VIDEO: OAP attacks cyclist with his crutches (From Thisisdorset)

What a nasty man he sounds! Bet he will only get a caution if anything because of his age - whereas if it were a young person who attacked her, they would be prosecuted for assault .....

Can we have his picture on here please so we can all look out for him ?

If a cyclist attacked a beligerent pensioner you can guarantee there would have been an immediate arrest.

You were lucky he didn't attack you with his car,send him down,hanging's too good for him.

He should be summonsed for assault - if the Police or CPS dont do it then the lady can herself.........you'
ll probably find he`'s got a history of violence.

As she says herself, he was still on the crossing, so should she not have stopped - even if he was "almost on the other side" ? He was still ON THE CROSSING and highway code states to stop when people are crossing ............ perhaps she startled him or something, which doesn't make the attack right, but it may account for him swinging his crutches up at her if he thought she was going to ride into him?

More to this than meets the eye ..... ?

Suzi. Whether he was on the crossing or not, his reaction was totally unacceptable. The fact that he stood there smirking showed he wasn't that upset about it all, just thinks he can lash out how he likes.

The lady should press charges - if this is how this gentleman thinks he can behave then he needs that smirk taken off his face, with a fine. He probably has got a history of violence.

Is Mrs Weston saying that this guy was on the zebra crossing and she was on the road, if so she should have stopped until he had reached the pavement, if a car driver had driven over a zebra crossing while someone was on it he would be prosecuted.
If this is what she did then she has to suffer the consequences.

TD61 wrote:
What a nasty man he sounds! Bet he will only get a caution if anything because of his age - whereas if it were a young person who attacked her, they would be prosecuted for assault .....

Do you really believe that.

Hessenford wrote:
Is Mrs Weston saying that this guy was on the zebra crossing and she was on the road, if so she should have stopped until he had reached the pavement, if a car driver had driven over a zebra crossing while someone was on it he would be prosecuted. If this is what she did then she has to suffer the consequences.

Exactly - possibly another case of a cyclist breaking the law! Actually thinking back last year I had a similar incident at the same zebra crossing with a woman cyclist - I just stepped on to the zebra crossing and she just kept on cycling with no intention of stopping. There were a few words exchanged!

"A Dorset Police spokesman said: “An incident took place at around 12.15am where a female cyclist was assaulted by an elderly man with two crutches."

So what were so many people doing out so late at night?

More to this than reported I suspect.

If the crossing was still in use, even 'almost on the pavement on other side' then a road user is obliged to wait.
Of course he shouldn't have attacked her, but there seems to be an element of 'the traffic lights were only a little bit red' kind of comment about the story....

Cyclists don't see things quite like pedestrians, and can 'whoosh' past people, causing some alarm on occasion. Maybe this was a reaction to that kind of incident?
Shouldn't have responded violently as I say, but some folk do tend to lash out when alarmed?....

suzigirl wrote:

Hessenford wrote:
Is Mrs Weston saying that this guy was on the zebra crossing and she was on the road, if so she should have stopped until he had reached the pavement, if a car driver had driven over a zebra crossing while someone was on it he would be prosecuted. If this is what she did then she has to suffer the consequences.

Exactly - possibly another case of a cyclist breaking the law! Actually thinking back last year I had a similar incident at the same zebra crossing with a woman cyclist - I just stepped on to the zebra crossing and she just kept on cycling with no intention of stopping. There were a few words exchanged!

There is a big difference between a criminal act (assault) and a road traffic offence.

If this cyclist had gone onto the crossing at the same time as the old man, that is no excuse for a battering.

Morrigan wrote:
As she says herself, he was still on the crossing, so should she not have stopped - even if he was "almost on the other side" ? He was still ON THE CROSSING and highway code states to stop when people are crossing ............ perhaps she startled him or something, which doesn't make the attack right, but it may account for him swinging his crutches up at her if he thought she was going to ride into him?

More to this than meets the eye ..... ?

Really !!

So he was on the crossing and she thought it was ok to break the law by not stopping,then she 'gave him a wide berth' but was still close enough that him swinging his crutch behind him was close enough to make her fall off her bike and when 'words were said' i suppose she means that she said something but is not willing to repeat it. I do not agree with him attacking her (but as i said we do not know how close the wide berth was) but she should not have broken the law either.

suzigirl wrote:

Hessenford wrote:
Is Mrs Weston saying that this guy was on the zebra crossing and she was on the road, if so she should have stopped until he had reached the pavement, if a car driver had driven over a zebra crossing while someone was on it he would be prosecuted. If this is what she did then she has to suffer the consequences.

Exactly - possibly another case of a cyclist breaking the law! Actually thinking back last year I had a similar incident at the same zebra crossing with a woman cyclist - I just stepped on to the zebra crossing and she just kept on cycling with no intention of stopping. There were a few words exchanged!

Read it again, he was all most across the road, there was no need for her to stop. He turned to attack the cyclist but couldn't reach her even with his crutches; all ways thought that once you started to cross you shouldn't turn back.

I agree with suzigirl and hessenford, but the article doesn't actually say he was on the zebra crossing.
.
And what about Mrs Weston's other comment.
.
“This is the third unprovoked attack on our family in the last few years".
.
They don't seem to be a very lucky family, do they.

Sounds to me like she cycled over a zebra crossing whilst the elderly gentleman was still crossing, so maybe if she had waited, as she should have, this would not have happened. Obviously what happened is not nice and the elderly gentleman should be dealt with accordingly.

jobsworthwatch wrote:

suzigirl wrote:

Hessenford wrote:
Is Mrs Weston saying that this guy was on the zebra crossing and she was on the road, if so she should have stopped until he had reached the pavement, if a car driver had driven over a zebra crossing while someone was on it he would be prosecuted. If this is what she did then she has to suffer the consequences.

Exactly - possibly another case of a cyclist breaking the law! Actually thinking back last year I had a similar incident at the same zebra crossing with a woman cyclist - I just stepped on to the zebra crossing and she just kept on cycling with no intention of stopping. There were a few words exchanged!

Read it again, he was all most across the road, there was no need for her to stop. He turned to attack the cyclist but couldn't reach her even with his crutches; all ways thought that once you started to cross you shouldn't turn back.

But Mrs Weston states she saw him and gave him a wide berth which suggests she was on the same side of the crossing as he was so rather than stop she rode round him, I am not suggesting for one minute that this is an excuse for him giving her a good battering.

In that video it is very clear he was still on the zebra crossing.... Should of waited for him to be safely across the road...especially if he was on crutches! What gives some of these cyclists the right to think they are above the law! Good for him!

Hessenford wrote:

jobsworthwatch wrote:

suzigirl wrote:

Hessenford wrote:
Is Mrs Weston saying that this guy was on the zebra crossing and she was on the road, if so she should have stopped until he had reached the pavement, if a car driver had driven over a zebra crossing while someone was on it he would be prosecuted. If this is what she did then she has to suffer the consequences.

Exactly - possibly another case of a cyclist breaking the law! Actually thinking back last year I had a similar incident at the same zebra crossing with a woman cyclist - I just stepped on to the zebra crossing and she just kept on cycling with no intention of stopping. There were a few words exchanged!

Read it again, he was all most across the road, there was no need for her to stop. He turned to attack the cyclist but couldn't reach her even with his crutches; all ways thought that once you started to cross you shouldn't turn back.

But Mrs Weston states she saw him and gave him a wide berth which suggests she was on the same side of the crossing as he was so rather than stop she rode round him, I am not suggesting for one minute that this is an excuse for him giving her a good battering.

It appears this man turned back to attack the cyclist when all he should have done was just continued on his way. He was effectively loitering on the crossing which the highway code specifically says you must not do.

Was he stepping onto or off the Zebra crossing
Another dangerous factor she could have swerved into the path of a car.

Even if she should have waited, that did not give him the right to lash out with such aggresiveness. He is more in the wrong then this lady.

LocalHound wrote:
Even if she should have waited, that did not give him the right to lash out with such aggresiveness. He is more in the wrong then this lady.

It seems there may have been blame on both side here, what ever happened she did not deserve such an attack from a cantankerous old geezer.

Irrespective of the assumption of a traffic offence, no-one has the right to assault another person. Pensioner or not!

I feel an immediate ban on all cyclists, and the immediate arrest and incarceration of anyone over the age of 65 found to be carrying a stick or crutch in a public place, are the only reasonable responses to this incident.

And what were the Police doing “taking down details” when they should have been cordoning off all surrounding roads so that they could collect forensic evidence!!!

Both in the wrong. Simples.

suzigirl wrote:

Hessenford wrote:
Is Mrs Weston saying that this guy was on the zebra crossing and she was on the road, if so she should have stopped until he had reached the pavement, if a car driver had driven over a zebra crossing while someone was on it he would be prosecuted. If this is what she did then she has to suffer the consequences.

Exactly - possibly another case of a cyclist breaking the law! Actually thinking back last year I had a similar incident at the same zebra crossing with a woman cyclist - I just stepped on to the zebra crossing and she just kept on cycling with no intention of stopping. There were a few words exchanged!

If you fail to accord precedence when you need to, you commit an offence. (RTRA s. 25(5))

If the pedestrian has passed you but still on the crossing you have accorded precedence and complied with the law.
by continuing your journey you do not break the law. You do not have to wait until the person have has reached the other side. (Accorded precedence)

A lot of people don't realise (unless they have recently had driving lessons) is that if someone is on a pedestrian crossing they must reach the other side before you drive/ cycle on. This also applies when there is an island in the middle of a crossing - it means the whole crossing, not half of it.

I can understand the pedestrian's anger at the near miss, it has happened to me often too, but it is no excuse for his behaviour.

Sounds like the old boy has mental health issues. Feel sorry for him and hope he gets the help he needs.
As for the cyclist, well technically she should have stopped, like all other road users would, until the old man was completely across the road. However, as we all know many cyclists think they have a right to do whatever they like on the roads. You see examples of this every day. Cycling on pavements at break neck speed. No lights and dark clothing at night. Going through red lights. Cycling the wrong way up one way streets. And cycling across pedestrian crossings when still in use! I've seen all these countless times, but when a cyclist comes a cropper they always blame a motorist!

Yes l do feel sorry for Mrs Weston for the attack on her but she admitted that she broke the law & the elderly man on crutches was probably startled!
There is no excuse for violence but there is also no excuse for cyclists to break the law.
As a professional driver l usually have daily run ins with cyclists who ride their bikes the wrong way on a one way road who deem it to be me that is at fault (usually by mouthed obscenities & finger gestures), cyclists on pavements who suddenly drop back into the road & wonder why l show my frustration at their kamikaze style riding by blasting my horn at them & of course the night time no light brigade who deserve everything that they get.
It appears that l am anti cycling but not at all, responsibly ridden cycles are good for the environment, good for health & are cheaply maintained.
Having ridden motorcycles for years l am more observant of our two wheeled friends (motorised & pedal power) but sadly there is a small percentage out there who get the rest a bad name.
Sorry Mrs Weston but perhaps next time you will wait until the zebra crossing is completely clear before proceeding.

sar72 wrote:
In that video it is very clear he was still on the zebra crossing.... Should of waited for him to be safely across the road...especially if he was on crutches! What gives some of these cyclists the right to think they are above the law! Good for him!

So your saying its perfectly reasonable for someone to commit a sustained physical assault on someone for such a minor incident. Or rather you feel its right that cyclists should be physically assaulted if they do something they may be perceived as wrong.

You need anger counselling!!!

Routers wrote:

suzigirl wrote:

Hessenford wrote:
Is Mrs Weston saying that this guy was on the zebra crossing and she was on the road, if so she should have stopped until he had reached the pavement, if a car driver had driven over a zebra crossing while someone was on it he would be prosecuted. If this is what she did then she has to suffer the consequences.

Exactly - possibly another case of a cyclist breaking the law! Actually thinking back last year I had a similar incident at the same zebra crossing with a woman cyclist - I just stepped on to the zebra crossing and she just kept on cycling with no intention of stopping. There were a few words exchanged!

If you fail to accord precedence when you need to, you commit an offence. (RTRA s. 25(5))

If the pedestrian has passed you but still on the crossing you have accorded precedence and complied with the law.
by continuing your journey you do not break the law. You do not have to wait until the person have has reached the other side. (Accorded precedence)

Methinks you talk rubbish, common courtesy and common sense prevails, I always wait until the crossing is clear before proceeding.

Very disappointed as after reading the headline I was looking forward to a video of the OAP attacking the cyclist with his crutches which I'm sure would have been an instant hit on YouTube.

Anyway something's not quite right about this she's young, fit and on a bike, he's old and on crutches ...you'd have thought she could easily have made a quick getaway!

There's an important matter of principle here. Do we prefer the traditional Echo 'Arms Folded and Grim Face' photo illustrating an article, or a 3+ minute 'Bleeding Heart' video?

So, he was on the zebra crossing, and she went through it on her bike? No excuse for his reaction, but clearly she wasn't following the Highway Code!

Highway code rule 195 Zebra crossings.

"As you approach a zebra crossing:

look out for pedestrians waiting to cross and be ready to slow down or stop to let them cross

you MUST give way when a pedestrian has moved onto a crossing"

Cycling around a pedestrian is NOT giving way.

speedy231278 wrote:
Highway code rule 195 Zebra crossings. "As you approach a zebra crossing: look out for pedestrians waiting to cross and be ready to slow down or stop to let them cross you MUST give way when a pedestrian has moved onto a crossing" Cycling around a pedestrian is NOT giving way.

So that permits Mr. Nutcase to set about her with crutches and headbutts?

Bob Bournemouth wrote:
A lot of people don't realise (unless they have recently had driving lessons) is that if someone is on a pedestrian crossing they must reach the other side before you drive/ cycle on. This also applies when there is an island in the middle of a crossing - it means the whole crossing, not half of it. I can understand the pedestrian's anger at the near miss, it has happened to me often too, but it is no excuse for his behaviour.

The reason a lot of people don't realise this is that it's completely wrong. You can cycle behind someone on a zebra crossing. That is what the commenter above you was saying.

So, it sounds like this idiot also didn't realise the law, got annoyed for no reason, and took things into his own hands.

The Renegade Master wrote:
Sounds like the old boy has mental health issues. Feel sorry for him and hope he gets the help he needs.
As for the cyclist, well technically she should have stopped, like all other road users would, until the old man was completely across the road. However, as we all know many cyclists think they have a right to do whatever they like on the roads. You see examples of this every day. Cycling on pavements at break neck speed. No lights and dark clothing at night. Going through red lights. Cycling the wrong way up one way streets. And cycling across pedestrian crossings when still in use! I've seen all these countless times, but when a cyclist comes a cropper they always blame a motorist!

Totally agree.Had 3 near misses when walking on pavements, just in the past 7 days and several whilst crossing roads with lights on the green man, in recent times! Cyclists (not all) seem to believe they are invincible, laws do not apply to them, whilst common courtesy and common sense are either ignored or never been learnt.The old guy would have been feeling vulnerable on crutches anyway and if he has mental health issues, maybe this apparent near miss triggered something for him. No excuse for hitting out but maybe there is more to this story than has been reported.Cyclists - use lights; don't speed on pavements; observe traffic lights and stop doing kamikaze trips the wrong way down one way streets!

speedy231278 wrote:
Highway code rule 195 Zebra crossings. "As you approach a zebra crossing: look out for pedestrians waiting to cross and be ready to slow down or stop to let them cross you MUST give way when a pedestrian has moved onto a crossing" Cycling around a pedestrian is NOT giving way.

Unfortunately you're wrong. See my comment above, which was explained to me by a police cycle law specialist.

Both at fault in my eyes. She shou,d have waited at the line for him to have completely gotten on the pavement. He shouldn't have attacked her. What I would like to know is why is he 'using' crutches if he's fit enough to belt someone with them without falling over?

Boring story. Boring discussion respoding to the dullards who clearly live their lives by obeying every letter of the law.
And why the video (well apart from being able to plant a 30" bank advert in there)? Do we get a speacial supplement next?

Letcommonsenseprevai
l wrote:

speedy231278 wrote:
Highway code rule 195 Zebra crossings. "As you approach a zebra crossing: look out for pedestrians waiting to cross and be ready to slow down or stop to let them cross you MUST give way when a pedestrian has moved onto a crossing" Cycling around a pedestrian is NOT giving way.

So that permits Mr. Nutcase to set about her with crutches and headbutts?

No, which is why my previous comment said that ignoring the Highway Code did not excuse his actions!

Send him down.... doesn't matter if hes old or young he still hurt someone for no reason!!

Old people has no business being out during busy hours anyway. I would not of swerved.

What is the world coming to, when an old man raises a crutch or a walking stick to a woman in a bid to inflict an injury. Are they learning from the younger generation how to be violent ? What happened to Gentlemanly manners and setting an example!! If the rider was in the wrong he should have dealt with the situation more calmly. Maybe its time for the police to consider a walking stick and crutches as an offensive weapon

absolute disgrace, this idiot should be named and shamed. there is no justification for this sort of unacceptable behaviour. hitting a woman with crutches then head butting her. outrageous

Hessenford wrote:

Routers wrote:

suzigirl wrote:

Hessenford wrote:
Is Mrs Weston saying that this guy was on the zebra crossing and she was on the road, if so she should have stopped until he had reached the pavement, if a car driver had driven over a zebra crossing while someone was on it he would be prosecuted. If this is what she did then she has to suffer the consequences.

Exactly - possibly another case of a cyclist breaking the law! Actually thinking back last year I had a similar incident at the same zebra crossing with a woman cyclist - I just stepped on to the zebra crossing and she just kept on cycling with no intention of stopping. There were a few words exchanged!

If you fail to accord precedence when you need to, you commit an offence. (RTRA s. 25(5))

If the pedestrian has passed you but still on the crossing you have accorded precedence and complied with the law.
by continuing your journey you do not break the law. You do not have to wait until the person have has reached the other side. (Accorded precedence)

Methinks you talk rubbish, common courtesy and common sense prevails, I always wait until the crossing is clear before proceeding.

Precedence of pedestrians over vehicles at Zebra crossings

25.—(1) Every pedestrian, if he is on the carriageway within the limits of a Zebra crossing, which is not for the time being controlled by a constable in uniform or traffic warden, before any part of a vehicle has entered those limits, shall have precedence within those limits over that vehicle and the driver of the vehicle shall accord such precedence to any such pedestrian.

(2) Where there is a refuge for pedestrians or central reservation on a Zebra crossing, the parts of the crossing situated on each side of the refuge for pedestrians or central reservation shall, for the purposes of this regulation, be treated as separate crossings.
The Zebra, Pelican and Puffin Pedestrian Crossings Regulations and General Directions 1997

Me thinks you should know the law !
Ignorance is no excuse

Am I right that if a car goes across a pedestrian crossing whilst a pedestrian is still on it the maximum penalty is a thousand pound fine and disqualification
although no one can condone the actions of the disabled pedestrian
this lady cycalist is arragent and rude
if she had of given him a wide birth he wouldnt have been able to stop her Cyclists should realise they have to stick to the rulkes as well.
I sincearly hope the lady is ok but did she caused the incedent

Old Colonial wrote:
There's an important matter of principle here. Do we prefer the traditional Echo 'Arms Folded and Grim Face' photo illustrating an article, or a 3+ minute 'Bleeding Heart' video?

Folded arms all day long.

Was this perhaps confused elderly cantankerous man, wearing a black & white striped fancy dress outfit as he crossed the Zebra crossing? If so? No wonder the lady didn't see him in time & stop!

If not, this is perhaps a good example where unsteady elderly people who maybe lacking spacial awareness need to be given extra time & space when crossing the road.

While not condoning the elderly mans actions. The man's disproportionate response might reflect his possible distorted perception of the lady cycling very close to him and at great speed.

Perhaps the lessons to be learnt are:
a) All road users to always stop at a pedestrian crossing when in use.
b) Always give the elderly extra time & a wider birth because of potential impaired balance, vision, hearing, and spacial awareness they often experience in the declining years of their lives!

Almost over the zebra crossing is not enough. Many years ago a neighbour was killed when she was almost over the zebra crossing but changed her mind and turned back, only to be hit by a bus.

before you con-deem the old man there are two sides to every story the echo is going to hype it up to sell the paper as it is a cover story the facts are he was still on the zebra crossing so the woman should have stopped so she was at fault and as for hitting her and head butting her seems a bit far fetched to me

All the above rants are based on HER account of what took place.

Just to be pedantic here, the Highway Code, is not law, nor is it legally enforceable. The lasw that govern pedestrian crossings are found in Laws ZPPPCRGD regs 18, 20 & 24, RTRA sect 25(5) & TSRGD regs 10, 27 & 28. They state that all vehicles must give way to all pedestrians that show clear intent to cross, and that they must all pedestrians to clear the crossing before proceeding. Having said that, if the gentlemans alleged actions are as reported, then his reaction to the cyclist was totally unacceptable, and quite rightly he should face criminal and civil proceedings.

Alumchiner wrote:
He should be summonsed for assault - if the Police or CPS dont do it then the lady can herself.........you'

ll probably find he`'s got a history of violence.

Bit of a baseless assertion to make about someone based on one small act. However, by the same token, you'll probably find that she has a history of abusing pedestrians whilst cycling.

Definitely more to this.............

He'll get a modest fine at best I should think. I don;t think hes about to do five years for this!

Holland82 wrote:
“He was at the zebra crossing outside Boots and almost on the pavement on the other side, so I gave him a very wide berth."

So he was still ON THE CROSSING! Why were you cycling past him if the crossing was clearly STILL in use?

True what someone else has said it should be her that get prosecuted for failing to stop at the crossing. Although I agree that the man overreacted.

Also “This is the third unprovoked attack on our family in the last few years." Why? is it because you all keep breaking the law and thinking you'll get away with it??

calm down, the cyclist didn't break the law. You can pass giving enough room. Nice man at the driver awareness course told me last week. We all thought it was law to stop until the crossing is clear though.

ohnonothimagen wrote:

Merleyman wrote:
"A Dorset Police spokesman said: “An incident took place at around 12.15am where a female cyclist was assaulted by an elderly man with two crutches."

So what were so many people doing out so late at night?

It says, “An incident took place at around 12.15pm not 12.15am. ....." and she was coming back from a morning bike ride so I guess it was after midday not after midnight.

The article has been edited. This morning it stated 12.15am.

Nightshade27 wrote:

Holland82 wrote:
“He was at the zebra crossing outside Boots and almost on the pavement on the other side, so I gave him a very wide berth."

So he was still ON THE CROSSING! Why were you cycling past him if the crossing was clearly STILL in use?

True what someone else has said it should be her that get prosecuted for failing to stop at the crossing. Although I agree that the man overreacted.

Also “This is the third unprovoked attack on our family in the last few years." Why? is it because you all keep breaking the law and thinking you'll get away with it??

calm down, the cyclist didn't break the law. You can pass giving enough room. Nice man at the driver awareness course told me last week. We all thought it was law to stop until the crossing is clear though.

Hessenford I don't wear anoraks. But I know the law

Should of wrapped the bike round his head i would of knocked him out ! the old bark.

oh dear, heard today she is a bit of a self publicist .

Gallant wrote:

BBC Escapee wrote:
There are a lot of cyclepaths out there!

Think I will stay indoors.

What's a 'Cyclopath' ? Is that someone who remorselessly keeps running pedestrians over while out cycling?

Sometimes it is red or green tarmac

Routers wrote:

Nightshade27 wrote:

Holland82 wrote:
“He was at the zebra crossing outside Boots and almost on the pavement on the other side, so I gave him a very wide berth."

So he was still ON THE CROSSING! Why were you cycling past him if the crossing was clearly STILL in use?

True what someone else has said it should be her that get prosecuted for failing to stop at the crossing. Although I agree that the man overreacted.

Also “This is the third unprovoked attack on our family in the last few years." Why? is it because you all keep breaking the law and thinking you'll get away with it??

calm down, the cyclist didn't break the law. You can pass giving enough room. Nice man at the driver awareness course told me last week. We all thought it was law to stop until the crossing is clear though.

Hessenford I don't wear anoraks. But I know the law

I suppose its ok for cyclists to run red lights as well and cycle along the cycle lanes against the traffic, but cycles are not cars are they so they can do what they like.
So next time a drive my car over a crossing while someone is on it I wont be breaking the law, yea right, I do hope I am not crossing the road when people like yourself are driving, you talk rubbish and encourage bad driving.

Routers wrote:

suzigirl wrote:

Hessenford wrote:
Is Mrs Weston saying that this guy was on the zebra crossing and she was on the road, if so she should have stopped until he had reached the pavement, if a car driver had driven over a zebra crossing while someone was on it he would be prosecuted. If this is what she did then she has to suffer the consequences.

Exactly - possibly another case of a cyclist breaking the law! Actually thinking back last year I had a similar incident at the same zebra crossing with a woman cyclist - I just stepped on to the zebra crossing and she just kept on cycling with no intention of stopping. There were a few words exchanged!

If you fail to accord precedence when you need to, you commit an offence. (RTRA s. 25(5))

If the pedestrian has passed you but still on the crossing you have accorded precedence and complied with the law.
by continuing your journey you do not break the law. You do not have to wait until the person have has reached the other side. (Accorded precedence)

Well that's rather impressive, an actual fact and comon sense all thrown in without a shred of 'I told you so'.

Well I live and learn.

Doubt the angry 'all cyclists are evil' will though.

Hessenford wrote:

Routers wrote:

Nightshade27 wrote:

Holland82 wrote:
“He was at the zebra crossing outside Boots and almost on the pavement on the other side, so I gave him a very wide berth."

So he was still ON THE CROSSING! Why were you cycling past him if the crossing was clearly STILL in use?

True what someone else has said it should be her that get prosecuted for failing to stop at the crossing. Although I agree that the man overreacted.

Also “This is the third unprovoked attack on our family in the last few years." Why? is it because you all keep breaking the law and thinking you'll get away with it??

calm down, the cyclist didn't break the law. You can pass giving enough room. Nice man at the driver awareness course told me last week. We all thought it was law to stop until the crossing is clear though.

Hessenford I don't wear anoraks. But I know the law

I suppose its ok for cyclists to run red lights as well and cycle along the cycle lanes against the traffic, but cycles are not cars are they so they can do what they like.
So next time a drive my car over a crossing while someone is on it I wont be breaking the law, yea right, I do hope I am not crossing the road when people like yourself are driving, you talk rubbish and encourage bad driving.

I think you would fail the Advanced Driving Course hessenford
nighty night.

‘& wonder why l show my frustration at their kamikaze style riding by blasting my horn at them & of course the night time no light brigade who deserve everything that they get.’

Another one. (as a ‘professional driver' - yeah because white van drivers are the uber examples of professionalism (made up word?))

For Pete’s sake I drive and just don't get all this 'cyclists are evil'. I am in a car and my only fear is hitting them and therefore give them a wide berth and a lot of consideration (I am sat on my a r s e while they are making an effort) and I have never had any dramas. honestly, never.

That's why I don't get all these really aggressive comments. I can only assume certain things.

I am no saint and can get really impatient with crap drivers (but don’t feel the need to blast horns at them so just shout through the windscreen).

"For Pete’s sake I drive and just don't get all this 'cyclists are evil'. I am in a car and my only fear is hitting them and therefore give them a wide berth and a lot of consideration (I am sat on my a r s e while they are making an effort) and I have never had any dramas. honestly, never."

scrumpyjack

Nice to hear a sane comment on here through all the anger and verbal diarrhea that many people tend to spout on this site.

I can only presume that all these angry hypocritical drivers ALWAYS drive within the speed limit and NEVER brake any laws when they are on the road.

I expect they ALWAYS signal their intentions on roundabouts especially. Just because you know you are turning right or turning off it doesn't take that much effort to put your indicator on, does it?

I'm sure all these perfect drivers that apparently live in the Bournemouth area - although I have never seen them - also give cyclists enough room, don't drive into clearly marked cycle lanes, speed up to make amber lights (which according to the highway code, means STOP) and NEVER use their mobile phones and use their lights correctly.

Unless you are a perfect driver then I think you should just keep your piehole shut. And remember that you are cocooned in a ton of metal, whereas a cyclist is on under 20Kgs of metal with virtually NO protection.

There are idiotic cyclists about. There is absolutely no reason why "bike riders" should not have lights at night. You can pick up decent lights for under £10 and batteries are very cheap from the pound shop.

But it's a two way street. Perhaps if drivers were better then cyclists would be?

It's quite clear judging by the comments on here that there are many angry, some may say psychopathic, "car drivers" in the area that need to grow up.

Ironically they are probably of the same age as this old git who has caused this article!

I think it may be a good idea to actually READ the article before posting - especially if you are attempting to be funny because you are really not.

Nice to read a sane

“Then his crutches came up, he was too far away to hit me but the shock knocked me off my bike.”
.

How does shock 'knock' you off a bike? Shock is based on an emotional response, it is not a physical force.

Just maybe if the Police spend more time on fining cyclist breaking the law as they do with motorist braking it. ???

common dog wrote:
“Then his crutches came up, he was too far away to hit me but the shock knocked me off my bike.”
.

How does shock 'knock' you off a bike? Shock is based on an emotional response, it is not a physical force.

Maybe he is a Jedi.

Obi Wan Kenobe perhaps.

MJD wrote:
Just maybe if the Police spend more time on fining cyclist breaking the law as they do with motorist braking it. ???

In 2011 the number of cars involving pedestrian fatalities was 256.

In the same period the number of cyclists involving pedestrian fatalities was 2.

256.

2.

That might be one of the reasons for the law to focus on cars.

Easy enough to be shocked by this psycho waving crutches,swerve away and lose balance.


Good to hear some sense on here from scrumpyjack.

Old bigots are deadly on the road,,the driver who killed the young lad the other day,57 years old.

jeebuscripes wrote:

MJD wrote:
Just maybe if the Police spend more time on fining cyclist breaking the law as they do with motorist braking it. ???

In 2011 the number of cars involving pedestrian fatalities was 256.

In the same period the number of cyclists involving pedestrian fatalities was 2.

256.

2.

That might be one of the reasons for the law to focus on cars.

That may also be because there are a lot more motorised vehicles than cycles, not rocket science.

Setting aside all the insults aimed at both injured parties, facts are she should have been thoughtful and stopped at the crossing. However attacking someone and head butting is really wrong and he should have known better. Its about time both pedestrians and cyclist and car drivers had respect for each other.

She rode across a zebra crossing whilst a pedestrian was using it. The old boy didn't actually knock her off her bike, she fell off. I suspect she shouted at him but won't admit to it. I also suspect that he saw her approaching and had assumed that she would obey the law and stop. When she didn't he turned to confront her about it, waving his stick like every old man has trained for his entire life.

mmmmmmm wrote:
Easy enough to be shocked by this psycho waving crutches,swerve away and lose balance.


Good to hear some sense on here from scrumpyjack.

Old bigots are deadly on the road,,the driver who killed the young lad the other day,57 years old.

What's with the use of the word 'bigot'? You can't just use that word in the hope of offending people. Look up what it means. It seems to me that most people who use that word - even correctly, are themselves bigots.

Must be a slow news day if this garbage makes the news but hey ho.

People on this site really do need to get a grip though. Some complete nutters on here - lol!

"“He was at the zebra crossing outside Boots and almost on the pavement on the other side, so I gave him a very wide berth."

What are people's problems? It appears that he had nearly crossed the road and neither affected each other but then,

"“Then his crutches came up, he was too far away to hit me but the shock knocked me off my bike.”

Then

"“When I got up I said a few words back and he headbutted me, but luckily I was wearing my helmet.” "

This makes no sense whatsoever. He was crossing to the right, with you way on the left.

You fell off your bike - but he was so far away that when he went for you with his crutch he missed.

How on earth did he headbutt you from the other side of the road?

Either he crossed back to nut you after you fell off your bike or you cycled up to him to confront him. Which was it please?

As a cyclist stories like this do us absolutely no favours.

FYI I know for a FACT that there is CCTV on the traffic lights next to the pub, The Westbourne, that film down that road.

Why haven't the police, yourself or the journalist who wrote this piece checked the CCTV to get to the bottom of this?

Poor work by everyone involved IMO.

hamworthygirl wrote:
Setting aside all the insults aimed at both injured parties, facts are she should have been thoughtful and stopped at the crossing. However attacking someone and head butting is really wrong and he should have known better. Its about time both pedestrians and cyclist and car drivers had respect for each other.

She was riding perfectly legally. She was riding perfectly legally. She was riding perfectly legally. She was riding perfectly legally. She was riding perfectly legally. She was riding perfectly legally. She was riding perfectly legally. She was riding perfectly legally. She was riding perfectly legally. She was riding perfectly legally. She was riding perfectly legally. She was riding perfectly legally. She was riding perfectly legally.

How many more times does this have to be said?

FNS-man wrote:

hamworthygirl wrote: Setting aside all the insults aimed at both injured parties, facts are she should have been thoughtful and stopped at the crossing. However attacking someone and head butting is really wrong and he should have known better. Its about time both pedestrians and cyclist and car drivers had respect for each other.

She was riding perfectly legally. She was riding perfectly legally. She was riding perfectly legally. She was riding perfectly legally. She was riding perfectly legally. She was riding perfectly legally. She was riding perfectly legally. She was riding perfectly legally. She was riding perfectly legally. She was riding perfectly legally. She was riding perfectly legally. She was riding perfectly legally. She was riding perfectly legally. How many more times does this have to be said?

How do you know that she was riding legally? Were you there?

Cyclist rides onto zebra crossing when pedestrian hasn't reached the opposite pavement, 79 comments.

Driver overturns car on Gravel Hill, 0 comments.

I hope the lady had a bell on her bike?

I hope the lady had a bell on her bike?

guisselle wrote:
I hope the lady had a bell on her bike?

Why?

It's not a legal requirement.

Selling one with a new complete bike is, But actually having it on the bike and using it is not.

Laws can be strange sometimes, but it's still legal.

I've checked and bigotry is about right for the anti-bike sentiment prevalent in this area.

As a dog I am colour blind and the old man was wearing all black; I could see him, not see him; I could see him, not see him; etc.
The lady was wearing those 'fetching' pink trousers............
.
The story is a dog's dinner!

happy people, nice comments.

After cyclists who is next on't list.

Saving up and should be able to emigrate in a couple of years to a civilized country, with friendly peoples.

What has happened to the english?
Nasty self absorbed hateful bigots.

Too much cars and tv, lack of social contact, insular lifestyle, who knows.

The f.u. Society

happy people, nice comments.

After cyclists who is next on't list.

Saving up and should be able to emigrate in a couple of years to a civilized country, with friendly peoples.

What has happened to the english?
Nasty self absorbed hateful bigots.

Too much cars and tv, lack of social contact, insular lifestyle, who knows.

The f.u. Society

I crossed that crossing when in westbourne today, and five seconds before I got to it, A cyclist went right through it.

I'll always wonder if they'd have stopped had I been five seconds earlier.

I am a cyclist that obeys the rules of the road.
Other cyclists do not and when feel aggrieved (rightly or wrongly) shout foul.
Cyclists have no right to use the footpaths (unless a dedicated cycle lane) and under the road traffic act are a vehicle and obey all rules of the road.
Thus many offences that relate to the driving of cars relate to the use of cycles. This includes as other comments, cycling with lights, stopping at red lights, cycling the right way in a one way street, in roper control (not txting etc), not drunk etc.
Would a car drive around a pedestrian on a zebra crossing - no and would break the law. Pedestrians have a priority over vehicles as we have no law s of jay walking.
Even if the cyclists is ok to cycle around a pedestrian on a crossing, what that cyclist must also do just like driving a car, is cycle with due care and attention & with reasonable consideration for other road users. The pedestrian is a road user, so she failed to give the due are & consideration to the pedestrian.
The reaction of the pedestrian was unnecessary and totally wrong and deserves redress, although getting your ore in on video in the media before the Police dra any conclusions suggests her own conduct may have been interesting.
The comment re bells is interesting. Bells were always required by law to be on cycles since the 19th century - for very good reason, because you cannot hear them, they travel at speed and were necessary just as cars have horns. However that law was repealed because it was seen as archaic and uneforceable, but the law had to be changed because of the danger cyclists can present and so by law a cycle sold new has to have a bell. Modern cycles are quieter and faster and probably more of a hazard.
In looking at the picture of the crossing, the road at that point is narrowed because of the crossing and parking the far side. Therefore the width of berth given to the pedestrian is reduced especially if they'd yet to reach the pavement from the crossing. What is a wide berth?
The fact that she was 'shocked' into falling off their cycle suggests that the cyclist had not shown the correct due care and attention for any eventuality (i.e. he could have turned around, fallen back etc) and had not shown reasonable consideration as the pedestrians reaction clearly suggested a perception of a threat to his safety from the cycle (an over reaction it may have been). if she had anticipated something, she would not have been so surprised.
Having been barged, bumped, abuse hurled at me, by many a cyclist of all ages just because Im a pedestrian in their way, with no warning or anticipation of their approach I have sympathy for the pedestrian albeit cannot condone his reaction. However in contrast I do see many cyclists who do ride responsibly and I feel sorry for those that do, because those that dont are not a small minority.
Would we have have the same round of comments, if a cyclist had collided with an elderly man on crutches on a crossing - or would that be seen as unfair still to cyclists.
We all have a responsibility for what we do. Both these two share a responsibility for the events.
I just think its sad that if the Police are looking at the matter, the instigator of the situation (no one made a cyclist ride around a man on a crossing) feels fit to air their position in public when in fairness we have yet to hear what the pedestrian thought and why it happened.

Just a thought though. If a cyclist in the wrong, hit you, bowling you over and leaving you bleeding on the pavement, even if seen by lots of people (No CCTV) and the cyclist just rode on.
There is no number plate, they dont have to have insurance and if by a miracle they are identified how do you claim compensation other than at your time and cost taking a county court action, only to find they have no money anyway and wont pay, cant pay.
Often they will only apologise when they are caught, because they were caught.
If the 'shock' of the near miss had caused the pedestrian to fall over, would she the cyclist have stopped out of concern or anger or seen her actions as contributory - no I dont think so, but you dont have to hit something to be the cause of something - according to what I just googled re the traffic law.
The stats on fatalities was interesting. A pedestrian being hit by a 1 ton of metal will cause a slight more problem for the pedestrian than a cycle, but the fact there have been 2 fatalities reflects that even if not fatal, being hit by a cycle ridden can cause serious inury.
I wonder how many pedestrians report general comings together with cycles. I assume not many because what can or would anyone be able to do. And we seem to have an attitude in society now that even if a cyclist is in the wrong, thats ok because they are just a cyclist, no matter who is affected as a result.
Would be interesting for the Echo to do a poll on public opinion of attitude of cyclist to others.
But as a keen cyclist - car drivers are no better.

This is ridiculous, OAP's are rude and they think they are above the law, this guy should be slapped with a ASBO, but he will get a warning, it a disgrace. OAP's in my eyes are more of a nuisance than teenagers; I swear they go shopping on a Saturday just to annoy the working class. Not all OAP's are like this obviously but i hate the attitude most of them have... rant over hope this lady is ok...

lk1989 wrote:
This is ridiculous, OAP's are rude and they think they are above the law, this guy should be slapped with a ASBO, but he will get a warning, it a disgrace. OAP's in my eyes are more of a nuisance than teenagers; I swear they go shopping on a Saturday just to annoy the working class. Not all OAP's are like this obviously but i hate the attitude most of them have... rant over hope this lady is ok...

Sure your name is'nt oink??, What a disrespectful clown you are, if it was'nt for pensioners, oinks like you would'nt be here,there attitudes change when they see you barging into them with your hood over your eyes.Show some respect for your elders

Seabeam wrote:
happy people, nice comments.

After cyclists who is next on't list.

Saving up and should be able to emigrate in a couple of years to a civilized country, with friendly peoples.

What has happened to the english?
Nasty self absorbed hateful bigots.

Too much cars and tv, lack of social contact, insular lifestyle, who knows.

The f.u. Society

Totally agree Seabeam - Bournemouth is a lovely place to live, shame about the people.

joncon wrote:
I crossed that crossing when in westbourne today, and five seconds before I got to it, A cyclist went right through it.

I'll always wonder if they'd have stopped had I been five seconds earlier.

LOL - I am the same.

Was behind a car yesterday and we were both coming up to an amber light.

I slowed down. The Audi TT in the outside lane didn't bother and the light changed to red.

They just drove straight through it.

I'll always wonder what would have happened if I was on my bike and gone through my green light!

Luckily no harm was done but I doubt I will be able to ever sleep again. The shock of the potential for an accident has possibly damaged me for life.

guisselle wrote:
I hope the lady had a bell on her bike?

You seem to be the only Bell here as you quite clearly don't know the law. End of.

Get informed before you post.

The last time I looked Google was free.

FNS-man wrote:

hamworthygirl wrote:
Setting aside all the insults aimed at both injured parties, facts are she should have been thoughtful and stopped at the crossing. However attacking someone and head butting is really wrong and he should have known better. Its about time both pedestrians and cyclist and car drivers had respect for each other.

She was riding perfectly legally. She was riding perfectly legally. She was riding perfectly legally. She was riding perfectly legally. She was riding perfectly legally. She was riding perfectly legally. She was riding perfectly legally. She was riding perfectly legally. She was riding perfectly legally. She was riding perfectly legally. She was riding perfectly legally. She was riding perfectly legally. She was riding perfectly legally.

How many more times does this have to be said?

Not if she entered the crossing whilst a pedestrian was on it.

Dont drop litter wrote:

FNS-man wrote:

hamworthygirl wrote:
Setting aside all the insults aimed at both injured parties, facts are she should have been thoughtful and stopped at the crossing. However attacking someone and head butting is really wrong and he should have known better. Its about time both pedestrians and cyclist and car drivers had respect for each other.

She was riding perfectly legally. She was riding perfectly legally. She was riding perfectly legally. She was riding perfectly legally. She was riding perfectly legally. She was riding perfectly legally. She was riding perfectly legally. She was riding perfectly legally. She was riding perfectly legally. She was riding perfectly legally. She was riding perfectly legally. She was riding perfectly legally. She was riding perfectly legally.

How many more times does this have to be said?

Not if she entered the crossing whilst a pedestrian was on it.

You are not in a posiion to comment as you do not know the facts and clearly do not know the law or highway code

Mrcheerful2 wrote:

FNS-man wrote:

hamworthygirl wrote: Setting aside all the insults aimed at both injured parties, facts are she should have been thoughtful and stopped at the crossing. However attacking someone and head butting is really wrong and he should have known better. Its about time both pedestrians and cyclist and car drivers had respect for each other.

She was riding perfectly legally. She was riding perfectly legally. She was riding perfectly legally. She was riding perfectly legally. She was riding perfectly legally. She was riding perfectly legally. She was riding perfectly legally. She was riding perfectly legally. She was riding perfectly legally. She was riding perfectly legally. She was riding perfectly legally. She was riding perfectly legally. She was riding perfectly legally. How many more times does this have to be said?

How do you know that she was riding legally? Were you there?

Did i not say she should have been more thoughtful i didnt mention if she was legal.

MandinVerwood wrote:

guisselle wrote:
I hope the lady had a bell on her bike?

Why?

It's not a legal requirement.

Selling one with a new complete bike is, But actually having it on the bike and using it is not.

Laws can be strange sometimes, but it's still legal.

Must admit if the old man was deaf
it wouldn't be much use!

TheBigBee wrote:

guisselle wrote:
I hope the lady had a bell on her bike?

You seem to be the only Bell here as you quite clearly don't know the law. End of.

Get informed before you post.

The last time I looked Google was free.

I assume you meant bell-end, I was
making a statement about the law
concerning the requirement of a bell!
It seems to me its common sense to
have a bell or horn on your bike as
a cycle does not make a noise!

TheBigBee wrote:

guisselle wrote:
I hope the lady had a bell on her bike?

You seem to be the only Bell here as you quite clearly don't know the law. End of.

Get informed before you post.

The last time I looked Google was free.

Dingaling! Ding dong bell !

i use a mobility scooter and always give peoiple where neccessary rite of way wat annoys me is people texting and listening to mp3 they cant here me i then use a whistle.but that old man will not be prosecuted i suggest the lady goes down the road of no win no fee personal injury.
he will be hit harder in the pocket dont take the excuse hes dementing if thats the case he should have a carrer with him,he could be assessed as needing a care package dont be put off.u could go for his carers as they may have been responsible for him wether at home or in streets

guisselle wrote:

TheBigBee wrote:

guisselle wrote:
I hope the lady had a bell on her bike?

You seem to be the only Bell here as you quite clearly don't know the law. End of.

Get informed before you post.

The last time I looked Google was free.

I assume you meant bell-end, I was
making a statement about the law
concerning the requirement of a bell!
It seems to me its common sense to
have a bell or horn on your bike as
a cycle does not make a noise!

Yes you are. Common sense, to me, as a cyclist, is to say, "excuse me" if walkers don't see me approaching.

I think it is incredibly rude to just ring a bell from behind when surely saying, "excuse me, please" takes even less effort.

It is quite apparent from your, quite frankly, utterly deluded and rude posts that you are the type of misery that would find fault in anything anyone did.

Although I am interested to know what drives pedants and unpleasant and ignorant people like yourself.

Who post on internet forums and never really understand that no one cares what you think and people are actually laughing at you.

You must of had / have a very happy and fulfilling life judging by your comments.

Internet trolls - any purpose in life?
Discuss.

Alternatively just laugh at them.

TheBigBee wrote:

guisselle wrote:

TheBigBee wrote:

guisselle wrote:
I hope the lady had a bell on her bike?

You seem to be the only Bell here as you quite clearly don't know the law. End of.

Get informed before you post.

The last time I looked Google was free.

I assume you meant bell-end, I was
making a statement about the law
concerning the requirement of a bell!
It seems to me its common sense to
have a bell or horn on your bike as
a cycle does not make a noise!

Yes you are. Common sense, to me, as a cyclist, is to say, "excuse me" if walkers don't see me approaching.

I think it is incredibly rude to just ring a bell from behind when surely saying, "excuse me, please" takes even less effort.

It is quite apparent from your, quite frankly, utterly deluded and rude posts that you are the type of misery that would find fault in anything anyone did.

Although I am interested to know what drives pedants and unpleasant and ignorant people like yourself.

Who post on internet forums and never really understand that no one cares what you think and people are actually laughing at you.

You must of had / have a very happy and fulfilling life judging by your comments.

Internet trolls - any purpose in life?
Discuss.

Alternatively just laugh at them.

Cycles do not have to have bells fitted by law.
The last Govt after nearly 100 years of the law stating YOU MUST have a bell on a bike, removed that piece of law because they thought it was outdated.
They ignored, as politicians always do, that there was very good reasons for a cycle to be fitted and the rider use a bell to warn of their presence - just like you have a horm on a car.
Because accidents in years gone by were too common between cyclists and presestrians as you dont hear a cycle approach, they are fast and at the very least if you get hit by one IT HURTS.
Modern cycles are probably quicker and definately run quieter.
Accidents, complaints etc forced teh law to be re-intrioduced that new cycles sold must have a bell. A fudged way back in part to a position of some common sense.
If you drive a car you must obey the ruules of teh road - stop lines, give way, not be drunk, red lights keep on tegh left not drive on the pavement etc.
Those rules apply in full to cycles!!!
Its alright ignoring the rules out of fear of safety on the road or pure selfishness, but you cannot cry foul and blame teh pedestrian totally when something happens - just like a car driver must give precedence at all times to pedestrians - even if they are crossing when they shouldn't .
So thats why whatever, the cyclist has a share of the blame.
BUT the old man unless when facts are known there is something else we do not know, should not have reacted like they did, and had no justification to do as reported.
By goggling I can see that the cyclist alone committed 2 or 3 offences as a cyclist regardless of whether she had the right to go round the man on the crossing.
I wasn't going to post, but what made me do so was I had a near miss just before when a cyclist in dark clothing, no lights, on the pavement with no traffic and their approach was silent nearly knocked me flying as I put the bin out for the dustmen. They were not going slow, no bell to warn me, and no effort to even cut his speed either and as I jumped back startled (Didn't shout or swear at him)and I got was a 'f**** get out of my way then!'. So even outside my home, on the pavement where pedestrians are supposed to walk etc, Im still wrong and thats why people are getting increasingly annoyed with the selfishness of 'SOME' cyclists who clearly believe the law doesn't apply to them.
Its all part of this anarchy on the roads developing whether it be pedestrians, cyclists or car drivers.

so he was still on the pedestrian crossing, hmm, me thinks a cyclist ( like most cyclist) should read the highway code. Technically you should not go across the pedestrian crossing UNTIL the pedestrian has reached the other side and is OFF the crossing.
well done for using the road though and not riding on the pavement when the man may have been completely justified in defending himself!

that said however there is of course not excuse for violence!