Jump to content

To the Cycling Adult with a child on Goodrich Road at 22.45 on Sat 26th July


Recommended Posts

I sincerely hope that you got home safely because you were doing everything in your power to try and kill you and your child. If you want to cycle on the road without any lights or reflective gear at night, you are already an irresponsible piece of ****. But to allow, ney, encourage and endorse your what, 9/10(?) year old child to also cycle on dark roads, at nearly 11pm without lights, is wilfully negligent.


You'll know if I'm talking to you because 1) I fail to believe that there are too many adults around stupid enough to do this and 2) I shouted at you to get your kid with no lights off the road (apologies to any local residents I disturbed). I'd have stopped and followed you but sadly I was going in the other direction at speed and my cycling prowess isn't such that I could have stopped, turned and caught you up.


If you, or anyone else, thinks I'm being harsh, I really don't give a monkeys - this is a child safety issue and I'd call anyone else that sees this carelessness to try to stop it (obviously if safe to try and do so without risking the child's safety further, etc.)


Hope you sleep tight x

Do you know if the cyclist was female ? I saw a woman on a bike about this time cycling up Barry Rd v close to Goodrich . She had no lights and was on wrong side ( admittedly quiet and straight rd ) for some time .


Not that it matters really ,just curious .

I see lots of ladies wobbling around Dulwich in traffic on their bikes with small children perched on the back, sometimes in flimsy little carts and even once on the handlebars!! Madness. Where are the hordes of Health and Safety fanatics when they are needed??
LadyDeliah - I think the issue is no lights in the dead of night, which means someone might not be able to see them to avoid the collision, with terrible consequences for the child, as well as for them..... It's not legal to cycle on the road at night with no lights, same as it isn't legal to drive with no lights...

If you could see the child well enough to guess its age to within a year, I'd say they were plenty visible to anyone. Why so angry cedges? Sounds close to victim blaming


"Everything in your power to kill.."


Strong stuff.

Victim blaming?! The cyclist was on the road at nearly 11pm, with a child, with NO lights and no reflective gear. Had a car collided with the cyclist then I think the cyclist would have justifiably been at least partly responsible. Surely if I decided to walk on a road at night with nothing to illuminate me and got hit by a car I would be to blame? I have followed many previous posts on the EDF r.e cyclists/motorists but have never commented before as I can appreciate both sides of the argument, but I fail to see how the OP of this thread can be criticised for feeling angry at the irresponsible nature of this person. To put themselves at risk is bad enough, but to endanger the life of a child is even worse. The fact that the OP could guess at the child's age does not surely eliminate the need for lights and reflective gear. Yes, the OP used strong words, but were I to stand my child on a road at night with nothing to protect them with, I would understand someone accusing me of having a death wish for my child.

Who is standing a child on the road at night?


Nobody


Is walking on the side of the road in normal attire at night a bad thing as well now? Really ?


Wearing reflective gear at night might be advisable, but as a motorist you are responsible for anything you hit. Things don't appear out of nowhere, even without reflective wear. How fast are you driving that you can't see movement on the road?


Me? I would probably wear reflective lights. Probably. But somehow I don't think this guy was doing everything in his power to have himself and his daughter killed


I'll go out on a limb and say if asked he wouldn't even be neutral. He definitely wouldn't want that to happen


I drive at night. I observe. Nobody wearing normal clothes is going to get killed by me

If a motorist was driving along a road with no lights on, he or she would still not deserve to be accused of being doing everything in their power to kill people


Again, as a driver I have eyes and would clock that car in front of me ( and wonder why they haven't got lights in)


Accusing them of doing everything in their power to kill people is wrong


And it's not a cyclist v driver thing really. ( other than the driver will always kill the cyclist and not the other way around, in any given collision bad enough)


Bad driving is the problem. Not luminosity

But surely it is the responsibility of ALL road users to do whatever they can to prevent death and injury (including their own). But claiming possible 'victim blaming' in this incident, you are completely absolving one party of any responsibility.

Do you mean when someone says "they were doing everything in there power" to be killed, I am saying that's an overreaction and is victim blaming?


Then yes


It doesn't sound from the op there was any danger. They were able to id the child's age ( or at least tried to. Why if they couldn't see?)


Nothing happened here. It's someone going ott with a new thread

StraferJack Wrote:

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

> And by "problem" I mean the degree of culpability

> in causing death

>

> Not wearing lights is culpable but not actually

> cause of death

> Bad driving is culpable but is the cause of death



Yep, there needs to be a change of mindset where motorists are forced to accept the responsibility for their actions when their lethal piece of metal kills/maims/injures others.


And my post above was actually in response to apbremer.

As I said, I wouldn't normally do it


But if someone does, should they be injured or worse, I would be loathe to say it was their fault. But illumination and hi viz for all modes of transport is ultimately largely necessary because of bad driving


If the roads were dedicated to cyclists not wearing hi viz jackets, what's the worst that could happen


But driving a car is putting you in charge of a machine that can mow people over without even realising. So I think it's beholden on us when we are driving to bear the ultimate responsibility


I don't fundamentally have a problem with people cycling at night. Even kids. There is street lighting and your headlamps. How much help do drivers need not to kill someone ?

Would the issue not be that the child was riding their own bike (according to the OP) and so

didn't even have the "protective factor" of the adult being fully in charge of the bike.


I really don understand why bikes don't come with lights built in and have reflective bodywork/tape as this would avoid most problems with visibility, after all, you wouldn't be sold a car on the promise that you'd get your own headlights, it just seems v backwards - especially now there are dynamo lights which wouldn't have battery issues.


Having grown up out if London, I'm aware that it doesn't get "properly dark" & so if driving or on foot I do often see cyclists despite their best efforts, but, as a former A&E nurse, I don't see the sense in taking the risk - there's surely a message in this ad for cyclists as well as other road users (looking like the Blackpool illuminations obv not obligatory!)


http://youtu.be/eOpoBFaDnzs

Think the reaction is a bit over the top - I would not personally ride a bike at night without lights ( too scared to ride a bike at all , though I did so in the distant past )However this was not a dark night in middle of the country, roads are reasonably well lit and you did see them as you sped past! In the UK motorist do not respect other road user and drive far too fast in town. Try to maintain 30mph or more with bikes around is madness.

"I don't fundamentally have a problem with people cycling at night. Even kids. There is street lighting and your headlamps. How much help do drivers need not to kill someone ?"


...but SJ in this case there were NO headlamps. It is irresponsible of the parent/adult not practising safe cycling esp where a child is involved, they don't make the choices. Please don't tell me everyone who is anti-car has never made use of it or do we all cycle to the airport to catch those completely unnecessary flights these days? I find your comments on this thread to be doing nothing other than stoking the fire of the cyclist v's drivers 'debate'.


I agree with everything cedges said and although the comments may come across as over the top, you can tell how strongly they feel about it after witnessing it. All road users should be concerned about safety of course. Cedges is a cyclist quite rightly commenting on the bad practice of another cyclist. Is that not allowed? If you are an adult and want to cycle without lights, go ahead. You are contributing towards giving other cyclists a bad name which really does nothing to help further the 'cause' of road safety for all.


east dulwich!

Sorry numbers but none of that made sense


No headlights? Who is cedges worrying about? Drivers who don't have headlights on? Headlights will be involved with any car surely?



"

Please don't tell me everyone who is anti-car has never made use of it or do we all cycle to the airport to catch those completely unnecessary flights "


I've read this several times. Don't know what it means

okay excuse my bad grammar.


headlights - I meant on the bike, not car.


is everyone so anti-car they never make use of them? ever? it benefits all road users to have lights at night, every safety measure we can possibly take will help, won't it?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Trossachs definitely have one! 
    • A A day-school for girls and a boarding school for boys (even with, by the late '90s, a tiny cadre of girls) are very different places.  Though there are some similarities. I think all schools, for instance, have similar "rules", much as they all nail up notices about "potential" and "achievement" and keeping to the left on the stairs. The private schools go a little further, banging on about "serving the public", as they have since they were set up (either to supply the colonies with District Commissioners, Brigadiers and Missionaries, or the provinces with railway engineers), so they've got the language and rituals down nicely. Which, i suppose, is what visitors and day-pupils expect, and are expected, to see. A boarding school, outside the cloistered hours of lesson-times, once the day-pupils and teaching staff have been sent packing, the gates and chapel safely locked and the brochures put away, becomes a much less ambassadorial place. That's largely because they're filled with several hundred bored, tired, self-supervised adolescents condemned to spend the night together in the flickering, dripping bowels of its ancient buildings, most of which were designed only to impress from the outside, the comfort of their occupants being secondary to the glory of whatever piratical benefactor had, in a last-ditch attempt to sway the judgement of their god, chucked a little of their ill-gotten at the alleged improvement of the better class of urchin. Those adolescents may, to the curious eyes of the outer world, seem privileged but, in that moment, they cannot access any outer world (at least pre-1996 or thereabouts). Their whole existence, for months at a time, takes place in uniformity behind those gates where money, should they have any to hand, cannot purchase better food or warmer clothing. In that peculiar world, there is no difference between the seventh son of a murderous sheikh, the darling child of a ball-bearing magnate, the umpteenth Viscount Smethwick, or the offspring of some hapless Foreign Office drone who's got themselves posted to Minsk. They are egalitarian, in that sense, but that's as far as it goes. In any place where rank and priviilege mean nothing, other measures will evolve, which is why even the best-intentioned of committees will, from time to time, spawn its cliques and launch heated disputes over archaic matters that, in any other context, would have long been forgotten. The same is true of the boarding school which, over the dismal centuries, has developed a certain culture all its own, with a language indended to pass all understanding and attitiudes and practices to match. This is unsurprising as every new intake will, being young and disoriented, eagerly mimic their seniors, and so also learn those words and attitudes and practices which, miserably or otherwise, will more accurately reflect the weight of history than the Guardian's style-guide and, to contemporary eyes and ears, seem outlandish, beastly and deplorably wicked. Which, of course, it all is. But however much we might regret it, and urge headteachers to get up on Sundays and preach about how we should all be tolerant, not kill anyone unnecessarily, and take pity on the oiks, it won't make the blindest bit of difference. William Golding may, according to psychologists, have overstated his case but I doubt that many 20th Century boarders would agree with them. Instead, they might look to Shakespeare, who cheerfully exploits differences of sex and race and belief and ability to arm his bullies, murderers, fraudsters and tyrants and remains celebrated to this day,  Admittedly, this is mostly opinion, borne only of my own regrettable experience and, because I had that experience and heard those words (though, being naive and small-townish, i didn't understand them till much later) and saw and suffered a heap of brutishness*, that might make my opinion both unfair and biased.  If so, then I can only say it's the least that those institutions deserve. Sure, the schools themselves don't willingly foster that culture, which is wholly contrary to everything in the brochures, but there's not much they can do about it without posting staff permanently in corridors and dormitories and washrooms, which would, I'd suggest, create a whole other set of problems, not least financial. So, like any other business, they take care of the money and keep aloof from the rest. That, to my mind, is the problem. They've turned something into a business that really shouldn't be a business. Education is one thing, raising a child is another, and limited-liability corporations, however charitable, tend not to make the best parents. And so, in retrospect, I'm inclined not to blame the students either (though, for years after, I eagerly read the my Old School magazine, my heart doing a little dance at every black-edged announcement of a yachting tragedy, avalanche or coup). They get chucked into this swamp where they have to learn to fend for themselves and so many, naturally, will behave like predators in an attempt to fit in. Not all, certainly. Some will keep their heads down and hope not to be noticed while others, if they have a particular talent, might find that it protects them. But that leaves more than enough to keep the toxic culture alive, and it is no surprise at all that when they emerge they appear damaged to the outside world. For that's exactly what they are. They might, and sometimes do, improve once returned to the normal stream of life if given time and support, and that's good. But the damage lasts, all the same, and isn't a reason to vote for them. * Not, if it helps to disappoint any lawyers, at Dulwich, though there's nothing in the allegations that I didn't instantly recognise, 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...