I’m sure we must have done this, but I can’t find it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-33738163
Now, I’m not at all condoning the pillock on the bike & I think it is a decent sentence, perhaps even a little bit light. But….
The BBC made this a story on the six o’clock news, and gave it reasonable prominence (about 6:15 ish.) It also featured them chasing the perp down the pavement after conviction. Really? Do the extent of the girl’s injuries warrant such coverage? Compared, say, to someone who runs over and kills a kid while driving a car?

£829 fine which is £829 more than most drivers get for killing a cyclist…

/cynical

The child could easily have received head injuries that may have been life-threatening; how many people have died as a result of hitting their head on the ground after a single punch, for example.
And I thought his lawyer was just as big a cock as the cyclist, who came across as a smug git.

The child could easily have received head injuries

Could have, but didn’t so probably not warranted.

A shame for the wee girl but my first thought was that the outcome would’ve been similar had someone been running past their gate and she ran out like that. She would have almost certainly been knocked to the ground.

Drive carelessly kill cyclist, fined £35

Cycle dangerously injure child fined £829

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9812745/Taxi-driver-fined-35-for-crash-which-killed-young-cyclist.html

Or in the case of the Glasgow bin lorry driver, lie to employers and DVLA about health issues, kill 6 people and no charges.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-33732335

Somebody running over and killing a child doesn’t get that sort of coverage because it’s so commonplace. The clue is in the word “news”, though most people don’t seem to appreciate that (not having a go at you BTW 🙂 )

I was also disappointed to hear this on Radio 4 evening news.
We lost 5 people on the roads today, having this very rare event on the major news bulletins is disproportionate to the overall injuries on UK roads and pavements…

Having seen that video i do feel for the young girl – i think it was correct to fine him for speeding like that on a pavement. The reason it probably made the news is because of the cctv video with it, visuals and everything!! Important thing is that no one was seriously hurt whoevers fault it was.

Thing is the bike should not have been on the pavement.

If it had been a car or motorbike being driven up the pavement and hit the kid them you would probably be looking at a ban + big fine or even a custodial sentence, especially as it probably would have ended up with a more serious outcome.

In the case of a car hitting a bike in the road then yes, it may well be the fault of the driver but both of them are meant to be on the road. Driver might be drunk, distracted, on phone etc which needs extra consideration and do seem to not attract the sentences they deserve more times than not.

Bez summed this up beautifully in his column.

27 people were killed by cars the week that toddler was struck, including young children on the pavement, but that didn’t make any headlines because it happens every week.

If it had been a car or motorbike being driven up the pavement and hit the kid them you would probably be looking at a ban

Really?

Or in the case of the Glasgow bin lorry driver, lie to employers and DVLA about health issues, kill 6 people and no charges.

Those 6 people where on the pavement.