A cyclist in Belgium who allegedly used his knee to knock a five-year old child out of his way on a snow-covered path could face up to one year in prison, according to a report in Het Nieuwsblad.
The newspaper’s report contains video of the incident, which happened on Christmas Day, shot by the child’s father and posted to Facebook, although it subsequently appears to have been removed from the social network.
The incident reportedly happened close to the Baraque Michel inn near Liege, with the surrounding countryside being a popular tourist destination and one of the highest points of the country.
The video shows the girl, named Neïa and wearing a red snowsuit, walking with her mother and another child when a cyclist on a cyclo-cross bike appears from behind them and shouts a warning, his left knee apparently moving out as he passes the child, who is knocked to the ground.
The rider, aged 61, presented himself to police on Sunday following a witness appeal and reportedly faces up to a year in jail for intentional assault and battery to a minor.
Prosecutor Vanessa Clérin said: “He was interrogated and subsequently received a summons to appear before the correctional court in February.”
When interviewed by police, he insisted that he had not pushed the child out of the way on purpose and indeed had been unaware he had hit her, Clérin said.
Het Nieuwsblad said that the cyclist called Neïa’s parents to give his version of events and urge them to retract their complaint.
The girl’s father, Patrick Mpasa, a soldier, said: “He asked us to withdraw the complaint, but showed no regret for what he did.
“What's more, he accused me of being aggressive. He claimed that he had not seen that Neïa had fallen, that he would otherwise have stopped … I have the impression that he thinks it is normal.”
He continued: “A lot of people tell me that I should have beat up that cyclist, but I didn't want to heat things up even more in front of my children, in front of the other passers-by. I don't want a witch hunt, just an apology.”
He said that the fall had resulted in Neïa experiencing pain in her back and wrists.
“She fell on her forearms,” her father said. “At first we were afraid that she had broken something, but fortunately that is not the case. She does ask herself questions: she said that this man is a bad guy. Why did he do that?”
The cyclist has been summonsed to appear before a criminal court in February.
Add new comment
59 comments
Yep, he could easily have stopped, got off his bike and just lifted it round the child. Sometimes people get in your way when you're riding. It really isn't that hard to go round them without knocking into them.
> Yep, he could easily have stopped, got off his bike and just lifted it round the child. Sometimes people get in your way when you're riding.
That I agree with. This on the other hand...
> It really isn't that hard to go round them without knocking into them.
It isn't easy to go around on such a narrow path, with pedestrians taking up a large percentage of the path - especially with the path being potentially slippery and the presence of an unrestrained small child. Which is why you don't try to squeeze past.
Possible to be accidental in trying to balance in slippery conditions but (a) should have been prepared to stop and (b) there's no way you can't tell when you've pummelled someone in the back like that. Trying to deny that one is what really shows this person up for who they are. He won't get prison, obviously so casting around the max sentence for assault is just silly when this is clearly at the lower end of the spectrum. But he def deserves a penalty of some sort - community service and a fine maybe.
to be fair, it does look like the penny farthing rider turned into the direction of the DPD driver. I cant tell if the cyclist wanted to go down the road on the left, mount the pavement or developed a "high speed wiggle" and lost control because he didnt want to hit the DPD van. But he did seem a little unbalanced before the collision.
It could have been that the cyclist saw the van coming but couldnt stop in time because no brakes. Either way i dont think the DPD driver is completely at fault. Its not the van that hit the cyclist.
Or couldn't stop in time because the del driver cut across his path....
Really, the rider deviated cos he was trying to work out what to do. Are you seriously saying that as long a driver is travelling fast enough to get their nose past an oncoming vehicle's/rider's path before collision, it becomes their right of way??
HWC 180
[When turning right] Wait until there is a safe gap between you and any oncoming vehicle. Watch out for cyclists, motorcyclists, pedestrians and other road users.
The bit about brakes sparked my curiosity too. Found this for anyone who's interested in reading
Yeah, it is an odd one. I've watched it a few times. Maybe he was trying to turn into the side road and then with the van making the turn into him he was actually aborting? Or he saw the van turning, tried to turn himself to avoid it (I've done that successfully before), but then realised he wasn't going to.
I'm not sure why you would ride a penny farthing on open roads though, knowing how dangerous they are on a normal bike. Bumps/holes in the road would be enough of a concern to me, let alone other road users. While I'm not a "must wear a helmet" person, when you are that high up on a bike like that it seems a case where a helmet would be a very good idea.
He was travelling too fast to turn into the side road, clearly he was trying to avoid a collision. Expecting the rider to make decisions in the heat of the moment that you can see from a different angle to theirs, with none of the survival instinct kicking in, is unreasonable. From the riders perspective it's just a big van headed straight at them, turning left is the natural response here.
Yes, they're not the best thing to ride in today's city traffic - but no driver can use the SMIDSY excuse, surely?
The DPD driver cut the corner, into the oncoming lane possibly to avoid waiting for the cyclist to continue on their right of way and pass . Any lack of balance or what you perceive to be 'fault' was a result of the DPD driver's move. After the van's swerve any course of action was was dangerous for the penny farthing rider. An emergency stop would have sent the rider over the handlebars and possibly under the van; a sharp manouevre right might have sent him into oncoming traffic. As ridiculous as it looks,the rider took the safest option.
Victim blaming. Ever tried to stop a penny farthing in a hurry?
It looks more like the cyclist was hoping the van driver would stop, giving him a chance to veer onto the pavement, rather than trying to go around the back of the van and into on-coming traffic.
if the van driver stops at any point in their maneuver, the penny farthing is going to hit it, it just becomes a question of where on the van and being hit by its front is going to make a bad situation worse, though maybe theres an tipper truck about to follow the DPD van that we cant see which means left was the only option.
but Ive never ridden a penny farthing so Ive no idea how direct the steering is or how easy they are to control in these situations, but it seems an odd decision to want to go left otherwise, unless the bump in the road just by the corner turns the steering for them, because literally they could have carried on riding as they were and wouldnt have hit the van at all, and maybe it is the one example where in a panic you turn towards the thing thats suddenly presented in your way, rather than away from it, I dont know, but then Im not sure why anyone would be bothering videoing it anyway.
Isn't that a pretty good reason not to ride a penny farthing on the road?
It's surely better than riding them on the pavement.
What would be even better is if drivers made sure that their maneouvres don't force other vehicles to test their steering or brakes.
But yeah, penny farthings are not known for being the safest vehicle - hence the development of the 'safety bicycle'.
Absolutely and I think the DPD driver is at least 80% to blame, but I personally wouldn't ride a vehicle on the road that I knew to have inferior braking capacity compared to more stable, easier/quicker-handling and more efficient alternatives.
Unless you rim brakes are hydraulic ceramic, with accompanying brake booster to add stiffness, and your disks are 203mm with downhill pistons then your brakes are somewhat inferior.
I'm guessing if you drive your car doesn't have the carbon ceramic upgrades either...
A fair point, there's always something more one could have. However looking at the video I'd say that on any of my three bikes (don't have a car), one with Ultegra rim brakes, one with good Shimano 203mm discs and one with bog-standard Specialized own-brand discs, I think I would have been able to come to a complete stop before hitting the van if travelling at that speed. That doesn't mean it wasn't the van driver's fault, seeing any vehicle that distance away s/he should have waited and let them past before turning.
I guess I'm just thinking of the reverse scenario, if I made a misjudgement and turned across a car and was hit by it, I'd be quite pissed off if it turned out that the car was a 1908 Silver Ghost that was using its original brakes and any modern car could have stopped in time. Does that make sense? It just seems foolish to me, when riding on busy roads, not to avail oneself of the superior protection offered by modern equipment in order to be cool and quirky.
There is a British Standard though for braking (although I guess it may not apply to such a bike). If you can't meet the standard, is it wise to use it in such a dense environment?
Agreed. They're just not safe for everyday traffic and if the worst happens so far up = so far to fall ;-(
Having watched the video a few times, it is a bit worrying the cyclist could not slow enough to avoid a collision.
They are going to end up in the wrong side of an insurance claim or worse.
33/67 for that collision.
The danger here about the penny-farthing is that you're drawing your own line about what is ok/roadworthy and what isn't. The law draws that line. Once that principle is established, you're into "that dad is irresponsible for taking his five old year out on bikes" territory before you can say Jack Robinson.
Before you ask, no I wouldn't ride one there either.
"I really think it's time we just ban all jokes. It's the only way we can stop people being offended or taking things the wrong way. Humour is evil" - Cristo Foufas on Twitter this morning, sounding like he was losing an argument somewhere along the line.
Fair point...but...I could let my disc pads wear down to the bare metal and as long as they had some stopping power I'd still be legal, wouldn't I? As far as I'm aware (happy to be corrected) the law just requires two functioning brakes, they don't have to stop the bike within x distance at x speed. I'd still say I'd be a damned fool to do so, whatever the law says.
Re Foufas, I'd never come across him before I saw his tweet and wish I never had. A truly despicable individual with no leavening intellect or wit, just colour-by-numbers hate bingo. Foul.
Look at the swam of angry bees coming at me lol.
I actually downloaded the video off IG and watched it through in slomo and it was very confusing to me as you only saw one side of the story. The DPD was never in the shot until he turned right
And no - I am not a victim blamer, nor have i ever touched or ridden a penny farthing but i did google if they had breaks or not and some of them actually do but this one probably didnt.
I am confused but of course please continue to white knight and come for my throat like a DM reader going to war on cyclists. It does your argument no favors.
Buzz buzz buzz
I don't think anyone's gone for you, just pointed out that you're wrong - the driver clearly caused the collision.
If you post an opinion, be prepared for disagreement. If that's not your thing, s'cool too, but if so best not to post .....
Completely disagree.
The DPD driver cut across the path of the oncoming vehicle, causing panic, emergency action and subsequently a collision.
You need to reconsider coming here with your ludicrous comments, clearly demonstrating your support for dangerous crash drivers, regardless of the vast death and destruction they cause, worldwide.
One day you, or someone you know, will end up a victim and you'll end up eating your own words.
Stupid driver. Stupid cyclist. Stupid argument.
That's quite unreasonable and slightly hysterical, I feel. RC has made some pretty reasonable comments and, as shown by the discussion above, it's perfectly possible to have a variety of nuanced perspectives of this incident. Accusing him/her of "...clearly demonstrating [their] support for dangerous crash drivers..." because s/he said "I don't think the DPD driver is completely at fault" (my italics) makes your comment, rather than hers/his, the ludicrous one.
No i do not,
The point of my comments were to try and fill in the gaps on what happend and how/why it happened.
you dont see me praising the driver for his contribution to road safety and taking back the roads from the the two wheeled menaces like a certain regular on this site normally would.
Im just simply trying to understand what happened from both sides and the video even though it recorded the collision didnt record the cyclists POV and that is what im trying to peice together. Parts of the story are missing.
He's seen the van starting to turn in and is trying to avoid a collision and hoping that the driver will have the sense to see his error and stop.
When trying to avoid a collision with a long vehicle turning across your path, is your instinct to go round the blind side of it into the oncoming traffic?! It certainly ain't mine!!
Pages