Forum Sponsors

http://gymboree-uk.com/f/east-dulwich/
xxxx
Francis Stone – Independent Mortgage Brokers

All Round Renovation

Advertise here

The East Dulwich Forum
Which pubs, bars, restaurants and take-aways do you avoid?
Goto Page: Previous1234Next
Current Page: 2 of 4
messageRe: Daft lady on bike.
Posted by rahrahrah January 11, 05:09PM

There is some debate about whether helmets are actually a good thing or not [road.cc]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was january 11, 05:12pm by rahrahrah.

messageRe: Daft lady on bike.
Posted by rahrahrah January 11, 05:09PM

tomskip Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've often wondered why there are such strict laws
> around the safety of children in cars and yet
> there doesn't seem to be the equivalent for
> children being transported on cycles.

Because cars travel at high speed.

messageRe: Daft lady on bike.
Posted by rendelharris January 11, 05:17PM

rahrahrah Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There is some debate about whether helmets are
> actually a good thing or not
> [road.cc]
> -helmets-not-even-top-10-things-keep-cycling-safe


And it's a very valid argument - but it's not one about the efficacy of helmets, rather than they've become an overblown issue.

The thing is, Boardman (who I think is fantastic) likens telling cyclists to wear helmets instead of addressing making roads safer is like telling someone being shot at to wear body armour instead of stopping the shooter. A fair point. But until the roads are made safer, the "shooter" is still there, so it makes sense to carry on wearing the armour until you're not being shot at, no?

messageRe: Daft lady on bike.
Posted by alex_b January 11, 05:44PM

rendelharris Wrote:
> I would be delighted if the
> police would focus more on stopping this sort of
> behaviour and fining those who do it - such
> cyclists (who are a minority) just give the
> anti-cycling mob a free stick with which to beat
> us (it's rare to see a light turn red in these
> parts without three or four cars running it of
> course, but that's another matter).

I'm in two minds about this. Of course I too hate cyclists jumping lights and agree with your general point. However in terms of police priorities it has to be massively below cars jumping red lights (at pretty much every light change at every major junction in East Dulwich at least one car goes through on red), the constant speeding (most cars around here) and the use of mobile phones while driving (again I see at least five instances a day around here). I have some sympathy with the view that using police resources to target cyclists while rampant criminality from motorists is lightly policed is vindictive and only occurs because of an anti-cycling bias.

messageRe: Daft lady on bike.
Posted by rendelharris January 11, 06:27PM

alex_b I entirely agree with you, I should have expressed myself better: I meant I would be delighted if the police had the resources to address it as well as all the motorist transgressions you mention, not that I'd like to see them specifically focus on it at the expense of more serious issues such as speeding etc.

messageRe: Daft lady on bike.
Posted by malumbu January 11, 07:13PM

There is a sign at work in our back entrance yard "caution cyclists"

Not sure if this is a "be careful cyclists" (as service vehicles use the road, including classically the Royal Mail Driver on his mobile"

Or "be careful of bikes, pedestrians" for those who share the yard with us.

Or "watch out for monster raving cyclists with axes who will cut you up and eat you alive"

I prefer the latter, equating cyclists with axe murderers and cannibals, I think I will get a t-shirt printed. Here's a start

[www.pinterest.com]

messageRe: Daft lady on bike.
Posted by malumbu January 11, 07:37PM

Anyway to return to the subject I happily cycled my young daughter a couple of times a week to the child mnder without either of us wearing a helmet. I took care, avoided the worst routes etc. Am I a monster? Virtually nobody wore helmets in those days which weren't that long ago. I'm on a cover of a LCC mag in the 90s at the first critical mass ride - 100s of cyclists, no helmets.

So views change and you may see me in one now. And if I was cycling with a young daughter on a carrier I may do same. It amuses me seeing kiddies on scooters with helmets. But then that is the decision of the parents, and I am seeing this from a personal perspective.

So on this point, and my lack of helmet wearing in my first 40 years of cycling - go to the Netherlands and you'll hardly see a helmet there.

Here's a great article with some good pictures from that progressive country

[bicycledutch.wordpress.com]

So why don't those of you who get so angry go over there and shout abuse at the Dutch?

messageRe: Daft lady on bike.
Posted by Sue January 11, 08:30PM

malumbu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There is a sign at work in our back entrance yard
> "caution cyclists"
>
> Not sure if this is a "be careful cyclists" (as
> service vehicles use the road, including
> classically the Royal Mail Driver on his mobile"
>
> Or "be careful of bikes, pedestrians" for those
> who share the yard with us.
>
> Or "watch out for monster raving cyclists with
> axes who will cut you up and eat you alive"
>



Maybe it's an instruction to the police big grin

[www.gov.uk]

messageRe: Daft lady on bike.
Posted by Asset January 12, 08:42AM

Can we close this thread? It's just turned into the usual, predictable, boring, uninformed, scare-mongering, small-minded anti-cyclist/pro-cyclist debate.

messageRe: Daft lady on bike.
Posted by malumbu January 12, 10:32AM

Are you accusing me of cycling drunk, stealing from shops whilst in possession of a Class B drug Sue? How perceptive, you've got me worried.

Asset, it can be a bit of fun, yes it's done its time but just to correct you "small minded anti cyclist vs broad minded but somewhat superior cyclists"

messageRe: Daft lady on bike.
Posted by apbremer January 12, 12:23PM

Let me finish this as I started it.
I am a mature cautious cyclist. I have come off my bike twice in the past year, once due to a huge hidden pothole and once when a lorry driver (very apologetic) did not see me. Each time I was blameless and luckily received only a few bumps and bruises. Any child perched up with me would probably have been killed.
Bicycles are flimsy, vulnerable machines and inherently unstable. Common sense tells us that this dangerous practice should be banned.
And don't get me started on the lunatics riding at night with dark clothes and no lights......

messageRe: Daft lady on bike.
Posted by Sue January 12, 12:40PM

Asset Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Can we close this thread? It's just turned into
> the usual, predictable, boring, uninformed,
> scare-mongering, small-minded
> anti-cyclist/pro-cyclist debate.


It's the lounge!

If you don't like the thread, nobody is forcing you to read it!

Or do you have plans to set yourself up as the forum censor? smiling smiley

messageRe: Daft lady on bike.
Posted by Sue January 12, 12:41PM

malumbu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Are you accusing me of cycling drunk, stealing
> from shops whilst in possession of a Class B drug
> Sue? How perceptive, you've got me worried.
>
> Asset, it can be a bit of fun, yes it's done its
> time but just to correct you "small minded anti
> cyclist vs broad minded but somewhat superior
> cyclists"


big grin big grin big grin

messageRe: Daft lady on bike.
Posted by rendelharris January 12, 12:49PM

You appear to be a cyclist-hating cyclist, an uncommon breed but I've encountered them before.

Firstly, why are you venting your ire against parents carrying their children on bicycles, which according to you is highly dangerous, instead of the authorities and motor vehicle drivers who are making the roads so highly dangerous? Secondly, do you have any evidence or statistics as to the dangers represented by carrying children on bikes? I can't find any - which would in itself suggest that there aren't hordes of children being killed and injured every year by being carried on bikes. It would be very interesting to know how many children are KSI when being carried on bikes as opposed to when being driven in cars.

99.99% of parents I see carrying/towing children on bikes do so extremely responsibly, use proper approved equipment (despite your nonsense about "homemade plastic carts"), and take extreme care. To be fair to drivers, 99.99% of them are very cautious and respectful around bicycles carrying children as well.

You've basically got a massive bee in your bonnet (enough to make almost identical posts two years running!) about a non-issue that you have made up in your own head, for heaven knows what reasons. You are the first person I can ever recall calling for carrying children on bikes to be banned. I would suggest that your outrage would be more profitably directed at the real dangers children face on the road, whether on bikes, in cars or walking, the overwhelming majority of which are caused by motor vehicles and incompetent town planning.

messageRe: Daft lady on bike.
Posted by Asset January 12, 06:33PM

It's just boring Sue, been gone over many times before on many threads. And you're right I don't need to read it but that's why I hardly engage with this forum anymore. I occasionally pop in to see whats happening and get some info on my area and behold, it's this...

messageRe: Daft lady on bike.
Posted by Asset January 12, 06:34PM

I expect more from the lounge :-)

messageRe: Daft lady on bike.
Posted by hellosailor January 12, 07:32PM

When I see someone cycling on a busy road with their child perching on the cross bars or getting a backy my mind boggles. Its especially bizarre when only the child or only the parent is wearing a helmet yet the other isnt, whats the thought process? However good a cyclist you are you can never trust that a bad driver or even a good driver who is distracted by something doesnt hit you. I have a friend whose 4 year old son ended up seriously injured in hospital because they were cycling on a road with the boy perched in front of the dad on his bike and they were knocked off by a car. I cant even begin to imagine what they said by way of explanation to the paramedics or to their child who presumably assumed he was safe because his parents were saying it was ok. No parent is perfect but it blows my mind when I see this. Another friend works in Kings A&E and says they genuinely despair when kids get brought in because an adult has risked this.
Edited to add : this isnt an anti cyclist thing, Id think the same if people drove around with kids sitting on their car bonnet or boot. Im 40, I cant drive, I havent got a pro car / anti cyclist agenda. It just seems nuts.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit was january 12, 07:44pm by hellosailor.

messageRe: Daft lady on bike.
Posted by rendelharris January 12, 08:11PM

Does your A&E friend also genuinely despair that parents have risked their kids walking on the street when children are brought in having been knocked over as pedestrians? Or when they come in injured from an accident caused by them riding in a car? Because those are both more common scenarios. The obvious extension is to say that nobody should ever cycle because some idiot might knock them off.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was january 12, 08:12pm by rendelharris.

messageRe: Daft lady on bike.
Posted by hellosailor January 12, 08:36PM

Can you really not see the difference between someone cycling with a helmet sitting on the seat and someone perching a kid on the handlebars with no helmet?
You genuinely feel that putting a child in the back seat of a car with a seat belt on or walking down a pavement with them is the same in terms of the risk youve exposed them to?
If my kids were hit by a car walking down the pavement I would feel horrified but not that Id done anything that was a mistake but if my child was injured because I balanced them on my bike with no helmet on Id feel absolutely stricken with guilt.
So no, In answer to your question my friend has never mentioned despairing of the parents decision when a child has been injured by a car mounting the pavement or while strapped into the seat of a car because its sinply incomparable.
Presumably you think proper safety seats for children to ride on a bike with an adult are for snowflakes and a waste of cash when the kid could just balance and grip onto part of the frame? I genuinely cant get my head round this viewpoint.

messageRe: Daft lady on bike.
Posted by rendelharris January 12, 09:00PM

I said nothing of the sort.The entire debate of this thread has been about whether it's acceptable to carry children on bikes using proper equipment.Of course it's not acceptable to do so without it - nobody has suggested otherwise, so not quite sure why you're introducing the topic.

messageRe: Daft lady on bike.
Posted by hellosailor January 12, 09:08PM

Im confused, have you read the original post? Im responding to the exact subject raised..

messageRe: Daft lady on bike.
Posted by rendelharris January 12, 09:39PM

Look at my second post where I said it was acceptable if the lady in question was using proper equipment. Ap b has said nothing to suggest she wasn't. Here and elsewhere she's made it clear she wants kids carried on bikes or in trailers banned, full stop.

messageRe: Daft lady on bike.
Posted by hellosailor January 12, 09:52PM

Wrongly or rightly I assumed when the OP said perched they meant precariously balanced not in a child seat. My point was very much about adults who balance kids on their bikes without seats which is not an uncommon sight, not about cyclists who use child bike seats. I meant my doc friend said he and his colleagues were appalled by that, not children in proper seats to be clear..

messageRe: Daft lady on bike.
Posted by ianr January 13, 01:31AM

There was a daft lady went biking,
Though it wasn't to everyone's liking.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was january 13, 06:19pm by ianr.

messageRe: Daft lady on bike.
Posted by rahrahrah January 14, 11:45AM

hellosailor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My point was very much about adults
> who balance kids on their bikes without seats
> which is not an uncommon sight

Really? This fells like a very uncommon sight to me. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places?

messageRe: Daft lady on bike.
Posted by jimlad48 January 14, 01:02PM

I believe everyone has a responsibility to use the road in an appropriate manner. Drivers should exercise due caution, pedestrians should not dawdle or walk out unexpectedly, and cyclists should not jump red lights or ride on pavements.

My unscientific observation is that many cyclists when politely challenged on clearly breaking these rules become exceptionally aggressive and offensive from the off, even though they are utterly in the wrong. There is no reason, or excuse to jump a red light or ride on the pavement - full stop, end of discussion.

The other day, I must confess to shouting at a cyclist that I thought he was a complete @#$%& - which is very unusual for me to swear at a cyclist. The reason why was I watched him cycle straight through a red light in Camberwell, on a complex four way junction involving multiple red lights where it is 'blind' - e.g due to the staggered layout, high walls and intervening terrain, you cannot see what the other road users are up to, and it is not possible to see the other lights or what colour they are.

He rode straight into traffic, with a young child on the back of his bike without a helmet on. It was low light, he had no reflective gear on and any cars coming would not have seen him until it was too late. This is criminally irresponsible behaviour that put his child at risk for no reason. Why was it so important for him not to wait a minute to ensure he could cycle safely, rather than risk his childs life?

messageRe: Daft lady on bike.
Posted by rahrahrah January 14, 01:16PM

jimlad48 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I believe everyone has a responsibility to use the
> road in an appropriate manner. Drivers should
> exercise due caution, pedestrians should not
> dawdle or walk out unexpectedly, and cyclists
> should not jump red lights or ride on pavements.

No one would disagree

> My unscientific observation is that many cyclists
> when politely challenged on clearly breaking these
> rules become exceptionally aggressive and
> offensive from the off, even though they are
> utterly in the wrong.

This is not my experience. I have seen plenty of 'road rage' drivers. It is probably more often that cyclists are confronted about their behaviour, simply because they are not sealed off in a car. Clearly it is wrong to behave aggressively however one is being transported.

I just don't get the point in these types of threads. Clearly no one is going to defend criminally irresponsible behaviour, but how often do we see cars tearing down the road at speed, or accelerating through red lights? We don't think 'bloody car drivers', we think 'what an idiot'. Why with bikes, uniquely, do we associate the transgression with the mode of transport?

messageRe: Daft lady on bike.
Posted by rendelharris January 14, 01:17PM

jimlad48 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I believe everyone has a responsibility to use the
> road in an appropriate manner. Drivers should
> exercise due caution, pedestrians should not
> dawdle or walk out unexpectedly, and cyclists
> should not jump red lights or ride on pavements.

This appears to imply that only cyclists jump red lights - stand at any junction or crossing in this area and you'll see two or three cars driving through the lights after they've turned red on a regular basis.

> My unscientific observation is that many cyclists
> when politely challenged on clearly breaking these
> rules become exceptionally aggressive and
> offensive from the off, even though they are
> utterly in the wrong.

Whereas car drivers are exceptionally reasonable and open to criticism, aren't they? I've virtually given up trying to point out errors to drivers round here after having been spat on, threatened with knives, had bottles and boiling coffee thrown at me and had vehicles deliberately driven at me.

@#$%& are @#$%&, on bikes, in cars, walking or sitting in the saloon bar. Your post implies that somehow cyclists are a special case, worse than others. This is not so.

messageRe: Daft lady on bike.
Posted by jimlad48 January 14, 03:19PM

rahrahrah Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> jimlad48 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I believe everyone has a responsibility to use
> the
> > road in an appropriate manner. Drivers should
> > exercise due caution, pedestrians should not
> > dawdle or walk out unexpectedly, and cyclists
> > should not jump red lights or ride on
> pavements.
>
> No one would disagree
>
> > My unscientific observation is that many
> cyclists
> > when politely challenged on clearly breaking
> these
> > rules become exceptionally aggressive and
> > offensive from the off, even though they are
> > utterly in the wrong.
>
> This is not my experience. I have seen plenty of
> 'road rage' drivers. It is probably more often
> that cyclists are confronted about their
> behaviour, simply because they are not sealed off
> in a car. Clearly it is wrong to behave
> aggressively however one is being transported.
>
> I just don't get the point in these types of
> threads. Clearly no one is going to defend
> criminally irresponsible behaviour, but how often
> do we see cars tearing down the road at speed, or
> accelerating through red lights? We don't think
> 'bloody car drivers', we think 'what an idiot'.
> Why with bikes, uniquely, do we associate the
> transgression with the mode of transport?

Last week I was told in blunt terms 'go and have sex with myself' three times by cyclists when I pointed out to them that they were riding on the pavement.

The reason it seems to be cyclists targeted is because uniquely among road users, they can make effective use of both roads and pavements. I don't see cars driving on pavements, and I rarely see pedestrians using the road.

The simple fact is that all road users can and do use it irresponsibly. However, as a pedestrian the worst behaviour I see repeatedly comes from cyclists - I have been threatened and abused repeatedly for politely pointing out that people are riding on pavements or throguh red lights towards me.

By all means mention drivers, but the problem i have with cyclists is the mentality which is 'well drivers do it too so lets blame them as well', not 'we need to put our house in order, lets accept blame and improve and hope others do so as well'. A bit of humility, less arrogance and a lot less aggression towards other road users would be appreciated.

Said as a non car or bike owning pedestrian fed up of nearly being run over by bikes.

messageRe: Daft lady on bike.
Posted by Blah Blah January 14, 03:49PM

The whole problem with this debate is that it is biased in regards to type of highway user. Pedestrians are not interacting with vehicles on a pavement, so of course cyclists are branded the worse of the two, just as on the roads, cyclists brand drivers as worse and vice versa. The vast majority of accidents happen because one or more highway users do not use due care and attention, and no single type of road user has a monopoly on that.

Goto Page: Previous1234Next
Current Page: 2 of 4

Back to top of page
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Donate                   Terms of use                  Help & FAQs                   Advertise               RSS rss feed               Copyright 2006 - 2018 East Dulwich Forum