700 fine for running a red light got what he deserved, but people have to realise that Western Road is NOT pedestrianised! Buses, taxis, cars, bikes... You have to look both ways!

All my best to Hayden, love his big smile.

The message of awareness is a great one but pointing blame is not really helpful.

EVERYBODY has a responsibility to take care when using roads, pavements & cycle lanes. Cyclists have the same rights & responsibilities as motor vehicles. Anyone should be on the lookout for pedestrians that make mistakes and step out into the road. Cyclists need to be more aware than cars as they are quieter, and harder to see. Cycling a meter out from the kerb really helps as it gives pedestrians some space if they step out before they see cyclists (although this is not popular with ignorant drivers) and also helps motorists to be able to see a cyclist. Pedestrians need to try to remember to stop, look and listen. Listen being third on the list for good reasons.

In urban areas keeping speed under 20mph will also help the safety of others. This applies to both cars and cyclists, although most cyclists don't often go over 20mph, and few cyclists have speedometers, but 20mph feels very fast on a bike, if it feels to fast, it probably is.

Cycle lanes in this country are generally a nightmare and Brighton is no exception. Everyone needs to try and be aware of each other when using or crossing them. The seafront cycle lane is a bizarre piece of urban planning, so no wonder there is conflict over it's use. I can't think of another example of a straight piece of road where one gives way to traffic crossing. Or a pedestrian crossing that has traffic lights stopping four lanes of traffic, then leads them out into a 5th lane of traffic that may or may not stop.

Pedestrians MUST have priority. It's that simple. If you are controlling a vehicle you have a responsibility to ensure the safety of others. Know what the rules are and stick to them.

And NEVER leave the scene of an accident, even if you think nothing happened, it's better to check.

Cyclists are not a major safety issue in this town like many comments may suggest, that title belongs to motor vehicles who kill and injure far more pedestrians than cyclists. According to figures (http://www.publicat
ions.parliament.uk/p
a/cm200809/cmhansrd/
cm090126/text/90126w
0003.htm#column_14W) there have been 364,082 pedestrians injured by drivers over the last ten years, compared with 2,623 injured by cyclists. The same data shows that, as a pedestrian, you are 263 times more likely to be killed by a driver than a cyclist – this despite the fact that cyclists and pedestrians often share the same space and much of motor vehicle mileage is made on motorways, where pedestrians are prohibited.

It is the rarity of such incidents that makes this article shocking, but that makes it no less serious for little Haden.

Well done Gemma for raising the important issue of road safety. Please, let's all look out for each other a bit more.

Bryan555,
.
Well said, a balanced comment.
.
The cycle lanes in Brighton, as in most places throughout the UK, are PATHETIC.
.
I am a 'serious' cyclist and as far as I am concerned they are unusable.
.
When I raised the issue with Brighton Borough after they were introduced they admitted that they are not suitable for serious cyclist and are designed for 'casual' (I think that was the term they used) cyclists and serious cyclists were not expected to used them.
.
So this is yet another planning fiasco.
.
Serious cyclists tend to ride responsibly whereas casual cyclist routinely flout the law and thus will ride haphazardly - on the road, on the pavement, on the cycle lane and back on the road, paying little or no heed to any rules.
.
So, effectively, hundreds of thousands of pounds have been spent in this town alone needlessly.
.
Serious cyclists will not use the cycle lanes and many casual cyclists will ride exactly where and how they choose.
.
The only benefit from cycles lanes is when they are occasionally used by children, often accompanied by parents.
.
Cycles and pedestrians should NEVER be mixed - a cycle is a 'vehicle', legally and in actual fact, and pedestrians and vehicles are a recipe for disaster.
.
Cycles should be on the road, should comply with the Road Traffic Act and should be respected by other road users - drivers.
.
I say this as a pedestrian, a cyclist and a driver.

bibble said:
.
"Cyclists are a menace in London too. I saw some idiot cyclist try to undertake a car turning left at a junction, then yell at the driver when he was almost hit.
.
Yes, I think the time has come for number plates on bicycles, and compulsory third party insurance too."
.
Bibble is a menace on these Argus pages but everyone has to put up with his inane comments.
.
I wonder why he feels that requiring bicycles to have number plates and cyclists to have compulsory third party insurance would make any difference.
.
Motor vehicles already have both and the drivers of all types of motor vehicles break the law routinely.
.
He has admitted himself on these pages that he breaks the law - but then maybe he rides a motorcycle with a device to shield its number plate against speed cameras and maybe it is not insured?

annoyed88 wrote:
Were any of you people there? How can you sit a judge a mother on her parenting skills after such a horrific thing has just happened to her precious boy? Did any of you stop to consider that maybe this accident was nobodys fault? No. You are all quick to point the finger of blame at a mother when you don't know the facts. The fact of the matter is a young boy was savagely hurt through no fault of his own and instead of the British public coming together and wishing him well, you all blame his mother, it's disgusting. You should all be ashamed of yourselves. This accident wasn't Hadens mothers fault, nor was it the cyclists- IT WAS AN ACCIDENT!

An accident? You wasn't there so how can you say that neither party was to blame? You just accused everyone else, and then proceed to do the same yourself!

If it was on a regular road, no crossing (which is likely as it would have been mentioned, good old news channels would have loved that) then it sounds more like they stepped into traffic, how else could someone collide with a child in the road?

You are right though, no fault of the child - but the most realistic situation here, the mother was at fault.



@ambassador
Because, if cyclists had number plates, pedestrians would look more before they step into traffic, this obviously works with cars </extremesarcasm>

My heart breaks to see this lad in this condition... hopefully he won't have much scaring in later life, medical work is much better today in regards of scaring. Looks happy currently too.

I've had a few close calls myself, having a child doesn't seem to make some people more cautious :/

Poor kid!

Get well soon mate!

And for all those using this poor kids injuries as a means to have a go cyclists, shame on you.

This incident was unfortunate and I'm sure the cyclist is as upset about it as the rest of us. I don't know whether he's to blame, or whether the mother was listening out for traffic and stepped out in front of the pretty silent cyclist.

All I can say is that if an incident had to occur, I'm glad it was a cyclist who hit the chap and not a car. Results would have been even worse than the pretty awful result that actually happened.

Not sure I could have been as brave as Haden's Mum if it was one of my kids. Well done you!

Let's not forget that cyclists are invlolved in accidents that result in fatality under 12 times a year. Motorists around 3000.

But hey, let's all use this poor kid's misery to point a finger at a scapegoat eh?

I'd have some respect if you wanted to reduce road casualties, but let's be honest, you just want a diversion. Some group to blame that isn't even responsible for a fraction of the road deaths as the group you belong to.

If you really want to show Haden how you want to make the roads safer for him. Slow down, support speed cameras, put your phone/ciggerette down and drive/cycle/motorcyc
le like the responsible adult you're supposed to be.

Until then, you have no right to say a word other than get well soon Haden.

Gazza
(Dad, motorcyclist, motorist, cyclist)

Bloody well said Gazza!

Ambassador
(Dad, granddad, one time motorcyclist, motorist, cyclist, pedestrian)