Bicyclist vs. 3 year old.

[John]

The situation here was simple. The three year old should have been safe on the pavement but the cyclist was there.

The fundamental here: cyclists are not allowed on the pavement.

I presume this wasn't aimed at me as both are irrelevant to the point I made.

I don't think there's a problem as long as your three year old isn't going to run on to the road. This one wasn't.

How do you know though... Do you wait until your 3 year old runs out in to the road?

 

[brucemillar]

There was another recent case (not as well publicised) where a young lady was knocked down and very badly injured by a cyclist riding on the pavement in West London. Despite her husband giving chase and clear CCTV being available the police refused to pursue (excuse the pun) the matter. That was until the lady took to social media. The cyclist was reported to have stopped, laughed the remounted and rode off. She was left with broken bones and facial scarring.

 

[brucemillar]

Woman scarred for life after cyclist knocked her over, then 'grinned before speeding off' - London - News - London Evening Standard

 

[Dryce]

How do you know though... Do you wait until your 3 year old runs out in to the road?

There's lots of stuff you don't know.

But the kid didn't run out to the road - it ran out to the pavement - where it's parent was located.

Turned out the pavement had an *unexpected* danger. So by that logic do you always assume that there are always unexpected dangers everywhere? OMG!

Lock the kid in a steel armoured box with breathing holes and a feeding hatch - and place an armed guard round it?

 

[John]

But the kid didn't run out to the road - it ran out to the pavement - where it's parent was located.

Turned out the pavement had an *unexpected* danger. So by that logic do you always assume that there are always unexpected dangers everywhere? OMG!

Lock the kid in a steel armoured box with breathing holes and a feeding hatch - and place an armed guard round it?

Your missing my point still - you mention the unexpected danger referring to the cyclist - but it is a given he should not have been cycling on the pavement.

My point is, do you let a 3 year old run around near a road without supervision?

If she had run out in to the road, which is my only concern here (as the cyclist should not have been there), and it was game over - would that have been an acceptable outcome?

I don't recall learning about road safety until well in to primary school...

Did the McCann's think - "well, she is locked in a box, she'll be fine"?

 

[renault12ts]

Your missing my point still - you mention the unexpected danger referring to the cyclist - but it is a given he should not have been cycling on the pavement.

My point is, do you let a 3 year old run around near a road without supervision?

If she had run out in to the road, which is my only concern here (as the cyclist should not have been there), and it was game over - would that have been an acceptable outcome?

I don't recall learning about road safety until well in to primary school...

Did the McCann's think - "well, she is locked in a box, she'll be fine"?

In this case the child was not running around the footpath.

Mum was opening the car, followed by the three year old heading to mum and then dad was bringing up the rear with toddler in baby seat.

I'd say she was perfectly well suprvised.

 

[cb1965]

Laughable thread this. Forget about the kid's intentions. The cyclist was cycling on the footpath. It's illegal to do so. Anyone who does so is breaking the law (and being an inconsiderate ****). End of!

 

[Deleted member 6183]

Laughable thread this. Forget about the kid's intentions. The cyclist was cycling on the footpath. It's illegal to do so. Anyone who does so is breaking the law (and being an inconsiderate ****). End of!

Can't disagree with this, except for the 'end of' comment.

However, what about Pontoneer's special Scottish pavements? In or out of scope?

 

[cb1965]

Can't disagree with this, except for the 'end of' comment.

However, what about Pontoneer's special Scottish pavements? In or out of scope?

Well without wishing to be accused of picking a fight (as it seems I usually am) I think the answer is in my post, it's illegal. If you don't feel safe on the road and need to take the footpaths then dismount. I do cycle myself and this is what I do although I have only just recently taken up the bike again so maybe it's because I feel like a relative novice and am trying hard to not be that annoying self righteous type of cyclist that seems to be a feature of our roads these days

 

[Dryce]

My point is, do you let a 3 year old run around near a road without supervision?

Define supervision?

Within the range of the house to the car by the pavement seems reasonable to me when the parents were on the pavement.

OTOH when people argue this stuff in the West they seem to want absolute hindsight failsafes - to an extent which may well be unreasonable or plain stupid.

The McCanns have been mentioned - but that also appears to be an extraordinary circumstance.

On the whole we live in a world where human children are not predated in that or any other way. Disease and starvation in the west are not an issue. So the predominant risks are accidents. And we live in a world where we will always find new types of accident or risk that seems to be notable - because the statistics are such that any child being lost to almost any circumstance becomes a publicised risk.

I'd hate to be a parent today. I think I'd hate to be a child today too.

 

[brucemillar]

Even on the road cyclists can be a hazard, creeping up behind you before announcing their presence with a cough. Where I live it is all single track with no pavements. My dog walks are frequently interrupted by heart stopping moments (as above). It seems to be un-cool to have a bell these days. It's also un-cool to cack your pants when a whispering treader creeps up on you.

 

[Deleted member 6183]

Even on the road cyclists can be a hazard, creeping up behind you before announcing their presence with a cough. Where I live it is all single track with no pavements. My dog walks are frequently interrupted by heart stopping moments (as above). It seems to be un-cool to have a bell these days. It's also un-cool to cack your pants when a whispering treader creeps up on you.

Would be very cool to have a train horn though.

 

[cb1965]

Even on the road cyclists can be a hazard, creeping up behind you before announcing their presence with a cough. Where I live it is all single track with no pavements. My dog walks are frequently interrupted by heart stopping moments (as above). It seems to be un-cool to have a bell these days. It's also un-cool to cack your pants when a whispering treader creeps up on you.

I have a bell..... uncool is cool?

 

[pipmk]

Thank you for your comment , however I am quite capable of cycling safely and competently without endangering anyone ; in the event that there are any pedestrians around I either slow down , give them a wide berth or , indeed , stop , as required .

I regard my own safety as somewhat more important than a fine and am quite capable of deciding where it is or is not safe to cycle .

But not capable of deciding to obey the law.

 

[pipmk]

There's lots of stuff you don't know.

But the kid didn't run out to the road - it ran out to the pavement - where it's parent was located.

Turned out the pavement had an *unexpected* danger. So by that logic do you always assume that there are always unexpected dangers everywhere? OMG!

Lock the kid in a steel armoured box with breathing holes and a feeding hatch - and place an armed guard round it?

For their safe and full development children should not be wrapped in cotton wool,learning to manage risk is a skill best started on early but obviously with low danger risk first. I deplore the trend to ban most activities in case someone gets hurt,cuts and bruises are how we learn as children.

However everyone should be safe on the pavement from the threat of cyclists. If the cyclist decides the road is too dangerous then he dismounts and pushes his bike in the gutter from the pavement. That is the law, the norm and the civilised way of behaving. The penalty for being a small child and not a sensible adult is not death or maiming,adults have a duty of care if they regard themselves as civilised.

Whatever happened to the mantra that was drilled into my generation " In public don't disturb or upset other people by your conduct"? We didn't always behave that well but at least we knew we were breaking the rules.

 

[Dryce]

But not capable of deciding to obey the law.

Clearly hanging's too good ......

I think a reality check is on order.

Cycling on pavements isn't allowed. And yet it is sort of - plenty do it. I think the majority of cyclists are OK but there's noticeable minority who are complete ****ers.

I'm not averse to somebody with some common sense riding on the pavement.

My feeling is that cycling should be more regulated. It's ridiculous that somebody is allowed to mix it on the road with no training. Cyclists should be required to have some sort of licence that indicates that they have passed a basic test and are aware of the highway code / law - and should be required to provide ID and have some sort of certificate of insurance - and should be subject to traffic laws and face the same consequences as motorists for transgressions.

 

[Bellow]

It was better when only kids cycled. Now adults do, it's a nightmare.

 

[camerafodder]

These laws should be enforced with the full penalty payable by transgressors. In the short term this could be a nice little earner in our cities.
https://www.gov.uk/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82/overview-59-to-71

 

[pipmk]

Clearly hanging's too good ......

I think a reality check is on order.

Cycling on pavements isn't allowed. And yet it is sort of - plenty do it. I think the majority of cyclists are OK but there's noticeable minority who are complete ****ers.

I'm not averse to somebody with some common sense riding on the pavement.

My feeling is that cycling should be more regulated. It's ridiculous that somebody is allowed to mix it on the road with no training. Cyclists should be required to have some sort of licence that indicates that they have passed a basic test and are aware of the highway code / law - and should be required to provide ID and have some sort of certificate of insurance - and should be subject to traffic laws and face the same consequences as motorists for transgressions.

That is an odd definition,because a number of people break the law,it sort of is allowed. Try that defence next time you are done for speeding. Not really going to fly is it?

So because motorists cannot be trusted to have regard to the vulnerability of cyclists a whole new raft of laws, expense, and training are required for the cyclists. Talk about blaming the victim. They are as you well know subject to exactly the same traffic laws as a motorist and face the same penalties except for the licence situation. Where do you think cyclists come from, the planet Zog? The vast majority are also car drivers.

It is all part of the envy culture so common today, a cyclist gets there faster than a motorist in a crowded road and the driver can't stand it. By all means encourage cyclists to take a basic proficiency test but no test will help them when a selfish or unobservant motorist plows them down.

 

[John]

Define supervision?

Within the range of the house to the car by the pavement seems reasonable to me when the parents were on the pavement.

OTOH when people argue this stuff in the West they seem to want absolute hindsight failsafes - to an extent which may well be unreasonable or plain stupid.

The McCanns have been mentioned - but that also appears to be an extraordinary circumstance.

On the whole we live in a world where human children are not predated in that or any other way. Disease and starvation in the west are not an issue. So the predominant risks are accidents. And we live in a world where we will always find new types of accident or risk that seems to be notable - because the statistics are such that any child being lost to almost any circumstance becomes a publicised risk.

I'd hate to be a parent today. I think I'd hate to be a child today too.

Well, if you watch the clip, the mother is not watching at all until the child is tangled up in the bike. I guess the father is dealing with the other child.

To me, it looks like the took the mum to turn around, the child was already halfway over the pavement, had there not been a bike on the pavement - if that child had spotted something across the road and went for it - she may well have been taken out by the Pug.

Should the mum not have been holding her hand to ensure this didn't happen?

The way I look at it - you only get one go at this game - is it not worth a moments thought and time?

I am surprised it seems to only be me that thinks this way - perhaps I am too careful but alarm bells are ringing in my ear with that eventuality from the clip...

I guess everyone else would happily let a 3 year old do that.