Cyclist hits granny in pavement crash in Brighton

A grandmother suffered broken bones and a bloody face after she was
hit by a cyclist riding on the pavement.

Amanda Sewell, 64, suffered shattered bones in her hand and a black
eye when a teenager on a mountain bike ploughed into her.

The incident happened on Monday at about 3.30pm in Marine Parade,
Brighton.

Mrs Sewell, a grandmother of one, said: "I was crossing the pavement,
almost at the railings overlooking the beach, when he hit me.

"I was knocked to the ground and had blood pouring from my mouth.

"It was dazzling sunlight and I can only think he didn't see me. He
was about 19 years old.

"He stopped but then told me it was my fault and I shouldn t have been
there. I was so angry.

"I told him I had every right to be there because it was a pavement
for pedestrians and told him he must be much more careful in future
because he could hit a child, but he just cycled off."

Mrs Sewell, from Kemp Town, went to the Royal Sussex County Hospital
in Brighton and was treated for her injuries.





http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/40640...avement_crash/


judith

--

Cyclists have been known to ride on the pavement and this occasionally
brings them into conflict with pedestrians. This conflict has been
known to cause injury and even, in very rare cases, death. (Guy
Chapman)

On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 21:21:21 +0000,
wrote:

A grandmother suffered broken bones and a bloody face after she was
hit by a cyclist riding on the pavement.

Perhaps she should have worn a helmet. As has been claimed
repeatedly, helmets protect against head and upper facial injury.

I hope the cyclist is caught, given a suitable punishment if found
guilty, and made to undergo cyclist training.

On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 22:31:17 +0000, Tom Crispin
wrote:

On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 21:21:21 +0000,
wrote:

A grandmother suffered broken bones and a bloody face after she was
hit by a cyclist riding on the pavement.

Perhaps she should have worn a helmet. As has been claimed
repeatedly, helmets protect against head and upper facial injury.


Ho,ho, ho - very funny - mind it may become true as more and more
****wit cyclists think it is OK to ride on pavements/run in to
pedestrians.

PS - You never did explain why you published the names and addresses
of the restaurants owned by the Vietnamese guy who hit the cyclist?

Did you have a good reason to do so - surely you weren't encouraging
vigilantes?


judith

--

Many of the facts below in an article seem, on the face of it, to
suggest that helmets are not worthwhile. This could not be further
from the truth; helmets are an excellent idea. Children in particular
should wear them every time they get on a bike. The point is, although
there is no guarantee that a helmet will save your life if you come
off, it's 100% certain that your helmet won't save your life if you're
not wearing it. - Guy Chapman

On 22 Jan, 22:55, wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 22:31:17 +0000, Tom Crispin

wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 21:21:21 +0000,
wrote:

A grandmother suffered broken bones and a bloody face after she was
hit by a cyclist riding on the pavement.

Perhaps she should have worn a helmet. *As has been claimed
repeatedly, helmets protect against head and upper facial injury.

Ho,ho, ho - very funny - mind it may become true as more and more
****wit cyclists think it is OK to ride on pavements/run in to
pedestrians.

More and more? Evidence of increaseing proportion of pavement
cyclists?

I was stuck behind a car today that had issues overtaking another car
that
had driven onto the pavement.

PS - You never did explain why you published the names and addresses
of the restaurants owned by the Vietnamese guy who hit the cyclist?

Did you have a good reason to do so - surely you weren't encouraging
vigilantes?

That would surely drum up business

N Ron Hubbard wrote:

How many pedestrians *on the pavement* are hit by motorists every
year?

How many by cyclists?

RCGB 2007 shows that "Vehicle travelling along pavement" was a
contributory factor in 4 fatal, 63 serious and 331 slight "accidents" in
2007. It doesn't give the split by vehicle type.

--
Matt B

Matt B wrote:
N Ron Hubbard wrote:

How many pedestrians *on the pavement* are hit by motorists every
year?

How many by cyclists?

RCGB 2007 shows that "Vehicle travelling along pavement" was a
contributory factor in 4 fatal, 63 serious and 331 slight "accidents" in
2007. It doesn't give the split by vehicle type.

RCGB 2007 (table 32) shows 44 pedestrians killed on the footway and 522
seriously hurt. In total 646 pedestrians were killed on the roads in
2007 (table 32), of which 3 were in accidents involving a pedal cycle
(parliamentary written answer).

The cyclist concerned is a twunt, but from the comments, he was using a
"shared use facility", not a pavement which many in local government
seem to promote. The government should get its act together and tell
cyclists to use the road, not these stupid facilities that endanger
pedestrians and cyclists.

N Ron Hubbard wrote:

Hello, troll.

How many pedestrians *on the pavement* are hit by motorists every
year?

And how many of those motorists are not on the footway because they have lost
control of the vehicle (for whatever reason)?

How many by cyclists?

And how many of those cyclists are not on the footway because they have made
a conscious decision to "protect" themselves by putting pedestrians at risk?

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 00:26:12 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

How many pedestrians *on the pavement* are hit by motorists every
year?

And how many of those motorists are not on the footway because they have lost
control of the vehicle (for whatever reason)?

Are you implying that an out-of-control motorist on the footway poses
less of a danger than a cyclist there on purpose, or that being
out-of-control on a footway is somehow an acceptable if you are a
motorist?

On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 22:55:43 +0000,
wrote:

On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 22:31:17 +0000, Tom Crispin
wrote:

On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 21:21:21 +0000,
wrote:

A grandmother suffered broken bones and a bloody face after she was
hit by a cyclist riding on the pavement.

Perhaps she should have worn a helmet. As has been claimed
repeatedly, helmets protect against head and upper facial injury.


Ho,ho, ho - very funny

Perhaps now you know why everyone laughs at your continued diatribe.

- mind it may become true as more and more
****wit cyclists think it is OK to ride on pavements/run in to
pedestrians.

PS - You never did explain why you published the names and addresses
of the restaurants owned by the Vietnamese guy who hit the cyclist?

Yes I did. Use Google.

Martin wrote:
Matt B wrote:
N Ron Hubbard wrote:
How many pedestrians *on the pavement* are hit by motorists every
year?

How many by cyclists?
RCGB 2007 shows that "Vehicle travelling along pavement" was a
contributory factor in 4 fatal, 63 serious and 331 slight "accidents" in
2007. It doesn't give the split by vehicle type.

RCGB 2007 (table 32) shows 44 pedestrians killed on the footway and 522
seriously hurt.

No it doesn't, it very specifically says footway _or_ verge. It doesn't
distinguish.

Either way, from table 4b, which I quoted in my original post, it is
clear that deliberate pavement driving is _not_ a factor in the vast
majority of those casualties.

--
Matt B