Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Guys, grow up and look after your own actions rather than pretend concern for someone that you think is behaviung irresponsibly. I must side with Cyclist. Cyclist is not disobeying any road rules to my knowledge, and has confidence in his/her abilities. This opposition is the definition of nanny stateism.


Let's all pass judgment on someone else's actions becuase we, the learned majority, is all knowing and righteous. Let's teach our children that risk is unacceptable and life must be lived inside a white fluffy cushion. Would the developed world be in its current state if our forefathers had thought like this? Did your parents behave so "righteously"?


Let's let others live.

Cyclist,


I do agree with you about the dog thing. Like I said in my earlier post, I wouldn't even consider it with mine, but you know your own dogs better than anyone.


Wearing a helmet? I would advise this. Even if it's not for you, I would put one on the children. And it's not harming them to wear one, is it?


And it's all about confidence and how you feel when cycling. I have every confidence in myself, but unfortunately don't particularly trust all car drivers.

Note I said ALL. The majority are fine and care about how they treat cyclists.


But it only takes one idiot to cause an accident. So be aware that being so careful yourself doesn't guarantee safety for you, your children and your dogs.


Good luck x

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.

I completely agree that Cyclist is the person who is best placed and ultimately responsible for the decisions he makes, and also that it is very easy for well-meaning (or not so well-meaning) onlookers to get in a twist about perceived risk on a very slight basis. The question asked at the very beginning was "do I intervene?" and the very clear answer is "no" - this is so far removed from neglect/abuse type behaviour that tbh it should be obvious.


All that having been said, as a cyclist who is in the process of introducing my own kids to cycling safely and confidently on the road, if you were a friend of mine, I'd say get the little one a helmet. I understand all the arguments, I'm familiar with the data, and I also know how it feels like you're caving in to the H&S fascists etc. I agree that statistically it's unlikely to offer a lot of protection in the most typical serious incidents, but it's not going to do any harm, and it might help if you both take a spill. But it is completely your call.

It's the helmet thing that gets me. A dog lead you could just let go of if necessary.

From personal experience I know a helmet can save you. I cycle a lot (daily). A few months ago some idiot came out of a junction without looking and knocked me off (at speed). I consider myself reasonably skilful on a bike but there was no way of avoiding this.


I landed on my head (primarily) and it messed up various parts of my body. The impact put a large crack and indentation in my helmet, which surely would have been a large crack or indentation in my skull had I not been wearing it.


Yes, if I had then been run over by an HGV it would not have helped. Yes, if it was a minor bump I wouldn't have needed it. But that wasn't the case - it was a very heavy knock on my helmet which would have seriously injured me or worse.


In my view, nobody - no matter how arrogant or stubborn - can ever sensibly argue a helmet 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.


Personally I feel I'm entitled to take a gamble with my own safety, but not so much with that of my children.


But then each to their own, I suppose.


Surely its just a matter of weighing up the pros and cons. The pros are it could save life or serious injury. The cons? It costs a few quid. Apart from that, is there another downside I am missing? Is that really the objection - a few quid?

As DaveR said, Cyclist should certainly consider the kid wearing a helmet no two ways about it but it's ultimately his choice. Let's hope he'll never have to regret his decision. By the way Cyclist, I know some have come on too dictatorial but it's nice that people actually care about the safety of kids in their community don't you think? :-)

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.

Wow.


I was going to put something subtle but you have said it all. Wow again.


OK my subtle comment was about me cycling with successive children on the back, neither of us with helmets. We just didnt in those not so far off days. We all survived. Now if this was now some of you would be posting about me cycling with a kid on the back with no helmet, calling childline, and writing to the Prime Minister.


Mr/Ms cyclists I will be quoting your much more articulate views. Thanks. I think this thread is now dead. I'll talk about me dangling my baby out of a balcony another time, and allowing my toddler to pet a crocodile on another thread.

Cyclist Wrote:

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

> 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.


Thanks heavens you might now consider putting a helmet on your child's head. At least some good has come out of all of this.

Cyclist Wrote:

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

> 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.



ps. I love the fact that your initial reply was a bare "Whatever" which you then edited to this reply. If only Chuka could have done the same with his "trash" comment.

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.

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.

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.

>

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

    • Doesn’t seem that simple   according to fullfact that’s a net figure   ” The £21.9 billion was a net figure. Gross additional pressures totalling £35.3 billion were identified by the Treasury, and approximately £13.4 billion of these pressures were then offset by a combination of reserve funds and other allowances. The additional pressures identified were as follows: 2024-25 public sector pay awards (£9.4bn) ”   I don’t think Labour have set expectation that changing government cures all the ills. In fact some people on here criticise them for saying exactly opposite “vote for us we’re not them but nothing will change because global issues”   I think they are too cautious across many areas. They could have been more explicit before election but such is the countries media and electorate that if they were we would now be stuck with sunak/badenoch/someone else with the 14 years of baggage of their government and infighting  the broad strokes of this government are essentially along right lines  also loving ckarkson today “ Clarkson: Your claim that I bought a farm to avoid taxes is false and irresponsible.  BBC: It’s your own claim.  Clarkson: What’s that got to do with anything?” and by loving I mean “loathing as much as I ever have”    
    • BBC and the IFS https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2e12j4gz0o From BBC Verify:   Paul Johnson, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies think tank said Reeves "may be overegging the £22bn black hole". What about the rest of the £22bn? The government published a breakdown, external of how it had got from the Treasury's £9.5bn shortfall in February to the £22bn "black hole". It said that there was another £7bn between February and the actual Budget in March, as departments found out about new spending pressures and the government spent more on the NHS and the Household Support Fund There was a final £5.6bn between then and late July, which includes almost a month when Labour was in power. That was largely caused by increases in public sector pay. It was the Labour government that accepted the recommendations of the Pay Review Bodies (PRBs), but they said that the previous government should have budgeted for more than a 2% increase in public sector pay. Prof Stephen Millard from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research think tank told BBC Verify: "The 'political' question is whether you would count this as part of the fiscal black hole or not. If you do, then you get to the £22bn figure; if not, then you’re left with around £12.5bn to £13.5bn." It isn't this at all. When you run on an agenda of change and cleaning up politics and you put all of the eggs of despair in a basket at the door of the previous government you better hope you have a long honeymoon period to give you time to deliver the change you have promised. Look at the NHS, before the election it was all...it's broken because of 14 years of Tory incompetence and the implication was that Labour could fix is quickly. Then Wes Streeting (who is one of the smarter political cabinet members and is clearly able to play the long game) started talking about the need to change the NHS before the election - he talked about privatising parts of it (much to the annoyance of the left). He was being pragmatic because the only magic wand that is going to fix the NHS is massive reform - it's broken and has been for decades and throwing money at it has just papered over the cracks. Now Labour talk about the NHS needing 10 years of healing for there to be real difference and people are saying....what..... Words in opposition are easy; actions in government are a lot harder and I fear that given the structural issues caused by Covid, the energy crisis, the war in Ukraine (and now maybe a massive US/China trade war if Trump isn't bluffing) that we are heading to constant one-term governments. I don't think there was a government (and correct me if I am wrong) that survived Covid and in a lot of countries since Covid they have had regular government change (I think what is playing out in the US with them voting Trump in is reflective of the challenges all countries face). Labour massively over-egged the 14 years of hurt (who could blame them) but it is going to make things a lot tougher for them as they have set the expectation that changing government cures all the ills and as we have seen in the first 90 days of their tenure that is very much not the case. Completely agree but the big risk if Farage. If Labour don't deliver what they promised or hit "working people" then the populists win - it's happening everywhere. Dangerous, dangerous times ahead and Labour have to get it right - for all our sakes - no matter what party we support. P.S. Lammy is also one of the better Labour front-bench folks - he just is suffering from Labour's inability to think far enough ahead to realise that some posts might come back to haunt you...but in his defence did anyone really think Americans would be daft enough to vote him in again....;-)
    • My cat has been missing since Sunday evening 17th November he is British short hair male cat colour black with grey stripes. medium to large in size. He is easily identified by a large tooth missing on the top left of his mouth.  He lives in Upland Road just near the roundabout at Underhill Road. His name is Jack but he  only answers to Puss Puss please call me on 0208 299 2275 if you see him.   thank you Linda  
    • I think this could go on endlessly, so I suggest we finish it here!  But why don't you  track down the makers of the sign? Which hopefully has amused a lot of people, as well as brightening my bus journey. Tell  them that their directions to Dulwich are not only wrong, but they do not seem to know where the "real" Dulwich is 🤣 I'm sure they will be delighted 🤣  
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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