Bicyclist vs. 3 year old.

[Bellow]

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.

Well, given the possibility (however remote) of the (or any) child making it the road - let that be a reminder of the importance of observing the posted speed limit when driving.

 

[camerafodder]

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.

You are joking here surely?

 

[219]

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!

It isn't all black and white .

Yes , it has been deemed unlawful to cycle on pavements . However , present day traffic can make it unsafe to cycle on the roads too ; there is a strong argument for cyclists taking to the pavements for their own safety , especially when many pavements are sanctioned as 'shared use' for cyclists and pedestrians alike .

I do think that the person who struck the little girl was cycling inappropriately fast for the circumstances and that this was the problem : had he been cycling at a more appropriate speed and been able to avoid the little girl then there would have been no problem .

Those who cry ' cyclists should not be on the pavement ' forget that the law very often is an ass as well as a blunt instrument .

I openly admit to , at times , cycling on the pavements - but when I do , I am always lookng out for pedestrians and ready to react accordingly - I will take full responsibility for that rather than be the victim of some errant motorist/truck/bus or bin lorry driver .

 

[geraldrobins]

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.

You have a good point. But you can't generalise all 3 years olds and how they behave.
Even adults sometimes walk into the road sometimes.

 

[219]

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.

No , not everyone else . My son is seven , just a week ago , but I still hold him by the hand anywhere near a road .

As for cycling , if on two wheels I am ALWAYS looking out for children , old people , anyone really .

What sometimes takes me aback is that on some of our rural cycleways , disused railway tracks paved over , which are clearly marked as shared use for walkers and also for families on bikes , we are still afflicted by militant , Lycra clad people on bikes trying to set some kind of land speed record and without any regard for others .

There is nothing wrong with cycling on pavements as long as you do so responsibly and look out for others . End of - as someone said earlier .

 

[Deleted member 37751]

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

Bullseye!

Youngsters mooching about on a bike with no particular place to go; easy to spot and avoid.

Middle-aged-born-again-Tour-de-France-competitor going full tilt; a nightmare for both pedestrians and motorists alike.

 

[Charles Morgan]

Middle-aged-born-again-Tour-de-France-competitor going full tilt; a nightmare for both pedestrians and motorists alike.

Lycra is also a bugger to clean off the bumpers, sticks everywhere.

 

[219]

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.

A great deal of expense is already expended in an effort to make life safer for cyclists : cycle lanes aren't cheap , but many still ignore them and defiantly cycle on the roads where an alternative is available .

 

[cb1965]

It isn't all black and white .

Yes , it has been deemed unlawful to cycle on pavements . However , present day traffic can make it unsafe to cycle on the roads too ; there is a strong argument for cyclists taking to the pavements for their own safety , especially when many pavements are sanctioned as 'shared use' for cyclists and pedestrians alike .

I do think that the person who struck the little girl was cycling inappropriately fast for the circumstances and that this was the problem : had he been cycling at a more appropriate speed and been able to avoid the little girl then there would have been no problem .

Those who cry ' cyclists should not be on the pavement ' forget that the law very often is an ass as well as a blunt instrument .

I openly admit to , at times , cycling on the pavements - but when I do , I am always lookng out for pedestrians and ready to react accordingly - I will take full responsibility for that rather than be the victim of some errant motorist/truck/bus or bin lorry driver .

Jeez Dismount and walk! It really is that simple!

PS the irony of your selective application of the law is amusing!

 

[219]

If you want to dismount and push your bike for a couple of miles , or further , go ahead . I'll cycle cautiously and responsibly on the pavement and see you in an hour or so .

 

[John]

You have a good point. But you can't generalise all 3 years olds and how they behave.
Even adults sometimes walk into the road sometimes.

Are any 3 year olds old enough to know and not be swayed by what they see?

Is it not better to assume the worst-case scenario to avoid it happening?

All we are talking about here is a child near the road - that's the only risk there should be although watching out for cyclists not paying attention - would seem to be prudent.

 

[Dryce]

Athat's the only risk there should be although watching out for cyclists not paying attention - would seem to be prudent.

Well not just cyclists - runners joggers not paying attention, other kids milling about and not paying attention, skateboarders not paying attention, people with mobility scooters?

I think each time a sortie is made to the pavement an armed guard should be posted to establish a perimeter to keep out all these threats.

 

[renault12ts]

Well not just cyclists - runners joggers not paying attention, other kids milling about and not paying attention, skateboarders not paying attention, people with mobility scooters?

I think each time a sortie is made to the pavement an armed guard should be posted to establish a perimeter to keep out all these threats.

No need for an armed guard, just a parent in front and a parent behind...no, wait.

 

[brucemillar]

I'm in a bar in central London. Please help. Somebody just ordered some peanuts.

Sent from my iPhone using MBClub UK

 

[renault12ts]

I'm in a bar in central London. Please help. Somebody just ordered some peanuts.

Sent from my iPhone using MBClub UK

Without asking permission?

 

[brucemillar]

Without asking permission?

No. They went straight up to the bar and asked for them. Dirty Bast**rds.

Sent from my iPhone using MBClub UK

 

[E55BOF]

Now you're being silly. Just go over and glass them...

 

[geraldrobins]

Are any 3 year olds old enough to know and not be swayed by what they see?

Is it not better to assume the worst-case scenario to avoid it happening?

All we are talking about here is a child near the road - that's the only risk there should be although watching out for cyclists not paying attention - would seem to be prudent.

Again good points.

 

[F1BHP]

Pontoneer, what you are saying over and over is that you feel your lack of safety due to the traffic is a good enough reason to break the law and put other people's safety at risk as you are obviously more important than them.

 

[Dryce]

as you are obviously more important than them.

Now you've reached the fundamental truth of the matter there can be no further argument. Pontoneer was way to modest to put it so directly and left you to reach your own conclusion.