The dog walker accused of pushing a female cyclist into a canal has denied the allegations, instead claiming that the woman “clipped me with her handlebars” and fell after approaching him “at a ridiculous speed” and putting his pregnant wife and dog “in danger”.
Footage of the incident, which took place on a narrow towpath in Greater Manchester, attracted national headlines this week after being viewed thousands of times on social media, and appears to show the cyclist being shoved into the canal by a man following a brief confrontation.
Manchester-based cyclist and mother-of-two Klaudia Mitura was riding her bike to work on 19 July when she approached a couple walking with their dog along the narrow towpath.
The 34-year-old can then be seen in the clip, captured on her bike camera and published by the Manchester Evening News, braking and coming to a halt, as one of the walkers shouts at her to “slow down”.
Mitura then pointed out to the couple, who were stood across the width of the path, that their dog was off its lead, prompting the man to angrily retort: “Yeah, but you’re on a f***ing bike.” He then calls the cyclist a “f***ing idiot” before appearing to push her into the canal and walk off.
“As you can see in the video I was trying to pass the couple. He did not want to move out of the way,” Mitura, reflecting on the “traumatising” encounter, said this week.
“He refused to move out of the way, I didn’t do anything, I just wanted to pass him and go my way. When he passed me, he just pushed me in the water.”
However, the dog walker has since denied Mitura’s allegations, telling the Manchester Evening News that she fell into the canal after clipping him with her handlebars, and claiming that he believed his family was in danger thanks to the cyclist’s “ridiculous speed”.
“I was out with my girlfriend who’s 26 weeks pregnant. We were walking down the canal, as you do,” the 35-year-old from Dukinfield, Greater Manchester, who did not wish to be named, told the MEN.
“A lady came down at a ridiculous speed. I thought she was going to hit my missus and my dog. I thought my family was in danger.”
He continued: “She’s carried on to ride towards me. Then she’s clipped me with her handlebars and she’s gone into the canal. I didn’t push her.”
The dog walker also denied Mitura’s claim that the couple failed to look back to see if she was okay after falling into the canal. The mum-of-two, who said she can’t swim and was worried she was going to drown, managed to stand on a rock before a passer-by helped her out of the water and called the police.
“They didn’t look back to see if I’m okay or if I’m drowning,” she said. “They were gone, and didn’t turn their heads to see if I’m alive or not.
“I was strapped to the pedals of the bike, so it was really hard to get out. I was thinking of how to get out. No-one was there so I was in the water for about five minutes before someone took me out. I don’t know what I would have done if no-one had walked past me.
“I need help with my mental health. I’m on my own with that, I’m traumatised. It’s the first time anything like this has happened. Cycling was my main means of transport. I’m physically okay but mentally it’s really bad.”
However, according to the dog walker, the cyclist was in no danger of drowning and the couple, after asking if she was fine, were met with a sweary retort before walking off.
“After it happened, I turned around. I said to her ‘are you okay?’ She told me to f**k off,” the 35-year-old claims. “She was stood up. She wasn’t stood on a rock. The canal was waist high.”
The dog walker continued: “She was totally in the wrong. I’m just a normal working guy like anybody else, but at the moment I’m just being slandered.”
After being reported by various national newspapers, the incident – which is currently being investigated by Greater Manchester Police – has divided opinion across social media.
Some, for instance, criticised Mitura for riding “too fast” and not stopping once she saw the couple approaching with their dog.
“Typical cyclist,” said Daily Mail reader John. “Thinks everyone should give way for her. She should have stopped in time to get off her bike to allow the pedestrian to pass.”
“She was going way too fast, she could have easily killed that dog and seriously injured the innocent pedestrians,” added LRH on X/Twitter.
However, others familiar with the towpath in question pointed out that it is popular with cyclists, arguing that the dog walker was being “aggressive” by blocking Mitura’s path.
“Why couldn’t the walkers go single file? Cycling is allowed here,” said Kerry.
“I walk the canal with my kids three to four times a week,” wrote Peter. “As soon as we see a cyclist or hear one, we move to the side, no whinging, no ‘who has right of way’. It’s safe for my kids and it’s safe for the cyclist. He moved into her path just to be arsey, he was already aggressive in his manner.”
Meanwhile, one road safety advocate argued that the incident and the dog walker’s alleged reaction were the result of years of anti-cycling rhetoric in the national press.
“A mum was pushed into a canal by a man walking his dog as she cycled to work. This didn’t happen in a vacuum. It’s the result of years of anti-cyclist messaging that treats people on bikes as fair game,” the cyclist, known as Cargo Bike Ben, posted on BlueSky.
“We say we want more people to cycle, but ignore what it’s like for the people already doing it.”
-1024x680.jpg "“Clear anti-cyclist bias”: Lawsuit filed against Toronto police after cop doored cyclist… before ticketing rider over incident")
63 thoughts on ““I thought my family was in danger”: Dog walker denies pushing female cyclist into canal and claims she was riding at a “ridiculous speed” and “clipped me with her handlebars””
Oh dear. Sounds like this
Oh dear. Sounds like this “brave” bully boy is regretting his actions and trying to row back ( metaphorically, not on the canal). Also note the emphasis on his pregnant partner, to help justify his actions. And what if the cyclist had been pregnant?
I can’t believe the cyclist would accuse him of pushing her in the canal for no reason.
People. It certainly looks
People. It certainly looks like he shoved her and even allowing for the dispute I’d have helped her back out if shed just accidentally fallen in. But he didn’t. Guilt as charged IMO.
The video clearly shows she
The video clearly shows she stopped before she reached them. After that, who can blame her for trying to get passed and away from the situation as quickly as possible when he is aggressively shouting and swearing at her.
Agreed, he made the decision
Agreed, he made the decision to be obstructive. Both women and the dog were entirely reasonable.
She only just stopped short
She only just stopped short of them, what were they supposed to think she was going to do?
Personally in that situation I’d stop several metres further back because the path clearly narrows AND there’s a dog. I’d have smiled, said good morning and how nice the dog was, let them walk past and continued. But that’s just me.
It’s a shared path not a cycle path. She has no right to pass them while on her bike, they’re not obliged to clear the way for her to do that, or have their dog on a lead while she passes.
StevenCrook wrote:
What are they supposed to think they were going to do? Is it, ‘continue to take up the whole path with the man and his dog, without any thought to how to negotiate another legimitate path user’? While pedestrians have priority, that is not without responsibility towards other users of the way.
The dog is an accompaniment to the pedestrian, it does not have a right in its own right.
It’s not just you. Most people would do that. Maybe the cyclist overcooked it, but nevertheless she did stop. The pedestrian then (and previously) made no effort to accommodate her.
I think you’re confused about who has what right. The Ashton Canal tow path is a permissive way for cyclists and, as far as I know, a right of way for pedestrians. The Canal & River Trust is responsible for the canal and path. The CRT encourages responsible cycling. The cyclist has as much right to be there as the pedestrian; the source of that right may be conditional, but in that moment, the pedestrian is not in a position to say the cyclist should not be there or should not pass a pedestrian. Nor are they entitled to cause an obstruction. The behaviour of the pedestrian, once the cyclist stops amounts to an obstruction. The fact that one person has priority is not an entitlement to laud that priority over the other. There remains a duty to have regard for other path users…
… and a duty to control their dog. The dog is an accompaniment to the pedestrian; it does not enjoy its own priority over the cyclist. And any dog handler is required to maintain control over their dog in public, on or off the lead. The dog is not aggressive in the video, but it is not kept under control to the extent that other path users are not inconvenienced by it. It isn’t a question of the cyclist avoiding it – she has stopped. And the dog carries on walking while the aggressive man squres up to her.
StevenCrook wrote:
Rule 56
Dogs. Do not let a dog out on the road on its own. Keep it on a short lead when walking on the pavement, road or path shared with cyclists or horse riders.
StevenCrook wrote:
“She has no right to pass them while on her bike” – not quite sure what you mean here. Surely everybody has the same rights (or not) to pass each other? Do you mean “nobody is entitled to insist someone else gets out of their way”? But… it seems the cyclist didn’t, as they stopped – or do you have more information on this?
“…have their dog on a lead while she passes” – I think that’s right here though that generally depends on classification / local rules. The Canal and River Trust don’t mandate “on lead”, just “under control”. Though generally “shared space” is done by effectively making this “highway” (but no motor vehicles allowed) so dogs must be on a lead.
StevenCrook wrote:
If they genuinely thought she wasn’t going to stop the natural reaction would be to step off the path to their left – where the woman pedestrian is standing shows there would be enough room to let her through. The fact that Billy Bigbollocks deliberately steps further into the cyclist’s path, spreads his arms and immediately starts swearing demonstrates that he is deliberately and aggressively seeking confrontation.
StevenCrook wrote:
I love people like you, no idea about the Highway Code or what can be seen in a video but still so happy to tell the world how ignorant you are. You’re ace!
It’s only in this Trump-lying
It’s only in this Trump-lying world that these ridiculous claims by the offender are even reported, as they’re obviously not true. It’s pretty simple- we know what happened. She was pushed into the canal by a nutter who has come up with pathetic lies as ‘justifications’.
Absolutely Trumpian in the
Absolutely Trumpian in the denial of the obvious facts. “She’s carried on to ride towards me. Then she’s clipped me with her handlebars and she’s gone into the canal. I didn’t push her.” No mention of the fact that she came to a complete stop before she reached him and that he continued to block her path. Hope the rozzers have his details or go about obtaining them from the MEN to ensure justice is done – if he tries to stick to that story when the video is played in court should be good for a laugh or two. Be interesting to know his record too, in my experience if a man is prepared to inflict random and (I don’t think it’s melodramatic to say this, if she’d hit her head on a rock in the canal and blacked out, what would have happened?) potentially lethal violence on a defenceless woman it won’t be the first time he’s done something similar.
We live in a world where
We live in a world where facts are not really important. Whats important is what side of the issue you are on. The dailymail comments are illuminating. Either people completely refusing to acknowledge what he did and making vague hand waving complaints about cyclists or straight up denying what their eyes show them.
Any measured or pro-cyclist comment is heavily downvoted.
In a lot of peoples eyes its simple. A cyclist was involved. It was therefore the cyclists fault. The fact there was a dog involved and a pregnant lady just gives them something loose to hang their hatred of cyclists on.
He’ll sh!t himself if he
He’ll sh!t himself if he walks along a road. Seen how fast those drivers are moving!?
The more he says, the more he
The more he says, the more he brings the lie to his version of the situation:
She appears to be riding at a bit of a lick, but we know that cameras distort the field of view and therefore the speed.
In danger? From the ickle scary woman on a bike? He might have wondered if she was going to give way, but she was not a significant threat. And looking after his dog is his responsibility, not the cyclist’s. If he thought the cyclist would hit the dog, he should keep the dog with him, not allow it to go on ahead.
She stopped. He blocked her path. He had a right of way – the right to pass and repass; and he had priority. But priority is not superiority, nor is it the right to prevent others from proceeding. The moment he did that, he ceased to be exercising his right to pass and repass and became an obstruction.
If she had clipped him and then fallen in as a result, I would expect the movement to be the first jolt and immediately in to the canal, or an increasing wobble as she increasingly lost balance and fell in. That is not what I saw. I saw an initial jolt which could have been a clip or a balancing correction as she set off. Then there was a separate sideways movement that seemed unconnected. On the balance of probability, I’d say she was pushed.
Of course the usual head-the-balls weigh in too:
She did stop. She did allow the pedestrian to pass – he just chose to block the whole path. Exactly how does getting off a bike increase the space available?
LRH on Twitter really does disappear up his own backside.
Have had a literal “big man”
Have had a literal “big man” sprinting after me shouting that I “could have killed his missus” on the (reasonably wide) shared use path because I didn’t ring my bell and passed too close for his liking *. I suspect the more important issue was I then failed to grovel immediately when challenged when his missus was present though **.
I did get to help him practice his insults while exercising for as long as it took him to realise he couldn’t outpace someone on a bike though!
Very happy to have met him while on he was on foot as I suspect he might be a slightly less than considerate driver…
* I would say it but I thought I was maybe slow jogging pace and more than a person’s width distant. True, not 1.5 m though…
** I’m not brave and don’t *aim* to be provoking, but though I was going slow I was on my bike…
“I’m just a normal working
“I’m just a normal working guy”
Oh, you have a job! Why didn’t you say so before? That clearly gives you a free pass to assault people.
Works for driving bans …
Works for driving bans …
Don’t forget, there’s a misconception that us cyclists need to get a job…
I bet flying F bombs and
I bet flying F bombs and assaulting people he disagrees with is normal in his world.
I had used a canal path as
I had used a canal path as part of my commute for years. Many dog walkers don’t control their dogs. My camera makes the speed look far greater than it is. The canal paths are very narrow and have experienced lots of walkers actively blocking my progress, occurs when I am running too.
In balance as someone on foot I have experienced arseholes cycling too quickly and it is quite shocking to experience when on foot. There isn’t an issue travelling at speed as long as you slow down near other users. In the end canal paths should never be the option for cycle commuting. Blame the LA’s for that.
Lastly that coward deserves to be taught a lesson. No need to assault someone like that. Any cyclist could drown in that situation.
Quote:
This is fascinating. My take on the replies to the incident is that most people are supporting his actions. Quite a few suggesting he didn’t go far enough.
Yet this statement would suggest that from his viewpoint, most people think he is a maniac.
Of course they are. If he had
Of course they are. If he had drop kicker her into the canal and held her under for a few minutes there would be a large number of people applauding his actions. Never underestimate the hate that cyclists generated from “normal” people.
HoldingOn wrote:
This is fascinating. My take on the replies to the incident is that most people are supporting his actions. Quite a few suggesting he didn’t go far enough.
Yet this statement would suggest that from his viewpoint, most people think he is a maniac.
You have it backwards. Lots of people are saying that what he did was entirely reasonable. That’s doing irredeemable damage to his image as an arsehole.
Love how he’s now trying to
Love how he’s now trying to make out as if he’s some kind of reasonable guy
Well, it’s obvious that this
Well, it’s obvious that this poor little man was threatened by this super fit, buff cycling enthusist, racing down the FOOT path, endangering everyone! It was all he could do in the face of this menacing situation! I’m surprised that he never mentioned that this athlete threatened his helpless, pregnant wife and his little pup wildly swinging her ulock at them! What else could he have done after she launched herself into the canal —- he HAD to get away from this maniac!
He thought the woman who hadn
He thought the woman who hadn’t been going very fast and then stopped was a danger to him. We’ve seen the video clip. I think he’s more of a danger to his pregnant wife than the woman on the bike was. I hope he gets locked up. I’m curous what previous he has.
Can we get the correct video,
Can we get the correct video, please? The one posted is very different from his made up version!
Behind the cam ? https:/
Behind the cam ? https://images.app.goo.gl/BqvM6tTKkcWXaZ4i6
“I’m just a normal working
“I’m just a normal working guy like anybody else, but at the moment I’m just being slandered.”
So he claims to NOT have pushed her, yet walks away after she fell in.
Even if, as he claims, she refused his help and was struggling to get out, he should have at least stayed in place untill someone else came along to help.
Dogs have to be on a short
Dogs have to be on a short lead on shared footpaths. Loose dogs wandering about on canal footpaths are a great danger to cyclists.
I think this is a good idea
I think this is a good idea and agree about the danger (and probably not just to cyclists…). However while I think that holds where the “shared space” has been done on existing “highway” or has been made so I’m not sure that’s the case here. (I could be completely wrong though). At least, the Trust say they’re not insisting on dogs being on leads in their guidance.
Many UK “shared use paths” are:
a) At best a bodge – either “because we can, on the cheap (signs)” and/or “because we don’t have space” for cycling where it’s most needed. That is – where most people are going now, usually by driving.
b) Crap.
Here’s what it might look like instead: canal, just “normal” routes in the countryside, a former railway path, a more “in nature” former railway line (the hard-surface part is a bit narrow … but the *space* is fine – particularly somewhere that isn’t busy)
kingleo wrote:
That is stated in the Highway Code, but as far as I know it’s not mandated by law. In any case the Canal & River Trust set the rules for towpaths and the rules are just that dogs should be kept “under close control”, they don’t specify that this means leads. I agree that they should be on leads in such shared spaces, but there’s no “have to be” about it unfortunately.
Rendel Harris wrote:
yet Canal and Rivers Teust are happy to take millions per year in public money to provide facilities for cycling, under various active travel programmes, but not happy to make their towpaths cyclist-friendly. Hypocrites
Not only that, but an
Not only that, but an uncontrolled dog is a risk to themselves.
ktache wrote:
It wasn’t the dog that was uncontrolled, from my viewing of the video the dog behaved impeccably.
Since it will be child’s play
Since it will be child’s play for the police to track down this nasty piece of work, I look forward to reading about his being incarcerated at his majesty’s pleasure for assault and anything else they can find to charge him with. I wonder if his pregnant partner would heave a sigh of relief?
I hope it does come to court.
I hope it does come to court. Of course among the mitigations will be the pregnancy / new baby; a primal fear of women on stationery bikes ( that he’s getting therapy for ), the canal “wasn’t that deep or cold”, he left the scene because he didn’t like the sound of screams or the smell of wet clothing.
Probably a bit of a stretch to say he’s never done anything like this before or that he regrets his actions on the day in question.
Lying sack of crap. Video
Lying sack of crap. Video plainly and clearly shows the cyclist slowing down, and stopping short of the thug in question. His actions are very deliberate, and aimed at the cyclist, not protection. Unprovoked assault / attempted murder.
The video shows that, after
The video shows that, after doing briefly, the cyclist rides directly towards the pedestrian.
This is one of those cyclists that assumes people will hop out of their way.
It’s not dawned on the cyclist that they should give pedestrians priority….
I think his claim the cyclist
I think his claim the cyclist just ‘fell over’ will be easily debunked. It would be possible from the video footage to ascertain the rotational acceleration of the cyclist at the point they toppled over. I’m sure this will reveal a distinct ‘peak’ in applied force, which could only have come from a push.
“Then she’s clipped me with
“Then she’s clipped me with her handlebars and she’s gone into the canal.”
He didn’t say she just ‘fell over’ – unsure why you’re lying.
Looking at the video, it looks like she was planning a very close pass before he stepped out.
After briefly stopping, she rode directly towards him.
Unsure why he stepped to the side but it was probably so he didn’t get hit by the cyclist riding directly towards him.
I suspect he stubbornly didn’t move far/fast enough to give the cyclist space and gave them a bit of help to go in but …
FFS it’s clear the cyclist expected the lesser beings to hop out of the way, both before the altercation and after it.
This is a lesson in what happens when you cycle like an entitled ***.
When lack of space means a close pass, give priority to pedestrians ie slow right down & assume you’ll be the one stopping. This person didn’t. They expected them to hop out of the way. They cycle like some people drive.
Mark Thompson wrote:
What is the alternative? They are two people taking up the entire path, she is one person taking up half the path. She cannot hop out of their way, therefore the only possible way for them to pass each other is for one of them to hop out of her way.
Were you expecting them all to just stand there for the rest of the day looking at each other instead?
Ah, so you admit that you do believe he’s a liar who did assault her?
She literally did stop – so you are lying.
Wingguy wrote:
Judging by the tone of this oxygen thief’s comments, I should imagine he probably thinks the cyclist should pre-emptively have thrown herself in the canal prior to reaching them so he could stroll past three abreast with him, partner and dog. Furthermore he should be launching a claim against her for the physical and mental stresses imposed upon him in “giving her a bit of help” to fall in when she should have done so of her own volition instead of expecting hard-working pedestrians (he has a job you know) to have to help them.
Good job on calling out the lying in your post!
Mark Thompson wrote:
The mother of stupidity is
The mother of stupidity is always pregnant.
If that’s what he does to a
If that’s what he does to a woman in broad daylight. Does one have to wonder how he treats women behind closed doors…?
The pregnant girlfriend, who
The pregnant girlfriend, who was standing aside, might want to seriously consider whether she wants to be associated with a man who would do this.
My Newsthump / Daily Mash
My Newsthump / Daily Mash headline is “Brits can’t quite decide whether it was OK to push someone into a canal and leave them there”
Oh no, wait
Debate rages after female cyclist pushed into canal
(originally randomly posted on Drivers and their problems)
More neanderthal behaviour,
More neanderthal behaviour, from this thug and the Daily Mail readership. Still, what can you expect from people who read a Reform mouthpiece? Sadly, the only thing that is going to cure this cycleophobia is another 1973.
I have a feeling comments
I have a feeling comments were made before they realised there was a camera recording, and a lot of backpedaling (pun intended) and hasty justification. Wide angle cameras do make it look like you are travelling faster, they did stop, proceeded slowly past.
The fact is, if he didn’t put his hands on her (an intentional action), she wouldn’t have ended up in the canal and they all would have got on with their lives.
Also….. going to be a
Also….. going to be a fantastic dad
Lots of lying in these
Lots of lying in these comments.
– No, it’s not a “wide path”.
– No, he did not step into her path.
I’ve attached a crop from the video.
Watch the video again and you’ll see the cyclist, after stopping briefly, rode directly towards him. He then had to step out of her way. Being angry, he made sure he didn’t step *entirely* out of her way….
Just as many drivers feel a close pass isn’t too close, many cyclists do similar to pedestrians. Give them priority. If there’s not plenty of room, stop and let the pedestrians pass.
Many drivers don’t realise that a safe pass is still a little close and fast from the point of view of the cyclist. Similar for pedestrians and bikes. Go wide, go slow. Stop if you can’t go wide.
Mark Thompson wrote:
There certainly is and it’s all coming from you. Have you considered the fact that this is a lone woman in an isolated situation confronted by a very large and angry man with an Alsatian dog who has deliberately blocked her path and immediately started shouting and swearing straight in her face? She has stopped and then tried to move on to get away from him, whereupon, having stepped aside as if he was going to let her pass through, he has pushed her into the canal. If you’re happy with violence against women, keep on making excuses for him, it says an awful lot about you and none of what it says is good.
Mark Thompson wrote:
Thanks for the warning, but wouldn’t it have been easier for you to just not write them in the first place?
Not quite sure how you think
Not quite sure how you think that a crop from the video showing the man deliberately blocking the path helps your case in supporting this perpetrator of violence. Here’s another crop from the video showing that if he had to kept to the side as his poor girlfriend did (if by any chance you’re reading this ma’am, you have my deepest sympathies and I suggest you get away from him as soon as possible, it won’t be long before that violence is turned against you if it hasn’t been already) there was plenty of room for the cyclist to ride through without any drama.
Hmm… didn’t particularly
Hmm… didn’t particularly want to improve my day by viewing this but having done so … I wouldn’t call that a wide path. I avoid wider ones near me simply for my own cycling convenience and pleasure. (In fact without some local knowledge “canal/ river path” says “avoid when cycling” to me…)
Of course sometimes it’s “what there is”. But not ideal for anyone here – people walking shouldn’t need to get into the foliage (though that probably feels less unpleasant if you’re just being passed by those in foot). Being close to an edge (bank / water) doesn’t feel safe – particularly for cyclists.
It does look like the cyclist left it a bit late on the brakes – again, hindsight? Also the dude doesn’t leave much of a gap when he moves and she’s quick to nip through it. As you say, perhaps for reasons. But if you think “nutter” here a fast get-away is tricky (another mark against such a path for me…)
Her ending in the canal is entirely on him. As so many interactions gone wrong you just feel “what on earth was that about? Everyone could just have passed on their way”…
Another viewing. Still
Another viewing. Still clearly this guy choosing to confront, but:
Allowing for camera distortion and them obscuring the people to anonymise them – if the guy did “step into her path” (quite possible, i just can’t make it out) he did so a fair way back. He *appears* to step forward (ahead of his partner) as if to confront but again I can’t see clearly how they were positioned before. And he does take a half-step to the side; but as the poster suggests I’m not sure his intention is “come on through” but in a court that could be argued. But the gap is pretty narrow.
But at that point things were going to go south – the cyclist understandably didn’t want to hang about and there was a gap, but it looked close enough she could have brushed against him – so that might be seen in court as “accident” or “spontaneous warding the cyclist off” rather than “planned shove”.
Given some of the previous “cyclist pushed over” ones we’ve seen here my bet is the law will do another “no assault shown in footage” and “enough room for doubt it’s not worth taking to court”. And them not stopping to help is probably not enough to change the legal view on that.
EDIT – unless the partner / other witness gives a different tale. But otherwise …
some wishful thinking
some wishful thinking expressed here in meme form. Might be better in three frames.
I sometimes wonder if car passenger mates and partners have a bit of an epiphany when their driver does something shitty to a ped or cyclists and is defiant about it.
Lots of lying in the comments
Lots of lying in the comments, yeah mate, that’s you. Condoning violence against a woman.
Mark Thompson wrote:
Is the aggressive, violent bloke in the video a friend of yours?
Or maybe you’re suggesting that you would have done the same thing to the female cyclist.
Either way, your posts on here are not doing you any favours.
This guy will refuse to buy
This guy will refuse to buy the child a bike, and will probably beat it for asking for one.
If you watch it with the
If you watch it with the sound off, she stops, in ample time – he’s in a confrontational stance, he didn’t step aside the dog isn’t on a lead from what I can see either which is a legal requirement, then pushes her = nuff said
leedorney wrote:
You start well, but he does move slightly to the side, enough so the cyclist moves forward (it’s already being argued if there was enough space to pass). Dog being on a lead is likely not legally required here (see other comments). Unfortunately while “he pushed her” (what she said) seems likely, the footage doesn’t seem to show it or prove what *he* said (cyclist hit him and fell) is balderdash. It’s even possible that what he said was true but to her it seemed (after he’d challenged her) he’d pushed her.
Again without further evidence I don’t think this is going anywhere. There’s enough going on to admit of several interpretations – but interpretations they are.
Perhaps the cyclist *did* expect people to move to the side / single file – but less from “entitlement” than that being simply what people normally do here with no drama. Perhaps she has another story of being harassed on a path and her natural reaction is “get out of the area” as soon as there’s a gap? Perhaps this guy has some other story explaining his confrontational tone (maybe a cyclist hit his partner the other day)?
Unlike lawyers and journalists we’re not even paid to come up with these stories…