Drivers be aware. (toddlers on bikes, Hindmans Road)

[ontheedge]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

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

> There are pros and cons to wearing helmets, and I

> don't want to dismiss EdKiwi's points too readily

>

> But the main con is, simply put, the difference

> between feeling alive and feeling over-protected.

> There is no way riding a bike with a helmet is

> anywhere near as exhilarating as without. And if

> stats proved absolutely the effectiveness of

> helmets I would still like to be able to choose to

> wear one or not

>

> One of the things I hated most on my 3 weeks in

> Australia was the compulsory helmet rule

>

> As for too young, I was riding bikes, without my

> parents constant supervision at that age(ish). And

> this is on the main road between Cork and

> Waterford. The woman in the original post sounds

> like she was doing ok to me. Those kids will grow

> up with good road sense

>

> Any driver observing the road can see ahead and

> react accordingly if children are cycling. If they

> are irresponsible drivers and liable to kill

> someone anyway through reckless driving, it's moot

> wether the victim was a young cyclist or an OAP

> crossing the road

the main cork waterford road as roads go in ireland is a pretty good one some of the off shoots were not so safe helmet are not

[PeterW]

I've recently had to drive through East Dulwich quite a lot and i have to say, there seem to be tons of cyclists (not toddlers admittedly) on the road, as far as i'm concerned they are a menace!! They ride along in the middle of the road and cause motorists to swerve quite far out to avoid them. Motorists get the blame for accidents involving bikes - unjustly in my opinion.

Dear, oh dear, DeptfordDiva. I'm really wary of getting into a cars vs bikes argument ? the arguments have been rehashed so many times ? but it's hard to let a comment like this pass. Let's just deal with the basics:

- "They ride along in the middle of the road and cause motorists to swerve quite far out to avoid them". Um, that's called overtaking. Yes, cyclists normally should, and do, try and give drivers enough room to get past, but there's plenty of reasons for a bike to be closer to the middle of a lane, for example keeping a car door's width from parked vehicles, in case a door opens. This is in no way wrong; in fact cycle safety trainers actively encourage cyclists not to hug the kerb too closely. Under the Highway Code, cyclists are entitled, if they want, to ride two abreast, although very few do this.

A car door suddenly opened can kill or seriously hurt a cyclist. These apparently selfish riders in the 'middle of the road' might just be trying to avoid this. What's your problem with it? Or is your journey time more important than their welfare?

? Drivers often perceive cyclists as a delay, since on a straight stretch of road they're likely to be going less than the 30mph limit. But I find that 90% of the cars who overtake me then get stuck at a set of lights 200m down the road, where I catch them up. Have some patience, DepotfordDiva. If you wait 30 seconds to find a safe place to overtake a bike it's probably not going to delay your journey in the end. And also, what is so important that you're in such a rush to get there? And also, many people on bikes would otherwise be in a car, which would delay you even more.

This is the crucial one:

- Cyclists are inherently more vulnerable than your car, and it is your duty, not only as a driver but as a human being, to be at least a bit careful. If you hit a bike, your tonne-and-a-half or so of steel cage will protect you, but the cyclist could get killed, or suffer a life-changing injury. As a cyclist, I'm not going to kill you, but you could very easily kill me. So be careful! It's not that hard to figure out.

Of course, cyclists have a responsibility to be safe. Some ride recklessly. But that is not a reason to gamble with the lives of every cyclist on the roads, just because you think your own day/schedule/whatever is so damned important.

It's worth noting that in quite a few European countries, this inherent imbalance between the vulnerability of cyclists and drivers means the law automatically assumes a car driver's legal culpability in any collision between a bike and a car, whatever the circumstances.

[louisiana]

PeterW Wrote:

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

> As a side note, in Copenhagen or the Hague,

> Morag's cycling family would be much less

> exceptional. You certainly wouldn't get passers-by

> yelling abuse.

Indeed, and in Munich also, where you'll see dozens of cyclists sailing through city centre junctions for every car. And in Shanghai too, where there may be clusters of twenty, fifty or more cyclists between cars, and family members are often carried on the rear of a bike.

In such places there's rarely any lycra on display and the old-fashioned sit-up-and-beg is the standard style of bike. Cycling is for everyone and everyone behaves accordingly.

[Asset]

Deptford Diva and other drivers moaning about cyclists. Get used to it. Cycling has increased massively over the last few years and is set to continue as more and more people realise it is faster, cheaper and better for you than other forms of transport.

And as I said earlier there is a link between the increase in cyclists and the decrease in accidents.

Article here

[Penguin68]

When I was young (a very long time ago, it seems, but actually only in the 1950s) the police stopped cyclists, including young people like me, if their bikes didn't have back and front lights - and that was during the day. They sometimes even stopped us to check that they worked. Schools used to train cyclists (cycling proficiency badge, as I recall)and cyclists generally obeyed the highway code, stopped at lights, signalled when turning and so on. A significant number of children used to cycle to school - nowadays I assume smoking amongst schoolchildren must have reduced as there are no cycle sheds behind which to smoke.

All of which is meant to suggest that the riding behaviour of cyclists - the fact that in suburban streets children ride haphazardly at dusk and later without lights etc. etc. has made the driver:cyclist relationship much more fraught. Of course drivers must take primary responsibility for cyclist safety - in the sense that they must drive carefully and thoughtfully amongst them - but equally safety is a two-way street - cyclists, and parents of young cyclists, who take, or allow others to take, stupid risks (cycling without lights in poor visibility, without signalling, without care or thought) cannot rely on drivers to make up for their stupidity.

I have (on two wheels in London) been hit by cars lurching out of side streets, been side swiped by lorries unaware that in turning the trailer element of an artic can swing out into traffic, so I am aware of the other side of the coin, but the coin does have two sides.

[Keef]

Only just looked at this thread, and haven't ploughed through all of it, so sorry if I'm duplicating anything.

I always shudder when I see those plastic kids cars that attach to the back of bikes, being used on the road. I just worry that even if a cyclist is aware of their own speed and length, the trailer adds an extra couple of foot, and if someone pulled out of a junction, the little plastic car wouldn't stand much chance.

Sean, you may be right about it being cars that are actually causing the danger, but surely the cyclists still need to think about it. It's not my fault that walking close to a cliff edge is dangerous, but I'm still going to give it plenty of thought!

Legal or not, is not really the issue here. It's bloody safety, and I'm sorry, but surely even the most commited cyclist must see that having an under 4 on a bike in the road, is absolutely irresponsible! Yes it might be the fault of a driver who mows them down, but I don't think that would give you too much comfort when your kids is dead.

[SeanMacGabhann]

All fairly spot on Keef, but given that the OP's point is to berate the cyclist rather than the driver, how is that right?

As many people have pointed out, in many other countries the balance would be the other way around and yes this is a different country, but what kind of country do people want it to be?

a) one where it IS safe to ride on a bike, kids or no

b) one where manic drivers are likely to mow people down so probably best not eh?

I would argue passionately for a) - so siding with the OP would be defeatist. Unlike walking at the side of a cliff, sharing the roads is a collective agreement amongst all road users - the pressure should be on dangerous users of those roads (be they drivers, lorries, buses, cyclists) and not on people who are doing something perfectly feasible

Now if any parent thinks the risk is too great to take their kids out on a bike then that seems fair enough to me - but if other parents choose otherwise I don't see why they should be chastised.

[lenk]

The main difference is if you are in a car you are using a deadly weapon. Cars kill other people. Bikes do not kill other people.

Any legislation should be weighted in favour of the cyclist.

Cyclists - if someone cuts you up, punching their side window fairly hard usually wakes them up. It might mean you get chased about a mile through Southwark by an irate Australian as happened to me once, but it was quite fun in retrospect.

[Keef]

but given that the OP's point is to berate the cyclist rather than the driver

As I said, I've not read the whole thread, but where does the OP (in the OP) mention a driver?

I totally agree with you Sean that "a)" would be a preferable option, but even if all the laws were on the side of a cyclist, and all drivers were much more considerate, and careful, I still wouldn't risk it.

You're right, that it is individual parent's right to chose, but the picture painted in the OP is just too much. How does the adult keep their eyes on both kiddy bikes, whilst concentrating themself. It just seems a bit too risky for my liking, and I do think it's irresponsible.

I don't think this thread should be a typical cyclist Vs motorist row, as it quickly became, I think it is just a debate as to the safety of cycling in the road with 2 under 5s in tow.

[lozzyloz]

Cyclists - if someone cuts you up, punching their side window fairly hard usually wakes them up.

Lenk, if you're serious, I don't think that promotes the case for cyclists. Inciting a chase from a car (Oz driver or not) is surely just encouraging an accident which could involve other innocent parties let alone yourself. If I get cut up, 9 times out of 10 I'll catch up to the offender in traffic and simply ask them to explain their actions. They might not admit to being in the wrong but they will think twice next time they see a cyclist.

[louisiana]

lenk Wrote:

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

> The main difference is if you are in a car you are

> using a deadly weapon. Cars kill other people.

> Bikes do not kill other people.

>

> Any legislation should be weighted in favour of

> the cyclist.

>

> Cyclists - if someone cuts you up, punching their

> side window fairly hard usually wakes them up. It

> might mean you get chased about a mile through

> Southwark by an irate Australian as happened to me

> once, but it was quite fun in retrospect.

My tactic is if they have almost killed me (yes, most cyclists have had near-death experiences, and some have had many) and their wing mirror is in my face it gets broken off. This might mean you get chased by some crazed motorist through the Vauxhall one way system, as has happened to me, but in retrospect... If someone tries to kill me there is a price (albeit a small one in the case of a mirror). And if you want to argue with that, I'd raise the issue of how your wing mirror has a lower value than my and many others lives. Of course, this assumes you have mirrors at all (see below)

I note with interest that motorised vehicle drivers who have killed cyclists (and there have been a fair few in London so far this year) are increasingly being arrested for 'dangerous driving' rather than 'careless driving'. The difference between the two is prison. I welcome this trend.

And I understand that Stephen Ferguson's killer (Dog Kennel Hill) was driving a vehicle with broken mirror(s) (broken in a crash the week before, according to the press reports).

[Keef]

You talk like all cyclists are in accidents because people set out to run them off the road and kill them. What about those people who just don't see a cyclist weaving in and out of traffic, and can't brake in time?

It's attitudes like the ones just shared by lenk and louisiana (and normally 2 such pleasant posters) that cause such rows. I hope you get spotted breaking someone's property, and nicked for it one day, that will serve you right frankly.

[Jeremy]

I think any parent who would let a 5 year old kid cycle on the road must be mad.

Wait until they're a bit older, have received some formal training, know the rules of the road, and are sufficiently responsible and aware.

Someone said it's illegal for them to cycle on the pavement - technically that's true, but the police will turn a blind eye.

[Jeremy]

Keef Wrote:

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

> lenk and louisiana (and normally 2 such pleasant posters)

I know who lenk and louisiana are, but who are these "pleasant posters" you're talking about?!!

I should probably add that that was a joke.

[lenk]

It's in extreme cases that I do that - and it's always when the driver has been in the wrong and just hasn't bothered looking.

One woman followed me for ages, leaning out of her window shouting how she was 'phoning her boys' and getting them to come and find me.

I nipped up an alleyway and never saw her again.

I've never smashed a car up / damaged property or anything - just letting them know I'm there more than anything.

I cycle extremely defensively - basically presuming every driver is brain dead saves you from a lot of scrapes. In London they usually are.

[jollybaby]

Yes in an ideal world there wouldn't be any cars on the road and we'd all be cycling everywhere- but this isn't an ideal world but a busy city suburb. The backstreets of East Dulwich are full of parked cars and vans- many obscuring junctions and so potentially dangerous for both cyclist and motorist.

As keef said - this isn't a cyclist vs motorist debate this is about making an assessment of risk. I wouldn't be willing to subject my children to that risk - nor would my partner who is a cycling fanatic

Sorry cross posted with Jeremy/Keef etc

[louisiana]

Keef Wrote:

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

> You talk like all cyclists are in accidents

> because people set out to run them off the road

> and kill them. What about those people who just

> don't see a cyclist weaving in and out of traffic,

> and can't brake in time?

I've never weaved, I must say. I follow the cycling road position recommendations from cycling standards, and weaving isn't part of them, in any way. But I have had my bike dragged under a large vehicle turning left into a petrol station

(the bike totally died; luckily I didn't; the driver got away with it as he was US army so not subject to UK laws) and I have been in seven A&E departments across London over the decades owing to various loony motorists (e.g. being hit up the backside while stationery, by a taxi driver on Park Lane, while all traffic ahead of him was stationery).

>

> It's attitudes like the ones just shared by lenk

> and louisiana (and normally 2 such pleasant

> posters) that cause such rows. I hope you get

> spotted breaking someone's property, and nicked

> for it one day, that will serve you right frankly.

If someone breaks my hand and sends me to St Mary's A&E in total agony (for various hours of x-rays etc and consequent loss of work etc.), then I reserve the right to break the wing mirror which broke my hand. As my encounter at the petrol station (described above) served to show, motorists will often argue they are above the law (in that case, 'UK law doesn't apply to us'). So Until the law supports me (which it is increasingly inclined to do), I reserve the right to teach people who try to kill me a lesson.

[lozzyloz]

So Until the law supports me (which it is increasingly inclined to do), I reserve the right to teach people who try to kill me a lesson.

Isn't that a bit of a contradiction? You want the law to protect you but you're not prepared to uphold it yourself? Isn't there a difference between intent and negligence or carelessness?

TBH If I'd encountered as many near death experiences as you (touch wood I haven't yet) I'd give up and get myself an Oyster card.

[louisiana]

Keef Wrote:

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

> You talk like all cyclists are in accidents

> because people set out to run them off the road

> and kill them. What about those people who just

> don't see a cyclist weaving in and out of traffic,

> and can't brake in time?

Keef, I don't know how much time you've spend on a bike, if any, but when you see a white van man accelerating from zero to sixty coming off a roundabout towards the back end of your other half on a dual carriageway - and white van man is doing his paperwork/yakking on his phone etc etc, and there's two inches to spare between life and death, and you think he's a gonner... (your other half, that is) and there's no other traffic in sight....

It's not about cyclists weaving. It's about drivers paying attention. About drivers doing what the law requires them to do. When you read proceedings following yet another cyclist death that say the driver says he was doing his paperwork when he was moving and turning (and then he killed the cyclist), it's enough to make you weep. There are too many cyclists who are incredibly experienced and behaving very sensibly getting killed. I see people using their mobiles in their cars every day, all the time. This is illegal. The consequence is they are not paying attention, and they are liable to kill someone, or severely injure. However, these offences are so common that the police could never cope, hence nothing happens until the next person gets killed/maimed. The car, the cab, whatever, is not the place to multitask.

[SeanMacGabhann]

ok keef, no specific driver was mentioned but as that is deemed to be the risk (ie noone is talking about the dangers of people just falling off their bikes) my point remain the same

Why are you being so antsy lately anyway?

[Ted Max]

Lack of sleep. Either that, or lack of sleep.

[Penguin68]

It's not about cyclists weaving. It's about drivers paying attention

Surely it's about both?

but when you see a white van man accelerating from zero to sixty coming off a roundabout towards the back end of your other half on a dual carriageway - and white van man is doing his paperwork/yakking on his phone etc etc, and there's two inches to spare between life and death

This thread started with a discussion about what seems fairly stupid behaviour of an adult cyclist with children in a suburban back street - I recognise it has been nicely turned to address entirely different sets of circumstances, but attempts to say that because, in one set of circumstances, the driver is to blame and the cyclist is innocent does not then mean that that is necessarily true in all cases.

And someone else wrote The main difference is if you are in a car you are using a deadly weapon. Cars kill other people. Bikes do not kill other people. This is not strictly true; there is at least one incident of a cyclist hitting an elderly pedestrian who later died, and I have certainly seen nasty bruising caused by careless cyling - although, of course damage caused by cyclists is infinitesimal compared with damage (and very grave and terminal damage) done to cyclists. I have also seen cyclists running into pedestrians who have stupidly stepped off the pavement without seeing them - often both parties are injured, but, following some of the arguments here, one would have to assume (I don't) that the cyclist, being faster moving and on a vehicle, must be to blame.

[SeanMacGabhann]

That sounds overly emotive and judgemental - given the arguments about how that's perfectly normal behaviour in other countris and surely should be here (I mean I'm not wrong am I? Are people saying they don't want that to be possible?) why is the adult cyclist stupid??

It is also bizaare in the extreme to say cars are not more dangerous than bicycles just because you can recall an incident where someone was killed. It's pointing out the bleeding obvious to say cars are more dangerous than cars surely? Or do we have to debate something as painfully simple as that?

[thexwinglessxbird]

OHMYGOD!!! Morag, It's so weird that you should bring this up! I was going to make a thread about this two weeks ago, it left me quite shook up & pissed off... I was on Northcross Rd, just about to cross that stupid area where Cristal Palace cuts through (there's a pub & a telephone box) had a crappy day & this woman on a bike & a little kid balancing infront came out from no where! She screamed at me, something like "look where you're going, stupid girl!" I was STUNNED. SHE is riding at full force with a kid (not even 5 years old) on the bike in the road & she's telling me to mind where I'm going?? It it even right that she should be riding this way?? The snooty cow!... I live on Hindmans Rd & I'm quite sure this is the same woman. STUPID COW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[darlin']

Lenk said:

Cyclists - if someone cuts you up, punching their side window fairly hard usually wakes them up. It might mean you get chased about a mile through Southwark by an irate Australian as happened to me once, but it was quite fun in retrospect.

Just wanted to share that a friend of mine got cut uo by a white van man so she swore at him (not even window punching or wing-mirror breaking!) and he chased her for a long time until eventually, up a side street, he deliberately knocked her off her bike and left her in the gutter. She suffered a serious leg injury as a result. The police didn't even follow it up.

Really don't advise you do it!