You did:
7 Mar 19:02
8 Mar 18:05
@Omah … here we go again …
Omah … I stand by all I said … she appeared somewhat doddery from the video I watched. At 77 she is entitled to look a bit doddery.
I believe she should/could have got off her bike when she saw the pedestrian coming … but that does not mean I said she caused the accident or was in anyway to blame.
It means it could have been avoided … by either lady actually.
I don’t think cyclists should be on pavements at 77 years old. That’s personal opinion.
But I don’t think motorists should be in cars after a certain age either.
1 Like
8 Mar 18:05
You’re implying, in the original posts, that, in your opinion, had she been sensible, the lady cyclist would have got off her bike so, by not being sensible, she must, according to your implication, be at fault.
1 Like
@Omah …
So what is there to misinterpret in that one? Or try to twist?
She sees a woman coming toward her who is swearing at her … wouldn’t you have got off your bike? I would.
And now you’re editing your posts as I’m replying.
So I’ll have to re-read your addition to answer it … givde me a minute to reply.
I’m implying nothing … that is what Defence or Prosecution Counsel do in a Court of Law … which is possibly why the case went the way it did. Good legal representation is often the dictator of any court case. You’re telling me what you think I’m implying … that is only your opinion.
Why should it be that because she did not get off her bike … she is at fault. It’s not the same thing at all. It does not logically follow.
It was something she could have done. She did not.
It does not mean she caused the accident. It might even mean if she had got off her bike anyway it would still not have avoided the accident.
1 Like
Yes, most definitely YES! What’s more, a bicycle is a vehicle and therefore should only proceed along a carriageway designed for vehicles and NOT on a footpath where pedestrians abound.
2 Likes
As a pedestrain I’d quite happily carry some form of insurance too … even though I’m in no way mechanical or motorised.
It is getting that every user has some responsibility , even if only to protect themselves from claims from other users.
If you carry house insurance, it is likely you also carry personal liability insurance as part of the cover.
You’ve got a point there … I can vaguely remember when other pavement users have come a cropper with skateboards that the victims has resorted to the parent’s house insurance which, as you say, must cover it.
1 Like
I’ve been following this thread with interest, and I thought it was time I put my two peneth in…
Although forgive me if I repeat something from an earlier post. I didn’t have the time to read every post in the 252 post extravaganza…But I went to see my doctor yesterday with pains in my chest and I asked him how long have I got…He suggested I don’t start reading any new books… 
Being a cyclist and pedestrian I believe the sentence was a fair one…
It strikes me that Ms Gray deliberately blocked Celia Wards way and prevented her from riding along the footpath which made her swerve into the road. Whether she pushed the cyclist or not is of no consequence. Auriol Gray was the cause of Celia’s death and should be punished accordingly. If Ms Gray’s affliction was responsible for her temper she should be in the care of a mental institution and not allowed to mix in society. That cyclist could have been your sister, daughter, granddaughter or any other person facing the roth of a mad woman.
As a pedestrian and runner, I have encountered many cyclists using the same footpath as me by the side of busy roads. Irrespective of whether cyclists are allowed on the path or not, I will stand aside and let them pass safely. I would rather them be safe on the path, than in harms way on a busy road.
Mrs Fox was left with life changing injuries in 2009 after being pulled off her bike on a bend when a lorry and trailer cut the corner and caught her clothing. She was dragged for a few yards before being thrown to the ground, the driver was unaware of the accident and was never traced. Mrs Fox was lucky that she wasn’t pulled under the wheels…She was also wearing a helmet at the time and it was agreed that she would not be here now had it not been for that helmet when her head struck the road. She ended up with a shattered right arm, broken cheek bone, several fractures to her pelvis, and has never rode a bike since.
She was riding along the busy main road that I now run down and if a cyclist approaches me, I will stand aside and let them pass. And woe betide anyone she now sees on a bike without a helmet…
As a cyclist I never ride on the pavement because I like to ride fast, however, I ride very early in the mornings on little used country roads. I very much doubt a 77 year old woman would be tearing up the tarmac though.
6 Likes
Goodness Foxy, that could warrrant a thread all of it’s own and could get very murky.
The post I deleted yesterday , covered just that,
I had to step into the road when a young man, with learning difficulties, came pedalling along the pavement toward me.
I’m afraid I stepped into the road. I didn’t want to test the theory that he would/might/ but maybe not, move aside for me. I believe I did scowl and pull a mean face.
But I wouldn’t want to see someone with ‘difficulties’ locked up in a mental institution away from society.
I wonder … and I’m not trying to introduce levity into a serious subject … if one day we’ll all need a test, for eyesight, motorbility, hearing … coordination, before we can walk, cycle, skateboard, drive on a public highway, pavement or road.
Seriously? I don’t know what to say.
1 Like
That’s a first!..
3 Likes
I apologise for covering the same stuff Morty…
However, you as a pedestrian would have had all round vision and had the benefit of being able to look round before jumping out into the road, a cyclist would not be able to see what’s behind while they were looking where they were going…
I don’t think its necessary for cyclists or pedestrians to carry insurance because claims can be made in the County Court (Judge Judy and all that stuff)
But that then is putting the onus on the pedestrian … not the cyclist.
I wouldn’t have time to look behind me because the cyclist is, presumbaly, travelling faster … so I have to keep my attention on him/her/them. How can that be right?
In fact, if a cyclist can not see where he is going … he should stop to look.
Your logic sounds more applicable to roads where a motorist has wing mirrors, and so should a cyclist then … rather than on a pavement.
The Law tells me to walk on a pavement. I walk in the road at my own risk.
A cyclist seems to be able to juxtapose where they go.
That’s exactly why it is best to have insurance so everyone is protected by law and legal requirement , as opposed to having to go to court (I think she’s great too!).
1 Like
Okay Morty, next time I’m out on me bike I’ll watch out for you…
I always try to observe good manners…
If I see you coming I’ll wave and you can get off your bike and we can go for coffee together 
1 Like
Some posts have been removed - please don’t make things personal 
2 Likes
I’d like that…
1 Like
Dear God!
What a miserable thread this has become.
Keep cycling!