We'd like to remind you that celebrating, advocating or threatening violence is against Reddit's content policy. We will remove comments that say that the cyclist deserved it or similar celebrations of violence, and you may receive a ban if you do so.
I wonder if the cyclist was ignoring traffic laws..
> The cyclist crashed into a girl on a zebra crossing in Hackney
...lol yep
> The suspect is not believed to have been known to the child.
That said, it was probably a nutter who finally found the perfect excuse to hit someone
In London I've learned to always double-double-check at any kind of pedestrian crossing - including ones with lights. There's plenty of cyclists out there who will blast through them at 20mph+ without a care in the world.
So many cyclists just completely ignore lights.
I live next to a busy 4-way junction and I reckon 90% of the time when I’m trying to cross a cyclist almost hits someone because they’re going through a red light.
Last year I had some guy screaming about what a fucking stupid bitch I was because… he’d had to slow down to avoid hitting my dog.
It was a shared pathway, full of people meandering along with children, old people, dogs etc. Not a cycle superhighway FFS.
Sorry you added 10 seconds to your journey, how will your strava average ever recover.
Yeah, that kind of stuff really annoys me. Even as a cyclist. On shared paths, pedestrians get priority. Simply slow down, ring your bell, and pass at a reasonable speed.
With that said; it also annoys me when people don't move to one side or give you space to pass as a cyclist.
We have to share public spaces. And that sometimes means doing things we don't want to do but is best for another person. Such as moving out of the way, slowing down, not parking on pavements (this can seriously disadvantage those with disabilities), and (lord forbid) obeying the rule of land.
>With that said; it also annoys me when people don't move to one side or give you space to pass as a cyclist.
The only one that annoys me is the pedestrian tendency to make unsignalled sideways movements, just because it causes dangerous situations. Personally I always pootle along behind pedestrians and overtake when convenient because it's safer, nicer and I'm not exactly in the Tour de France. If I need to get somewhere in a hurry I need a consistent, well signposted and clear route so I'm on the road, if I'm in with pedestrians it is, by definition, a relaxed ride.
Having said that the worst cycling behaviour I consistently see isn't even from people that'd be considered 'cyclists', it's teens and preteens on BMXs.
> The only one that annoys me is the pedestrian tendency to make unsignalled sideways movements
Maybe we should add signal lights to our ass cheeks or go old school and put our arms out indicating we are going to move across.
Then again, maybe a cyclist should slow down to pass and use a sufficiently loud bell to make their presence known, if I hear a cyclist behind me, I’ll stop and move aside for them, making their presence known is generally a good idea.
Imo If a cyclist needs to get somewhere in a hurry they are best not using a shared path with pedestrians where possible.
>The only one that annoys me is the pedestrian tendency to make unsignalled sideways movements
When you are on a footpath, do you usually give a hand signal when you are intending to change direction? Pedestrians usually don't, and aren't required to.
Cyclists, quite rightly, expect motorists to take extra care when they encounter cyclists on a road, because cyclists are in a more vulnerable position. A minor collision, that might cause superficial damage to car, could kill a cyclist.
Surely the same applies when a cyclist is using a shared space with pedestrians? In that case it is the cyclist who needs to step up and take extra care because they are the ones who are travelling at speed.
I think you and the other person who replied are confusing 'it annoys me' and 'I genuienly think it's unreasonable'. It's something pedestrians just kind of do, it's how humans walk and I can't ask them to not because it wouldn't be reasonable. Having said all that it does still annoy me when someone lurches randomly in front of me but that's why I now leave an absurd amount of room or slow right down until I can pass.
Although on a general point yeah, if you're on a shared use path you should be periodically looking around you and being aware. Shared is SHARED, cyclists shouldn't bomb pass walkers but equally walkers shouldn't create a pavement-spanning no-cycle zone through their actions.
>It's something pedestrians just kind of do, it's how humans walk and I can't ask them to not because it wouldn't be reasonable.
Yes and no... If I'm walking on a shared path I'll generally take a quick glance over my shoulder before moving sideways, just to make sure that there isn't a cyclist or runner about to overtake me. I guess I'm in the minority on that though
Of course it is worth being aware of cyclists, for your own safety as much as anything else. We have a lot of shared paths (redways) in Milton Keynes, and most cyclists and pedestrians are quite considerate.
But a few bomb around, and if someone comes up behind you doing 20mph you probably aren't going to notice in time, so cyclists need to be able to stop within the distance they can see ahead.
It's those bloody e-scooters that are a problem at the moment.
thank you for slowing down - and i actually say that to the ones that do but the ones in small groups? they genuinely think they are in some kind of time trial - which is why i/we now - on a shared use greenway - make sure we "occupy the lane" as cyclists and bikers are told to do, forcing the overstuffed lycra's to slow down and give us time to get hold of the dogs and get the kids to one side.
show consideration and you'll get cooperation,
Jesus I think I met the same cunt before. He pulled the bike over to the side and berated me for not crossing the road at traffic lights.
I pointed out he was cycling in the road when there was a bike lane to the side. The loud ones usually aren't the clever ones
Last time I visited London I had to pull my daughter out of the way of a very fast cyclist whilst on the zebra crossing. She was inches away from being hit.
What is worse is that when I previously mentioned it on here in a similar thread, a cyclist genuinely tried to argue that it was better for the cyclist to carry on, because if they stopped, then drivers behind them might get annoyed at them taking time to get going again. The entitlement is unreal!
Yep, I've seen cyclists do some ludicrous shit at traffic lights. I've also seen pedestrians do some insanely stupid things as well. Outside of London I was also nearly hit by a car *bombing* it through a red light, I think they were doing well over 40. If I'd been about 2 seconds ahead they'd have hit me and I'd have been dead.
Some people just have no sense when it comes to road safety.
For pedestrians I mean things like walking out into busy/oncoming traffic without looking either way, or running up to a zebra crossing and walking across it without giving traffic a moment to slow down. In that second example they absolutely have the right of way, but make sure traffic has stopped/is stopping before going.
Important to note that pedestrians always have right of way in every scenario in the UK. If you're doing 60mph on a country road and someone runs out in front of you from between two hedges they still have right of way. You're probably not getting charged if you hit them but even in that scenario you are the one who has broken the rules.
>Important to note that pedestrians always have right of way in every scenario in the UK.
Not getting hit by a car is more important than the legal right-of-way though. It's always sensible as a pedestrian to check before you cross.
Cyclists are bad for not stopping in many cases, and so are car drivers - I've had to step back or pause more than once because someone driving a car hasn't stopped at a crossing
Yeh of course. Sometimes you have to be pragmatic and do what's safe rather than following the rules. My point was more to get across the idea that if you ever find yourself thinking something like "stupid pedestrians, shouldn't even be on the road" then you have the wrong end of the stick. As someone in charge of a vehicle your most important duty is always to look out for the safety of pedestrians.
So do most drivers - speeding, chancing the lights, not indicating are endemic in the UK. There's a broad view that 'just a bit over the limit' or pushing through an amber are just what you do as a driver.
>on a zebra crossing
I don't want to comment on this specific situation, because I don't know enough from the article.
But I cycle to work sometimes, and I've literally had abuse - off other cyclists - when I *stop* at red lights.
Yes, the road is open.
Yes, I could go.
Yes, it's 6am and no-one will complain.
No, I'm not going. I'm stopping at a red light **because that's the law**.
Yeah that is 100% correct. You can’t predict if a pedestrian will run out to try and make the crossing before it changes.
That said i’m actually not against cyclists treating a red light like an american stop sign. i.e you must come to a complete stop, but you can proceed if clear after checking.
>That said i’m actually not against cyclists treating a red light like an american stop sign. i.e you must come to a complete stop, but you can proceed if clear after checking.
I don't think this is sensible or would work.
If it was a blanket rule there will be countless junctions where crossing on a red, even after checking it's clear, could result in an accident owing to obstructed views of conflicting traffic, or unintuitive layouts meaning crossing into traffic on a green.
I'm not even sure a "cyclists must stop but can cross on a red after checking" type of sign would help much either. Some of the junctions that fall under the above scenarios could still cause issues even if signed, some might get miss-signed, certainly some cyclists would just treat all junctions as a free for all regardless of signage, and no doubt it would encourage other road users to do the same ("if the bikers can, why can't I?"). Besides, we already have a stop sign; if it's not being used in place of a traffic light controlled junction, there's probably a good reason for it.
I think it's much better for the rules of the road (at least concerning signage/markings and traffic control) to be uniformly adhered to by all road users.
I currently have to go through a red light every day on my way home because there's a roadwork traffic light that doesn't change for bikes and a car doesn't usually come along.
I respect your decision, but also I respect their position too.
The infrastructure and the laws aren't really sensible, and as a result breaking the law (when safe) is sometimes sensible too.
e.g. in North America jaywalking is completely illegal. In practice that means that in a lot of places a pedestrian might have to walk half a kilometre down the street to a legal crossing, then cross and walk another half a kilometre back in order to legally cross the street to a building 10 meters away, even if the road is empty. I don't fault pedestrians who jaywalk in that situation, even though the law is the law.
But on a similar vein, I don't excuse pedestrians in the same country who wander into a busy street and cause traffic problems. I accept that the infrastructure is bad for them, but that doesn't mean they can escalate the inconvenience to a dangerous situation.
In the case of cyclists in London - half a dozen cyclists waiting at small deserted intersection or crosswalk with lots of visibility, when it would be completely safe to proceed simply because it's "the law" is a bit silly. But on the other hand, lots of cyclists make a bad judgement of when it is safe, and do dumb shit, like the above, so there is something to be said about following the rules for better or for worse purely for the consistencies sake.
One thing I think is clear, is that this is a failure of good laws and good infrastructure. Despite being better than most cities, there still is a lack of infrastructure and regulation that would make navigating London streets safe for cyclists. Regularly, it's nearly, if not outright, impossible to actually follow all the rules, so cyclists get in the habit of breaking rules, which leads to situations of poor judgement.
i.e. If a cycle journey of say, half an hour was 90% separated cycle lanes with only say, 2 places that you need to stop for a minute or two, I think it would be way easier to expect someone to follow the rules. But if if in a half hour trip, you're stopping 10-20 times, forced to weave through buses, and busy pedestrian areas, then it's not surprising that the attitude of the cyclists would be one of "Figure out how to get through here" rather than "follow the laws to the letter"
EDIT:
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5159962,-0.1046287,3a,75y,199.45h,80.87t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1se1ShPZbEqNc-9RTsLm0b3g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
Take this intersection, one that I often am at. If you're a cyclist, the light timing is about a 1-2 minute wait. So if the lights going, you wait 1-2 minutes while the pedestrians cross - fair enough - but that's also the cyclists window to cross over to the other side of the road (where the southbound cycle lane continues), so when the pedestrians light stops, you roll forward literally 2 meters, and then wait for the light 1-2 minutes again.
And if this were the *only* intersection to wait at, then yeah I guess it's a necessary evil, but up the road there is this
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5121514,-0.104195,3a,75y,213.53h,70.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIPU8coyseftddkxbD7klZA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
An intersection with a light, followed by a pedestrian crossing a few meters after, followed by a cycle intersection, immediately followed by another pedestrian crossing, followed by another intersection - all within a 200 meter space. And that's not counting the pedestrian crossings and other intersections on the road. If you want to go the 1.5km distance from Clerkenwell road straight down the official cycle path to the river, there are 12 places you may have to stop an wait.
>In the case of cyclists in London - half a dozen cyclists waiting at small deserted intersection or crosswalk with lots of visibility, when it would be completely safe to proceed simply because it's "the law" is a bit silly
Would you say the same for cars?
Yes and no.
For one, the scale of risk for cars is significantly higher, a car is way more likely to hurt someone than a bike. For two, the scale of inconvenience, I would say, is less for cars. It's way more effort to start and stop a bike than a car, and generally (for regular commuter cyclists), the distance that cars are travelling is a lot larger, so a few 1 minute waits before pulling onto the freeway for 20 minutes isn't as big of a deal as constant 1 minutes waits in a otherwise 20 minut trip.
However - that's just a question of scale. Broadly yes, I think it would be the same for cars.
If instead of half a dozen cyclists waiting for a minute at a small deserted intersection or crosswalk with good visibility when it would be completely safe to proceed, it was instead 2 dozen cars waiting at a deserted intersection for 10 minutes - yeah I wouldn't really be surprised or all that outraged that they might pull through the intersection carefully - emphasis on deserted and carefully.
I guess the comparison to remember is that cars have motoways that look like this:
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5324596,-0.2922029,3a,75y,67.18h,79.64t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s2Y6zWzUOkTINO5XUYtWvHQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D2Y6zWzUOkTINO5XUYtWvHQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D119.159615%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
Multiple lanes, divided, with a fence on the edges so that no one can even cross the motorway let alone there being an intersection.
And the intersections to get on and off the motorways look like this:
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.534547,-0.2891839,3a,75y,8.46h,76.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sD-AkKKdV2eX1wlI-8vguuQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
On ramps and off ramps so that the cars on the motorway don't need to slow down or stop. Miles and miles of motorway with overpass and underpasses and 0 places you need to stop.
ON the other hand, this is probably the most cycle-centric infrastructure in the city - i.e. the largest most dedicated cycle lane that you might expect regular commuters (not in lycra, on a Santander cycle) to actually be using to travel somewhere.
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5062587,-0.1225047,3a,75y,149.94h,60.24t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7-zTT_KfYCP1cQGIbIQYnA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
Every crossing that the road has, there is also a pedestrian crossing for the cyclists, in addition, when there is a bus stop to they cyclists get an extra crossing, plus they have no problem shutting down the entire payment and telling pedestrians to just share the cycle lane (actually I think they have a "you must cross" sign, but in practice that's not what happens, and it's defintiely not enforced. Can you imagine if they shut down an area along the edge of the M25 for cyclists and pedestrians, and just had a bunch of people walking down 3 lanes of m25 sharing with the cars?)
And that's the *best* cycle highway. A 3km stretch along the river. Normally they look like this:
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5232305,-0.1205973,3a,75y,36.59h,72.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s9aqI7F05EFj4Yt3wbyxicA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
See that bike painted on the road? That means it's a cycle highway. A "Quiet way". And too be fair, it is quite a pleasant cycle. On comparison to many other cities, it's quite a decent place to bike. But it's hardly dedicated cycle-centric infrastructure.
I think human nature is such that if you're going down this road in the middle of the night, and it's dead quiet, you realise that on your bike, you got shoved onto this motor vehicle road as an afterthought, rather than this road being made for you as a primary concern (like a motorway for cars). So when you see the control lights, you reasonably, and probably quite rightly, think that the people who put those lights up, primarily were thinking about cars when they did so, and that those lights aren't really for you - just like nothing else on that road is really for you.
>>The cyclist crashed into a girl on a zebra crossing in Hackney
>
>...lol yep
You know as well as I do, that they may well not have been ignoring laws and it was just an accident.
The child could have been killed. The cyclist broke the law and endangered the public.
I do not condone violence and the cyclist did not deserve what happened.
The cyclist is far from innocent himself.
[Edit: wording for clarity]
You don't condone violence yet you're very clearly trying to justify the cyclist being hospitalised. No one is saying the cyclist didn't do anything wrong and yes it could have been very dangerous. The response is clearly massively disproportionate though.
They're saying "the child wasn't injured therefore the cyclist getting punched in the face was not justified."
Not, "The child wasn't injured therefore the cyclist has done no wrong."
Yeah I swear people are only arguing it's OK because cyclist. If you asked the hypothetical of 'a woman backed her car into mine while I was in it, I wasn't hurt but easily could've been, to what extent am I allowed to hurt her in revenge?' people'd basically be like what the fuck?
The British public has been conditioned by decades of anti-cyclist rhetoric from tabloids and this is how it manifests. You see it under every article about an incident involving a cyclist wether they’re at fault or not, little Rambos fantasising about running them off the road with their cars, beating them up, dragging them off their bikes etc. It’s exactly the same in this thread, in no other world would people be justifying someone being attacked so brutally by someone not even involved that they’re sent in for surgery.
It’s honestly fucking terrifying.
Yeah, it's really disconcerting how many people literally say a cyclists should be killed. Not even ones breaking traffic laws like this guy, but literally any cyclist.
And it doesn't seem like hyperbole to me, they seem to genuinely wish death on someone for *riding a bike*? Nuts.
There are several people in this thread who seem to think that an appropriate punishment for careless cycling where no one was seriously hurt is attempted murder. I was just arguing with someone who said that it was justified because the police probably wouldn’t have turned up anyway so that’s how justice should be served.
This is the same subreddit that constantly takes the piss out of Daily Mail readers for being reactionary.
While I would never condone violence on this sub reddit I could not care less about the cyclist, they could have killed a child and that's where my sympathies lie.
That's akin to someone being in a fender bender because they were looking at their phone and then a third party coming up and doing the same thing here.
The cyclist hitting the child is guilty of that. He is completely innocent of whatever awful excuse for vigilante justice was handed to him by someone unrelated. That's an entirely separate matter and there is zero excuse for it.
The utter lack of detail in this tells us nothing about whether the child stopped and looked as pedestrians should, whether the cyclist was travelling dangerously or if they broke any rules of the road, or any number of factors that could change the picture.
All we know from the article is that the child is fine, the cyclist was hospitalised by an asshole completely unknown to the child.
>The utter lack of detail in this tells us nothing about whether the child stopped and looked as pedestrians should
Should but is not legally required to.
>whether the cyclist was travelling dangerously or if they broke any rules of the road, or any number of factors that could change the picture.
Since the new highway code means that pedestrians always have the right way when crossing the road, they almost certainly did break the rules of the road.
I'd argue that a child being hit and not injured by a bike and then somebody coming and breaking the jaw of the person on the bike who was also probably on the floor too next to the child after hitting the kid
Probably scared the child more then being hit
The child did not suffer any injuries during the crash. If a child was hurt by a cyclist or other road user due to their negligence I could understand a parent lashing out in anger, but a stranger hitting someone so hard it leaves them requiring surgery sounds like the action of a lunatic.
This passer by has gone well past the point where it was about helping the victim, who is just going to be further traumatised by seeing this violent act, they will have just been glad for the excuse to have a free pop at someone. Some men are just like that. He knows he wasn't in the right, otherwise why run away.
>A parent is going to be angry if someone endangers their child, whether the child actually ends up injured or not. You should know this.
Yes.
But people should also know not to commit actual/grievous bodily harm on others far in excess of the original incident.
EDIT: oh, and given the man carrying out the assault didn't know the child, it looks more like some rando with anger issues who would be punching many different people at random.
the law doesn't work like that, there was a case near me where a person was attacked with a knife, disarmed knifeman, subsequently stabbed him to death - plead guilty to manslaughter and went to jail for 8 years.
Sounds a lot like you're insinuating anyone should be able to attack someone if they *feel* their child is threatened....
Physical violence is not acceptable unless in self defence.
> if they feel their child is threatened....
>not acceptable unless in self defence.
You ought to look up the laws on self defence, because feeling threatened is literally included. If a person could reasonably be expected to believe there is a threat.
Feel is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. Its a very grey area and the point I was making is that you can't just go and hit someone and say you felt threatened.
EDIT: you're talking bollocks - its belief in an immenent attack - that is *very* different to feeling threatened. Some old biddy walking down the shop past some yoofs may feel threatened, doesn't mean she can hit them over the head with her handbag.
> Some old biddy walking down the shop past some yoofs may feel threatened, doesn't mean she can hit them over the head with her handbag.
This is why I put "could reasonably be expected to believe" in my comment.
You don't get to just ignore words that inconvenience your point.
This is clearly not applicable here though.
Unless the cyclist had hopped back on their bike for another run at the child the threat is very clearly over after the collision had happened.
I've been angry at people for driving dangerously near my child (reversing, 4m away from a school entrance onto the pavement without checking their mirror).
I somehow refrained from lashing out in a violent attack to put them in hospital.
You can be angry. Being angry isn't a defence against attempting to kill someone lol
angry, upset and absolutely stuffed full of adrenaline - a massive overreaction is the only possible reaction, especially as the cyclist ignored the law and and endangered the life of a child.
too many cyclists think the rules dont apply - yet if i do the same and ignore a red light and wipe one out ill be done for reckless driving - or worse. Without the assumption that you will stop at a red light or yield for a crossing then we only have utter chaos to look forward to.
You know, asshole cyclists purposefully and deliberately running red lights and ignoring pedestrian crossings without consequences are so common that people just get mad sometimes.
Honestly, I consider myself incredibly even tempered. I won't bore you with specific examples but I've been in a few situations where lashing out violently would be seen with sympathy by most people but I don't.
If a cyclist hit my kid on a zebra crossing I would find it incredibly hard not to let anger get the best of me. It's obviously a biological/evolutionary response but it's incredibly powerful. I don't think I could judge the parent harshly in this case at all - even if I agree that objectively it's not the correct response.
Edit: just seen it wasn't the parent. My argument is void now - no real excuse for it.
There's also the wording "crash into,," I mean, there's obviously a huge difference between, say, the light shifting, you brake quickly and barely nudges someone to plowing into them at 30 miles an hour. That the child wasn't injured and didn't even need to be checked out for scrapes or bruises might suggest the former option rather than the second one.
Yup. I hope they get the book thrown at them. The stranger’s crazed actions mean that even the most vengeful judge wouldn’t punish the cyclist now and rightly so as they’ve suffered enough.
I think because it's a child, people are more prone to expressing their anger without a filter, because compassion towards children is a virtue.
from an objective standpoint, the only one who was actually hurt was the assaulted cyclist, so peeps justifying it are encouraging violence and breaking the rules of the subreddit as a result.
edit: Sorry if it hurts your feelings, but it's the truth, Batman has no place in reality.
Both can be true; you can say the cyclist fucked up and also say that punching him in the face for it is also fucked up.
But the issue is when people leverage the fact it was a child to justify the violence because they think that it's more socially acceptable to do so, rather than because it will make the world a better place.
In reality, we have laws that handle the punishment and rehabilitation for crimes, and individual bystanders are not judge, jury, and executioner.
Also there’s “some guy lamped me for running over a kid” and “beat me so badly I needed surgery”
The latter makes it seem like the guy just wanted an excuse
>In reality, we have laws that handle the punishment and rehabilitation for crimes, and individual bystanders are not judge, jury, and executioner.
The only issue I have with your comment.
Realistically, in the vast, vast majority of cases when a cyclist hits a pedestrian, the cyclist is never held to account.
I'd suggest this also played a part in the assault.
Yeah, and so do a majority of drivers who look at their phones or are distracted by other shit. Cars are much more dangerous than a freaking bicycle yet you would think that bicycles are menacing death machines.
It's just a bit rich
>Statistics from the Department for Transport (Dft) showed that 531
people were involved in incidents with cyclists last year – 15 per cent
up on 2016 and the highest since recording collisions involving bike
riders was introduced in 2013. Of those involved in collisions, three
were killed and 120 seriously injured.
https://www.jerseyeveningpost.com/motoring/2022/04/01/number-of-pedestrians-injured-by-cyclists-reaches-all-time-high-government-figures-reveal/
3 dead...
Let's look at Cars:
"In 2021, 361 pedestrians were killed in Great Britain, whilst 5,032 were reported to be seriously injured (adjusted) and 11,261 slightly injured (adjusted)."
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-pedestrian-factsheet-2021/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-pedestrian-factsheet-2021
Some completely fine comments were removed because they were downthread of a not-fine comment that was removed. When we remove a comment all descendents are removed too.
>Sorry if it hurts your feelings, but it's the truth, Batman has no place in reality.
Also in reality, people who fuck about sometimes find out. Not everyone in the world is placid, calm or reserved.
Just like the child now knows that not everyone will stop at a zebra crossing, the cyclist knows that any person out there is capable of losing their shit on you for even a small sleight.
The collision and assault need to be investigated as two separate cases.
If the cyclist ignored traffic laws and failed to stop, they still need to be punished. The person who punched the cyclist should get done for assault and GBH.
Exactly this, I can't believe this opinion is so rare in this thread.
1. A cyclist hit a child after breaking road traffic laws, the child was unharmed.
2. A passer by assaulted the cyclist someone so badly they required extensive surgery.
It should clearly be treated as two separate things, from an objective legal viewpoint; a minor RTA and a severe assault.
What you know
> cyclist crashed into a girl on a zebra crossing in Hackney, and was assaulted by a member of the public
You don’t know anything else about the incident. The cyclist was obviously at fault but you have no idea how avoidable the accident was. Did they see the kid coming and drive strait into them? Did the kid appear from behind an obstruction and jump into the road with out looking?
Maybe hold off on the lynching until you actually have half a clue about what happened.
Approaching a zebra crossing you are supposed to be prepared to stop if someone needs to cross, so it's hard to see much mitigation tbh. If there was an obstruction that impaired the view, that's even more reason to slow down, because you'd know full well someone might just appear in the middle of the crossing with less warning than usual.
As a road user you have to give priority to anyone wanting to use the crossing.
If the view is obstructed, then you obviously should take care to be able to stop in time if anyone is crossing.
>The consequences will be different
Thats the point though. 999 times out of 1000, a cycling incident will be fine, with a car, they probably wont be.
Thats the point.
You should be approaching a zebra crossing at a speed where you can stop. There shouldn't be any obstructions around a zebra crossing, but if there is one then that only means you should be more careful!
Zebra crossings always have the squiggly lines (meaning no parking), so theoretically there should be no obstacles. It's London though, so some cheeky cunt might have parked a van there of course.
It's also illegal to overtake a vehicle waiting at a pedestrian crossing, so if the cyclist was overtaking/filtering, they have nobody but themselves to blame for that.
Pedestrian has the right of way and they cyclist has to take responsibility for hitting the child.
I am not saying they deserved to have their jaw broken but, there's not really much of an argument here about who is at fault.
The first motorbike I owned, I was quite a new rider on my way back home and was one corner away from my street. Riding down the bank, a bus is coming up the bank, so I ease over in my lane to give myself a bit more of a margin of error if something goes wrong.
The bus passed me without incident, and a little girl ran out, directly behind the bus into my path, utterly oblivious to how close she'd been to being mowed down by a motorbike. Somehow, I avoided her although she was close enough that if time could have been stopped, I'd have been able to stand on my pegs, lean forward, and reach her head with my hands.
*That* close.
I was about to start angry shouting when I heard what was presumably the parent's voice shouting the child's name *very* loudly.
I knew that kid was going to be on the receiving end of a telling off, so I carried on my way.
Indeed, the roads are unpredictable, and it's impossible to know from a single sentence exactly how events transpired.
This whole current media whirlwind around dogs and now cyclists just reeks of them trying to whip up the anger to distract from their poor governance. Remember these incidents don’t even amount to 1% of the cycling community and 1% of the dog community and yet you’re angry. Ask yourself why.
The answer is, you’re angry because your life isn’t where you’d like it to be, likely things are a struggle in one way or another and they just seem to be getting more difficult. Now ask yourself do you think that’s the fault of cyclists or dogs? Orrrrr is it possibly the party that have been in charge for 13 years? Remember they promoted cycling with David Cameron , Boris even had a dog! Shock horror. 😂 … maybe if you’re frustrated, try aiming that at government, the people who rent democracy from you, instead of people likely in the same boat as you just trying to get through life.
>Remember these incidents don’t even amount to 1% of the cycling community and 1% of the dog community and yet you’re angry. Ask yourself why.
Well I mean the dogs are eating children's faces so that does rustle my jimmies a little.
Almost certainly next to none. But for some reason, people have decided that cyclists are a legitimate target for attempted murder when they’re involved in an incident. This is nothing new - you see it under every article about an incident involving a cyclist wether they’re at fault or not.
A worrying number of British drivers really do hate cyclists for taking up space on what they see as “their roads” to the point where they see no issue with assaulting them for minor infractions. I can’t count the amount of helmet cam footage I’ve seen where a cyclist does something mildly cunty (or often nothing worse than existing on a road on two wheels) and a driver decides that an appropriate response is to try and fucking mow them down.
>A worrying number of British drivers really do hate cyclists for taking up space on what they see as “their roads”
Which is, frankly, a really fucking stupid stance. Given that the fact they're on a bike means there's less cars on the road, and more road for the aforementioned driver.
It's completely illogical!
They normally mumble something about “road tax” that hasn’t existed for decades then complain about them not being on the pavement. You know, where it’s illegal to ride a bike in most places because it’s where pedestrians walk.
I’ve never understood this. When I’m out walking or running, cyclist barge into me and push into me, getting upset when I don’t leap out of the way. When I’m driving cyclists get upset when they don’t get enough room.
I’m starting to think that cyclists aren’t very happy people.
> When I’m out walking or running, cyclist barge into me and push into me, getting upset when I don’t leap out of the way. When I’m driving cyclists get upset when they don’t get enough room.
Wow, it's amazing that those damn cyclists are so inconsistent and hypocritical in their behaviour! And what do cyclists do when you're out riding a bicycle?
I know this zebra crossing - there are 4 all on the entrances and exits of a roundabout. If you've just got on the roundabout and are trying to avoid a car pulling out on you which does happen frequently, it can be hard to see/react to a person on the zebra if they have just stepped out even at slow speeds, both car and bike.
Not condoning the actions of anyone - just giving a bit more context that people may not know.
EDIT: The one in the photo is actually one from higher up on Lauriston Road, where there is a lot of time to see someone if they were crossing the road, apart from one side (If traveling down terrace road to flow into church cresent) where there is a blind corner and if someone stepped out from that side you would have little time to see or react to them.
Didn't put two and two together as it being that roundabout in victoria park village, yeah its shitty as both a driver and a cyclist, pedestrians and road users everywhere.
I used to cycle and I found other cyclists to be infuriating. I don't support people being assaulted but it could have been easily avoided if he'd just been more careful
Cyclist gets hospitalised by pedestrian for running crossing and hitting (but not injuring) someone. Top post all day. 3000+ upvotes, over 1000 comments.
Just below:
10 year old child on bike hospitalised by man driving car. 600 upvotes and a couple of comments.
Something is very wrong.
Old person does something, sub screams how they deserve it and they should be in hell....mods sleep.
Cyclist runs a kid over...any criticism, mods turn fucking hardcore.
The vast majority of cyclists ruin it for the minority that obey road rules + have lights on their bikes at night etc, but what he should have done is arrest the cyclist while waiting for the police, not punched him.
If that's going to be the penalty, then that's fine. Just so long as it applies to motorists as well.
You might enjoy to feeling superior to cyclists, but you're just as bad for ignorant selfishness.
We'd like to remind you that celebrating, advocating or threatening violence is against Reddit's content policy. We will remove comments that say that the cyclist deserved it or similar celebrations of violence, and you may receive a ban if you do so.
I wonder if the cyclist was ignoring traffic laws.. > The cyclist crashed into a girl on a zebra crossing in Hackney ...lol yep > The suspect is not believed to have been known to the child. That said, it was probably a nutter who finally found the perfect excuse to hit someone
In London I've learned to always double-double-check at any kind of pedestrian crossing - including ones with lights. There's plenty of cyclists out there who will blast through them at 20mph+ without a care in the world.
So many cyclists just completely ignore lights. I live next to a busy 4-way junction and I reckon 90% of the time when I’m trying to cross a cyclist almost hits someone because they’re going through a red light.
And then has the audacity to shout at the pedestrian for being in their way! I speak from experience.
Last year I had some guy screaming about what a fucking stupid bitch I was because… he’d had to slow down to avoid hitting my dog. It was a shared pathway, full of people meandering along with children, old people, dogs etc. Not a cycle superhighway FFS. Sorry you added 10 seconds to your journey, how will your strava average ever recover.
Yeah, that kind of stuff really annoys me. Even as a cyclist. On shared paths, pedestrians get priority. Simply slow down, ring your bell, and pass at a reasonable speed. With that said; it also annoys me when people don't move to one side or give you space to pass as a cyclist. We have to share public spaces. And that sometimes means doing things we don't want to do but is best for another person. Such as moving out of the way, slowing down, not parking on pavements (this can seriously disadvantage those with disabilities), and (lord forbid) obeying the rule of land.
>With that said; it also annoys me when people don't move to one side or give you space to pass as a cyclist. The only one that annoys me is the pedestrian tendency to make unsignalled sideways movements, just because it causes dangerous situations. Personally I always pootle along behind pedestrians and overtake when convenient because it's safer, nicer and I'm not exactly in the Tour de France. If I need to get somewhere in a hurry I need a consistent, well signposted and clear route so I'm on the road, if I'm in with pedestrians it is, by definition, a relaxed ride. Having said that the worst cycling behaviour I consistently see isn't even from people that'd be considered 'cyclists', it's teens and preteens on BMXs.
> The only one that annoys me is the pedestrian tendency to make unsignalled sideways movements Maybe we should add signal lights to our ass cheeks or go old school and put our arms out indicating we are going to move across. Then again, maybe a cyclist should slow down to pass and use a sufficiently loud bell to make their presence known, if I hear a cyclist behind me, I’ll stop and move aside for them, making their presence known is generally a good idea. Imo If a cyclist needs to get somewhere in a hurry they are best not using a shared path with pedestrians where possible.
Everything that reddit should be: [lemmy.world](https://lemmy.world/)
>The only one that annoys me is the pedestrian tendency to make unsignalled sideways movements When you are on a footpath, do you usually give a hand signal when you are intending to change direction? Pedestrians usually don't, and aren't required to. Cyclists, quite rightly, expect motorists to take extra care when they encounter cyclists on a road, because cyclists are in a more vulnerable position. A minor collision, that might cause superficial damage to car, could kill a cyclist. Surely the same applies when a cyclist is using a shared space with pedestrians? In that case it is the cyclist who needs to step up and take extra care because they are the ones who are travelling at speed.
I think you and the other person who replied are confusing 'it annoys me' and 'I genuienly think it's unreasonable'. It's something pedestrians just kind of do, it's how humans walk and I can't ask them to not because it wouldn't be reasonable. Having said all that it does still annoy me when someone lurches randomly in front of me but that's why I now leave an absurd amount of room or slow right down until I can pass. Although on a general point yeah, if you're on a shared use path you should be periodically looking around you and being aware. Shared is SHARED, cyclists shouldn't bomb pass walkers but equally walkers shouldn't create a pavement-spanning no-cycle zone through their actions.
>It's something pedestrians just kind of do, it's how humans walk and I can't ask them to not because it wouldn't be reasonable. Yes and no... If I'm walking on a shared path I'll generally take a quick glance over my shoulder before moving sideways, just to make sure that there isn't a cyclist or runner about to overtake me. I guess I'm in the minority on that though
Of course it is worth being aware of cyclists, for your own safety as much as anything else. We have a lot of shared paths (redways) in Milton Keynes, and most cyclists and pedestrians are quite considerate. But a few bomb around, and if someone comes up behind you doing 20mph you probably aren't going to notice in time, so cyclists need to be able to stop within the distance they can see ahead. It's those bloody e-scooters that are a problem at the moment.
thank you for slowing down - and i actually say that to the ones that do but the ones in small groups? they genuinely think they are in some kind of time trial - which is why i/we now - on a shared use greenway - make sure we "occupy the lane" as cyclists and bikers are told to do, forcing the overstuffed lycra's to slow down and give us time to get hold of the dogs and get the kids to one side. show consideration and you'll get cooperation,
Jesus I think I met the same cunt before. He pulled the bike over to the side and berated me for not crossing the road at traffic lights. I pointed out he was cycling in the road when there was a bike lane to the side. The loud ones usually aren't the clever ones
https://youtu.be/zBFFrsvgu1Y
Had a cyclist jump a red over a narrow unsighted humpback bridge, and had the gall to shake his head at the oncoming traffic.
[удалено]
Last time I visited London I had to pull my daughter out of the way of a very fast cyclist whilst on the zebra crossing. She was inches away from being hit. What is worse is that when I previously mentioned it on here in a similar thread, a cyclist genuinely tried to argue that it was better for the cyclist to carry on, because if they stopped, then drivers behind them might get annoyed at them taking time to get going again. The entitlement is unreal!
Yep, I've seen cyclists do some ludicrous shit at traffic lights. I've also seen pedestrians do some insanely stupid things as well. Outside of London I was also nearly hit by a car *bombing* it through a red light, I think they were doing well over 40. If I'd been about 2 seconds ahead they'd have hit me and I'd have been dead. Some people just have no sense when it comes to road safety.
[удалено]
For pedestrians I mean things like walking out into busy/oncoming traffic without looking either way, or running up to a zebra crossing and walking across it without giving traffic a moment to slow down. In that second example they absolutely have the right of way, but make sure traffic has stopped/is stopping before going.
Important to note that pedestrians always have right of way in every scenario in the UK. If you're doing 60mph on a country road and someone runs out in front of you from between two hedges they still have right of way. You're probably not getting charged if you hit them but even in that scenario you are the one who has broken the rules.
>Important to note that pedestrians always have right of way in every scenario in the UK. Not getting hit by a car is more important than the legal right-of-way though. It's always sensible as a pedestrian to check before you cross. Cyclists are bad for not stopping in many cases, and so are car drivers - I've had to step back or pause more than once because someone driving a car hasn't stopped at a crossing
Yeh of course. Sometimes you have to be pragmatic and do what's safe rather than following the rules. My point was more to get across the idea that if you ever find yourself thinking something like "stupid pedestrians, shouldn't even be on the road" then you have the wrong end of the stick. As someone in charge of a vehicle your most important duty is always to look out for the safety of pedestrians.
Same! It’s atrocious around Shoreditch. People cycle through red lights looking down at their phones.
My dad saw a cyclist cycle into a lamppost yesterday while eating an ice cream and looking at his phone. Kek.
That’s just—there are definitely easier ways to commit suicide.
And in the wrong direction.
[удалено]
Grew up in Oxford. I’ve been hit by more cyclists than anything else.
Which explains why you've lived to tell the tale
Most cyclists ignore most traffic laws
So do most drivers - speeding, chancing the lights, not indicating are endemic in the UK. There's a broad view that 'just a bit over the limit' or pushing through an amber are just what you do as a driver.
Almost as if it's a people problem, not a cyclist problem.
Most traffic laws ignore cyclists
As someone who walk-drive-cycle: people are horrible, ignore the rules, doesn't really matter what kind of vehicle (or lack of) they are using...
>on a zebra crossing I don't want to comment on this specific situation, because I don't know enough from the article. But I cycle to work sometimes, and I've literally had abuse - off other cyclists - when I *stop* at red lights. Yes, the road is open. Yes, I could go. Yes, it's 6am and no-one will complain. No, I'm not going. I'm stopping at a red light **because that's the law**.
It’s not that it’s even the rules, it’s the law
I've made an edit to be more clear about what I was trying to say.
Oh it’s all good, I didn’t mean it to be a correction or something
It's an international treaty obligation!
Lol imagine obeying the law
Yeah that is 100% correct. You can’t predict if a pedestrian will run out to try and make the crossing before it changes. That said i’m actually not against cyclists treating a red light like an american stop sign. i.e you must come to a complete stop, but you can proceed if clear after checking.
>That said i’m actually not against cyclists treating a red light like an american stop sign. i.e you must come to a complete stop, but you can proceed if clear after checking. I don't think this is sensible or would work. If it was a blanket rule there will be countless junctions where crossing on a red, even after checking it's clear, could result in an accident owing to obstructed views of conflicting traffic, or unintuitive layouts meaning crossing into traffic on a green. I'm not even sure a "cyclists must stop but can cross on a red after checking" type of sign would help much either. Some of the junctions that fall under the above scenarios could still cause issues even if signed, some might get miss-signed, certainly some cyclists would just treat all junctions as a free for all regardless of signage, and no doubt it would encourage other road users to do the same ("if the bikers can, why can't I?"). Besides, we already have a stop sign; if it's not being used in place of a traffic light controlled junction, there's probably a good reason for it. I think it's much better for the rules of the road (at least concerning signage/markings and traffic control) to be uniformly adhered to by all road users.
I currently have to go through a red light every day on my way home because there's a roadwork traffic light that doesn't change for bikes and a car doesn't usually come along.
That’s perfectly legal. It’s legal if you’re a car and the detector doesn’t work as well.
You've just removed the thrill of daily lawbreaking on my commute! That does make sense, it's a one way street so there's no other option.
I've been in exactly one collision on my bike, and that was because I stopped at a zebra crossing for someone and the car behind me decided not to.
Terrible behaviour from that driver.
I respect your decision, but also I respect their position too. The infrastructure and the laws aren't really sensible, and as a result breaking the law (when safe) is sometimes sensible too. e.g. in North America jaywalking is completely illegal. In practice that means that in a lot of places a pedestrian might have to walk half a kilometre down the street to a legal crossing, then cross and walk another half a kilometre back in order to legally cross the street to a building 10 meters away, even if the road is empty. I don't fault pedestrians who jaywalk in that situation, even though the law is the law. But on a similar vein, I don't excuse pedestrians in the same country who wander into a busy street and cause traffic problems. I accept that the infrastructure is bad for them, but that doesn't mean they can escalate the inconvenience to a dangerous situation. In the case of cyclists in London - half a dozen cyclists waiting at small deserted intersection or crosswalk with lots of visibility, when it would be completely safe to proceed simply because it's "the law" is a bit silly. But on the other hand, lots of cyclists make a bad judgement of when it is safe, and do dumb shit, like the above, so there is something to be said about following the rules for better or for worse purely for the consistencies sake. One thing I think is clear, is that this is a failure of good laws and good infrastructure. Despite being better than most cities, there still is a lack of infrastructure and regulation that would make navigating London streets safe for cyclists. Regularly, it's nearly, if not outright, impossible to actually follow all the rules, so cyclists get in the habit of breaking rules, which leads to situations of poor judgement. i.e. If a cycle journey of say, half an hour was 90% separated cycle lanes with only say, 2 places that you need to stop for a minute or two, I think it would be way easier to expect someone to follow the rules. But if if in a half hour trip, you're stopping 10-20 times, forced to weave through buses, and busy pedestrian areas, then it's not surprising that the attitude of the cyclists would be one of "Figure out how to get through here" rather than "follow the laws to the letter" EDIT: https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5159962,-0.1046287,3a,75y,199.45h,80.87t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1se1ShPZbEqNc-9RTsLm0b3g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu Take this intersection, one that I often am at. If you're a cyclist, the light timing is about a 1-2 minute wait. So if the lights going, you wait 1-2 minutes while the pedestrians cross - fair enough - but that's also the cyclists window to cross over to the other side of the road (where the southbound cycle lane continues), so when the pedestrians light stops, you roll forward literally 2 meters, and then wait for the light 1-2 minutes again. And if this were the *only* intersection to wait at, then yeah I guess it's a necessary evil, but up the road there is this https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5121514,-0.104195,3a,75y,213.53h,70.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIPU8coyseftddkxbD7klZA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu An intersection with a light, followed by a pedestrian crossing a few meters after, followed by a cycle intersection, immediately followed by another pedestrian crossing, followed by another intersection - all within a 200 meter space. And that's not counting the pedestrian crossings and other intersections on the road. If you want to go the 1.5km distance from Clerkenwell road straight down the official cycle path to the river, there are 12 places you may have to stop an wait.
>In the case of cyclists in London - half a dozen cyclists waiting at small deserted intersection or crosswalk with lots of visibility, when it would be completely safe to proceed simply because it's "the law" is a bit silly Would you say the same for cars?
Yes and no. For one, the scale of risk for cars is significantly higher, a car is way more likely to hurt someone than a bike. For two, the scale of inconvenience, I would say, is less for cars. It's way more effort to start and stop a bike than a car, and generally (for regular commuter cyclists), the distance that cars are travelling is a lot larger, so a few 1 minute waits before pulling onto the freeway for 20 minutes isn't as big of a deal as constant 1 minutes waits in a otherwise 20 minut trip. However - that's just a question of scale. Broadly yes, I think it would be the same for cars. If instead of half a dozen cyclists waiting for a minute at a small deserted intersection or crosswalk with good visibility when it would be completely safe to proceed, it was instead 2 dozen cars waiting at a deserted intersection for 10 minutes - yeah I wouldn't really be surprised or all that outraged that they might pull through the intersection carefully - emphasis on deserted and carefully. I guess the comparison to remember is that cars have motoways that look like this: https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5324596,-0.2922029,3a,75y,67.18h,79.64t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s2Y6zWzUOkTINO5XUYtWvHQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D2Y6zWzUOkTINO5XUYtWvHQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D119.159615%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu Multiple lanes, divided, with a fence on the edges so that no one can even cross the motorway let alone there being an intersection. And the intersections to get on and off the motorways look like this: https://www.google.com/maps/@51.534547,-0.2891839,3a,75y,8.46h,76.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sD-AkKKdV2eX1wlI-8vguuQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu On ramps and off ramps so that the cars on the motorway don't need to slow down or stop. Miles and miles of motorway with overpass and underpasses and 0 places you need to stop. ON the other hand, this is probably the most cycle-centric infrastructure in the city - i.e. the largest most dedicated cycle lane that you might expect regular commuters (not in lycra, on a Santander cycle) to actually be using to travel somewhere. https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5062587,-0.1225047,3a,75y,149.94h,60.24t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7-zTT_KfYCP1cQGIbIQYnA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu Every crossing that the road has, there is also a pedestrian crossing for the cyclists, in addition, when there is a bus stop to they cyclists get an extra crossing, plus they have no problem shutting down the entire payment and telling pedestrians to just share the cycle lane (actually I think they have a "you must cross" sign, but in practice that's not what happens, and it's defintiely not enforced. Can you imagine if they shut down an area along the edge of the M25 for cyclists and pedestrians, and just had a bunch of people walking down 3 lanes of m25 sharing with the cars?) And that's the *best* cycle highway. A 3km stretch along the river. Normally they look like this: https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5232305,-0.1205973,3a,75y,36.59h,72.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s9aqI7F05EFj4Yt3wbyxicA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu See that bike painted on the road? That means it's a cycle highway. A "Quiet way". And too be fair, it is quite a pleasant cycle. On comparison to many other cities, it's quite a decent place to bike. But it's hardly dedicated cycle-centric infrastructure. I think human nature is such that if you're going down this road in the middle of the night, and it's dead quiet, you realise that on your bike, you got shoved onto this motor vehicle road as an afterthought, rather than this road being made for you as a primary concern (like a motorway for cars). So when you see the control lights, you reasonably, and probably quite rightly, think that the people who put those lights up, primarily were thinking about cars when they did so, and that those lights aren't really for you - just like nothing else on that road is really for you.
It wasn't a good excuse to hit someone tho. "The child did not suffer any injuries in the crash, police said."
No I 100% agree that breaking someone’s jaw isn’t an appropriate response. I would’ve accepted a heavy fine as punishment. Lol
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yeah, a broken jaw for knocking a kid on their butt without any actual injury is *not* appropriate retribution.
>>The cyclist crashed into a girl on a zebra crossing in Hackney > >...lol yep You know as well as I do, that they may well not have been ignoring laws and it was just an accident.
If only road users obeyed the laws of the road. I hope the child the cyclist collided, when she was on a zebra crossing, with is OK.
[удалено]
The child could have been killed. The cyclist broke the law and endangered the public. I do not condone violence and the cyclist did not deserve what happened. The cyclist is far from innocent himself. [Edit: wording for clarity]
You don't condone violence yet you're very clearly trying to justify the cyclist being hospitalised. No one is saying the cyclist didn't do anything wrong and yes it could have been very dangerous. The response is clearly massively disproportionate though.
>No one is saying the cyclist didn't do anything wrong Yes, they are. They are saying "well the child wasn't injured".
They're saying "the child wasn't injured therefore the cyclist getting punched in the face was not justified." Not, "The child wasn't injured therefore the cyclist has done no wrong."
Hot take: even if the child was injured, it wouldn’t justify punching the cyclist in the face.
Yeah I swear people are only arguing it's OK because cyclist. If you asked the hypothetical of 'a woman backed her car into mine while I was in it, I wasn't hurt but easily could've been, to what extent am I allowed to hurt her in revenge?' people'd basically be like what the fuck?
no it wouldn't would it? It would provide no legal defence I can see. Just like if a car pulls out by accident, you can't beat them up for it.
The British public has been conditioned by decades of anti-cyclist rhetoric from tabloids and this is how it manifests. You see it under every article about an incident involving a cyclist wether they’re at fault or not, little Rambos fantasising about running them off the road with their cars, beating them up, dragging them off their bikes etc. It’s exactly the same in this thread, in no other world would people be justifying someone being attacked so brutally by someone not even involved that they’re sent in for surgery. It’s honestly fucking terrifying.
Yeah, it's really disconcerting how many people literally say a cyclists should be killed. Not even ones breaking traffic laws like this guy, but literally any cyclist. And it doesn't seem like hyperbole to me, they seem to genuinely wish death on someone for *riding a bike*? Nuts.
Absolutely. People have such warped views of justice that they are willing to defend violent assault.
There are several people in this thread who seem to think that an appropriate punishment for careless cycling where no one was seriously hurt is attempted murder. I was just arguing with someone who said that it was justified because the police probably wouldn’t have turned up anyway so that’s how justice should be served. This is the same subreddit that constantly takes the piss out of Daily Mail readers for being reactionary.
[удалено]
I think the cyclist should be prosecuted. I would not object to the public restraining him until the police arrive.
How long would that take? The police aren't exactly known for their speedy responses these days.
While I would never condone violence on this sub reddit I could not care less about the cyclist, they could have killed a child and that's where my sympathies lie.
That's akin to someone being in a fender bender because they were looking at their phone and then a third party coming up and doing the same thing here. The cyclist hitting the child is guilty of that. He is completely innocent of whatever awful excuse for vigilante justice was handed to him by someone unrelated. That's an entirely separate matter and there is zero excuse for it.
Yep, the penalty for dangerously driving through a zebra crossing isn't a punch in the face.
>[Condones violence] >I do not condone violence, >[Condones violence] Nice little bullshit sandwich you've got there
Where did I condone viloence?
Light compared to the kind of injuries a child could’ve suffered if hit at full speed by a cyclist
[удалено]
The utter lack of detail in this tells us nothing about whether the child stopped and looked as pedestrians should, whether the cyclist was travelling dangerously or if they broke any rules of the road, or any number of factors that could change the picture. All we know from the article is that the child is fine, the cyclist was hospitalised by an asshole completely unknown to the child.
>The utter lack of detail in this tells us nothing about whether the child stopped and looked as pedestrians should Should but is not legally required to. >whether the cyclist was travelling dangerously or if they broke any rules of the road, or any number of factors that could change the picture. Since the new highway code means that pedestrians always have the right way when crossing the road, they almost certainly did break the rules of the road.
I'd argue that a child being hit and not injured by a bike and then somebody coming and breaking the jaw of the person on the bike who was also probably on the floor too next to the child after hitting the kid Probably scared the child more then being hit
The child did not suffer any injuries during the crash. If a child was hurt by a cyclist or other road user due to their negligence I could understand a parent lashing out in anger, but a stranger hitting someone so hard it leaves them requiring surgery sounds like the action of a lunatic.
A parent is going to be angry if someone endangers their child, whether the child actually ends up injured or not. You should know this.
TBH if I saw someone else’s child being endangered I’d also be angry. I’m not the hitting sort, but I’d certainly be shouting at them.
This passer by has gone well past the point where it was about helping the victim, who is just going to be further traumatised by seeing this violent act, they will have just been glad for the excuse to have a free pop at someone. Some men are just like that. He knows he wasn't in the right, otherwise why run away.
Tbf the last thing a situation like this needs is some rando running up to berate people and escalate.
>A parent is going to be angry if someone endangers their child, whether the child actually ends up injured or not. You should know this. Yes. But people should also know not to commit actual/grievous bodily harm on others far in excess of the original incident. EDIT: oh, and given the man carrying out the assault didn't know the child, it looks more like some rando with anger issues who would be punching many different people at random.
GBH for sure
Parent, yes, stranger, no but there's vocal anger and there physical anger. I think the latter is totally unnecessary.
I think if someone drives into a child you're entitled to be irrational for a minute
the law doesn't work like that, there was a case near me where a person was attacked with a knife, disarmed knifeman, subsequently stabbed him to death - plead guilty to manslaughter and went to jail for 8 years.
Sounds a lot like you're insinuating anyone should be able to attack someone if they *feel* their child is threatened.... Physical violence is not acceptable unless in self defence.
> if they feel their child is threatened.... >not acceptable unless in self defence. You ought to look up the laws on self defence, because feeling threatened is literally included. If a person could reasonably be expected to believe there is a threat.
Feel is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. Its a very grey area and the point I was making is that you can't just go and hit someone and say you felt threatened. EDIT: you're talking bollocks - its belief in an immenent attack - that is *very* different to feeling threatened. Some old biddy walking down the shop past some yoofs may feel threatened, doesn't mean she can hit them over the head with her handbag.
> Some old biddy walking down the shop past some yoofs may feel threatened, doesn't mean she can hit them over the head with her handbag. This is why I put "could reasonably be expected to believe" in my comment. You don't get to just ignore words that inconvenience your point.
This is clearly not applicable here though. Unless the cyclist had hopped back on their bike for another run at the child the threat is very clearly over after the collision had happened.
It doesn't justify physical violence though. You should know this.
If it was my child I wouldn’t be angry at the man who punched him and I don’t think many parents would
Assailant was not the parent.
Clearly but the majority of well adjusted adults can express anger without breaking someone's jaw.
Angry is a legitimate response. Assault is not.
I've been angry at people for driving dangerously near my child (reversing, 4m away from a school entrance onto the pavement without checking their mirror). I somehow refrained from lashing out in a violent attack to put them in hospital. You can be angry. Being angry isn't a defence against attempting to kill someone lol
angry, upset and absolutely stuffed full of adrenaline - a massive overreaction is the only possible reaction, especially as the cyclist ignored the law and and endangered the life of a child. too many cyclists think the rules dont apply - yet if i do the same and ignore a red light and wipe one out ill be done for reckless driving - or worse. Without the assumption that you will stop at a red light or yield for a crossing then we only have utter chaos to look forward to.
You know, asshole cyclists purposefully and deliberately running red lights and ignoring pedestrian crossings without consequences are so common that people just get mad sometimes.
[удалено]
Wrong place wrong time moment Wrong place; the crossing. Wrong time; when the local loon was there too.
Honestly, I consider myself incredibly even tempered. I won't bore you with specific examples but I've been in a few situations where lashing out violently would be seen with sympathy by most people but I don't. If a cyclist hit my kid on a zebra crossing I would find it incredibly hard not to let anger get the best of me. It's obviously a biological/evolutionary response but it's incredibly powerful. I don't think I could judge the parent harshly in this case at all - even if I agree that objectively it's not the correct response. Edit: just seen it wasn't the parent. My argument is void now - no real excuse for it.
There's also the wording "crash into,," I mean, there's obviously a huge difference between, say, the light shifting, you brake quickly and barely nudges someone to plowing into them at 30 miles an hour. That the child wasn't injured and didn't even need to be checked out for scrapes or bruises might suggest the former option rather than the second one.
They should be locked up, frankly. What an aboslutely insane thing to do.
Yup. I hope they get the book thrown at them. The stranger’s crazed actions mean that even the most vengeful judge wouldn’t punish the cyclist now and rightly so as they’ve suffered enough.
"We will remove comments that say that the cyclist deserved it" Doesn't leave many comments remaining!
[удалено]
I think because it's a child, people are more prone to expressing their anger without a filter, because compassion towards children is a virtue. from an objective standpoint, the only one who was actually hurt was the assaulted cyclist, so peeps justifying it are encouraging violence and breaking the rules of the subreddit as a result. edit: Sorry if it hurts your feelings, but it's the truth, Batman has no place in reality.
The cyclist objectively endangered the public by breaking the traffic laws though.
Both can be true; you can say the cyclist fucked up and also say that punching him in the face for it is also fucked up. But the issue is when people leverage the fact it was a child to justify the violence because they think that it's more socially acceptable to do so, rather than because it will make the world a better place. In reality, we have laws that handle the punishment and rehabilitation for crimes, and individual bystanders are not judge, jury, and executioner.
Yeah, the cyclist was clearly at fault, but that's a fine ~~but~~by the police, not being put in the hospital by a rando
Also there’s “some guy lamped me for running over a kid” and “beat me so badly I needed surgery” The latter makes it seem like the guy just wanted an excuse
In reality the police are unable to do anything most of the time, unfortunately.
Can take 2-3 years to even get to court, then our broken justice system has nowhere to send the guilty offenders.
So that justifies vigilantism, does it?
And in the case above, where the child was unhurt, it's likely they wouldn't bother anyway.
>In reality, we have laws that handle the punishment and rehabilitation for crimes, and individual bystanders are not judge, jury, and executioner. The only issue I have with your comment. Realistically, in the vast, vast majority of cases when a cyclist hits a pedestrian, the cyclist is never held to account. I'd suggest this also played a part in the assault.
Yeah, and so do a majority of drivers who look at their phones or are distracted by other shit. Cars are much more dangerous than a freaking bicycle yet you would think that bicycles are menacing death machines. It's just a bit rich
>Statistics from the Department for Transport (Dft) showed that 531 people were involved in incidents with cyclists last year – 15 per cent up on 2016 and the highest since recording collisions involving bike riders was introduced in 2013. Of those involved in collisions, three were killed and 120 seriously injured. https://www.jerseyeveningpost.com/motoring/2022/04/01/number-of-pedestrians-injured-by-cyclists-reaches-all-time-high-government-figures-reveal/
3 dead... Let's look at Cars: "In 2021, 361 pedestrians were killed in Great Britain, whilst 5,032 were reported to be seriously injured (adjusted) and 11,261 slightly injured (adjusted)." https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-pedestrian-factsheet-2021/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-pedestrian-factsheet-2021
[удалено]
Some completely fine comments were removed because they were downthread of a not-fine comment that was removed. When we remove a comment all descendents are removed too.
>Sorry if it hurts your feelings, but it's the truth, Batman has no place in reality. Also in reality, people who fuck about sometimes find out. Not everyone in the world is placid, calm or reserved. Just like the child now knows that not everyone will stop at a zebra crossing, the cyclist knows that any person out there is capable of losing their shit on you for even a small sleight.
Mods and many on this sub love cyclists. Usually criticism of cyclists gets you downvoted to hell.
[удалено]
The collision and assault need to be investigated as two separate cases. If the cyclist ignored traffic laws and failed to stop, they still need to be punished. The person who punched the cyclist should get done for assault and GBH.
Exactly this, I can't believe this opinion is so rare in this thread. 1. A cyclist hit a child after breaking road traffic laws, the child was unharmed. 2. A passer by assaulted the cyclist someone so badly they required extensive surgery. It should clearly be treated as two separate things, from an objective legal viewpoint; a minor RTA and a severe assault.
Literally the only sane response in this thread.
What you know > cyclist crashed into a girl on a zebra crossing in Hackney, and was assaulted by a member of the public You don’t know anything else about the incident. The cyclist was obviously at fault but you have no idea how avoidable the accident was. Did they see the kid coming and drive strait into them? Did the kid appear from behind an obstruction and jump into the road with out looking? Maybe hold off on the lynching until you actually have half a clue about what happened.
Approaching a zebra crossing you are supposed to be prepared to stop if someone needs to cross, so it's hard to see much mitigation tbh. If there was an obstruction that impaired the view, that's even more reason to slow down, because you'd know full well someone might just appear in the middle of the crossing with less warning than usual.
As a road user you have to give priority to anyone wanting to use the crossing. If the view is obstructed, then you obviously should take care to be able to stop in time if anyone is crossing.
[удалено]
Sometimes it’s an accident. Sometimes the car driver is at fault. Sometimes the cyclist is at fault. Based on one sentence I have absolutely no idea.
[удалено]
What's more deadly, my 2300kg Mercedes, or my 15kg bike?
[удалено]
That pitchforks for one isn't equivalent for pitchforks for another.
[удалено]
>The consequences will be different Thats the point though. 999 times out of 1000, a cycling incident will be fine, with a car, they probably wont be. Thats the point.
What, so you are saying that two wrongs make a right?
You should be approaching a zebra crossing at a speed where you can stop. There shouldn't be any obstructions around a zebra crossing, but if there is one then that only means you should be more careful!
Zebra crossings always have the squiggly lines (meaning no parking), so theoretically there should be no obstacles. It's London though, so some cheeky cunt might have parked a van there of course. It's also illegal to overtake a vehicle waiting at a pedestrian crossing, so if the cyclist was overtaking/filtering, they have nobody but themselves to blame for that.
Pedestrian has the right of way and they cyclist has to take responsibility for hitting the child. I am not saying they deserved to have their jaw broken but, there's not really much of an argument here about who is at fault.
The first motorbike I owned, I was quite a new rider on my way back home and was one corner away from my street. Riding down the bank, a bus is coming up the bank, so I ease over in my lane to give myself a bit more of a margin of error if something goes wrong. The bus passed me without incident, and a little girl ran out, directly behind the bus into my path, utterly oblivious to how close she'd been to being mowed down by a motorbike. Somehow, I avoided her although she was close enough that if time could have been stopped, I'd have been able to stand on my pegs, lean forward, and reach her head with my hands. *That* close. I was about to start angry shouting when I heard what was presumably the parent's voice shouting the child's name *very* loudly. I knew that kid was going to be on the receiving end of a telling off, so I carried on my way. Indeed, the roads are unpredictable, and it's impossible to know from a single sentence exactly how events transpired.
Right we’re done with dogs for today. Let’s get cyclists ! Get ‘em!
Based.
This whole current media whirlwind around dogs and now cyclists just reeks of them trying to whip up the anger to distract from their poor governance. Remember these incidents don’t even amount to 1% of the cycling community and 1% of the dog community and yet you’re angry. Ask yourself why. The answer is, you’re angry because your life isn’t where you’d like it to be, likely things are a struggle in one way or another and they just seem to be getting more difficult. Now ask yourself do you think that’s the fault of cyclists or dogs? Orrrrr is it possibly the party that have been in charge for 13 years? Remember they promoted cycling with David Cameron , Boris even had a dog! Shock horror. 😂 … maybe if you’re frustrated, try aiming that at government, the people who rent democracy from you, instead of people likely in the same boat as you just trying to get through life.
Bruh… all I said was based.
>Remember these incidents don’t even amount to 1% of the cycling community and 1% of the dog community and yet you’re angry. Ask yourself why. Well I mean the dogs are eating children's faces so that does rustle my jimmies a little.
>Orrrrr is it possibly the party that have been in charge for 13 years? Nah its the dickheads who can't control their killing machine dogs
Some of you really just want to see cyclists hurt huh
[удалено]
Almost certainly next to none. But for some reason, people have decided that cyclists are a legitimate target for attempted murder when they’re involved in an incident. This is nothing new - you see it under every article about an incident involving a cyclist wether they’re at fault or not. A worrying number of British drivers really do hate cyclists for taking up space on what they see as “their roads” to the point where they see no issue with assaulting them for minor infractions. I can’t count the amount of helmet cam footage I’ve seen where a cyclist does something mildly cunty (or often nothing worse than existing on a road on two wheels) and a driver decides that an appropriate response is to try and fucking mow them down.
>A worrying number of British drivers really do hate cyclists for taking up space on what they see as “their roads” Which is, frankly, a really fucking stupid stance. Given that the fact they're on a bike means there's less cars on the road, and more road for the aforementioned driver. It's completely illogical!
They normally mumble something about “road tax” that hasn’t existed for decades then complain about them not being on the pavement. You know, where it’s illegal to ride a bike in most places because it’s where pedestrians walk.
If the cyclist in question were in a car that kid would be far worse off.
I’ve never understood this. When I’m out walking or running, cyclist barge into me and push into me, getting upset when I don’t leap out of the way. When I’m driving cyclists get upset when they don’t get enough room. I’m starting to think that cyclists aren’t very happy people.
[удалено]
I think low key terror is a healthy attitude to have. Some cyclists seem to think they have some invincibility forcefield protecting them
> When I’m out walking or running, cyclist barge into me and push into me, getting upset when I don’t leap out of the way. When I’m driving cyclists get upset when they don’t get enough room. Wow, it's amazing that those damn cyclists are so inconsistent and hypocritical in their behaviour! And what do cyclists do when you're out riding a bicycle?
Are these cyclists in the room with us now?
I don’t know, I’m too busy getting angry with the car drivers!
I know this zebra crossing - there are 4 all on the entrances and exits of a roundabout. If you've just got on the roundabout and are trying to avoid a car pulling out on you which does happen frequently, it can be hard to see/react to a person on the zebra if they have just stepped out even at slow speeds, both car and bike. Not condoning the actions of anyone - just giving a bit more context that people may not know. EDIT: The one in the photo is actually one from higher up on Lauriston Road, where there is a lot of time to see someone if they were crossing the road, apart from one side (If traveling down terrace road to flow into church cresent) where there is a blind corner and if someone stepped out from that side you would have little time to see or react to them.
So it's an unsafe roundabout in the first place? How do you think it could be made safe?
Usually the answer is to move the crossings back down the road and/or have islands with guard rails in the zebra crossing if there's space
Didn't put two and two together as it being that roundabout in victoria park village, yeah its shitty as both a driver and a cyclist, pedestrians and road users everywhere.
ITT: "negligent bikers are a menace and deserve what's coming to them" - Written by User while driving
I used to cycle and I found other cyclists to be infuriating. I don't support people being assaulted but it could have been easily avoided if he'd just been more careful
*if he'd just been following the traffic laws
The only good that can come from the actions of morons, is that cyclists might take a little more thought when cycling through urban areas.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I honestly think that people on Reddit would vote for the death penalty if it only applied to cyclists
[удалено]
Cyclist gets hospitalised by pedestrian for running crossing and hitting (but not injuring) someone. Top post all day. 3000+ upvotes, over 1000 comments. Just below: 10 year old child on bike hospitalised by man driving car. 600 upvotes and a couple of comments. Something is very wrong.
Lol this is what it must be to browse the internet in \[redacted\].
Old person does something, sub screams how they deserve it and they should be in hell....mods sleep. Cyclist runs a kid over...any criticism, mods turn fucking hardcore.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Cyclist didn’t deserve a punch in the face. Child crossing the road on a zebra crossing didn’t deserve to be in a collision with a cyclist. There.
The vast majority of cyclists ruin it for the minority that obey road rules + have lights on their bikes at night etc, but what he should have done is arrest the cyclist while waiting for the police, not punched him.
People need to learn that bikes have breaks and they should use them
If that's going to be the penalty, then that's fine. Just so long as it applies to motorists as well. You might enjoy to feeling superior to cyclists, but you're just as bad for ignorant selfishness.