Cyclist

yes you are right. I mean "pavement". Great pick up Robbin. Thanks. Now perhaps you could consider your common sense to give your child the safety harness while on the pavement. It is safer than without and only costs a few quids, as you put it. Quite a few people harness their child while walking on lordship lane, particularly in the weekend. Don't let your common sense fall behind their common sense ! My child and dogs are living happily without your wishes of "good luck" or the sort. You go your way, I go my way. And that's the way it should be unless your ego dictates otherwise. robbin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Cyclist - I suggest if you are going to tangle > with the meaning of words, you start by opening up > your dictionary and looking up the meaning of > "pavement" and "pedestrian", as you also seem not > to have got to grips with those words (a pavement > being something people walk along - and a > pedestrian is someone who walks along it).

surely you understand "basic ability to judge" and "judgement" have two very different meanings. robbin Wrote: ---------------------------------------------------- > > Fyi - Common sense is a basic ability to perceive, > understand, and judge things, which is shared by > ("common to") nearly all people, and can be > reasonably expected of nearly all people without > any need for debate.

If common sense is an "ability", then that implies anyone who does not share that common sense has a shortcoming in his/her natural ability. In the "ability" definition, anyone who does not share what some perceived as "common sense" risked being defined to be lacking in his or her natural ability. Not many people would appreciate that insinuation. On the other hand, it is much more appropriate to see common sense as a "judgement" because it then admits the possibility of multiple common sense. Whose common sense we are talking about and which common sense in the particular situation we are talking about exactly ? I don't think I have been talking nonsense at all. I have instead observed the fairly acute reaction from commentators when their version of common sense is challenged. robbin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And your point?! > > I'm glad you looked it up - now you see what > nonsense you were spouting.

You would find that most dictionaries including Oxford define common sense as a judgement rather than "a basic ability". edcam Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Quite. > > robbin Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > No it isn't the whole question. > > > > It's just more argumentative rambling that > makes > > no grammatical or semantic sense. > > > > Fyi - Common sense is a basic ability to > perceive, > > understand, and judge things, which is shared > by > > ("common to") nearly all people, and can be > > reasonably expected of nearly all people > without > > any need for debate.

Well, this is the whole question isn't it. Unpack the term "common sense", then it opens up the whole question of the applicability of "a" common sense as perceived by a particular individual to a specific situation. edcam Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But common sense would dictate that it's a very > stupid thing to do. > > Cyclist Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > > The highway code did not specify that cycling > with > > dog is illegal. > >

If the term "child leash" causes upset then my apology. I will refer to it as child harness. The highway code did not specify that cycling with dog is illegal. Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I wish you'd stop calling iot a child leash, > that's just language designed to wind people up > (even if you did find a profuct with that title). > And whilst I understand the point you are making, > I don't think it's comparable (child walking / > running on pavement compared to child passenger on > bike). > > > > I guess the most apt comparrison could be seat > belts in cars. You may have never been involved in > a crash. Every time you get in your car you > PROBABLY won't have an accident, and yet you belt > up. I know this is the law, but even bofore that, > most people did it anyway, because despite the > fact that it probably wouldn't be needed, people > just felt it more sensible to play it safe. > > But again for me it was the whole dog thing. I've > never seen that on the roads, and if it is legal > I'd be quite surprised.

This is perfect example to illustrate how important it is to pay attention to specificity of the situation. Mr Frankland was riding on road bewteen 30mph to 50mph (Townley had 20mph speed limit), where there was a queue of cars behind him (compared to 0.5 car), had his dog near to the central white line (mine was on the left near the kerb). "Mr Frankland was close to the kerb but his dog, Mali, was near to the central white line and there were a queue of cars behind him." "on the road that varies in speed limit between 30mph and 50mph, robbin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I agree Otta. > > I wish I could stop tuning in, worse still > responding to stuff. A car crash would be less > painful! > > But to answer your point about legality - it is > quite likely to be illegal - this provides some > clue to how the Police viewed one idiot cycling > along with a single dog in tow. > > Add a child without a helmet to this story and it > could be Cyclist (in view of this guy's responses > and 'don't tell me what to do' attitude)! > > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2865549/Gr > andfather-rode-road-dog-tethered-bicycle-guilty-DA > NGEROUS-CYCLING.html

I have been questioned and described as "lunatic", "idiot". I take an offence at these personal remarks. I then took the time to depict the actual risk on the roads with empirical observations. And then I illustrate the moral relativity hidden in these accusations by raising the issue of child leash. Nowhere have I employed words like "lunatic" "idiotic" unlike many people here. Now, to say that I am egotistical and someone will not be questioned is very unfair. I am egotistical in the sense that I defend my ego - defined as appropriate pride in oneself - with facts as established by empirical observations. This is a reasonable and sensible approach to criticism.

well, I have coped quite few unpleasant adjectives in the last weeks of so. So not too sure how taking time to publish some statistics and raising an equally valid and related point on child leash has made me "doggedness". But nevertheless, I am in agreement with what rahrahrah wrote. rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's a shame that Cyclist is now coming off badly > because of his/her doggedness, because taking the > personalities out of this for a minute, I couldn't > disagree more strongly with the general gist of > this thread. > > Firstly, I don't accept the widely held view of > cycling a particularly dangerous activity. > > Secondly, just because you might feel someone is > making 'bad choices', does not give you licence to > stick your oar in. > > Bear in mind that there are plenty of contact > sports (football for example) which have roughly > the same level of fatalities per participant > (actually higher). One could use the argument > often applied to cycling, namely "wearing a helmet > isn't going to do any harm, so why not be safe' to > football. Try going to a kids match and admonish > the irresponsible parents who aren't making their > children wear a helmet. Why not, as was suggested > earlier, raise the issue with the police? > > People are bad at judging risk and quick to jump > in on a moral panic. > > I worry much more about the inactive kid, sitting > at home eating junk food than the one climbing up > a tree without padding, cycling without a helmet, > or playing contact sports without a mouth shield. > > We are creating a culture of risk aversion and > puritanism.

Have a good day.

well, it doesn't matter whether I am bonkers or not in your opinion, particularly when you are really just saying the logic in your very own argument and your own words is bonkers. The question remains why would you NOT use child leash given that you are concerned about helmet even though both equipments will make the child safer and only costs a few quid ? Why criticise me for not using helmet on child, but at the same time find it "weird" that I raise the issue of child leash with you ?

I google, and it does not come up with anything horrific. One of the article is "Should I use a leash on my child?" on a parenting website: http://mom.me/parenting/2635-should-i-use-a-leash-on-my-child/ The question is simple really - why would anyone NOT use child leash given that they are concerned about helmet even though both equipments will make the child safer and only costs a few quid ? Why criticise me for not using helmet on child, but at the same time find it "weird" that I raise the issue of child leash with you ? I will go direct to my point. Everyone has his or her perception of riskiness. What is risky to some is not risky to others. I make a point of not criticising others on the basis of what I think is right, because I recognise that there is no true "science" in any of these assertions. Likewise, I hope a lot of forum users can reflect on the quantity of personal bias that is contained in the allegations they make on others and refrain from doing so.

I don't know what you are on about green ink. I just thought to remind you on an aspect of risk in everyday life that you may have overlooked.

It is not that weird really to ask you about your attitude to child leash. Children are unpredictable. They bounce and jump around, running here and there for interesting things while walking on the thin patch of pedestrian. When they are out with parents, they can walk behind, running in front, let go of the parents' hand all of a sudden. Particularly on Lordship Lane where there are streams of cars and buses passing through every minute, it can be really dangerous if, for example, a child suddenly decides to pick up something on the road, or worse still, cross the road without parent's control. These real possibilities must have been the on the mind of those responsible adults who decide that the best and safe policy with children is to leash them while walking on pedestrian. I have seen parents or carers leashing their children on Lordship Lane many times. In case you misunderstand what I am talking about, I have attached a photo from google to show you. These have many names: safety harness, child leash, toddler leash so on. Ebay has many of these "baby toddler safety leash" ranging from 4 pound to 10 pounds in various colours and design. Personally, I have no desire to put on one for my child. But that is expected because I am not a "decent and caring father" as some other people are in the forum. But it is a little bit unexpected that you would find it so weird that I raise the issue of child leash. Based on your reasoning, the child will be definitely "safer" - to use your word, with a leash put on while walking on pedestrian, and the leash does only cost a few quids. I agree completely with you, that "safer" not "safe" is the right word because nothing is totally safe. Quoting your argument further (and quite a few other commentators here share this view), anyone "no matter how arrogant or stubborn - can ever sensibly argue" a leash "might not save your kid's life. Of course he or she may never need it and truly hope that's the case, but it's a gamble with odds - pure and simple." Realistically, the opportunity for most kids to have this safety equipment is quite slim if the parents don't put it on for them. Why would anyone gamble their own child's safety ? Why not put this child leash on to make the child on the pedestrian safer ? robbin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Cyclist Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > do you or would you leash your kids when out ? > > > > robbin Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Probably not worth shelling out for helmets > for > > > the kids then. > > Now that's just a really weird comment to make!! > I think you may be losing the plot. > > I was talking about helmets. Not sure where the > leash thing came from (apart from in your head). > A few posts ago you responded to mine about > helmets, saying "the helmet is a fair point". > > So why now get all defensive and daft? To answer > your rather odd question, no - I wouldn't 'leash' > my children (whatever that means) but as a decent > caring father I would protect them with a helmet > if they were out on a bike (being a keen cyclist I > want them to ride bikes). But then I think a few > quid is worth it to make them safer (notice I say > 'safer' not 'safe' - cycling obviously carries > some risk - which is why wearing a helmet is in my > opinion only common sense). > > Each to their own though. If you've changed your > mind and now on reflection, having carried out a > 'statistical' analysis of traffic flow on your > route you don't think it's worth the expense, you > don't. Your choice - your children realistically > don't have any say in the matter.

Today Townley road is horribly busy AGAIN. No car was travelling behind me this morning for the whole journey. Over the 3 days, the average traffic I have actually encountered is 0.5 car and 1/6 bike per journey per day. Faced with this horrific traffic condition every morning and afternoon, let's critically reflect on how "nuttiness, selfishness idiocy and lunacy" it is, according to the quoted allegations below, to expose myself and other road users to "great risk" because I ride with child with dogs. No enquiry has ever been made as to the road condition specific to the time of the day and the actual route taken. But plenty of rash and unpleasant conclusions. To sum it up, these allegations are hysterical. I take the time to publish these actual statistics in the last 3 days to illustrate a point. The point is that baseless, hysterical, sensational and general allegation can be made by any armchair commentator, perhaps while having coffee in a cafe in the space of a minute. On the other hand, actual informative data that shed light on the real and specific issue takes time to collect. That is the essence of "mind your own business". The left out part is "until you have actually made an effort to understand the specific issue you are talking about". > QueenMab Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > I've seen him have a near accident once already > after > > once of his dogs got frightened by traffic and > > nearly got entangled in the bike . Cycling > along > > with two dogs on leads is idiotic at the best > of > > times, with a child on the back, it's lunacy. > > > > Pugwash Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > sounds a bit of nut case - have seen cyclist > in > > > the park with dogs on lead, but on the > highway > > > with a child is asking for trouble > > > > > > oliviaandmilo Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > If its a usual time he passes with this > selfish > behaviour then get some police advice and see > if > > > > > they can do something. Quite often people, > > > although parents can be quite nasty when told > > > > about something their doing wrong. Better to > do > > > > > something than nothing, else guilt is pretty > > awful > > > to live with. > > SLad Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I'm focused on this circus style means of > transport (exacerbated by > > the failure even to accord your child the > > protection of a common and cheap piece of > safety > > equipment) which jeopardises your safety but, > more > > importantly, that of your child, your dogs and > > other road users. > > SLad Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Arrogance compared with stubbornness is a ticking > time bomb. alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > pride before a fall

Today Townley road is horribly busy AGAIN. No car was travelling behind me this morning for the whole journey. Over the 3 days, the average traffic I have actually encountered is 0.5 car and 1/6 bike per journey per day. Faced with this horrific traffic condition every morning and afternoon, let's critically reflect on how "nuttiness, selfishness idiocy and lunacy" it is to expose myself and other road users to great risk because I ride with child with dogs. No enquiry has ever been made as to the road condition specific to the time of the day and the actual route taken. But plenty of rash and unpleasant conclusions. To sum it up, these allegations are hysterical. I take the time to publish these actual statistics in the last 3 days to illustrate a point. The point is that baseless, hysterical, sensational and general allegation can be made by any armchair commentator, perhaps while having coffee in a cafe in the space of a minute. On the other hand, actual informative data that shed light on the real and specific issue takes time to collect. That is the essence of "mind your own business". The left out part is "until you have actually made an effort to understand the specific issue you are talking about". QueenMab Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've seen him have a near accident once already after > once of his dogs got frightened by traffic and > nearly got entangled in the bike . Cycling along > with two dogs on leads is idiotic at the best of > times, with a child on the back, it's lunacy. > Pugwash Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > sounds a bit of nut case - have seen cyclist in > > the park with dogs on lead, but on the highway > > with a child is asking for trouble > > > oliviaandmilo Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > If its a usual time he passes with this selfish behaviour then get some police advice and see if > > > they can do something. Quite often people, > > although parents can be quite nasty when told > > about something their doing wrong. Better to do > > > something than nothing, else guilt is pretty > awful > > to live with. SLad Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm focused on this circus style means of transport (exacerbated by > the failure even to accord your child the > protection of a common and cheap piece of safety > equipment) which jeopardises your safety but, more > importantly, that of your child, your dogs and > other road users. >

do you or would you leash your kids when out ? robbin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Probably not worth shelling out for helmets for > the kids then.

Following from yesterday's count of 2, today there was a total of 1 car and 1 bike passing in my direction at a speed of 10mph. Pugwash Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > sounds a bit of nut case - have seen cyclist in > the park with dogs on lead, but on the highway > with a child is asking for trouble This morning, 1 car drove pass me in 1 direction, and 1 car drove pass me on the opposite direction. oliviaandmilo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If its a usual time he passes with this selfish > behaviour then get some police advice and see if > they can do something. Quite often people, > although parents can be quite nasty when told > about something their doing wrong. Better to do > something than nothing, else guilt is pretty awful > to live with.

This morning, 1 car drove pass me in 1 direction, and 1 car drove pass me on the opposite direction. oliviaandmilo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If its a usual time he passes with this selfish > behaviour then get some police advice and see if > they can do something. Quite often people, > although parents can be quite nasty when told > about something their doing wrong. Better to do > something than nothing, else guilt is pretty awful > to live with.

The helmet is a fair point. Some actual statistics would help to put the actual "risk of cycling with dogs" in context. Today, a total of 4 cars went pass my position on Townley road in 1 direction. All travelled at a speed of around 10 to 15 mph prior to and after passing my position. Townley road is the "busiest" stretch in the whole trip. For the rest of the journey, 1/3 has even fewer cars - today count is 2. The remaining 1/3 is not even on roads with car. Firstly, let's agree that this journey is not the same as cycling on Camberwell Road or Denmark Hill. In fact, it is far from it. Is there a risk of accident ? Of course ! But if this is something to warrant a chat with me while I am on the road, please, just simply ban cycling on the road in UK. Has anyone seen the police riding on horse strolling down roads in London city centre ? They don't gallop. Instead, I suspect drivers take extra care when they are in sight. Substitute that with a bike with dogs that travels at speed between that of the mounted police and the 10 mph cars, and travels in a predictable straight line just like all other "average" cyclists (The weight of the extra child adds to the weight and, "surprisingly", the stability of the travelling bicycle.) Suddenly, all form of predictions of the inevitable crash and ticking time bomb appear from nowhere. Let us then reflect on what do these different perception of risk points to. It is that the attitude of the road users should be the single biggest concern as the cause of accident between a bicycle and a car. If the car driver takes the same care when he/she sees a bike, a bike with dogs, a bike with dogs and child, on the road as he does when he sees mounted police, the number of road incidents with bike will be far less. And this is exactly the attitude a car driver in the semi-residential / residential roads in Dulwich should possess every time they are on the road. This goes for all cyclists too. And if we cannot be sure of that, then that is what the cycling lobbyist, road safety association etc. should be working on. The message, if not already clear, is this - in residential areas, roads are shared between cyclist and cars to a greater extent. Drive slowly and take extra care. The same goes for the cyclist. But sending this message across is not an easy and quick task. It will be a drawn out process. On the other hand, stereotyping and restricting the use of roads from a non-typical cycling user of 20 mins per day, is the easy way out. Hence we see here, a concerted attack that has not been substantiated by any basic statistics and reasoning, and attempted interference in real life (for those who want to approach me while on the road) occurring in the forum. What is illustrative of the unreasonableness of this attack, is that the accuser requests evidence from the accused to support the accusation made against the accused. Today, an attempt is made to restrict the use of road by a cyclist with dogs because someone happens to think that it is dangerous and the cyclist is a no-brainer. Tomorrow, the restriction may then be argued to be put on cyclists who carry child, because these cyclists do not care enough about the risks that the child is exposed to while on the road. There will always be a temptation to eliminate diversity for singularity and uniformity. But actually there are two choices : either give in to the tyranny of the mass, or open up ways for a more diverse and greater use of the roads. I may be an idiot, but I will firmly defend against any encroachment by unrelated people on what is perfectly reasonable to do - the right to cycle with dogs without being harassed by the "H&S Fascist" - thank you, it is a good term.

Happy to continue this conversation in a meaningful way when you have presented some meaningful data for reference. SLad Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Arrogance compared with stubbornness is a ticking > time bomb.

Robbin, you have missed it. Not 'cyclists have accidents without dogs, so that's PROOF it makes no difference!', but "if you make an accusation on me, then present the hard statistical evidence that can conclude that cycling with dogs has actually led to a higher chance of accidents than cycling without dogs." And the white elephant in the room : Apply your wise judgement to yourself and reserve that space for others for their own lives.

Dear Slad, Your writing is appealing and certainly attention grabbing - eg. "circus style means of transport". But it is, to put it plainly, your imagination. What it comes down to, is that for all your flowery language, you simply have not presented any simple statistics to back up on what you are accusing me of - which is that my cycling practice increases the probability of accident for myself, my child, my dogs, and other road users. You are now asking me to supply you with statistics and, further, show to you the correct statistics methodology, so that I can prove to myself and those who are reading here something that you accuse me of ? Short of any tangible evidence, there is no possibility to argue over this safety issue without downgrading into your opinion vs my opinion. But since you are accusing me, let me point out simply that you are really just imagining what it may be like to live someone's life. You don't like to hear about the actual stability and control from the very real person who is doing it because it doesn't fit into your perception ? Fine - but leave me alone. I don't have to justify to you why I need to do what I do. For all your disinterest about helmet, your description is professional and thank you for your information coming from a medic point of view. But for your information, a neurosurgeon does not appear to agree with you. Who is more right, there is no way of knowing, and I reserve the judgement to myself. Not all cyclist rides at 40 miles per hour. The probability of an accident occurring and the severity of that accident given that it has occurred cannot be the same for all cyclists. I put it to you that you are basically imposing your image of what a "typical cyclist" is onto me, and then preach me on what is not relevant for me. Thank you, but please just mind your own business.

Dear S, Third party inadvertence can cause injury to anyone - cyclists, cyclists with child, cyclists with dogs, pedestrians. A simple count of accidents that has happened to cyclists without dogs and cyclists with dogs that has happened in the past will be sufficient to pacify your mind over the inevitability of disaster that is supposedly staring at me, who is, again based on your assertion, being masked by my own ego. Since the attack is now shifted to the point of helmet. Do pay a bit of attention to the latest controversy over how useful they really are, and then subtract a small portion of your self-confidence and righteousness when asserting on my stupidity. It would also be infinitely more constructive if you convert your wish for my safety and my child's safety in the forum to voicing the need for dedicated bicycle lane in London to the relevant authority. Yours, Cyclist

I have been watching this thread and cannot failed to be amazed at the amount of assertion and prejudice that has been levied on the cyclist in question. And it also happens that I am the cyclist. I won't be categorically answering each of the charge. But I will talk to QueenMab directly. I have always ridden very carefully and steadily, and stopping at the side of the road to let the cars pass when appropriate. Thank you for your keen observation (and also those who have discussed actively about me in this thread), but your memory serves you wrong. My dogs are not frightened by the cars, a large part because they are kept on the left side always. No accident has nearly happened as you claim to have seen. Lunacy or idiotic, that is my choice, based on the amount of control that I know, not you or the rest, I possess on the bike. If any of you are still concerned and want to be constructive, then think about this from the perspective of the cyclist, not the cars. Go and fight for a dedicated bicycle lane that everyone can use, one that is not reserved only for cyclists that like to speed past just as fast as cars, and who would scoff at anyone that happens to ride slower than himself or herself.