Residents shocked to hear about 77-year-old man left with broken hip after challenging rider

Businesses and residents react to pavement cycle row

ATTACK SCENE: The junction of Christchurch Road and Parkwood Road

ATTACK: Klaus Kluver

ATTACK: Brian Leeming

First published in News by

BOSCOMBE residents and business owners yesterday reacted with disgust to the news that a pensioner was assaulted by a cyclist on Saturday morning.

As reported in the Daily Echo, the 77-year-old Bournemouth man suffered a broken hip when he was shoved to the ground after asking a group of cyclists not to ride on the pavement at the junction of Christchurch Road and Parkwood Road.

As the Echo went to press last night police were still hunting his assailant, described as white, wearing a grey hooded top with the hood up, riding a dark coloured bicycle.

Yesterday, hairdresser Klaus Kluver, who works in Jay’s over the road, said he was not surprised to hear about the incident.

“You wouldn’t believe how many people I have to tell off for riding on the pavement along here,” he said.

“I always warn the customers who have children not to let them out of the shop.

“It is normally younger men, aged between 16 and 30, and they go past so fast.

“I tell them there will be payback when they are old enough to have children of their own and they are afraid to walk along the pavement with them.”

Robert Massey, manager of Addictive Ink, said: “This is not right, but I have never seen anything like it round here before.”

While 41-year-old Bashar Kadah, of Furniture Direct in Pokesdown, said: “It is really shocking, and very sad to see this happening around here.

“If people want to be on the pavement they should get off their bikes and walk.”

The elderly victim required surgery on his hip and is being treated at Poole Hospital.

Parkwood Road resident Brian Leeming, 73, said it was normally a peaceful area.

“I am surprised to hear about it, normally there are no problems here, apart from when the football is on when it gets a bit rowdy,” he said.

“But youngsters are getting a lot more mouthy these days.

“This is disgraceful.”

Witnesses and anyone with information should call Dorset Police in confidence on 101, quoting incident number 19:119.

Alternatively, call the Crimestoppers line on 0800 555 111.

Comments (39)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:34am Tue 22 Apr 14

rgjamieson says...

It is against the law to cycle on the pavement.
It is against the law to cycle on the pavement. rgjamieson
  • Score: 8

7:44am Tue 22 Apr 14

mudefordguy says...

"Parkwood Road resident Brian Leeming, 73, said it was normally a peaceful area."

Is he having a laugh? Boscombe a peaceful area?
"Parkwood Road resident Brian Leeming, 73, said it was normally a peaceful area." Is he having a laugh? Boscombe a peaceful area? mudefordguy
  • Score: 7

8:10am Tue 22 Apr 14

breamoreboy says...

rgjamieson wrote:
It is against the law to cycle on the pavement.
So ride legally on the roads and run the risk of getting yourself seriously injured or killed by some bozo in charge of a ton of lethal weapon doing maybe 50mph? No thanks. Just engage brain, ride on the pavement at a safe speed, anticipate what is likely to happen and if needed accelerate in order to avoid a collision. Can it get any simpler?
[quote][p][bold]rgjamieson[/bold] wrote: It is against the law to cycle on the pavement.[/p][/quote]So ride legally on the roads and run the risk of getting yourself seriously injured or killed by some bozo in charge of a ton of lethal weapon doing maybe 50mph? No thanks. Just engage brain, ride on the pavement at a safe speed, anticipate what is likely to happen and if needed accelerate in order to avoid a collision. Can it get any simpler? breamoreboy
  • Score: -27

8:18am Tue 22 Apr 14

Stereotyped says...

breamoreboy wrote:
rgjamieson wrote:
It is against the law to cycle on the pavement.
So ride legally on the roads and run the risk of getting yourself seriously injured or killed by some bozo in charge of a ton of lethal weapon doing maybe 50mph? No thanks. Just engage brain, ride on the pavement at a safe speed, anticipate what is likely to happen and if needed accelerate in order to avoid a collision. Can it get any simpler?
Yes, ride on the roads. You want to ride a bike...that is the risk you will have to take.

Deal with it.

You have a go at car drivers for breaking the speed limit by 1mph...but it is okay for a cyclist to ride illegally on the pavement? Good logic you have there.
[quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rgjamieson[/bold] wrote: It is against the law to cycle on the pavement.[/p][/quote]So ride legally on the roads and run the risk of getting yourself seriously injured or killed by some bozo in charge of a ton of lethal weapon doing maybe 50mph? No thanks. Just engage brain, ride on the pavement at a safe speed, anticipate what is likely to happen and if needed accelerate in order to avoid a collision. Can it get any simpler?[/p][/quote]Yes, ride on the roads. You want to ride a bike...that is the risk you will have to take. Deal with it. You have a go at car drivers for breaking the speed limit by 1mph...but it is okay for a cyclist to ride illegally on the pavement? Good logic you have there. Stereotyped
  • Score: 4

8:42am Tue 22 Apr 14

anotherfatslob says...

Not having a go for doing 1mph over the limit,pointing out that drivers break the law pretty much all day ecery day.

It's dangerous on the roads on a bike,your attitude of deal with it is reprehensible.
Not having a go for doing 1mph over the limit,pointing out that drivers break the law pretty much all day ecery day. It's dangerous on the roads on a bike,your attitude of deal with it is reprehensible. anotherfatslob
  • Score: -14

8:46am Tue 22 Apr 14

djd says...

I can't see how any cyclist riding on the pavement, however carefully can anticipate people coming out of shop entrances onto the pavement.
Pedestrians have a legal right to be on the pavement, cyclists, unless you are walking and wheeling your bike beside you don't,
That is the law and common sense.
I can't see how any cyclist riding on the pavement, however carefully can anticipate people coming out of shop entrances onto the pavement. Pedestrians have a legal right to be on the pavement, cyclists, unless you are walking and wheeling your bike beside you don't, That is the law and common sense. djd
  • Score: 20

9:01am Tue 22 Apr 14

Elftick says...

djd wrote:
I can't see how any cyclist riding on the pavement, however carefully can anticipate people coming out of shop entrances onto the pavement.
Pedestrians have a legal right to be on the pavement, cyclists, unless you are walking and wheeling your bike beside you don't,
That is the law and common sense.
They seem to manage it quite well abroad. Plenty of pavement cycling in Barcelona and Seville, both of which I think it'd fair to say are a little busier than Boscombe. Plenty in major cities in France too. It's not being on a bike that's the problem, it's having a bad attitude and engaging in black and white thinking.
[quote][p][bold]djd[/bold] wrote: I can't see how any cyclist riding on the pavement, however carefully can anticipate people coming out of shop entrances onto the pavement. Pedestrians have a legal right to be on the pavement, cyclists, unless you are walking and wheeling your bike beside you don't, That is the law and common sense.[/p][/quote]They seem to manage it quite well abroad. Plenty of pavement cycling in Barcelona and Seville, both of which I think it'd fair to say are a little busier than Boscombe. Plenty in major cities in France too. It's not being on a bike that's the problem, it's having a bad attitude and engaging in black and white thinking. Elftick
  • Score: 27

9:10am Tue 22 Apr 14

Carolyn43 says...

Elftick wrote:
djd wrote:
I can't see how any cyclist riding on the pavement, however carefully can anticipate people coming out of shop entrances onto the pavement.
Pedestrians have a legal right to be on the pavement, cyclists, unless you are walking and wheeling your bike beside you don't,
That is the law and common sense.
They seem to manage it quite well abroad. Plenty of pavement cycling in Barcelona and Seville, both of which I think it'd fair to say are a little busier than Boscombe. Plenty in major cities in France too. It's not being on a bike that's the problem, it's having a bad attitude and engaging in black and white thinking.
It's a bad attitude in shoving someone over who tells you to stop cycling on the pavement. In fact it's bad attitude to shove someone over or even swear at them
.....
As Brian Leeming said “But youngsters are getting a lot more mouthy these days." Absolutely true - that's a bad attitude and doesn't only apply to youngsters. Society has got a lot more "I'll do as I want to and b****r" the rest of you."
[quote][p][bold]Elftick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]djd[/bold] wrote: I can't see how any cyclist riding on the pavement, however carefully can anticipate people coming out of shop entrances onto the pavement. Pedestrians have a legal right to be on the pavement, cyclists, unless you are walking and wheeling your bike beside you don't, That is the law and common sense.[/p][/quote]They seem to manage it quite well abroad. Plenty of pavement cycling in Barcelona and Seville, both of which I think it'd fair to say are a little busier than Boscombe. Plenty in major cities in France too. It's not being on a bike that's the problem, it's having a bad attitude and engaging in black and white thinking.[/p][/quote]It's a bad attitude in shoving someone over who tells you to stop cycling on the pavement. In fact it's bad attitude to shove someone over or even swear at them ..... As Brian Leeming said “But youngsters are getting a lot more mouthy these days." Absolutely true - that's a bad attitude and doesn't only apply to youngsters. Society has got a lot more "I'll do as I want to and b****r" the rest of you." Carolyn43
  • Score: 19

9:21am Tue 22 Apr 14

Azphreal says...

Elftick wrote:
djd wrote:
I can't see how any cyclist riding on the pavement, however carefully can anticipate people coming out of shop entrances onto the pavement.
Pedestrians have a legal right to be on the pavement, cyclists, unless you are walking and wheeling your bike beside you don't,
That is the law and common sense.
They seem to manage it quite well abroad. Plenty of pavement cycling in Barcelona and Seville, both of which I think it'd fair to say are a little busier than Boscombe. Plenty in major cities in France too. It's not being on a bike that's the problem, it's having a bad attitude and engaging in black and white thinking.
Do they speed along the pavements there? Do they think they have right of way? Are they breaking the law?
[quote][p][bold]Elftick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]djd[/bold] wrote: I can't see how any cyclist riding on the pavement, however carefully can anticipate people coming out of shop entrances onto the pavement. Pedestrians have a legal right to be on the pavement, cyclists, unless you are walking and wheeling your bike beside you don't, That is the law and common sense.[/p][/quote]They seem to manage it quite well abroad. Plenty of pavement cycling in Barcelona and Seville, both of which I think it'd fair to say are a little busier than Boscombe. Plenty in major cities in France too. It's not being on a bike that's the problem, it's having a bad attitude and engaging in black and white thinking.[/p][/quote]Do they speed along the pavements there? Do they think they have right of way? Are they breaking the law? Azphreal
  • Score: 9

9:46am Tue 22 Apr 14

Elftick says...

Azphreal wrote:
Elftick wrote:
djd wrote:
I can't see how any cyclist riding on the pavement, however carefully can anticipate people coming out of shop entrances onto the pavement.
Pedestrians have a legal right to be on the pavement, cyclists, unless you are walking and wheeling your bike beside you don't,
That is the law and common sense.
They seem to manage it quite well abroad. Plenty of pavement cycling in Barcelona and Seville, both of which I think it'd fair to say are a little busier than Boscombe. Plenty in major cities in France too. It's not being on a bike that's the problem, it's having a bad attitude and engaging in black and white thinking.
Do they speed along the pavements there? Do they think they have right of way? Are they breaking the law?
No, cyclists don't tend to speed along, which is the point I was trying to get at - it's about attitude, not about cycling. it's not about thinking in terms of "right of way", that's selfish "me" stuff. It's more about discernment and sharing public space. I don't know whether it's against the law or not, but it seems to work. It's pro-active and pro-social. Not reactive and reductive.

Pavement cycling could work if people changed their attitudes. An alternative might be to lower the speed limit on the roads around town to about 20km/h to enable cyclists of all ages to use them without fear.
[quote][p][bold]Azphreal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Elftick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]djd[/bold] wrote: I can't see how any cyclist riding on the pavement, however carefully can anticipate people coming out of shop entrances onto the pavement. Pedestrians have a legal right to be on the pavement, cyclists, unless you are walking and wheeling your bike beside you don't, That is the law and common sense.[/p][/quote]They seem to manage it quite well abroad. Plenty of pavement cycling in Barcelona and Seville, both of which I think it'd fair to say are a little busier than Boscombe. Plenty in major cities in France too. It's not being on a bike that's the problem, it's having a bad attitude and engaging in black and white thinking.[/p][/quote]Do they speed along the pavements there? Do they think they have right of way? Are they breaking the law?[/p][/quote]No, cyclists don't tend to speed along, which is the point I was trying to get at - it's about attitude, not about cycling. it's not about thinking in terms of "right of way", that's selfish "me" stuff. It's more about discernment and sharing public space. I don't know whether it's against the law or not, but it seems to work. It's pro-active and pro-social. Not reactive and reductive. Pavement cycling could work if people changed their attitudes. An alternative might be to lower the speed limit on the roads around town to about 20km/h to enable cyclists of all ages to use them without fear. Elftick
  • Score: 9

9:55am Tue 22 Apr 14

breamoreboy says...

Stereotyped wrote:
breamoreboy wrote:
rgjamieson wrote:
It is against the law to cycle on the pavement.
So ride legally on the roads and run the risk of getting yourself seriously injured or killed by some bozo in charge of a ton of lethal weapon doing maybe 50mph? No thanks. Just engage brain, ride on the pavement at a safe speed, anticipate what is likely to happen and if needed accelerate in order to avoid a collision. Can it get any simpler?
Yes, ride on the roads. You want to ride a bike...that is the risk you will have to take.

Deal with it.

You have a go at car drivers for breaking the speed limit by 1mph...but it is okay for a cyclist to ride illegally on the pavement? Good logic you have there.
I don't want to ride a bike, I can't afford a car. And personally I'm not bothered by someone doing 1 mph over the speed limit,, that shouldn't cause a problem to anybody.

Observing that my comments have already been scored at -11 it's pretty clear that the car brigade are in a majority here. Given that they always vote for sitting in queues rather than use public transport that comes as no surprise to me. Common sense on this website, not a dog's chance in hell.
[quote][p][bold]Stereotyped[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rgjamieson[/bold] wrote: It is against the law to cycle on the pavement.[/p][/quote]So ride legally on the roads and run the risk of getting yourself seriously injured or killed by some bozo in charge of a ton of lethal weapon doing maybe 50mph? No thanks. Just engage brain, ride on the pavement at a safe speed, anticipate what is likely to happen and if needed accelerate in order to avoid a collision. Can it get any simpler?[/p][/quote]Yes, ride on the roads. You want to ride a bike...that is the risk you will have to take. Deal with it. You have a go at car drivers for breaking the speed limit by 1mph...but it is okay for a cyclist to ride illegally on the pavement? Good logic you have there.[/p][/quote]I don't want to ride a bike, I can't afford a car. And personally I'm not bothered by someone doing 1 mph over the speed limit,, that shouldn't cause a problem to anybody. Observing that my comments have already been scored at -11 it's pretty clear that the car brigade are in a majority here. Given that they always vote for sitting in queues rather than use public transport that comes as no surprise to me. Common sense on this website, not a dog's chance in hell. breamoreboy
  • Score: 9

10:02am Tue 22 Apr 14

The-Bleeding-Obvious says...

rgjamieson wrote:
It is against the law to cycle on the pavement.
Not according to guidelines set out by the government over a decade ago now; Google it!
[quote][p][bold]rgjamieson[/bold] wrote: It is against the law to cycle on the pavement.[/p][/quote]Not according to guidelines set out by the government over a decade ago now; Google it! The-Bleeding-Obvious
  • Score: 7

10:03am Tue 22 Apr 14

breamoreboy says...

djd wrote:
I can't see how any cyclist riding on the pavement, however carefully can anticipate people coming out of shop entrances onto the pavement.
Pedestrians have a legal right to be on the pavement, cyclists, unless you are walking and wheeling your bike beside you don't,
That is the law and common sense.
If a cyclist can't anticipate someone coming out of a shop they should no more be on a bike than a car driver who doesn't anticipate someone incorrectly pulling at at a junction. You've also cleverly ignored my comment about riding at a safe speed and accelerating in order to avoid a collision.
[quote][p][bold]djd[/bold] wrote: I can't see how any cyclist riding on the pavement, however carefully can anticipate people coming out of shop entrances onto the pavement. Pedestrians have a legal right to be on the pavement, cyclists, unless you are walking and wheeling your bike beside you don't, That is the law and common sense.[/p][/quote]If a cyclist can't anticipate someone coming out of a shop they should no more be on a bike than a car driver who doesn't anticipate someone incorrectly pulling at at a junction. You've also cleverly ignored my comment about riding at a safe speed and accelerating in order to avoid a collision. breamoreboy
  • Score: 4

10:38am Tue 22 Apr 14

BournemouthMum says...

When my son used to ride his bike to school, I always advised him to ride on the pavement - respectfully - i.e. dismount when there are people walking and ride slowly etc. and he always did this. My thoughts were that I'd rather have a police officer knocking on my door to say 'your son is breaking the law riding on the pavement' than 'sorry Ms x I'm afraid your son has been killed in a collision'.

Basically what I am saying is that the roads are extremely dangerous for cyclists and it's safer to ride on the pavement - obviously using discretion and common sense. Not a popular view I know, but far too many cyclists are killed and something should be done to ensure there are safe places for them to ride - even if it means they have to pay some sort of road tax, which I'm sure most wouldn't object to.

Unfortunately this type of incident demonises cyclists when in fact most of them are considerate and wouldn't dream of behaving like this.
When my son used to ride his bike to school, I always advised him to ride on the pavement - respectfully - i.e. dismount when there are people walking and ride slowly etc. and he always did this. My thoughts were that I'd rather have a police officer knocking on my door to say 'your son is breaking the law riding on the pavement' than 'sorry Ms x I'm afraid your son has been killed in a collision'. Basically what I am saying is that the roads are extremely dangerous for cyclists and it's safer to ride on the pavement - obviously using discretion and common sense. Not a popular view I know, but far too many cyclists are killed and something should be done to ensure there are safe places for them to ride - even if it means they have to pay some sort of road tax, which I'm sure most wouldn't object to. Unfortunately this type of incident demonises cyclists when in fact most of them are considerate and wouldn't dream of behaving like this. BournemouthMum
  • Score: 33

10:41am Tue 22 Apr 14

SelenaOverton says...

WITCH HUNT AGAIN! WITCH HUNT!
NO HIT AND RUN DRIVER RECENTLY!
A HOODIE YOUTH .......WITCH HUNT.....WITCH HUNT......
WITCH HUNT AGAIN! WITCH HUNT! NO HIT AND RUN DRIVER RECENTLY! A HOODIE YOUTH .......WITCH HUNT.....WITCH HUNT...... SelenaOverton
  • Score: -7

10:43am Tue 22 Apr 14

Tig says...

The-Bleeding-Obvious wrote:
rgjamieson wrote:
It is against the law to cycle on the pavement.
Not according to guidelines set out by the government over a decade ago now; Google it!
From the Highway Code - Rules for Cyclists
.
64: You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.
Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129
.
https://www.gov.uk/r
ules-for-cyclists-59
-to-82/overview-59-t
o-71
[quote][p][bold]The-Bleeding-Obvious[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rgjamieson[/bold] wrote: It is against the law to cycle on the pavement.[/p][/quote]Not according to guidelines set out by the government over a decade ago now; Google it![/p][/quote]From the Highway Code - Rules for Cyclists . 64: You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement. Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129 . https://www.gov.uk/r ules-for-cyclists-59 -to-82/overview-59-t o-71 Tig
  • Score: 5

11:04am Tue 22 Apr 14

Bob49 says...

The prpoblem is the attitude of certain cyclists (and motorists). Yyou only have to walk through Boscombe precinct to see the cretins cycling far too fast - just as along the prom.

Sadly the police do not see the former as a problem requiring action..... bar the occassional 'starburst 'iniative (with all the usual publicity and photo opportunites). When the police announced last autumn that they were sending out two officers on a couple of eveings for a couple of hours to tell cyclist without lights that they were 'very naughty people' what did we get ? Not questions as to why there was not rigorous enforcement of cyclists using lights, but numpties saying how great it was that the rest of the year nothing was going to be done !

And, unfortunately little will happen as long as there are those who ride a cycle and clutter up these forums will idiotic bleats everytime the word cyclist is mentioned.

I use a bike as well as drive a car, and there are cretins in both camps - however with cyclists there seems to be a holier than thou attitude that seeks to absolve ALL cyclists irrespective of their behaviour.

ps the Tardis appears to not have made a jot of difference to cycling in the precinct ...... but it did make for a good photo opportunity in the Daily Echo - and that is what it is all about nowadays.
The prpoblem is the attitude of certain cyclists (and motorists). Yyou only have to walk through Boscombe precinct to see the cretins cycling far too fast - just as along the prom. Sadly the police do not see the former as a problem requiring action..... bar the occassional 'starburst 'iniative (with all the usual publicity and photo opportunites). When the police announced last autumn that they were sending out two officers on a couple of eveings for a couple of hours to tell cyclist without lights that they were 'very naughty people' what did we get ? Not questions as to why there was not rigorous enforcement of cyclists using lights, but numpties saying how great it was that the rest of the year nothing was going to be done ! And, unfortunately little will happen as long as there are those who ride a cycle and clutter up these forums will idiotic bleats everytime the word cyclist is mentioned. I use a bike as well as drive a car, and there are cretins in both camps - however with cyclists there seems to be a holier than thou attitude that seeks to absolve ALL cyclists irrespective of their behaviour. ps the Tardis appears to not have made a jot of difference to cycling in the precinct ...... but it did make for a good photo opportunity in the Daily Echo - and that is what it is all about nowadays. Bob49
  • Score: 4

11:27am Tue 22 Apr 14

The-Bleeding-Obvious says...

Tig wrote:
The-Bleeding-Obvious wrote:
rgjamieson wrote:
It is against the law to cycle on the pavement.
Not according to guidelines set out by the government over a decade ago now; Google it!
From the Highway Code - Rules for Cyclists
.
64: You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.
Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129
.
https://www.gov.uk/r

ules-for-cyclists-59

-to-82/overview-59-t

o-71
http://road.cc/conte
nt/news/108119-trans
port-minister-respon
sible-cyclists-can-r
ide-pavement
[quote][p][bold]Tig[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The-Bleeding-Obvious[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rgjamieson[/bold] wrote: It is against the law to cycle on the pavement.[/p][/quote]Not according to guidelines set out by the government over a decade ago now; Google it![/p][/quote]From the Highway Code - Rules for Cyclists . 64: You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement. Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129 . https://www.gov.uk/r ules-for-cyclists-59 -to-82/overview-59-t o-71[/p][/quote]http://road.cc/conte nt/news/108119-trans port-minister-respon sible-cyclists-can-r ide-pavement The-Bleeding-Obvious
  • Score: 1

11:31am Tue 22 Apr 14

JackJohnson says...

The-Bleeding-Obvious wrote:
rgjamieson wrote:
It is against the law to cycle on the pavement.
Not according to guidelines set out by the government over a decade ago now; Google it!
Link?
[quote][p][bold]The-Bleeding-Obvious[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rgjamieson[/bold] wrote: It is against the law to cycle on the pavement.[/p][/quote]Not according to guidelines set out by the government over a decade ago now; Google it![/p][/quote]Link? JackJohnson
  • Score: -1

11:42am Tue 22 Apr 14

The-Bleeding-Obvious says...

JackJohnson wrote:
The-Bleeding-Obvious wrote:
rgjamieson wrote:
It is against the law to cycle on the pavement.
Not according to guidelines set out by the government over a decade ago now; Google it!
Link?
Try again!
http://road.cc/conte
nt/news/108119-trans
port-minister-respon
sible-cyclists-can-r
ide-pavement
[quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The-Bleeding-Obvious[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rgjamieson[/bold] wrote: It is against the law to cycle on the pavement.[/p][/quote]Not according to guidelines set out by the government over a decade ago now; Google it![/p][/quote]Link?[/p][/quote]Try again! http://road.cc/conte nt/news/108119-trans port-minister-respon sible-cyclists-can-r ide-pavement The-Bleeding-Obvious
  • Score: -1

11:51am Tue 22 Apr 14

FNS-man says...

Isn't the issue here the assault? The pensioner could have been having a go at them for dropping litter, swearing, barging into people on the pavement, shoplifting, speaking ill of the war dead, looking a bit scruffy or peeing on a wall.

After the recent "drive-by" shooting were there people complaining about traffic policing not enforcing traffic laws because the driver should have been looking where he was going rather than shooting a firearm?
Isn't the issue here the assault? The pensioner could have been having a go at them for dropping litter, swearing, barging into people on the pavement, shoplifting, speaking ill of the war dead, looking a bit scruffy or peeing on a wall. After the recent "drive-by" shooting were there people complaining about traffic policing not enforcing traffic laws because the driver should have been looking where he was going rather than shooting a firearm? FNS-man
  • Score: 7

11:55am Tue 22 Apr 14

Chiqqy says...

People who cycle on pavements are idiots. People who cycle without lights are idiots. People who don't signal or look behind them when cycling are idiots. But not everyone is an idiot. From a cyclist.
People who cycle on pavements are idiots. People who cycle without lights are idiots. People who don't signal or look behind them when cycling are idiots. But not everyone is an idiot. From a cyclist. Chiqqy
  • Score: 7

2:46pm Tue 22 Apr 14

guisselle says...

Exactly its common sense really, if in doubt dismount!
Exactly its common sense really, if in doubt dismount! guisselle
  • Score: 2

2:48pm Tue 22 Apr 14

LeeThorne says...

Oh please jog on with all this cyclists on the pavement blabber. The law is not enforceable down here "YET"... There is not enough cycle lanes and to be honest people of bournemouth your driving is awful when it comes to the morning and evening rush hour. Ill stick to the pavements thanks.

This is one incident and yet all cyclists are being blamed.

But its ok for drivers abuse us because we hold up traffic abit? The road surface is crap and full of potholes...
Oh please jog on with all this cyclists on the pavement blabber. The law is not enforceable down here "YET"... There is not enough cycle lanes and to be honest people of bournemouth your driving is awful when it comes to the morning and evening rush hour. Ill stick to the pavements thanks. This is one incident and yet all cyclists are being blamed. But its ok for drivers abuse us because we hold up traffic abit? The road surface is crap and full of potholes... LeeThorne
  • Score: 4

2:51pm Tue 22 Apr 14

Arthur Maureen says...

haha, the Echo doesn't like a bit of criticism, well tough!! busy pulling comments from this article, free speech?!?
haha, the Echo doesn't like a bit of criticism, well tough!! busy pulling comments from this article, free speech?!? Arthur Maureen
  • Score: 3

3:17pm Tue 22 Apr 14

Stereotyped says...

BournemouthMum wrote:
When my son used to ride his bike to school, I always advised him to ride on the pavement - respectfully - i.e. dismount when there are people walking and ride slowly etc. and he always did this. My thoughts were that I'd rather have a police officer knocking on my door to say 'your son is breaking the law riding on the pavement' than 'sorry Ms x I'm afraid your son has been killed in a collision'.

Basically what I am saying is that the roads are extremely dangerous for cyclists and it's safer to ride on the pavement - obviously using discretion and common sense. Not a popular view I know, but far too many cyclists are killed and something should be done to ensure there are safe places for them to ride - even if it means they have to pay some sort of road tax, which I'm sure most wouldn't object to.

Unfortunately this type of incident demonises cyclists when in fact most of them are considerate and wouldn't dream of behaving like this.
I can see your point, but to play devils advocate...

You are not happy with the thought of your son being hit by a car and injured/killed...bec
ause the car is heavier, not necessarily travelling any faster, but due to it's mass, carries more inertia in a collision.

However, you are quite happy to flip that card around and have your son collide with a child walking on the pavement?

See where I am coming from?

In the case of your son being hit by a car, the car driver might not have even been breaking any laws whatsoever, just unfortunate, maybe your son pulled out in front of the car.

However, riding on the pavement is illegal and your son shouldn't have even been riding on it in the first instance.
[quote][p][bold]BournemouthMum[/bold] wrote: When my son used to ride his bike to school, I always advised him to ride on the pavement - respectfully - i.e. dismount when there are people walking and ride slowly etc. and he always did this. My thoughts were that I'd rather have a police officer knocking on my door to say 'your son is breaking the law riding on the pavement' than 'sorry Ms x I'm afraid your son has been killed in a collision'. Basically what I am saying is that the roads are extremely dangerous for cyclists and it's safer to ride on the pavement - obviously using discretion and common sense. Not a popular view I know, but far too many cyclists are killed and something should be done to ensure there are safe places for them to ride - even if it means they have to pay some sort of road tax, which I'm sure most wouldn't object to. Unfortunately this type of incident demonises cyclists when in fact most of them are considerate and wouldn't dream of behaving like this.[/p][/quote]I can see your point, but to play devils advocate... You are not happy with the thought of your son being hit by a car and injured/killed...bec ause the car is heavier, not necessarily travelling any faster, but due to it's mass, carries more inertia in a collision. However, you are quite happy to flip that card around and have your son collide with a child walking on the pavement? See where I am coming from? In the case of your son being hit by a car, the car driver might not have even been breaking any laws whatsoever, just unfortunate, maybe your son pulled out in front of the car. However, riding on the pavement is illegal and your son shouldn't have even been riding on it in the first instance. Stereotyped
  • Score: -3

3:53pm Tue 22 Apr 14

The-Bleeding-Obvious says...

Stereotyped wrote:
BournemouthMum wrote:
When my son used to ride his bike to school, I always advised him to ride on the pavement - respectfully - i.e. dismount when there are people walking and ride slowly etc. and he always did this. My thoughts were that I'd rather have a police officer knocking on my door to say 'your son is breaking the law riding on the pavement' than 'sorry Ms x I'm afraid your son has been killed in a collision'.

Basically what I am saying is that the roads are extremely dangerous for cyclists and it's safer to ride on the pavement - obviously using discretion and common sense. Not a popular view I know, but far too many cyclists are killed and something should be done to ensure there are safe places for them to ride - even if it means they have to pay some sort of road tax, which I'm sure most wouldn't object to.

Unfortunately this type of incident demonises cyclists when in fact most of them are considerate and wouldn't dream of behaving like this.
I can see your point, but to play devils advocate...

You are not happy with the thought of your son being hit by a car and injured/killed...bec

ause the car is heavier, not necessarily travelling any faster, but due to it's mass, carries more inertia in a collision.

However, you are quite happy to flip that card around and have your son collide with a child walking on the pavement?

See where I am coming from?

In the case of your son being hit by a car, the car driver might not have even been breaking any laws whatsoever, just unfortunate, maybe your son pulled out in front of the car.

However, riding on the pavement is illegal and your son shouldn't have even been riding on it in the first instance.
The law is outdated, made at a time when there were hardly any cars on the roads. All pavements where necessary/possible should be made shared routes. Cyclists and pedestrians are a much safer mix than cars and cyclists; 100 cyclists killed by cars, less than 1 pedestrian killed by cyclists per year.
[quote][p][bold]Stereotyped[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BournemouthMum[/bold] wrote: When my son used to ride his bike to school, I always advised him to ride on the pavement - respectfully - i.e. dismount when there are people walking and ride slowly etc. and he always did this. My thoughts were that I'd rather have a police officer knocking on my door to say 'your son is breaking the law riding on the pavement' than 'sorry Ms x I'm afraid your son has been killed in a collision'. Basically what I am saying is that the roads are extremely dangerous for cyclists and it's safer to ride on the pavement - obviously using discretion and common sense. Not a popular view I know, but far too many cyclists are killed and something should be done to ensure there are safe places for them to ride - even if it means they have to pay some sort of road tax, which I'm sure most wouldn't object to. Unfortunately this type of incident demonises cyclists when in fact most of them are considerate and wouldn't dream of behaving like this.[/p][/quote]I can see your point, but to play devils advocate... You are not happy with the thought of your son being hit by a car and injured/killed...bec ause the car is heavier, not necessarily travelling any faster, but due to it's mass, carries more inertia in a collision. However, you are quite happy to flip that card around and have your son collide with a child walking on the pavement? See where I am coming from? In the case of your son being hit by a car, the car driver might not have even been breaking any laws whatsoever, just unfortunate, maybe your son pulled out in front of the car. However, riding on the pavement is illegal and your son shouldn't have even been riding on it in the first instance.[/p][/quote]The law is outdated, made at a time when there were hardly any cars on the roads. All pavements where necessary/possible should be made shared routes. Cyclists and pedestrians are a much safer mix than cars and cyclists; 100 cyclists killed by cars, less than 1 pedestrian killed by cyclists per year. The-Bleeding-Obvious
  • Score: 0

4:02pm Tue 22 Apr 14

BournemouthMum says...

Stereotyped wrote:
BournemouthMum wrote:
When my son used to ride his bike to school, I always advised him to ride on the pavement - respectfully - i.e. dismount when there are people walking and ride slowly etc. and he always did this. My thoughts were that I'd rather have a police officer knocking on my door to say 'your son is breaking the law riding on the pavement' than 'sorry Ms x I'm afraid your son has been killed in a collision'.

Basically what I am saying is that the roads are extremely dangerous for cyclists and it's safer to ride on the pavement - obviously using discretion and common sense. Not a popular view I know, but far too many cyclists are killed and something should be done to ensure there are safe places for them to ride - even if it means they have to pay some sort of road tax, which I'm sure most wouldn't object to.

Unfortunately this type of incident demonises cyclists when in fact most of them are considerate and wouldn't dream of behaving like this.
I can see your point, but to play devils advocate...

You are not happy with the thought of your son being hit by a car and injured/killed...bec

ause the car is heavier, not necessarily travelling any faster, but due to it's mass, carries more inertia in a collision.

However, you are quite happy to flip that card around and have your son collide with a child walking on the pavement?

See where I am coming from?

In the case of your son being hit by a car, the car driver might not have even been breaking any laws whatsoever, just unfortunate, maybe your son pulled out in front of the car.

However, riding on the pavement is illegal and your son shouldn't have even been riding on it in the first instance.
Yes I see where you're coming from, but read my comment - I told him to ride 'respectfully' - which means ALWAYS giving way to and looking out for pedestrians and immediately get off the bike and walk if you see any. There was hardly ever anyone on the pavements on the way to school because most people were travelling in cars. Obviously I wouldn't have allowed him to cycle in a busy high street or similar - it's about using common sense. I do get your point but don't regret advising my son to do this and I'm quite happy to report that he's 18 now and always cycles on the roads. If I had allowed him to ride on the roads it's might have been a different story, and not something I was prepared to risk.
[quote][p][bold]Stereotyped[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BournemouthMum[/bold] wrote: When my son used to ride his bike to school, I always advised him to ride on the pavement - respectfully - i.e. dismount when there are people walking and ride slowly etc. and he always did this. My thoughts were that I'd rather have a police officer knocking on my door to say 'your son is breaking the law riding on the pavement' than 'sorry Ms x I'm afraid your son has been killed in a collision'. Basically what I am saying is that the roads are extremely dangerous for cyclists and it's safer to ride on the pavement - obviously using discretion and common sense. Not a popular view I know, but far too many cyclists are killed and something should be done to ensure there are safe places for them to ride - even if it means they have to pay some sort of road tax, which I'm sure most wouldn't object to. Unfortunately this type of incident demonises cyclists when in fact most of them are considerate and wouldn't dream of behaving like this.[/p][/quote]I can see your point, but to play devils advocate... You are not happy with the thought of your son being hit by a car and injured/killed...bec ause the car is heavier, not necessarily travelling any faster, but due to it's mass, carries more inertia in a collision. However, you are quite happy to flip that card around and have your son collide with a child walking on the pavement? See where I am coming from? In the case of your son being hit by a car, the car driver might not have even been breaking any laws whatsoever, just unfortunate, maybe your son pulled out in front of the car. However, riding on the pavement is illegal and your son shouldn't have even been riding on it in the first instance.[/p][/quote]Yes I see where you're coming from, but read my comment - I told him to ride 'respectfully' - which means ALWAYS giving way to and looking out for pedestrians and immediately get off the bike and walk if you see any. There was hardly ever anyone on the pavements on the way to school because most people were travelling in cars. Obviously I wouldn't have allowed him to cycle in a busy high street or similar - it's about using common sense. I do get your point but don't regret advising my son to do this and I'm quite happy to report that he's 18 now and always cycles on the roads. If I had allowed him to ride on the roads it's might have been a different story, and not something I was prepared to risk. BournemouthMum
  • Score: 3

4:08pm Tue 22 Apr 14

BournemouthMum says...

The-Bleeding-Obvious wrote:
Stereotyped wrote:
BournemouthMum wrote:
When my son used to ride his bike to school, I always advised him to ride on the pavement - respectfully - i.e. dismount when there are people walking and ride slowly etc. and he always did this. My thoughts were that I'd rather have a police officer knocking on my door to say 'your son is breaking the law riding on the pavement' than 'sorry Ms x I'm afraid your son has been killed in a collision'.

Basically what I am saying is that the roads are extremely dangerous for cyclists and it's safer to ride on the pavement - obviously using discretion and common sense. Not a popular view I know, but far too many cyclists are killed and something should be done to ensure there are safe places for them to ride - even if it means they have to pay some sort of road tax, which I'm sure most wouldn't object to.

Unfortunately this type of incident demonises cyclists when in fact most of them are considerate and wouldn't dream of behaving like this.
I can see your point, but to play devils advocate...

You are not happy with the thought of your son being hit by a car and injured/killed...bec


ause the car is heavier, not necessarily travelling any faster, but due to it's mass, carries more inertia in a collision.

However, you are quite happy to flip that card around and have your son collide with a child walking on the pavement?

See where I am coming from?

In the case of your son being hit by a car, the car driver might not have even been breaking any laws whatsoever, just unfortunate, maybe your son pulled out in front of the car.

However, riding on the pavement is illegal and your son shouldn't have even been riding on it in the first instance.
The law is outdated, made at a time when there were hardly any cars on the roads. All pavements where necessary/possible should be made shared routes. Cyclists and pedestrians are a much safer mix than cars and cyclists; 100 cyclists killed by cars, less than 1 pedestrian killed by cyclists per year.
Spot on. Also there are far fewer pedestrians on the pavements nowadays as most people travel by car. No respectful cyclist is going to speed past a load of pedestrians on a busy high street, it's only a small anti-social minority who would do that. The laws need reforming because the number of unnecessary deaths is getting ridiculous.
[quote][p][bold]The-Bleeding-Obvious[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stereotyped[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BournemouthMum[/bold] wrote: When my son used to ride his bike to school, I always advised him to ride on the pavement - respectfully - i.e. dismount when there are people walking and ride slowly etc. and he always did this. My thoughts were that I'd rather have a police officer knocking on my door to say 'your son is breaking the law riding on the pavement' than 'sorry Ms x I'm afraid your son has been killed in a collision'. Basically what I am saying is that the roads are extremely dangerous for cyclists and it's safer to ride on the pavement - obviously using discretion and common sense. Not a popular view I know, but far too many cyclists are killed and something should be done to ensure there are safe places for them to ride - even if it means they have to pay some sort of road tax, which I'm sure most wouldn't object to. Unfortunately this type of incident demonises cyclists when in fact most of them are considerate and wouldn't dream of behaving like this.[/p][/quote]I can see your point, but to play devils advocate... You are not happy with the thought of your son being hit by a car and injured/killed...bec ause the car is heavier, not necessarily travelling any faster, but due to it's mass, carries more inertia in a collision. However, you are quite happy to flip that card around and have your son collide with a child walking on the pavement? See where I am coming from? In the case of your son being hit by a car, the car driver might not have even been breaking any laws whatsoever, just unfortunate, maybe your son pulled out in front of the car. However, riding on the pavement is illegal and your son shouldn't have even been riding on it in the first instance.[/p][/quote]The law is outdated, made at a time when there were hardly any cars on the roads. All pavements where necessary/possible should be made shared routes. Cyclists and pedestrians are a much safer mix than cars and cyclists; 100 cyclists killed by cars, less than 1 pedestrian killed by cyclists per year.[/p][/quote]Spot on. Also there are far fewer pedestrians on the pavements nowadays as most people travel by car. No respectful cyclist is going to speed past a load of pedestrians on a busy high street, it's only a small anti-social minority who would do that. The laws need reforming because the number of unnecessary deaths is getting ridiculous. BournemouthMum
  • Score: 1

5:43pm Tue 22 Apr 14

QPUtd says...

These are two separate issues that have been joined together by sensationalist journalism because the journalist knows that pensioners being assaulted by younger people, and cycling on the pavement, are guaranteed to get a huge reaction

Story 1 - yobs attack 77 year old for telling them off
Story 2 - people cycle on the pavement in Boscombe

Both are wrong, but the fact that the yobs were cycling on the pavement is irrelevant, I suspect they would have attacked the pensioner if he had told them off for dropping litter, or playing loud music..
These are two separate issues that have been joined together by sensationalist journalism because the journalist knows that pensioners being assaulted by younger people, and cycling on the pavement, are guaranteed to get a huge reaction Story 1 - yobs attack 77 year old for telling them off Story 2 - people cycle on the pavement in Boscombe Both are wrong, but the fact that the yobs were cycling on the pavement is irrelevant, I suspect they would have attacked the pensioner if he had told them off for dropping litter, or playing loud music.. QPUtd
  • Score: 2

8:09pm Tue 22 Apr 14

newforestbloke says...

QPUtd wrote:
These are two separate issues that have been joined together by sensationalist journalism because the journalist knows that pensioners being assaulted by younger people, and cycling on the pavement, are guaranteed to get a huge reaction

Story 1 - yobs attack 77 year old for telling them off
Story 2 - people cycle on the pavement in Boscombe

Both are wrong, but the fact that the yobs were cycling on the pavement is irrelevant, I suspect they would have attacked the pensioner if he had told them off for dropping litter, or playing loud music..
how can one incident, given the rarity, rather like finding hen's teeth, that a cyclist has injured a pedestrian, become two seperate issues melded together by sensationalist journalism?

cycling - the new religion whose disciples are perfect human beings and the rest of us are all dross, miseralbe wretched sinners
[quote][p][bold]QPUtd[/bold] wrote: These are two separate issues that have been joined together by sensationalist journalism because the journalist knows that pensioners being assaulted by younger people, and cycling on the pavement, are guaranteed to get a huge reaction Story 1 - yobs attack 77 year old for telling them off Story 2 - people cycle on the pavement in Boscombe Both are wrong, but the fact that the yobs were cycling on the pavement is irrelevant, I suspect they would have attacked the pensioner if he had told them off for dropping litter, or playing loud music..[/p][/quote]how can one incident, given the rarity, rather like finding hen's teeth, that a cyclist has injured a pedestrian, become two seperate issues melded together by sensationalist journalism? cycling - the new religion whose disciples are perfect human beings and the rest of us are all dross, miseralbe wretched sinners newforestbloke
  • Score: 0

8:14pm Tue 22 Apr 14

bobthedestroyer says...

Bottom line is the cyclist is an ar*e. He doesn't care about anyone at all the fact he was on the pavement is irrelevant he shouldn't have acted in the way he did.
Bottom line is the cyclist is an ar*e. He doesn't care about anyone at all the fact he was on the pavement is irrelevant he shouldn't have acted in the way he did. bobthedestroyer
  • Score: -1

9:43pm Tue 22 Apr 14

winton50 says...

it's like pavlovs dog this echo site
it's like pavlovs dog this echo site winton50
  • Score: 0

10:55pm Tue 22 Apr 14

Vicvic says...

JackJohnson wrote:
The-Bleeding-Obvious wrote:
rgjamieson wrote:
It is against the law to cycle on the pavement.
Not according to guidelines set out by the government over a decade ago now; Google it!
Link?
You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.
Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129
[quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The-Bleeding-Obvious[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rgjamieson[/bold] wrote: It is against the law to cycle on the pavement.[/p][/quote]Not according to guidelines set out by the government over a decade ago now; Google it![/p][/quote]Link?[/p][/quote]You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement. Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129 Vicvic
  • Score: -2

12:39am Wed 23 Apr 14

breamoreboy says...

Tig wrote:
The-Bleeding-Obvious wrote:
rgjamieson wrote:
It is against the law to cycle on the pavement.
Not according to guidelines set out by the government over a decade ago now; Google it!
From the Highway Code - Rules for Cyclists
.
64: You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.
Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129
.
https://www.gov.uk/r

ules-for-cyclists-59

-to-82/overview-59-t

o-71
The highway code is not law.
[quote][p][bold]Tig[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The-Bleeding-Obvious[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rgjamieson[/bold] wrote: It is against the law to cycle on the pavement.[/p][/quote]Not according to guidelines set out by the government over a decade ago now; Google it![/p][/quote]From the Highway Code - Rules for Cyclists . 64: You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement. Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129 . https://www.gov.uk/r ules-for-cyclists-59 -to-82/overview-59-t o-71[/p][/quote]The highway code is not law. breamoreboy
  • Score: 0

12:48am Wed 23 Apr 14

breamoreboy says...

Vicvic wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
The-Bleeding-Obvious wrote:
rgjamieson wrote:
It is against the law to cycle on the pavement.
Not according to guidelines set out by the government over a decade ago now; Google it!
Link?
You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.
Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129
As the 1831 London Hackney Carriage Act was repealed in 1976 shouldn't an act of 1835 have been repealed by now?
[quote][p][bold]Vicvic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The-Bleeding-Obvious[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rgjamieson[/bold] wrote: It is against the law to cycle on the pavement.[/p][/quote]Not according to guidelines set out by the government over a decade ago now; Google it![/p][/quote]Link?[/p][/quote]You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement. Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129[/p][/quote]As the 1831 London Hackney Carriage Act was repealed in 1976 shouldn't an act of 1835 have been repealed by now? breamoreboy
  • Score: 0

12:50am Wed 23 Apr 14

breamoreboy says...

newforestbloke wrote:
QPUtd wrote:
These are two separate issues that have been joined together by sensationalist journalism because the journalist knows that pensioners being assaulted by younger people, and cycling on the pavement, are guaranteed to get a huge reaction

Story 1 - yobs attack 77 year old for telling them off
Story 2 - people cycle on the pavement in Boscombe

Both are wrong, but the fact that the yobs were cycling on the pavement is irrelevant, I suspect they would have attacked the pensioner if he had told them off for dropping litter, or playing loud music..
how can one incident, given the rarity, rather like finding hen's teeth, that a cyclist has injured a pedestrian, become two seperate issues melded together by sensationalist journalism?

cycling - the new religion whose disciples are perfect human beings and the rest of us are all dross, miseralbe wretched sinners
Cycling, an old mode of transport and the only one that I can afford apart from shoe leather.
[quote][p][bold]newforestbloke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]QPUtd[/bold] wrote: These are two separate issues that have been joined together by sensationalist journalism because the journalist knows that pensioners being assaulted by younger people, and cycling on the pavement, are guaranteed to get a huge reaction Story 1 - yobs attack 77 year old for telling them off Story 2 - people cycle on the pavement in Boscombe Both are wrong, but the fact that the yobs were cycling on the pavement is irrelevant, I suspect they would have attacked the pensioner if he had told them off for dropping litter, or playing loud music..[/p][/quote]how can one incident, given the rarity, rather like finding hen's teeth, that a cyclist has injured a pedestrian, become two seperate issues melded together by sensationalist journalism? cycling - the new religion whose disciples are perfect human beings and the rest of us are all dross, miseralbe wretched sinners[/p][/quote]Cycling, an old mode of transport and the only one that I can afford apart from shoe leather. breamoreboy
  • Score: 1

8:11pm Wed 23 Apr 14

DanWeston says...

Can we assume that Klaus and his fellow traders will be refusing to serve anyone who parks their vehicle on the pavement for a few minutes whilst they "nip in" to their premises?
Can we assume that Klaus and his fellow traders will be refusing to serve anyone who parks their vehicle on the pavement for a few minutes whilst they "nip in" to their premises? DanWeston
  • Score: 0

8:29am Fri 25 Apr 14

DanWeston says...

Anyone else note the illegally parked van obstructing the pavement?

Any of the traders care to comment on this endemic abuse of the pavement?

Then look a t the "random snapshot" on Google STreet View for more illegal obstruction.

Before criticising others, perhaps these traders would like to get their own act together and stop abusing the pavement
Anyone else note the illegally parked van obstructing the pavement? Any of the traders care to comment on this endemic abuse of the pavement? Then look a t the "random snapshot" on Google STreet View for more illegal obstruction. Before criticising others, perhaps these traders would like to get their own act together and stop abusing the pavement DanWeston
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree