Daft lady on bike.

[apbremer]

I was passed this morning in Herne Hill by a woman on a bike with one toddler perched on the crossbar and another small child behind her, all this wobbling along in the usual heavy traffic, presumably intent upon saving the planet. I always thought that those silly little carts attached to bikes were pretty vulnerable but this just seemed hideously dangerous. Am I alone in wondering why the ubiquitous Elf'n Safety do not outlaw this practice whilst continually hectoring us in so many minor areas as if we are children?

[rendelharris]

Change the record, APB!

I am continually amazed by the plethora of Earth Mums and Dads in DV wobbling through heavy traffic on bikes with their small children stuck in front (or behind) in flimsy, home made plastic carts, presumably doing their misguided little bit to save the planet. I have even seen one tiny child perched on his father's crossbar, without even a helmet! "Elf and Safety" should surely take an interest, or even the schools??

- apbremer, January 25th, 2018

[nxjen]

Are you saying then Rendel that this is both good parenting and good cycling practice?

[rendelharris]

nxjen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Are you saying then Rendel that this is both good

> parenting and good cycling practice?

No, I'm saying the apb is notoriously pro-car and anti-cyclist and is now repeating him/herself. If the woman in question had a proper crossbar seat and trailer or rear seat, that's perfectly acceptable - whether she was "wobbling" is down to apb's perception, which I suspect is not unbiased. I find it rather amusing that a person can look at "heavy traffic" - which as we know kills thousands of people prematurely in London each year, contributes to the ruination of our planet and so forth, and doesn't ask why that's there, instead choosing to whine about someone cycling their children to school.

By the way I've never seen anyone cycling with children round here in a "homemade plastic cart".

[apbremer]

Actually I ride my bike every day and wouldn't dream of being so irresponsible as to balance small children around in traffic with the flimsiest of protection. Cyclists get an appalling press anyway for riding like lunatics and these stupid people do not help.

[Asset]

**** off

[tomskip]

I've often wondered why there are such strict laws around the safety of children in cars and yet there doesn't seem to be the equivalent for children being transported on cycles. I've seen a person cycling with their newborn strapped to their chest in a sling.

[uncleglen]

tomskip Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I've often wondered why there are such strict laws

> around the safety of children in cars and yet

> there doesn't seem to be the equivalent for

> children being transported on cycles. I've seen a

> person cycling with their newborn strapped to

> their chest in a sling.

Yes- you've only got to have one inattentive motorist open their car door.....

[Asset]

Don't ride close to car doors - 'the width of a door and a little bit more'

[binkylilyput]

And risk being hit, beeped at and generally harassed by the vehicle that sweeps around to try to overtake you as cars own the road......

Of course people with child carriers need to be safety conscious....... and drivers need to let go of the notion that they have priority on the road

Asset Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Don't ride close to car doors - 'the width of a

> door and a little bit more'

[rendelharris]

Some of the comments demonstrate exactly the sort of arse-about-face thinking Chris Boardman and others have been campaigning against: "The roads are dangerous, cyclists shouldn't be on them!" How about "The roads are dangerous because of cars, what can we do to stop them being dangerous?"

[lavender27]

I still have the scar on my neck where I went over a car door on my bicycle, and it cut my throat. You may think you look cool with your baby in your sling, your precious kids on your handle bars , no one wearing a crash helmet, but you are irresponsible, look after yourselves. I am sure it's against the law to not wear a crash helmet now.

[diable rouge]

It's not against the law...

[snowy]

I am sure

> it's against the law to not wear a crash helmet now.

No, it's not.

[niall]

those little trolleys cyclists pull their kids in are ridiculous. lovely and vulnerable, low to the ground. kids love a bit of exhaust fume too.

get in.

[rendelharris]

niall Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> those little trolleys cyclists pull their kids in

> are ridiculous. lovely and vulnerable, low to the

> ground. kids love a bit of exhaust fume too.

>

> get in.

Actually trailers are probably a lot safer than carrying the kid on a bike, for lots of reasons: they're more stable; if the bike and rider fall the kid remains safe; their wider profile makes it less likely drivers will try risky close passes; when brightly coloured and with a flag on they make the unit far more visible to drivers. Yes, kids are at exhaust level - just as they are when walking along the side of the road. At least in a buggy they'll be out of the pollution quicker. In forty years of cycling I've never heard of a child being injured or killed riding in a trailer - I sure there must be instances but they must be very rare.

I know you're a cyclist but as I mentioned above, your comment is very car-centric: why "Oh people are ridiculous trying to cycle amongst poisonous exhausts and dangerous cars"? Why not "Aren't we ridiculous allowing these dangerous vehicles that belch poison dominate our environment"?

[Annie5]

I have never driven a car. But I find this kind of cycling behaviour very dangerous; people cycling without helmets, children perched on crossbars, children in flimsy carts behind the cyclist (which means the cyclist has no view of what is happening to the cart). If they are so worried about pollution and the environment why don't they walk to school? Much safer and less exposure to exhaust fumes. Also means the children will be fitter and stronger. My mother walked us to / from school for years.

[rendelharris]

Annie5 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I have never driven a car. But I find this kind

> of cycling behaviour very dangerous; people

> cycling without helmets, children perched on

> crossbars, children in flimsy carts behind the

> cyclist (which means the cyclist has no view of

> what is happening to the cart). If they are so

> worried about pollution and the environment why

> don't they walk to school? Much safer and less

> exposure to exhaust fumes. Also means the children

> will be fitter and stronger. My mother walked us

> to / from school for years.

Cycling without a helmet is not dangerous; being knocked off by a car without a helmet is dangerous.

Having a child on your crossbar with a proper crossbar seat is not dangerous; cars knocking your child off is dangerous.

Having a child in a trailer is not dangerous; cars threatening your child's safety is dangerous.

Can we please stop calling cyclists dangerous when they add no danger to the environment at all; the only thing that makes the roads dangerous and unhealthy is motor vehicles.

How do you figure a child walking along the side of a road gets less pollution than one in a trailer? That kerb hasn't got magic properties you know - and as noted above, a child in a trailer will spend a lot less time amongst the pollution.

Walking to school's great, but when a parent has several children in widely dispersed schools, has to get to work etc etc it's not always practical. The alternative then is to drive or cycle. Let's have a go at those who cycle and do no harm whatsoever, not those who drive Timmy and Molly in their diesel 4x4!

[nxjen]

As cars are so dangerous, it is only sensible and prudent that cyclists protect themselves and their children appropriately. It makes no sense at all to point your finger at cars and say ?they?re dangerous? with the attitude that this entitles cyclists to behave in a way as if the cars weren?t there.

[JoeLeg]

Rendell, you know I generally see eye to eye with you on most things, but I?m going to say this.

Several times now - I?m not exaggerating - I?ve encountered cyclists at the junction of East Dulwich Road and Peckham Rye jumping red lights, sometimes also taking the corners at dangerous speeds. One of them nearly hit me and my then 6-year old as we crossed on the green man, and then swore at us when I challenged him, and I?ve had others be similarly responsive. I?ve seen similar behaviour on other junctions but do some reason that one seems particularly bad; perhaps it?s the wide sight lines that make cyclists feel ok about it, but red lights are the rule of the road.

I fully agree cyclists overall are far less dangerous, and maybe I?ve just been unlucky in my encounters, but my personal (and I stress personal) experience is that the cycling community could maybe benefit from reminding it?s more overconfident members that red lights are not optional.

[rendelharris]

nxjen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> As cars are so dangerous, it is only sensible and

> prudent that cyclists protect themselves and their

> children appropriately. It makes no sense at all

> to point your finger at cars and say ?they?re

> dangerous? with the attitude that this entitles

> cyclists to behave in a way as if the cars weren?t

> there.

Good job I wasn't then. What gives motorists the right to castigate cyclists for behaving perfectly legally on the roads?

[rendelharris]

JoeLeg Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Rendell, you know I generally see eye to eye with

> you on most things, but I?m going to say this.

>

> Several times now - I?m not exaggerating - I?ve

> encountered cyclists at the junction of East

> Dulwich Road and Peckham Rye jumping red lights,

> sometimes also taking the corners at dangerous

> speeds. One of them nearly hit me and my then

> 6-year old as we crossed on the green man, and

> then swore at us when I challenged him, and I?ve

> had others be similarly responsive. I?ve seen

> similar behaviour on other junctions but do some

> reason that one seems particularly bad; perhaps

> it?s the wide sight lines that make cyclists feel

> ok about it, but red lights are the rule of the

> road.

>

> I fully agree cyclists overall are far less

> dangerous, and maybe I?ve just been unlucky in my

> encounters, but my personal (and I stress

> personal) experience is that the cycling community

> could maybe benefit from reminding it?s more

> overconfident members that red lights are not

> optional.

This could be the end of a beautiful friendship...except I entirely agree with you, I hate cyclists jumping red lights, I honestly never do it myself - I'll sit at a junction with no traffic about at 1AM rather than jump a red. I regularly shout like the mad old person I am at other cyclists if they ride through reds when I'm waiting at them. I would be delighted if the police would focus more on stopping this sort of behaviour and fining those who do it - such cyclists (who are a minority) just give the anti-cycling mob a free stick with which to beat us (it's rare to see a light turn red in these parts without three or four cars running it of course, but that's another matter).

Thing is the OP and all those joining in on this thread aren't having a go at cyclists for illegal behaviour, apparently they have the right to criticise perfectly legal behaviour...

[dirac]

The whole helmet wearing thing is rubbish anyway. One of the most common form of injuries in a car accident is head injuries, which can easily be prevented wearing a helmet. Do you wear one though? Do the general public get all high-horsey and preach to people they don't even know who are not wearing them? No. Same can be said for walking down the street. If you make it up to the most vulnerable to protect themselves then we'd all be wrapped in bubble wrap.

[rendelharris]

dirac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The whole helmet wearing thing is rubbish anyway.

> One of the most common form of injuries in a car

> accident is head injuries, which can easily be

> prevented wearing a helmet. Do you wear one

> though? Do the general public get all high-horsey

> and preach to people they don't even know who are

> not wearing them? No. Same can be said for

> walking down the street. If you make it up to the

> most vulnerable to protect themselves then we'd

> all be wrapped in bubble wrap.

Wearing a helmet reduces the risk of serious head injury by 69% and fatal head injury by 65%. That's enough to keep me wearing one. If you don't want to that's fine and your legal right, but that well worn "argument" about not wearing one ("Why don't you wear one in the shower" etc) is just silly. You could be injured falling out of your armchair watching TV, yet you don't wear a seatbelt in your armchair; by your logic, then no point in wearing one in a car either. Presumably, you think motorcycle helmets are rubbish as well? Cyclists are easily the most vulnerable group in the road environment, and that's why many/most choose extra protection.

[ed_pete]

rendelharris Wrote:

> Can we please stop calling cyclists dangerous when

> they add no danger to the environment at all; the

> only thing that makes the roads dangerous and

> unhealthy is motor vehicles.

I'm a daily commuter cyclist and I would never say that. There are plenty of nutters amongst all road users and pedestrians that cause danger to others. How about the guy who knocked down and killed a woman at Old Street ?

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/sep/18/cyclist-charlie-alliston-jailed-for-18-months-over-death-of-pedestrian