Safety Concern for a Child (on the back of a bike)

[rubyroo]

I quite regularly see a male cyclist going past Alleyn's school with a toddler seated on the back (in correct safety seat) but she has no helmet and the main concern is that Dad also has 2 dogs in tow who run along the road on their leads which Dad holds whilst attempting to steer. It looks like a disaster waiting to happen. Does anyone know them? One of the hounds is quite big and it surely wouldn't take much for it to either get spooked or see a cat/squirrel and pull the bike over. Thoughts?

[Pugwash]

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

[rubyroo]

To see them wobbling along Townley Road pretty regularly makes me feel uneasy. As a mother myself, I worry about what could happen in most eventualities where a child is concerned. Would it be rude to pull over and talk to the guy? I guess not. It is the most bizarre sight.

[oliviaandmilo]

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.

[Otta]

Yeah that is just stupid.

See also those bloody carriages people attach to the backs of their bikes and pull kids along in. Bloody dangerous!

[DulwichFox]

Well I recently saw some 'idiot' with a child at the rear of their bicycle

and a second seated on what appeared to be another seat on the cross-bar.

I simple could not believe it.

Bicycles are dangerous enough without endangering the lives of your kids.

DulwichFox

[Pugwash]

The cross bar and rear seats are common sight in Holland where I lived for a few months, with adults carrying 2 children

[DulwichFox]

Pugwash Wrote:

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

> The cross bar and rear seats are common sight in

> Holland where I lived for a few months, with

> adults carrying 2 children

Cycling in Holland is a lot safer with purpose built Cycle lanes and a history of using bicycles.

Cycling here in the UK is different with inexperienced riders buying bicycles with no road experience

perhaps not even having been a car driver with road awareness and knowledge of road signs.

DulwichFox

[wulfhound]

See also those bloody carriages people attach to the backs of their bikes and pull kids along in. Bloody dangerous!

Not at all a fan of those myself - Bakfiets cargo bikes are enormously better for all sorts of reasons - but if you think it's the bike that's dangerous, you *may* be looking in the wrong place. I'm not playing semantics - it's quite uncommon in my experience for inanimate tarmac to leap off the ground and smack you about the head.

Best contraption I've seen around here is a chap cycling up Camberwell Grove on a stretch tandem with THREE smallish children all in a long line pedaling away.

And biggest idiot? Another fellow cycling along the A202, no handed, juggling. At least the balls were glow-in-the-dark for visibility though :o)

[Curmudgeon]

I once passed a cyclist on Upland road who had his child sitting on his shoulders

[Earl Aelfheah]

Children transported by bike shocker.

[peleparso]

DulwichFox Wrote:

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

> Well I recently saw some 'idiot' with a child at

> the rear of their bicycle

> and a second seated on what appeared to be

> another seat on the cross-bar.

>

> I simple could not believe it.

>

> Bicycles are dangerous enough without endangering

> the lives of your kids.

>

> DulwichFox

1/10

[Jeremy]

Some friends of mine used to take their baby boy out in a carriage behind their tandem bike (I think they might still do it with their youngest). They're good people and of course I respect their right to do whatever they think best, but whenever I saw them on this contraption I was absolutely terrified.

It's all very well to say "the bikes aren't the problem, it's the cars/trucks/buses".. and you'd be right... but at the same time, when it comes to personal safety you just have to realise that the roads are FULL of bad, selfish, aggressive drivers.

[Otta]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> Children transported by bike shocker.

No one is saying children shouldn't be transported by bike.

[peleparso]

Otta Wrote:

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

> rahrahrah Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Children transported by bike shocker.

>

>

> No one is saying children shouldn't be transported

> by bike.

I think you'll find they are....

[Otta]

I think you'll find they're saying taking kids on bikes in certain ways on London roads is crazy.

That is not the same as saying that people shouldn't take kids on bikes.

[rubyroo]

Completely right Otta. Ludicrous for anyone to think that children shouldn't be ferried from A to B via bike. People can't help but jump in before fully comprehending some of the posts here I think.

[rubyroo]

-- moved topic --

[david_carnell]

Bunch of busybodies!

Should you "have a word with him"? No. Mind your own bloody business. He's not breaking any laws. I see a guy going up and down Crystal Palace Rd on a bike with his young son (aged 5 or 6) on a small bike in front of him. I think how wonderful that he's teaching his son road skills and drive appropriately in the circumstances.

This is why the new 20mph limit is such a good idea. It will make the roads safer for cyclists and encourage more children onto the roads.

We have an obesity epidemic in thsi country - we should encourage children on bikes at all times.

[Earl Aelfheah]

david_carnell Wrote:

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

> Bunch of busybodies!

>

> Should you "have a word with him"? No. Mind your

> own bloody business. He's not breaking any laws. I

> see a guy going up and down Crystal Palace Rd on a

> bike with his young son (aged 5 or 6) on a small

> bike in front of him. I think how wonderful that

> he's teaching his son road skills.

Totally agree.

[Earl Aelfheah]

If I intervened every time I saw someone doing something I personally considered unwise, I wouldn't get anything else done.

[Muley]

DulwichFox Wrote:

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

> Well I recently saw some 'idiot' with a child at

> the rear of their bicycle

> and a second seated on what appeared to be

> another seat on the cross-bar.

>

> I simple could not believe it.

>

> Bicycles are dangerous enough without endangering

> the lives of your kids.

>

> DulwichFox

Hmm, interesting view.

I used to regularly take my two kids on the bike that way, which they loved. The seat on the cross bar was a 'Weeride' (very comfortable and protective for the child), which makes the bike very stable as it centres the child's weight with that of the rider, counterbalancing the weight of the child at the back. This included going up and down Dog Kennel Hill on the nursery run.

I do not consider myself an idiot, nor would I do anything to endanger my kids. Even my wife, despite being terrified of cycling in London herself, felt confident that I could keep them safe.

You seem to have a very strong opinion there. What's your experience of cycling , Foxy?

[actuarygi]

From the OP: "I quite regularly see a male cyclist going past Alleyn's school with a toddler seated on the back (in correct safety seat) but she has no helmet and the main concern is that Dad also has 2 dogs in tow who run along the road on their leads which Dad holds whilst attempting to steer. It looks like a disaster waiting to happen......To see them wobbling along Townley Road pretty regularly makes me feel uneasy. "

Short of any statistics to show that riding with dogs has actually increased the chance of falling over when compared to riding alone, any judgement over the inevitability of disaster, which is what the OP asserted, can at best be a very subjective guess. The intuitive assumption that the dogs will pullthe bike over must be analysed further. The likelihood of that is conditioned very much on the combined weight of the bike and the two people, and also on the degree of anticipation of the rider. Would the OP have overlooked these factors in her estimate that the Dad wobbled along Townley road ?

The degree of danger exposed to the rider must also be considered in relation to the route. Townley road is not a highway as Pugwash put it. There are traffic in the morning, but it is not heavy and the cars are slow. I have actually observed that on average about 3 to 4 cars pass in 1 minute at a speed of around 10 miles per hour. An average rider would have completed that stretch of road in around 1.5 minutes. His average danger would be proportional to that of 5 cars going pass. This does not sounds excessive. One could make a reasonable comment that 1 car is enough to cause accident. This is tautological. An accident is indeed the occurrence of an unlikely event. 1 car is also enough to knock down a bike rider which is not carrying a child and 2 dogs running next to it.

So - this is my analysis, and I reach the logical conclusion that it is best to leave the judgement of safety to the dad.

[OutOfFocus]

actuarygi Wrote:

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

> Townley road is not a highway as Pugwash put it.

Can you explain that statement. A highway in my dictionary is " a public road on which all have the right to go"

I thought I had the right to go down Townley road, at least last time I was there I did. Are you suggesting that Townley road is excempt from the highway code?

[actuarygi]

Definition issue here. When I say highway, I mean a 3 lanes road with continuous stream of cars travelling in high speed.