Cyclist punches man, 61, who challenged him for riding on pavement

A DIGGER driver was left with cuts to his lip and damage to his teeth after being punched in the face for telling a cyclist he should not be cycling on the pavement.

Peter Mollet was punched in the face by a cyclist after Peter told him not to ride on a pavement.

A DIGGER driver was left with cuts to his lip and damage to his teeth after being punched in the face for telling a cyclist he should not be cycling on the pavement.

Police are appealing for witnesses in relation to the incident which occurred on Sunday afternoon by Guernsey Toys, Victoria Road, St Peter Port.

Peter Mollet, pictured, a father of one, was walking on the pavement to his house, which is also in the road, with a friend at about 2.10pm. ‘A young cyclist was trying to push us out the way to get through,’ the 61-year-old said.

Mr Mollet, who works for Bob Froome and Sons, said the cyclist, who is described as being in his 20s, tried to squeeze past again and he [Mr Mollet] got hold of the back wheel to stop him.

‘He was asking me what my problem was and I said it was a footpath not a cycle path. He got off his bike and started arguing with me and wanted me to hit him. I told him to go home,’ he said.

‘He picked up his bike and we had already turned round and then he came up from behind and punched my right cheek.'

Comments for: "Cyclist punches man, 61, who challenged him for riding on pavement"


Another victim of the finance industry

RIP guernsey


You'll forgive me PB Falla but I have on two questions:

1. In what way is this the fault of finance industry?

2. Do you blame all the problems of Guernsey on the finance industry and those who are not at least fourth generation Guernsey and sharing in one of the traditional Guernsey family names?


He's been posting irrelevant comments like this for a while. I think it's an unsuccessful attempt at humour.


James, don't waste your breath on this guy, no one else does.



Social and family barriers have been broken since the greed of finance took over the island,if you cant see this i suggest you take a step to one side and think about it.

Then comeback with a sensible questions


I can see the headlines now,

'Delinquent high financier, high on greed and power, yet troubled at the the general deterioration of family values and society as a whole, lashes out at random victim not linked in any way shape or form to the finance industry'.

Scary stuff.


@ PB Falla

These behaviour problems are nothing to do with the finance industry.

There are the same problems in the UK and have been for many years.

I cycle to work and back every day and do not even use the designated cycle paths anymore because they are too dangerous. Every day I see soem idiot on a bike without lights in dark clothing and no helmet and yet if he was hit it would be the motorists fault.

When walking I have also challenged youngsters who ride on the pavement ( not cycle lanes) but all you get is a torrent of abuse. I normally deliberately walk straight in front of them.

However PB Falla is too quick to blame the finance industry.


Correct PB Falla , but don't waste your time with a lot of the people here, they are still asleep in there cleptocratic slumber. They think everythings fine and the States of Guernsey are God. Will be fun to watch in the end mate.

Terry Langlois

John - the idiots cycling without lights are indeed putting themselves at risk. But if they were hit by a car that motorist would not automatically assumed to be at fault. At the very least the cyclist would be guilty of contributory negligence. In order to find the motorist at fault, the court would have to show that the motorist should have been able to see the cyclist. And if the motorist should have been able to see them then, well, the motorist is at fault.

If a car drives into a cyclist, I very much doubt that a helmet would be of much use.


James ,

He probably dosnt know as most of his posts are complete and utter nonsense


Sorry but this has nothing to do with Finance. Most people who work in this industry are professional and polite people who wouldn't do this in a million years. PB Falla obviously used to work in the industry and got kicked out. Do yourself a favour PB and get over it! And stop posting the same old boring rubbish.


Crispin you are indeed wrong. Just a few days ago we had a violent outburst by one of the so called CEO's of our own Civil Service. Give me a break.

Terry Langlois

(a) it was not violent

(b) the CEO of the Civil Service is not part of the finance industry

I suggest that you take a break.

Devil's Advocate

I think PB Falla is trying to say that since the introduction of the Finance industry house prices have risen and both parents in a family need to work, thus the kids don't get the attention they need and grow up to be idiots.

And Another Thing

Thanks for that generalisation. So my two childresn will be idiots.

Nice to know we have a good community spirit left in Guernsey!


I'm a cyclist. I ride to and from work everyday. I hope you find them and i hope he's punished.

You see this a lot, people riding down pavements, even narrow ones, with very little or no regard for pedestrians.

Makes me really cross, because we all end up getting tarred with the same brush. Some of us actually respect the rules of the road.

Like i said, i hope they find him and that he's punished to the full extent of the law.


If Mr Mollet was in a position to grab the back wheel of the bicycle then the cyclist would have been pretty much past him and he should have let it go.

I'm not saying the cyclist was in the right here, but if you're going to confront someone you can't assume they won't respond with violence.


I was thinking just the same thing, How did he grab the back tyre unless he had passed him.


Wow, if only we had had that attitude towards those in the wrong 75 years ago.....

What a terrible thing to say! "Yes, I've already been wronged, I'll just let it go."

More people need to confront these types of morons and then maybe, just maybe, the message might get through that you can't just please yourself every time, all the time and to hell with anyone who disagrees with you.

Well done Mr Mollet sir, you are a dying breed.


What an odd comment to make, are you suggesting that as the cyclist may have actually been past Mr Mollet, he (Mr Mollet) was in the wrong to question the cyclist's actions? I doubt that Mr Mollet would have had a reason to expect an attack from behind.

The cyclist is a cowardly prat, and I sincerely hope he and any others who ride on the pavement (excepting where permitted by law) are brought to book and punished accordingly.

I wholly support Mr Mollet's actions and would act in the same way.


I'm saying that Mr Mollet was wrong to grab the cyclists rear tyre, it was provocative. I definitely would be angry if someone grabbed my bike to try and stop me or knock me off.

Unless the cyclist was somehow reversing through Mr Mollet and his friends it would have been impossible to grab the rear tyre without the cyclist being infront.

I'm not trying to justify the cyclist's punch, but when you escalate a situation like that you can't be surprised when it comes to blows.


Are you referring to the second world war? bit of a reach there mate. Comparing the attrocities in that war to a cyclist on a pavement is quite frankly ridiculous.

“Yes, I’ve already been wronged, I’ll just let it go.” Were not on the school playground anymore, letting things like this go is the grown up thing to do. Mr Mollet didn't let it go and what did he get? What if it was someone with a knife? Would it be worth it? all just to prove the point that it is wrong to ride a bicycle on the pavement.


Dan, you are missing the point here; by all means you may be angry that someone dared to grab your bike, (but lets face it the cyclist was in the wrong in the first place)you (the wrongdoer) then mouth off a bit and move on realising that your actions were wrong. It is still no excuse for punching anyone.

'Letting it go' is what happens all too frequently these days, and I am perhaps of the same persuasion as a lot of others, who feel that a stand has to be made against what you feel is wrong, irrespective of the scale of that wrong.

Anyway you look at it, the cyclist was wrong to ride on the pavement and ultimately wrong to assault soemone who made a stand against it.



I'm saying both parties are in the wrong. No doubt the cyclist deserves prosecution for his assault.

Physically stopping someone to give them a piece of your mind is wrong. Confronting a stranger on the street is never going to end well.

If Mr Mollet had let it go both him and the cyclist would have continued their days with no harm done. Even though you could say it was the cyclist's fault for riding on the pavement in the first place, I would have thought a 61 year old man would know better than to pick fights.


Ah Dan, just the sort of stupid comments I'd expect from a self righteous cyclist who gets on everyone's T8Ts on the road by behaving inconsiderately, then accuses everyone else of being in the wrong.

As neither of us were there, then as you have done, I can only take the gentleman's word for it, and the word is that regardless of who confronted who first, the cyclist, who was clearly in the wrong, and who had already pushed his way past Mr Mollet, then proceeded to sucker punch him, from behind, no less, not the other way round.

The cyclist also had the choice to turn the other cheek, or, if that offended by Mr Mollet's actions, call the Police, but instead, he chose to assault him.

It is one thing to have a word and grab someone's bicycle tyre to inform them of their totally selfish and illegal behaviour, quite another to punch someone in the face.

The cyclist is the one who 'started' this by being on the pavement when he shouldn't have been, should he have 'expected violence' or confrontation because he was doing so?

Is it acceptable in your world to respond to confrontation with violence?

I think you've been watching too many video games, Dan. Try upping the Ritalin.



For one thing I'm not a cyclist and I'm not trying to defend the cyclist's punch.

What I'm saying is that if Mr Mollet had acted his age not his shoe size he wouldn't have become a vigilante over a minor traffic offense.

If either one of them had decided to be an adult and let it go we wouldn't have had this incident.


Who are you to say what the appropriate way is to act for someone's apparent age, Dan?

In society of the past, the 'elders' were well aquainted with disciplining and guiding the youngsters, which is just what Mr Mollet did.

The cyclist was not pushed off his bike, he is the one who pushed past Mr Mollet, illegally cycling on the pavement, then when the gentleman objected, he got a punch in the face for his trouble.

You could have said it's not appropriate to smack someone of almost pensionable age in the face, but you didn't, you blamed him instead.

How would you feel if it had been your dad or grandfather who that happened to..?

Would you still have such an apparently balanced view of the situation...?

You've got a very skewed view of reality, and the law, for that matter, the cyclist was in the wrong as he was on the pavement, and he's responsible for throwing the first punch, and if it goes to Court, HE will be seen as the aggressor, not the person who simply tried to point out he was being a total tool.


ok Dan, So you're a driver.

Suppose you've just parked your car legally, and some muppet comes along and parks illegally next to you, giving you no room whatsoever to get out of your car.

Is it reasonable of you to point that out to the person in question, or should you just say nothing and go find yourself another parking space...?

And what if, having given you a mouthful of abuse, he makes to drive off, and you decide that you haven't had your say yet, and rest your hand on his rolled down window to stop him....

does he then have the right to roll the window up, crush your fingers, and drag you halfway through the car park in the process....?


Hi Dan

Not too bright on this one, are we?

Yes, I was referring to WW2, but I wasn't comparing the atrocities committed to the act of the cyclist.

Rather I was comparing the staunch, stiff upper lip, unshakable British spirit for standing up for what is right compared to the "let it go" attitude of today.

Letting "things like this go" is not the grown up thing to do, it is the irresponsible, let someone get away with what is a crime thing to do.

IF you read the report again, you'll see the cyclist wasn't just passing on the pavement, but pushing the pedestrians out of the way, squeezing through!

The facts are the one who broke the law was the cyclist - Mr Mollet sought to point that out and the cyclist responded with an assault - another crime!

Standing up for what is right and legal is a lost art, it would seem.


@FUTU @Billythefish We're going round in circles here and neither one of us is going to back down so I'm not going to continue arguing.

Personally I think that if either the cyclist or Mr Mollet had 'let it go' this whole situation would have been avoided. Both had ample opportunity to let it go and neither did.

Leave the law to the police.


I now live in a city where people not only ride bikes on the pavements but scooters too, I never see anyone grabbing hold of anyone else or anyone getting punched , I used to cycle a lot in Guernsey and sometimes on the pavements when it made more sense, however I was polite towards pedestrians walking on them, either leave the pavement or say excuse me please, most of the time people would let me pass with no fuss, but then again if your nice to strangers most of the time they are nice back, sounds like both the cyclist and the pedestrian had bad attitudes to begin with


vicky: "I now live in a city where people not only ride bikes on the pavements but scooters too ..."

Perhaps its legal where you live, in Guernsey its not. Where are pedestrians supposed to walk in safety if not on the footpath? I have been in cities where there are spacious squares and pedestrianised areas in which cycling would not be a problem. Not much of Guernsey is like that. If there is a pavement at all it tends to be narrow and not safe for pedestrians to share with cyclists - particularly violent ones. When walking I frequently need to stand in the road to allow buggies, wheelchairs etc. to pass but I'm blowed if I will to avoid cyclists who shouldn't even be there.


agreed regarding the particularly violent ones, both cyclist and pedestrian in this case, I know the pavements in Guernsey are small in places, I've walked and cycled on them many times, never got into any punch ups while being the cyclist or the pedestrian for that matter, common sense and manners go along way, its common sense to be polite and show respect towards pedestrians while cycling and grabbing hold of a strangers bike is not particularly bright


I thought cycling was supposed to make you happier and calmer. At least thats what they'll have you believe in their constant nagging at us that they feel we should all be cycling, just because they are. I've never had a run in with a cyclist myself, but the numerous incidents I've witnessed cyclists seem to be the most aggressive of all road users - even when its them in the wrong.


so basically he started it by grabbing his back wheel


And the cyclist did nothing to provoke that like cycling on a pavement and expecting pedestrians to move out of the way?


If the cyclist was on the road and not the pavement he wouldn’t have grabbed his back wheel would he?

The cyclist is in the wrong on this occasion, and I hope we find out who it was so we can see him in court.


I presume you're a bike rider then. Didn't you read that the moronic thug bike rider 'started it' by riding on a pedestrian footpath?

Not a thug

So when someone touches your pushbike, you would consider it a perfectly reasonable response to punch them in the face? From behind? When they've already let go? And walked away?


He (Mr Mollet) 'started it' as you put it by trying to stop someone breaking the law, so is that an excuse for the cyclist to resort to a cowardly attack?

chris 1

The story is about an assault on a pedestrian.. what has Bob Froome and Sons got to do with this article and why do we need to know that he is a digger driver

Island Wide Voting

chris 1

Same reason that court reporters feel the need to describe what a defendant is wearing in the dock I suppose

Half a plan

This sickens me. Cyclists continually think the traffic laws do not apply to them . Riding without the correct lights, down one way roads in the wrong direction, jumping traffic lights and riding down footpaths. The police need to enforce the laws to all. Cyclists generally need to follow the laws.

and yes i am also a cyclist and a motorist!


We need to know he's a digger driver for a good local firm so that people like PB Falla (see comment 1) can say it's another example of hard working loacl people being assaulted by young over paid hooligans from the finance industry who aren't even local.

If not you're right, it's just assault on a pedestrian. Although I hasten to add, that as a recreational cyclist, I do not condone the use of footpaths by bikes


And don't forget said hooligans, who are gay, potuguese, black Muslims who want sharia law on the island, also claim benefits and pay no taxes.

Royston Gauno

I came across a group of six racing along Vazon last Sunday, this seeming an organised event perhaps sponsored by ######## Offshore Finance emblazoned on their shirts, despite having to turn and spit over their shoulders at increasing intervals they seemed unaware of the following cars, until the following car began to overtake and one rider swerved over the centre line and gave the hand signal to turn right. The car pulled back in to the amusement of the riders none of which had turned right..


I have had similar experiences along the west coast. We in Guernsey have been way too tolerant of some bike riders who behave like ignorant louts. If they try these antics in France or the UK they might not make it home without a detour to A&E.

Dave Haslam


Was this the same event that was for Charity, had a turnout of over 200 people and raised a significant amount of money for people effected by Typhoon Haiyan?

How very dare they have a bit of fun with each other whilst cycling 50 miles for charity, by the events you describe I think you'll find the car was more than likely witness to a prank on a cyclist, rather than the victim of a prank by cyclists.

Perhaps cyclists should get right off the road when cars are around!!

Royston Gauno

Only six in this group,though I would hope any Charity group or other group would have more respect for the rules of the road. The road is not a place for such pranks or other for obvious safety reasons.

Dave Haslam

He doesn't exactly strike me as the shrinking violet type.

No one deserves a punch in the face, but if you go round grabbing peoples bikes regardless of the reasons, you should expect some kind of reply.


DH, Why are you defending this violent scumbag? The reply should have been "you're right, I'm sorry", not a cowardly assault followed by peddling off as fast as possible.

Dave Haslam


You have missed my point.

When you get physical with someone, you shouldn't be suprised when that person retaliates, I am not defending anyone.


DH, Of course you are. You are trying to excuse a cowardly thug. When in a hole, stop digging.


yes you clearly are, Dave.

I'm surprised at you.

Mr Mollet didn't strike the first blow, in fact, the first person to make physical contact was the cyclist when he pushed past him.

If you were driving on the wrong side of the road (even the right side of the road), and someone hits your car, can they, then, expect you to smack them in the face when they try to confront you about it...?

Of course not.

The cyclist could have called the police if he was that affronted, but he didn't, because he was a selfish idiot who was in the wrong.

Don't be ridiculous.

Dave Haslam

Ok, then answer me this, would Mr Mollet have got punched had he not grabbed the bike?

Frankly I am suprised at you 2 for not grasping cause and effect!


Dave. Seriously....?

I reiterate what I said to Dan.

What if that had been you or your dad that had happened to...?

What if a bunch of hools outside your house are making a racket whilst you're trying to watch Strictly with the missus, and rather than involve the cops, you decide to go outside to tell them to B off or quiet down, and get a mouthful and a good kicking for your trouble...?

Would you expect people and the Police to say, 'serves you right' and accept that...?

Because that's just what you're saying about Mr Mollet.

It's not about the ethereal somewhat incalculable law of cause and effect here, that's not used in a court of law for very good reasons, because saying 'serves you right' to someone who's been punched in the face just because they confronted an idiot isn't what's considered to be fair or just.

The law of the land applies in court, and the law of the land says you CAN'T cycle on the pavement and you most definitely CAN'T smack someone in the face when they pull you up on it, even if they do happen to grab your bicycle tyre to prevent you making your escape after giving them a mouthful of abuse.

Dave Haslam

Futu/ Scarlett

So, 2 wrongs do make a right now do they?


'two wrongs make a right'...?

errrr, NO Dave, they don't, but you've failed to acknowledge my comments, as you know that your argument holds no weight whatsoever.

The cyclist started this when he got on the pavement, where he should not have been. He then chose to push past Mr Mollet, thus starting the intereaction, which he shouldn't have done. He could have simply walked round Mr Mollet by stepping briefly into the road, which is where he should have been anyway. He didn't.

Mr Mollet chose to speak to him. He decided to hold his bicycle tyre to respond to the mouthful of abuse the cyclist chose to give him as he tried to make it away on his toes.

- a normal human reaction anyone could do without 'expecting' to be physically assaulted.

The cyclist then chose to punch him in the face.

How exactly do those two 'wrongs' even compare...?!

The answer is they don't, in the eyes of the law or in the eyes of any decent human being, and if you really can't see that, I feel sorry for you, Dave, and would suggest a long hard look at your concepts of morality and ethics, avoid a career in law....

oh, and warn me when you're going to the supermarket, as I'll make sure I go there armed with some mace, just in case I accidentally bump into your shopping trolley...!!!!

Dave haslam

Ok Royston, all charity events cancelled, no fun allowed.

Dave haslam

Scarlett/ Futu

If you accidentally bumped into my trolley, I'm pretty sure you'd be greeted with a smile.

Its only if you bumped into Mr Mollets trolley that you may need the mace.

But getting all lairy is allowed eh?


DH, I trust you will still see things that way when some cretin on a bike shoves you off the footpath, thumps you in the face and pedals off leaving you in pain. If that is the kind of society you want, I pity you.


yes, I think it's all ok as it didn't happen to him, BJ.

Dave Haslam


You missed the key point part of the story out of your reconstruction.

Which proves my point!


DH, you are deliberately acting stupid I think. Two wrongs don't come into it, the thug/cyclist was wrong in riding on a footpath and very wrong in assaulting Mr Mollet. Mr Mollet was doing the right thing which any decent person should have done, if brave enough. People like you defending thugs are ruining Guernsey almost as thoroughly as the thugs themselves. Shame on you, I believe you do know better.

Dave Haslam

If you think I'm deliberately acting stupid, then you are overreacting! And your also repeatedly missing the point I'm making.

But then I'm getting that vibe from you on the whole of this thread!

Oh Dear

Beanjar, Futu.

The cyclist was wrong for riding on the pavement. The man told him he was wrong. The cyclsit passed anyway. The man then decided to grab the back wheel of the bike. This could've caused a serious accident and was an equally dangerous thing to do. If the cyclist had fallen off the bike due to this action he could easily have been killed. A punch in the face was excessive but I can understand why the cyclist became angry.

Both men were in the wrong. That's all there is to it. To claim that the cyclist is a thug is a bit over the top. The cyclist over reacted in much the same way as the majority of people on this thread have.

To bring nationality into this without knowing the nationality of the cyclist is a shining example of the ignorance that seems to be becoming more prevalent in this island. The bigoted reactionism is far more worrying than any minor assault.


Don't be ridiculous, OD. How could Mr Mollet have grabbed the bike wheel if it was going fast enough to be 'dangerous' or cause 'a serious accident'? Somebody who punches somebody else just for having the audacity to point out that they are acting badly is a thug and always will be in my book. When you get thumped by somebody in the street feel free to come back on here and tell us that you deserved it. Until them stop being so pathetic. The bike rider broke the law, Mr Mollet didn't - end of.

Oh Dear

So you don't see how grabbing a wheel of a bike is dangerous? Whether the cyclist was moving slowly or not doesn't matter. Either way it could have caused a serious accident. It was a provocative thing to do. The cyclist as I have already said was obviously in the wrong. Mr Mollett shouldn't have grabbed the bike though. If the cyclist wants to be ignorant and ignore what was said then that's his lookout. If it was something he does frequently he will be caught eventually.

Can you not see how both of them are in the wrong here? You seem to like arguing just for the sake of it sometimes.


Last year I was walking along the coastal path

at Port Soif in a westerly direction and was approached by a 'lady'on a bike riding at about 12 to 15 mph towards me. As she approached me, she made no attempt to slow down or dismount. I had to leap out of the way at the last minute,to avoid being run over,right near a sign which stated that all cyclists who used that path must give way to pedestrians! What would have happened if she had collided with me? As there were no witnesses about at the time, I think that I would have been the one who would have been charged with assault!

brown cow

a dog hit with a hammer . a lamb run over . and a man beat up . whot a nice place to live . NOT


I live in a busy one way road in many ways similar to Victoria Road. Cyclists regularly ride against the traffic, either on the road or on the pavement. When it's the latter, as a pedestrian you have to step of the pavement to avoid an accident.It's only a matter of time before there is a serious accident involving a car and/or a pedestrian, particularly on these dark evenings with cyclists who don't have lights.


Personally, I would carry a stick which I could (by accident of course) jam between the spokes of their front wheel. Be interesting to see how the courts would deal with that scenario ;-)


Hopefully by convicting you of assault and criminal damage?


To be honest I think most motorists are quite grateful when a cyclist uses a pavement and lets the traffic flow and most normal cyclists are happy to nip on/off to let any backlog of cars through.

The problem comes when you get near town and a few other locations on the island where you might actually add a pedestrian to the equation.

Then the cyclist is expected to apply a bit of common and not use the pavement or if on the pavement stop while the pedestrian passes.

I am sure that will manage to of offended those extremists in all camps and that says a lot more about tolerance for others than anything else!

Mr Lloyd

Wow, doesn't take much for the anti cyclist brigade to come out in force.

It's any wonder there aren't more serious accidents given the depth of hatred that's on display, quite sad really.


The depth of hatred on display just shows that cyclists have been getting away with too much for too long.

TErry Langlois

This guy does not represent cyclists, he was just a thug who happened to be riding a bike.

Do you condemn all motorists whenever there is a road rage incident? Of course not.


A number of people seem to get over excited about cyclists riding on the pavement. I fear that more should be concerned about the number of cars driving on pavements at speed. As I approached Hautes Capelles School this morning I counted eight cars who climbed on the pavement opposite the school car park and continued to drive at speed all the way to the junction to Aladdins Cave when no traffic was driving towards them so completely needlessly. No surprise that six of them were 4 x 4's. If you can't drive in the road get a smaller car.


I think it shows that when a motorist does it, they get away with it because they're in a 2 ton box of metal that can speed away - not many people would try the trick of grabbing a car's back wheel.


I haven't seen 'anti-cyclist' posts, only 'anti-thug' and 'anti-idiot'. As you should be but you prefer to see things from a selfish viewpoint. quite sad really.

Mr Lloyd


It's clear that you have let your emotions rule your head on this subject, I don't usually see quite such irrationality from you.

There are plenty that have have used this story to have a good old moan and share their anti cyclist rants.

'Selfish' well that made me giggle!! Is it random insult day??


Mr Lloyd

A breach of the law can never be condoned. There were two offences

Riding on the pavement and assault.

It's not hatred to want cyclists to obey the law.

If it had been a car dive 'road rage' would have been splashed over the media. Why is it different for cyclists?

If cyclists break the law and get knocked over then they only have themselves to blame. The downside is it won't be easy for the car driver to claim for repairs as invariably cyclists have no insurance.

TErry Langlois

if a motorist suffers damage as a result of the actions of a cyclist, the motorist's insurers can sue that cyclist. The cyclist is then responsible for the damage caused by them. If they have no insurance, it is their lookout as the costs will be for their own account.

Why does the lack of insurance concern the motorist? It doesn't. It is only a problem for the cyclist.

It should also be mentioned that many cyclists do have insurance, especially those who participate in cycling as a sport. Membership of organisations such as British Cycling or the Cycle Touring Club provides insurance as part of the membership.

Election Issues

Perhaps cyclists should have insurance so any injury or damage would be covered.

Some cyclists (not all of them of course) have got an aggressive attitude........I have met several of them.

Really think cyclists must have lights at is very scary to think that they could be knocked off their bikes because they can't be seen in the dark.


A cyclist was recently seen riding at speed DOWN Victoria road in to lower Vauvert. A Taxi driver (driving down Vauvert) had to brake hard to avoid a collision. Perhaps this is the same young male cyclist? Let's hope that he is caught soon, before there is a serious accident.

St Marcouf

There can be no excuse for the punch unless it was done in self defence - we have only heard one side of the story.

However, if riding a bike on the pavement is not illegal per se then the man had no business interfering in the first place and he certainly should not of held someone against their will.


Except that it is illegal.


err, dur, part of the reason it's ILLEGAL to ride on the pavement is that many driveways / exits / entrances for traffic open directly onto the pavement, and the cyclist could easily be killed by a vehicle that simply doesn't see them (or expect to see them) on the damned pavement.


Common sense.


Yvonne Burford

It is also illegal to drive on the pavements, but it is commonplace. And a car impacting someone coming out of a gateway will do a lot more damage than a cycle.

I am not condoning this person cycling down Victoria Road on the pavement, indeed a few weeks back I gave brief chase to someone cycling on the pavement by Town Church as I was so incensed that a small minority spoil it for the vast majority.

Interestingly there was significant support in the Transport Strategy consultation for cyclists to share pavements with pedestrians. Whether this was because people in general are more supportive of the practice than this thread might suggest or whether it was favoured by motorists who just want cyclists anywhere except on the bit of road infront of them, I leave you to guess.

St Marcouf

Really? Riding a bike on footpaths and the cliff paths is expressly a criminal offence, but pavements in general too?


A.J - forget being caught lets hope he is knocked down and that is the end of the interbred little retard


Even more evidence to support the principle that people on bikes should not ride on pavements. Ever.

And the States should stop painting lines and cycle picture on pavements to try to encourage people to ride on pavements - the "cycle lane" along the seafront into town being a prime example. It's no wonder some bike riders seem to think it's acceptable.

There's a world of difference between an actual cycle lane (of which we haven't got any in Guernsey, to my knowledge), and a line drawn on a pavement with an invitation to ride on it and mix it up with pedestrians.


PB Falla you are the one who needs to get a grip. The finance industry is one of the largest employers on this island. And also one of the largest contributors to the taxation collection on this island which translates into benefits for others.

Also those in finance employ others, e.g. Childcarers in varying forms, cleaners, ironing ladies etc to help because they are so busy working to provide for their families rather than rely on support. So they create additional jobs. If no one earned a good salary no-one would eat out our thriving restaurant businesses in Guernsey would not exist.... gosh I could keep going.....

You think finance is bad perhaps it is you that needs to think what would happen if Guernsey did not have a finance industry!


Wow, with such an acute vision of the catastrophic future without finance Mrs G, I'm guessing you have a very good crystal ball...!!!!!

Can you tell me if I'm going to win the lottery this year....?

You see, most of us mere mortals on this island, nay, the planet, can only speculate on the future, not have such 100% certainty.

Sadly, over the past few years, Derren Brown has successfully proven that most people who claim to have such powers are total charlatans,

and, call me cynical, but I tend to agree with him.


I think MrsG has a better grasp of reality than either you Futu or PBF, with or without crystal balls. No finance in the islands north of Scotland, perhaps you'd like it there. If so you can buy one for about the price of a tent in Guernsey.


.....errrrr, excuse me....?!

Where did I imply my opinion of finance was anything like PB's?

I think you'll find I didn't, so don't put words in my mouth, thank you very much, 'BJ', I'm quite capable of putting them there myself, rather like you appear capable of putting your foot in yours.

What I SAID was, no one, I repeat, NO one, knows what the future holds for absolute certain, Mrs G's post is therefore speculation, however you tell it.

If you'd ever bothered reading my other posts regarding finance, you'd see that I appreciate that though not perfect, it is quite necessary for our island to maintain the finance industry...

which, may I add for the record, we have an alarming lack of control over regarding it's continued residence here, so our opinions on the subject of it's legitimacy and benefits for the island as a whole - or otherwise - are totally worthless when it comes down to it.



OK Futu, you didn't say PBF's 'down with finance' stance is right so I was wrong to lump you in with him. On the other hand, I don't think MrsG's view of a future with less or no finance was at all far fetched. Simple logic rather than wild speculation. Obviously you couldn't damage our main industry without it having significant knock-on effects.



GET REAL and open your mind up


Not saying it's right to punch but in life one picks and chooses their battles, it seems on this occasion Mr M picked one, and lost.


I am so very glad that the footpath police are out patrolling. They are what makes this island a safe place. They should find the cyclist and send him to Jersey...that'll teach him.

ms Ann Thrope

Cycling on the footpath may be against the law but this particular law is never applied. Have any of you ever heard of a cyclist being prosecuted for this? If the police were to pull in a few dozen cyclists for doing this the message might then filter through that it's not a good idea and avoid the inevitable serious cyclist/pedestrian accident that's just waiting to happen. Come on, Commandant Rice: what about a pre-Christmas purge.


Would that involve the police getting off their backsides or putting away their speed guns for an hour? If so, I think there is naff all chance of it ever happening.


I think Mr Mollet could have made a citizen's arrest and that he would have been justified in detaining the cyclist, i.e. by holding on to his wheel, while waiting for the police to arrive.


Sorry to break this to you but I believe there is no such thing as a 'citizen's arrest'. Raising the Clameur might be an option though!

Oh Dear

I'm not sure about these days but there was certainly such thing as citizen's arrest when I was younger.


I'm afraid the Clameur is only useable for the defense of one's property against imminent attack (e.g. a bulldozer driving towards your house).

But full marks for effort anyone who tries it, and can remember all the words to make it valid!... "Haro, Haro! Aidez-moi, mon prince..."


I think that you will find, that raising 'the Clameur,' is only useful in boundary disputes.


The Civil Service is NOT the Finance Industry


please install like buttons on these comments thisisguernsey because some of these comments are priceless!!!!