Woman drives boys on bike off the road (From Echo)

reptile wrote:
See, it was dangerous!

Valentino wrote:
What the article doesn't state is how far into the road the boys were riding.

I see plenty of dumb kids riding in the centre of the road holding up traffic. None have helmets on and yes sometimes they are giving "backies" to others. Who knows if the woman wasn't actually trying to overtake these boys and had little space to do so?

I was riding my bike on Friday evening and was offered a race by a boy who could be no older than 13 and wasn't wearing a helmet. I ignored him and he eventually had to stop as he was on the wrong side of the road facing oncoming traffic.

Only yesterday I saw a boy on a bike, (again without a helmet) almost get taken out by a car because the boy pulled out of a junction without stopping, looking and on the wrong side of the road.

It is only a matter of time before one of the idiots who think it's funny to ride up the one-way system the wrong way is taken out by a vehicle.

Parents if you're going to fork out for these bikes, then at least buy and encourage your children to wear a helmet too, and maybe obey the rules of the road.

claireanddaisy wrote:
Does nobody else find it sad that when someone tries to stop two children riding one bike along a main road in a dangerous way, the parent`s anger is reserved for the people who tried to stop them?

Mary Lou wrote:
Possibly the bike, with one child on the handlebars, ran into the car? . The only witness so far is the mother. Apparently a mother's son can commit murder and in her eyes he is innocent.

Beth the original one wrote:
after reading the report, i doubt very much if the car driver did ride into the boys, especially if she slowed down to advise them of their stupidity. I reckon (as i am a mum myself and dont wear rose coloured glasses) that the kids gave her the two finger salute, lost, what little control, they had on the bike, drove into the car, damaged their bike and went crying home to mummy saying they were deliberately knocked off their bike, and mummy, whos kids obviously do no wrong, believes them and then runs whinging and crying to the local newspaper, hoping us mugs as readers will donate a new bike.

Heres a tip luv, look on freecycle, you maybe lucky enough to scrounge another bike

LocalBoy wrote:
Usual rubbish comments I see! The motorist has clearly broken the law and to a degree the cyclists stupidity is irrelevant.

To talk to the cyclist while driving alongside them clearly demonstrates that the motorist was distracted from their prime task of driving the car safely and was clearly driving too close to the cyclists as this is the only way a conversation could be held. If the cyclist veered in to the car or the car veered into the cyclist is is irrelevant. The fact is the car driver was too close to the cyclist.

APR wrote:

LocalBoy wrote:
Usual rubbish comments I see! The motorist has clearly broken the law and to a degree the cyclists stupidity is irrelevant.

To talk to the cyclist while driving alongside them clearly demonstrates that the motorist was distracted from their prime task of driving the car safely and was clearly driving too close to the cyclists as this is the only way a conversation could be held. If the cyclist veered in to the car or the car veered into the cyclist is is irrelevant. The fact is the car driver was too close to the cyclist.

Perhaps you had better go to the police, and tell them you saw what happened.

LocalBoy wrote:

APR wrote:

LocalBoy wrote:
Usual rubbish comments I see! The motorist has clearly broken the law and to a degree the cyclists stupidity is irrelevant.

To talk to the cyclist while driving alongside them clearly demonstrates that the motorist was distracted from their prime task of driving the car safely and was clearly driving too close to the cyclists as this is the only way a conversation could be held. If the cyclist veered in to the car or the car veered into the cyclist is is irrelevant. The fact is the car driver was too close to the cyclist.

Perhaps you had better go to the police, and tell them you saw what happened.

I realise that logical thought rather than prejudice is a real challenge for many posters on this site.

Perhaps you can explain how the cyclist and the car collided if it wasn't for the reason that the car was too close to the cyclist and in breach of the Highway Code recommendations on overtaking more vulnerable road users?

I assume you do know the Highway Code?

Beth the original one wrote:
after reading the report, i doubt very much if the car driver did ride into the boys, especially if she slowed down to advise them of their stupidity. I reckon (as i am a mum myself and dont wear rose coloured glasses) that the kids gave her the two finger salute, lost, what little control, they had on the bike, drove into the car, damaged their bike and went crying home to mummy saying they were deliberately knocked off their bike, and mummy, whos kids obviously do no wrong, believes them and then runs whinging and crying to the local newspaper, hoping us mugs as readers will donate a new bike.

Heres a tip luv, look on freecycle, you maybe lucky enough to scrounge another bike

Beth the original one wrote:
after reading the report, i doubt very much if the car driver did ride into the boys, especially if she slowed down to advise them of their stupidity. I reckon (as i am a mum myself and dont wear rose coloured glasses) that the kids gave her the two finger salute, lost, what little control, they had on the bike, drove into the car, damaged their bike and went crying home to mummy saying they were deliberately knocked off their bike, and mummy, whos kids obviously do no wrong, believes them and then runs whinging and crying to the local newspaper, hoping us mugs as readers will donate a new bike.

Heres a tip luv, look on freecycle, you maybe lucky enough to scrounge another bike

ShoeburyCyclist wrote:

Beth the original one wrote:
after reading the report, i doubt very much if the car driver did ride into the boys, especially if she slowed down to advise them of their stupidity. I reckon (as i am a mum myself and dont wear rose coloured glasses) that the kids gave her the two finger salute, lost, what little control, they had on the bike, drove into the car, damaged their bike and went crying home to mummy saying they were deliberately knocked off their bike, and mummy, whos kids obviously do no wrong, believes them and then runs whinging and crying to the local newspaper, hoping us mugs as readers will donate a new bike.

Heres a tip luv, look on freecycle, you maybe lucky enough to scrounge another bike

If she 'slowed down to advise them', then she was driving too close to them, regardless of how badly they were riding.

See Highway Code Rule 163 here (there's even a picture to help you out):

http://origin.direct

.gov.uk/en/TravelAnd

Transport/Highwaycod

e/DG_070314

'You should give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car'

See also rules 147 and 148, particularly the parts that say:

You should 'not allow yourself to become agitated or involved if someone is behaving badly on the road'

You should avoid distractions when driving or riding such as 'arguing with your passengers or other road users'.


It appears to me that although these boys were riding badly, the driver also did not behave well. As the driver was in charge of the more dangerous vehicle, they may well be held fully responsible for this incident.

deano25 wrote:

LocalBoy wrote:

APR wrote:

LocalBoy wrote:
Usual rubbish comments I see! The motorist has clearly broken the law and to a degree the cyclists stupidity is irrelevant.

To talk to the cyclist while driving alongside them clearly demonstrates that the motorist was distracted from their prime task of driving the car safely and was clearly driving too close to the cyclists as this is the only way a conversation could be held. If the cyclist veered in to the car or the car veered into the cyclist is is irrelevant. The fact is the car driver was too close to the cyclist.

Perhaps you had better go to the police, and tell them you saw what happened.

I realise that logical thought rather than prejudice is a real challenge for many posters on this site.

Perhaps you can explain how the cyclist and the car collided if it wasn't for the reason that the car was too close to the cyclist and in breach of the Highway Code recommendations on overtaking more vulnerable road users?

I assume you do know the Highway Code?

Same old same old on here if people dont agree get personal and slag them off.
Like he says you had better go to the police and tell them what you saw.
Beth i think you seem to have the handle on this as I live in the road in question and something like this was only a matter of time all you get from the kids is the bird.

jackdt09 wrote:
I'm sure what the kids said back to the woman in the car involved some foul and abusive language, think anyone who is doing something so stupid we can assume that, especially after someone has tried to be of help and the advice is refused, they aren't the nicest type of people.
And quite frankly, I couldn't give a toss that they were knocked off. Will teach them not to be so stupid.
I would have thought the mother would be too embaressed to go to the paper when her son and his mate are so clearly a couple of twonks.

John the resonator wrote:
Sounds like the boys were riding in an idiotic manner but that does not justify this woman's actions IF she did indeed steer into them.

Of course, it might be the boys themselves were not in control of the bike and swerved into the car themselves.

Witnesses might have been the only way to sort this one out, but of course judging by these posts, they could also be biassed. I'm just thinking about Baker_Boy giving the police a witness statement!

LocalBoy wrote:

deano25 wrote:

LocalBoy wrote:

APR wrote:

LocalBoy wrote:
Usual rubbish comments I see! The motorist has clearly broken the law and to a degree the cyclists stupidity is irrelevant.

To talk to the cyclist while driving alongside them clearly demonstrates that the motorist was distracted from their prime task of driving the car safely and was clearly driving too close to the cyclists as this is the only way a conversation could be held. If the cyclist veered in to the car or the car veered into the cyclist is is irrelevant. The fact is the car driver was too close to the cyclist.

Perhaps you had better go to the police, and tell them you saw what happened.

I realise that logical thought rather than prejudice is a real challenge for many posters on this site.

Perhaps you can explain how the cyclist and the car collided if it wasn't for the reason that the car was too close to the cyclist and in breach of the Highway Code recommendations on overtaking more vulnerable road users?

I assume you do know the Highway Code?

Same old same old on here if people dont agree get personal and slag them off.
Like he says you had better go to the police and tell them what you saw.
Beth i think you seem to have the handle on this as I live in the road in question and something like this was only a matter of time all you get from the kids is the bird.

Exactly where have I slagged anyone off?
Beth's comments are illogical and based on prejudice.

LocalBoy wrote:
The Highway Code; as some people are unable to accept that the driver must have been in breach of the code for an incident to have occurred:


204

The most vulnerable road users are pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists and horse riders. It is particularly important to be aware of children, older and disabled people, and learner and inexperienced drivers and riders.
163
give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car (see Rules 211-215)
212

When passing motorcyclists and cyclists, give them plenty of room (see Rules 162-167). If they look over their shoulder it could mean that they intend to pull out, turn right or change direction. Give them time and space to do so.


213

Motorcyclists and cyclists may suddenly need to avoid uneven road surfaces and obstacles such as drain covers or oily, wet or icy patches on the road. Give them plenty of room and pay particular attention to any sudden change of direction they may have to make.
163

Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should

* not get too close to the vehicle you intend to overtake
* use your mirrors, signal when it is safe to do so, take a quick sideways glance if necessary into the blind spot area and then start to move out
* not assume that you can simply follow a vehicle ahead which is overtaking; there may only be enough room for one vehicle
* move quickly past the vehicle you are overtaking, once you have started to overtake. Allow plenty of room. Move back to the left as soon as you can but do not cut in

The motorist was either too close to the cyclist and if they were not too close they failed to move quickly past the vehicle they were overtaking. Take your pick the motorist was wrong. If the motorist was that incensed by the riding of the boys on the bike they should have overtaken them, pulled up and spoken to them. Instead they put the boys and other road users at risk by the actions that they took. That is assuming this report is accurate of course. I do accept that not all will agree with my view but that is based on their assumption (through local knowledge) that the mother and boys are telling a pack of lies. My assumption is that they are telling the truth and if that is so then the motorist is at fault. Get over it!

GreatDixter wrote:

LocalBoy wrote:

deano25 wrote:

LocalBoy wrote:

APR wrote:

LocalBoy wrote:
Usual rubbish comments I see! The motorist has clearly broken the law and to a degree the cyclists stupidity is irrelevant.

To talk to the cyclist while driving alongside them clearly demonstrates that the motorist was distracted from their prime task of driving the car safely and was clearly driving too close to the cyclists as this is the only way a conversation could be held. If the cyclist veered in to the car or the car veered into the cyclist is is irrelevant. The fact is the car driver was too close to the cyclist.

Perhaps you had better go to the police, and tell them you saw what happened.

I realise that logical thought rather than prejudice is a real challenge for many posters on this site.

Perhaps you can explain how the cyclist and the car collided if it wasn't for the reason that the car was too close to the cyclist and in breach of the Highway Code recommendations on overtaking more vulnerable road users?

I assume you do know the Highway Code?

Same old same old on here if people dont agree get personal and slag them off.
Like he says you had better go to the police and tell them what you saw.
Beth i think you seem to have the handle on this as I live in the road in question and something like this was only a matter of time all you get from the kids is the bird.

Exactly where have I slagged anyone off?
Beth's comments are illogical and based on prejudice.

And so are yours.

Baker_Boy wrote:

John the resonator wrote:
Sounds like the boys were riding in an idiotic manner but that does not justify this woman's actions IF she did indeed steer into them.

Of course, it might be the boys themselves were not in control of the bike and swerved into the car themselves.

Witnesses might have been the only way to sort this one out, but of course judging by these posts, they could also be biassed. I'm just thinking about Baker_Boy giving the police a witness statement!

Why am I being brought in to something I not state my view on.
Well as I been brought into it I will
1 children should not be two on a bike like that
2 yes I'm glad the woman said something as it teaches people I often shout of to bike going through red light of be dangerous normal meet with abuse.

3 was there and abuse given here
4 who was driving I'm guess someone other than the woman who would have been on passage side

5 did the car make other cars slow down behind.
6was there any event on the road causing a movement of the car

7 is there tier mark show movement of the car
8 was it seen

9 did the ride wanna damage the car ie hit or kick it the fall off

10 was a car even involved in them falling off. I'm guessing the car would hit the handle bar and there legs any damage there

Lot if but and maybe so u can't put blame on to any1 yet

ShoeburyCyclist wrote:
APR wrote: "Also pointless cutting and pasting large chunks of rules and regs from the Internet. People can do that themselves."

As those who represent drivers on this website clearly have little or no knowledge of how to drive correctly and safely, it is only sensible that those of us who do know the Highway Code remind them of it.

GreatDixter wrote:

LocalBoy wrote:
The Highway Code; as some people are unable to accept that the driver must have been in breach of the code for an incident to have occurred:


204

The most vulnerable road users are pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists and horse riders. It is particularly important to be aware of children, older and disabled people, and learner and inexperienced drivers and riders.
163
give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car (see Rules 211-215)
212

When passing motorcyclists and cyclists, give them plenty of room (see Rules 162-167). If they look over their shoulder it could mean that they intend to pull out, turn right or change direction. Give them time and space to do so.


213

Motorcyclists and cyclists may suddenly need to avoid uneven road surfaces and obstacles such as drain covers or oily, wet or icy patches on the road. Give them plenty of room and pay particular attention to any sudden change of direction they may have to make.
163

Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should

* not get too close to the vehicle you intend to overtake
* use your mirrors, signal when it is safe to do so, take a quick sideways glance if necessary into the blind spot area and then start to move out
* not assume that you can simply follow a vehicle ahead which is overtaking; there may only be enough room for one vehicle
* move quickly past the vehicle you are overtaking, once you have started to overtake. Allow plenty of room. Move back to the left as soon as you can but do not cut in

The motorist was either too close to the cyclist and if they were not too close they failed to move quickly past the vehicle they were overtaking. Take your pick the motorist was wrong. If the motorist was that incensed by the riding of the boys on the bike they should have overtaken them, pulled up and spoken to them. Instead they put the boys and other road users at risk by the actions that they took. That is assuming this report is accurate of course. I do accept that not all will agree with my view but that is based on their assumption (through local knowledge) that the mother and boys are telling a pack of lies. My assumption is that they are telling the truth and if that is so then the motorist is at fault. Get over it!

Again your comments are based on what the two boys have told their mother.

That is a supposition that must be challenged.

Clearly you have an anti-car agenda and the fact that you are ranting on about the driver tells me you biased, prejudiced and therefore stupid.

Get the facts first before you start making childish accusations.

Beth the original one wrote:
Local Boy said
What I am saying is supposition; what they have said is evidence. As I have based everything I have posted on a logical extrapolation of their evidence; I cannot see the problem. I have not ranted on about the driver but clearly your emotional response to my post clearly indicates that you may have some sort of issue(s) that you may need to address

Hmmm i find it quite interesting that you are taking the word of two boys who were riding their bike dangerously as gospel. As a mother i am well aware that if children have damaged something by doing something they shouldnt, they LIE

Beth the original one wrote:
Local Boy said
What I am saying is supposition; what they have said is evidence. As I have based everything I have posted on a logical extrapolation of their evidence; I cannot see the problem. I have not ranted on about the driver but clearly your emotional response to my post clearly indicates that you may have some sort of issue(s) that you may need to address

Hmmm i find it quite interesting that you are taking the word of two boys who were riding their bike dangerously as gospel. As a mother i am well aware that if children have damaged something by doing something they shouldnt, they LIE

John the resonator wrote:

Baker_Boy wrote:

John the resonator wrote: Sounds like the boys were riding in an idiotic manner but that does not justify this woman's actions IF she did indeed steer into them. Of course, it might be the boys themselves were not in control of the bike and swerved into the car themselves. Witnesses might have been the only way to sort this one out, but of course judging by these posts, they could also be biassed. I'm just thinking about Baker_Boy giving the police a witness statement!

Why am I being brought in to something I not state my view on. Well as I been brought into it I will 1 children should not be two on a bike like that 2 yes I'm glad the woman said something as it teaches people I often shout of to bike going through red light of be dangerous normal meet with abuse. 3 was there and abuse given here 4 who was driving I'm guess someone other than the woman who would have been on passage side 5 did the car make other cars slow down behind. 6was there any event on the road causing a movement of the car 7 is there tier mark show movement of the car 8 was it seen 9 did the ride wanna damage the car ie hit or kick it the fall off 10 was a car even involved in them falling off. I'm guessing the car would hit the handle bar and there legs any damage there Lot if but and maybe so u can't put blame on to any1 yet

I only mentioned your name Baker_Boy because I have been missing you while you left the area hiding from all the charity cyclists around Wakering and Barling over the weekend. I won't respond to your comments in detail. My point was that you appear to have a very strong bias against cyclists, therefore I think it would be very unlikely for you to give an impartial account to the police had you witnessed the incident. I would make the same comment in reverse about any cyclist who believes bike riders can do no wrong and cyclists are always in the right.

Baker_Boy wrote:

John the resonator wrote: Sounds like the boys were riding in an idiotic manner but that does not justify this woman's actions IF she did indeed steer into them. Of course, it might be the boys themselves were not in control of the bike and swerved into the car themselves. Witnesses might have been the only way to sort this one out, but of course judging by these posts, they could also be biassed. I'm just thinking about Baker_Boy giving the police a witness statement!

Why am I being brought in to something I not state my view on. Well as I been brought into it I will 1 children should not be two on a bike like that 2 yes I'm glad the woman said something as it teaches people I often shout of to bike going through red light of be dangerous normal meet with abuse. 3 was there and abuse given here 4 who was driving I'm guess someone other than the woman who would have been on passage side 5 did the car make other cars slow down behind. 6was there any event on the road causing a movement of the car 7 is there tier mark show movement of the car 8 was it seen 9 did the ride wanna damage the car ie hit or kick it the fall off 10 was a car even involved in them falling off. I'm guessing the car would hit the handle bar and there legs any damage there Lot if but and maybe so u can't put blame on to any1 yet

ShoeburyCyclist wrote:

Beth the original one wrote:
Local Boy said
What I am saying is supposition; what they have said is evidence. As I have based everything I have posted on a logical extrapolation of their evidence; I cannot see the problem. I have not ranted on about the driver but clearly your emotional response to my post clearly indicates that you may have some sort of issue(s) that you may need to address

Hmmm i find it quite interesting that you are taking the word of two boys who were riding their bike dangerously as gospel. As a mother i am well aware that if children have damaged something by doing something they shouldnt, they LIE

The boys have told their story, the driver has 'done a runner' to use the vernacular.

If the driver has done no wrong why have they not come forward? Why did they not report a collision as required by law?

Baker_Boy wrote:
oo someone got a problem with me for stating my views 1 yes but better education for child on bike would stop this. do we know a good gap was not left. 2 people education other people on the road about road safty can only be good 3 did i say it would cause the driver to hit them would be nice to know the story the plot. 4 what side were the boy on there middle of the road or on payment side. guessing leaning over from driving my cause slight issues 5 then car behind would have seen any involentry movements 6 any other event and no need to swear now come on that not grown up 7 would be a good clue 8 we shall wait to they come forward then 9 that good work check the car might be good work doingthat 10 who the statement from friend could be very interesting

Alekhine wrote:

Baker_Boy wrote: oo someone got a problem with me for stating my views 1 yes but better education for child on bike would stop this. do we know a good gap was not left. 2 people education other people on the road about road safty can only be good 3 did i say it would cause the driver to hit them would be nice to know the story the plot. 4 what side were the boy on there middle of the road or on payment side. guessing leaning over from driving my cause slight issues 5 then car behind would have seen any involentry movements 6 any other event and no need to swear now come on that not grown up 7 would be a good clue 8 we shall wait to they come forward then 9 that good work check the car might be good work doingthat 10 who the statement from friend could be very interesting

Try talking sense, nobody has any problems. 1. You think educating 10 year olds will stop bicycle accidents? Whether deliberate or not, the article says the car swerved so very good chance the gap was not good enough. People don't fall off bicycles for no reason. 2. So you shouting at people at the lights is education then? - no wonder you travel by train. 3. The highway code says cars should allowed a good margin of space for bicycles. Plot is irrelevent, the driver is in control of a lethal weapon, - you can't kill anybody with a bicycle. 4. i think we can say they were not on the pavement. The article says the driver turned the wheel into them. Does it matter what side they were on? 5. So a driver stuck behind another car has a better view than someone on the pavement or another cyclist? 6. Ask a grown up question - you'll get a grown up answer. 7. Does no tyre mark mean no braking? 8. Ofcourse 9. Que? - non-comprendez 10. A statement is a statement. It could be from a passenger in the car. The Police do not attach less weight to the statements of non-drivers.

GreatDixter wrote:

ShoeburyCyclist wrote:

Beth the original one wrote:
Local Boy said
What I am saying is supposition; what they have said is evidence. As I have based everything I have posted on a logical extrapolation of their evidence; I cannot see the problem. I have not ranted on about the driver but clearly your emotional response to my post clearly indicates that you may have some sort of issue(s) that you may need to address

Hmmm i find it quite interesting that you are taking the word of two boys who were riding their bike dangerously as gospel. As a mother i am well aware that if children have damaged something by doing something they shouldnt, they LIE

The boys have told their story, the driver has 'done a runner' to use the vernacular.

If the driver has done no wrong why have they not come forward? Why did they not report a collision as required by law?

What evidence do you have there was a driver in the first place?.

The only person who has been interviewed is the mother of the boy who was breaking the law.

And she wasn't present when this alleged incident took place.

Her story is hearsay evidence and is only admissible in court under the strictest of conditions.

Suggest you get some facts before you start exhibiting your prejudices.

Baker_Boy wrote:

John the resonator wrote:

Baker_Boy wrote:

John the resonator wrote: Sounds like the boys were riding in an idiotic manner but that does not justify this woman's actions IF she did indeed steer into them. Of course, it might be the boys themselves were not in control of the bike and swerved into the car themselves. Witnesses might have been the only way to sort this one out, but of course judging by these posts, they could also be biassed. I'm just thinking about Baker_Boy giving the police a witness statement!

Why am I being brought in to something I not state my view on. Well as I been brought into it I will 1 children should not be two on a bike like that 2 yes I'm glad the woman said something as it teaches people I often shout of to bike going through red light of be dangerous normal meet with abuse. 3 was there and abuse given here 4 who was driving I'm guess someone other than the woman who would have been on passage side 5 did the car make other cars slow down behind. 6was there any event on the road causing a movement of the car 7 is there tier mark show movement of the car 8 was it seen 9 did the ride wanna damage the car ie hit or kick it the fall off 10 was a car even involved in them falling off. I'm guessing the car would hit the handle bar and there legs any damage there Lot if but and maybe so u can't put blame on to any1 yet

I only mentioned your name Baker_Boy because I have been missing you while you left the area hiding from all the charity cyclists around Wakering and Barling over the weekend. I won't respond to your comments in detail. My point was that you appear to have a very strong bias against cyclists, therefore I think it would be very unlikely for you to give an impartial account to the police had you witnessed the incident. I would make the same comment in reverse about any cyclist who believes bike riders can do no wrong and cyclists are always in the right.

therefore in one comment you trying to paint a picture of me as a criminal.


just so you know no i would not hold back from the police it every member of the public duty to sever them with information as best they can.

bias againt cyclist no need for better education yes.

im very insulted by your comment here

Mary Lou wrote:
As this has now evolved into a bike versus car debate here is my 2P worth.
.
The pro cyclist view seems to come from a world straight out of Enid Blyton (famous five - 1950's vintage). As to cyclist behaivour I have noted from direct observation the following.
.
SOME:
Kids don't give toss for the law.
Kids don't give a toss for the highway code.
Kids will do a figure of 8 across both lanes in front of traffic as they don't give a toss.
Kids will ride directly off a pavement into traffic across a busy road as they don't give a toss.
Kids will ride towards traffic on the wrong side of a road as they don't give a toss.
Kids will cross a road with traffic, without looking as they don't give a toss.
.
What I am saying is yer actual yob has learned that they don't have to comply with anything. Because they don't care, will never be held responsible and we will dance all around them regardless of their behaviour.
.
So I say to these paragons of the cycling world. Watch a bunch of yobs on BMX type bikes and see how they behave. I caution you not to approach them and give them the benefit of your wisdom on the Highway Code, as they will probably kick you into A&E.

counosboy wrote:
The mother is clearly angling for some financial recompense. Scrounger! Her son clearly wasnt looking after this valuable bike, was he!?

The children (for that is what they are until they are old enogh to pay their way in this world) should be prosecuted for dangerous behaviour on the road. Perhaps if her son had fallen under the wheels of the car, someone would have learned a valuable lesson out of all this?

ShoeburyCyclist wrote:

Mary Lou wrote:
As this has now evolved into a bike versus car debate here is my 2P worth.
.
The pro cyclist view seems to come from a world straight out of Enid Blyton (famous five - 1950's vintage). As to cyclist behaivour I have noted from direct observation the following.
.
SOME:
Kids don't give toss for the law.
Kids don't give a toss for the highway code.
Kids will do a figure of 8 across both lanes in front of traffic as they don't give a toss.
Kids will ride directly off a pavement into traffic across a busy road as they don't give a toss.
Kids will ride towards traffic on the wrong side of a road as they don't give a toss.
Kids will cross a road with traffic, without looking as they don't give a toss.
.
What I am saying is yer actual yob has learned that they don't have to comply with anything. Because they don't care, will never be held responsible and we will dance all around them regardless of their behaviour.
.
So I say to these paragons of the cycling world. Watch a bunch of yobs on BMX type bikes and see how they behave. I caution you not to approach them and give them the benefit of your wisdom on the Highway Code, as they will probably kick you into A&E.

All of that excuses using a car to try to kill these kids does it?

Beth the original one wrote:
we only have the word of the mother, who has the word of her kids when they came home with a damaged bike.

So i would say that so far its ALL speculation, as i know that kids LIE about what they do and get up to and how things get damaged.

For all we know, NO car is involved and the kids made it all up to cover their own arse coz they damaged their bike doing something stupid

And i will challenge anyone who says their kids dont lie.

John the resonator wrote:

Baker_Boy wrote:

John the resonator wrote:

Baker_Boy wrote:

John the resonator wrote: Sounds like the boys were riding in an idiotic manner but that does not justify this woman's actions IF she did indeed steer into them. Of course, it might be the boys themselves were not in control of the bike and swerved into the car themselves. Witnesses might have been the only way to sort this one out, but of course judging by these posts, they could also be biassed. I'm just thinking about Baker_Boy giving the police a witness statement!

Why am I being brought in to something I not state my view on. Well as I been brought into it I will 1 children should not be two on a bike like that 2 yes I'm glad the woman said something as it teaches people I often shout of to bike going through red light of be dangerous normal meet with abuse. 3 was there and abuse given here 4 who was driving I'm guess someone other than the woman who would have been on passage side 5 did the car make other cars slow down behind. 6was there any event on the road causing a movement of the car 7 is there tier mark show movement of the car 8 was it seen 9 did the ride wanna damage the car ie hit or kick it the fall off 10 was a car even involved in them falling off. I'm guessing the car would hit the handle bar and there legs any damage there Lot if but and maybe so u can't put blame on to any1 yet

I only mentioned your name Baker_Boy because I have been missing you while you left the area hiding from all the charity cyclists around Wakering and Barling over the weekend. I won't respond to your comments in detail. My point was that you appear to have a very strong bias against cyclists, therefore I think it would be very unlikely for you to give an impartial account to the police had you witnessed the incident. I would make the same comment in reverse about any cyclist who believes bike riders can do no wrong and cyclists are always in the right.

therefore in one comment you trying to paint a picture of me as a criminal.


just so you know no i would not hold back from the police it every member of the public duty to sever them with information as best they can.

bias againt cyclist no need for better education yes.

im very insulted by your comment here

Where do you get the impression I was trying to paint a picture of you as a criminal? I never made any such suggestion.

My point was about the unreliability of eye witness testimony, which tends to be influenced by any prejudices or set beliefs the witness might have. I include myself in that, to some extent most of us probably see what we want or expect to see.

I really had no intention of insulting you Baker_Boy but there have been psychological studies carried out on this very subject and there was a recent TV programme on eye witness accounts.

As, whenever you post, you tend to assume cyclists are in the wrong, regardless of limited information in the Echo report , and are reciprocally generous to car drivers, also on scant information, I would say taking a witness statement from you might be risky.

I'm not calling you a liar, a perjurer or any kind of a criminal but you do display a strong bias every time you post on cycling related topics.

Alekhine wrote:

Baker_Boy wrote:
oo someone got a problem with me for stating my views 1 yes but better education for child on bike would stop this. do we know a good gap was not left. 2 people education other people on the road about road safty can only be good 3 did i say it would cause the driver to hit them would be nice to know the story the plot. 4 what side were the boy on there middle of the road or on payment side. guessing leaning over from driving my cause slight issues 5 then car behind would have seen any involentry movements 6 any other event and no need to swear now come on that not grown up 7 would be a good clue 8 we shall wait to they come forward then 9 that good work check the car might be good work doingthat 10 who the statement from friend could be very interesting

Try talking sense, nobody has any problems.

1. You think educating 10 year olds will stop bicycle accidents? Whether deliberate or not, the article says the car swerved so very good chance the gap was not good enough. People don't fall off bicycles for no reason.

2. So you shouting at people at the lights is education then? - no wonder you travel by train.

3. The highway code says cars should allowed a good margin of space for bicycles. Plot is irrelevent, the driver is in control of a lethal weapon, - you can't kill anybody with a bicycle.

4. i think we can say they were not on the pavement. The article says the driver turned the wheel into them. Does it matter what side they were on?

5. So a driver stuck behind another car has a better view than someone on the pavement or another cyclist?

6. Ask a grown up question - you'll get a grown up answer.

7. Does no tyre mark mean no braking?

8. Ofcourse

9. Que? - non-comprendez

10. A statement is a statement. It could be from a passenger in the car. The Police do not attach less weight to the statements of non-drivers.

ShoeburyCyclist wrote:
Give it up John. There is a saying that Bakerboy obviously has not heard, "If you go looking for offence, you will most surely find it."

gitreal wrote:
I'm a man of great on honor and you have insult me my family and war hero in my family by your post. You say I would be bias in a report to the police on any incident as a member of the UK public I serve the police with facts only if they require. Your post make out u would twist and with hold the facts. This would never happen. I'm very grateful for all I have and work for yet people like you seem to want to paint picture as criminal I find horrific I'm disgusted. This type of victimization is bring the country down My values are something I hold highly and you have no right to mention my name in such manor. Well I don't care what you think. I think you have mental problems. And just a small word of advice, bruch up on that grammar a bit - you don't make much sense most fo the time.

John the resonator wrote:
For goodness sake Baker_Boy take it easy. I was simply writing about the in-built unreliability of eye witness testimony and if you noticed I included myself in that. I also stated I had no intention to insult you. You do not have a monopoly on having someone who served in a war and any offence to that person is in your mind only. Like I said, you need to take it easy once in a while.

ShoeburyCyclist wrote:
Give it up John. There is a saying that Bakerboy obviously has not heard, "If you go looking for offence, you will most surely find it."

thelonewhinger wrote:
Wow! Didn't realise how easily folks get wound-up by such a sketchy story based purely on the untested word of a minor.
Thank heavens it wasn't a doggy or pussycat riding the bike and a car driven by a benefit-scrounging asylum seeker...... It would crash the Echo's website!

APR wrote:
"LocalBoy, Hawkwell says...
10:18am Mon 6 Sep 10
Ah so now the truth be out; APR is prejudiced against cyclists. When the cyclist tried to squeeze between you and the parked car was that because the cyclist was already overtaking the parked car because they had priority. Or did they just think it was a good idea to pull out in front of you?......."
.
Is this an assumption, or were you there ?
You are wrong on both counts

APR wrote:
"LocalBoy, Hawkwell says...
10:18am Mon 6 Sep 10
Ah so now the truth be out; APR is prejudiced against cyclists. When the cyclist tried to squeeze between you and the parked car was that because the cyclist was already overtaking the parked car because they had priority. Or did they just think it was a good idea to pull out in front of you?......."
.
Is this an assumption, or were you there ?
You are wrong on both counts

Baker_Boy wrote:

ShoeburyCyclist wrote: Give it up John. There is a saying that Bakerboy obviously has not heard, "If you go looking for offence, you will most surely find it."

i think you find 99% of people would take offence to being called a criminal basically not your argument now is is. yes i no u would not take offence cos you are gold boy

thelonewhinger wrote:
Wow! Didn't realise how easily folks get wound-up by such a sketchy story based purely on the untested word of a minor. Thank heavens it wasn't a doggy or pussycat riding the bike and a car driven by a benefit-scrounging asylum seeker...... It would crash the Echo's website!

John the resonator wrote:
I appreciate Alekhine's efforts to try and cool things down here and inject a bit of humour.

Baker_Boy, you seem stuck on the idea that you have been called a criminal. If you are referring to me I am struggling to find where I have made that inference. I was writing about the fallibility of eye witness testimony, I stated there are psychological studies to back that up and I included myself in the description that we can all allow our bias to influence our judgement. I also stated "I'm not calling you a liar, a perjurer or any kind of a criminal but you do display a strong bias every time you post on cycling related topics."

So how are you being called a criminal?

Also, frankly, why on earth should I be concerned what your grandfather would say if he saw my comment?

John T Pharro wrote:
This has really caused a response. Having read the comments there is no doubt the woman should not have responded as she did, obviously illegal. However, so is riding the bike the way the children were and that is really the knub of the problem. IF and that is a big IF children riding bikes this way were treated seriously by the Police and their parents and stamped down on this incident may not have happened. I, and I expect all drivers, have seen positively barmy riding of bikes by children. The Police do nothing and neither do parents, of course until something like this happens!!

ShoeburyCyclist wrote:
Sorry, I forgot to add pertinent part of his post, he also said: "es, common sense is required when travelling anywhere on any type of surface. Common sense is probably what saved the young girl's life. Upon seeing the crowd of people around the bend, we did slow down. It just goes to show what injuries can be sustained at relatively low speeds. All of his injuries were caused by one thing, landing on an out-stretched arm."

APR wrote:

Beth the original one wrote: after reading the report, i doubt very much if the car driver did ride into the boys, especially if she slowed down to advise them of their stupidity. I reckon (as i am a mum myself and dont wear rose coloured glasses) that the kids gave her the two finger salute, lost, what little control, they had on the bike, drove into the car, damaged their bike and went crying home to mummy saying they were deliberately knocked off their bike, and mummy, whos kids obviously do no wrong, believes them and then runs whinging and crying to the local newspaper, hoping us mugs as readers will donate a new bike. Heres a tip luv, look on freecycle, you maybe lucky enough to scrounge another bike

That is probably closer to what actually happened.

SouthchurchButters wrote:

APR wrote:

Beth the original one wrote: after reading the report, i doubt very much if the car driver did ride into the boys, especially if she slowed down to advise them of their stupidity. I reckon (as i am a mum myself and dont wear rose coloured glasses) that the kids gave her the two finger salute, lost, what little control, they had on the bike, drove into the car, damaged their bike and went crying home to mummy saying they were deliberately knocked off their bike, and mummy, whos kids obviously do no wrong, believes them and then runs whinging and crying to the local newspaper, hoping us mugs as readers will donate a new bike. Heres a tip luv, look on freecycle, you maybe lucky enough to scrounge another bike

That is probably closer to what actually happened.

+1

Alekhine wrote:

SouthchurchButters wrote:

APR wrote:

Beth the original one wrote: after reading the report, i doubt very much if the car driver did ride into the boys, especially if she slowed down to advise them of their stupidity. I reckon (as i am a mum myself and dont wear rose coloured glasses) that the kids gave her the two finger salute, lost, what little control, they had on the bike, drove into the car, damaged their bike and went crying home to mummy saying they were deliberately knocked off their bike, and mummy, whos kids obviously do no wrong, believes them and then runs whinging and crying to the local newspaper, hoping us mugs as readers will donate a new bike. Heres a tip luv, look on freecycle, you maybe lucky enough to scrounge another bike

That is probably closer to what actually happened.

+1

Fine - but its equally possible that after handing out a lecture, and receiving a 2 finger salute, the driver lost her temper.

The only fact we know for certain is the driver has not come forward.

99.

APR wrote:
Any news story involving cyclists is always guaranteed to raise hackles.

The fact is, there would be a lot more accidents involving cyclists, if motorists and pedestrians didn't go out of their way to avoid their sometimes erratic and dangerous behaviour.
.
I wonder if we can make 100 posts on this story ?

PJR wrote:
By the way, in an attempt to break all records for comments on this site, I shall be working on a story the Echo may want to publish - Cyclist clamped by LBS while protesting Southend Airport expansion...

Mark D wrote:

John T Pharro wrote: This has really caused a response. Having read the comments there is no doubt the woman should not have responded as she did, obviously illegal. However, so is riding the bike the way the children were and that is really the knub of the problem. IF and that is a big IF children riding bikes this way were treated seriously by the Police and their parents and stamped down on this incident may not have happened. I, and I expect all drivers, have seen positively barmy riding of bikes by children. The Police do nothing and neither do parents, of course until something like this happens!!

As a cyclist (and motorist) myself, I am more worried about a psychopathic driver on the loose, rather than irresponsible cycling by children.

John T Pharro wrote:

Mark D wrote:

John T Pharro wrote: This has really caused a response. Having read the comments there is no doubt the woman should not have responded as she did, obviously illegal. However, so is riding the bike the way the children were and that is really the knub of the problem. IF and that is a big IF children riding bikes this way were treated seriously by the Police and their parents and stamped down on this incident may not have happened. I, and I expect all drivers, have seen positively barmy riding of bikes by children. The Police do nothing and neither do parents, of course until something like this happens!!

As a cyclist (and motorist) myself, I am more worried about a psychopathic driver on the loose, rather than irresponsible cycling by children.

I understand your point, but this is just one motorist. How many times have you had to slam on brakes ffor young cyclist doing things like this, or with no lights, or riding in the middle of the road etc and when did you see an 11 year old plus even with a helmet? Do you not think nothing being done by police or parents about these young cyclists is OK?

Mary Lou wrote:
Cycling courses !!
Helmets !!
.
You're back in Enid Blyton land again. Yer average BMX yob doesn't care.

daveyboy25 wrote:
these are not normal boys they are dangerous moronic idiots and well done to the driver for stopping them, plus hope the police arrest the kids for dangerous riding, i see it all the time on canvey

Beth the original one wrote:
Shoebury Cyclist, i have NO objection to taking some responsibility for safety of all road users, BUT ALL road users should also take responsibility for themselves and others too. That has always been my arguement, which you always choose to ignore.

ShoeburyCyclist wrote:
http://www.youtube.c

om/watch?v=UXD_yl-MV

xk

Beth the original one wrote:
ok shoebury cyclist very poignent and yes showing some very dangerous and irresponsible driving,

here is the other side of the coin

http://www.youtube.c

om/watch?v=irxF2eCLs

n0

Baker_Boy wrote:
Hope people know the Links are not support on this site. Anyway story confirm very little so no judgement passed.

At least the hope these day for better education on bikeathon events

ShoeburyCyclist wrote:

Baker_Boy wrote: Hope people know the Links are not support on this site. Anyway story confirm very little so no judgement passed. At least the hope these day for better education on bikeathon events

To see links you have to copy and paste them into your browser's address bar, then hit 'enter'.

Baker_Boy wrote:

ShoeburyCyclist wrote:

Baker_Boy wrote: Hope people know the Links are not support on this site. Anyway story confirm very little so no judgement passed. At least the hope these day for better education on bikeathon events

To see links you have to copy and paste them into your browser's address bar, then hit 'enter'.

some dont work impossible on phone mate. maybe if you state the tital and what to search might help some people

John the resonator wrote:
Fair point Mark it is a bit of a mix but has still made a really big impression on me. It does it for me more than all the words and I owe ShoeburyCyclist a lot for putting this on.

I think it is the combination of the speed, the power of a motor vehicle to scatter and crush bodies and the power of an HGV out of control to utterly flatten a car.

All that and a really powerful song, which isn't even about road accidents but just seems to fit perfectly.

By the way, anyone help with the German titles at the end? I think it is saying something about "I just simply can't get over you," (which is a sentiment in the song).

John the resonator wrote:
OK, well researched from a native speaker. Thanks. I need to learn German properly rather than a few words and no grammar.

Incidentally, ever come across 'Last Kiss' by Pearl jam. Would also make an excellent and very moving soundtrack for a safety video.