On 03/11/2017 09:45, Peter Keller wrote:
On 03.11.2017 11:59, JNugent wrote:
On 02/11/2017 22:27, doug wrote:

Obviously the child's fault.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-41842047

This was published a few days ago, wasn't it?

The offence of which the cyclist was convicted ("causing bodily harm by
wilful misconduct when driving") seems to be "The Alliston Charge", with
the misconduct here being riding in a pedestrianised precinct where no
cycling is allowed and pedestrians - even four year old ones - have a
reasonable expectation of not encountering louts on bikes.

The 27 weeks in prison sentence seems to support that view, too. At
last, the rights of other road-users (if you can call a pedestrian area
a road) seem to be taken seriously by the courts.

In these parts a "road" is defined as "anywhere to which the public has
access".
Including beaches, parks, meadows, mountain tracks etc.

It's the same here, but this, of course, is for the purpose of defining
offences committed in such locations as coming under the Road Traffic
Acts. It isn't meant to state or suggest that a beach, park, meadow or
mountain track is a road.

If there ever was a place where it ought to be safe to allow a four year
old "off the leash", the definition ought to include locations where all
traffic is banned.

Other misconduct giving rise to the same charge in other incidents where
harm is caused might consist of things like cycling the wrong way in a
one way street or disobeying traffic signs and signals.