Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I was passed this morning in Herne Hill by a woman on a bike with one toddler perched on the crossbar and another small child behind her, all this wobbling along in the usual heavy traffic, presumably intent upon saving the planet. I always thought that those silly little carts attached to bikes were pretty vulnerable but this just seemed hideously dangerous. Am I alone in wondering why the ubiquitous Elf'n Safety do not outlaw this practice whilst continually hectoring us in so many minor areas as if we are children?
Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/214871-daft-lady-on-bike/
Share on other sites

Change the record, APB!


I am continually amazed by the plethora of Earth Mums and Dads in DV wobbling through heavy traffic on bikes with their small children stuck in front (or behind) in flimsy, home made plastic carts, presumably doing their misguided little bit to save the planet. I have even seen one tiny child perched on his father's crossbar, without even a helmet! "Elf and Safety" should surely take an interest, or even the schools??

- apbremer, January 25th, 2018

nxjen Wrote:

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

> Are you saying then Rendel that this is both good

> parenting and good cycling practice?


No, I'm saying the apb is notoriously pro-car and anti-cyclist and is now repeating him/herself. If the woman in question had a proper crossbar seat and trailer or rear seat, that's perfectly acceptable - whether she was "wobbling" is down to apb's perception, which I suspect is not unbiased. I find it rather amusing that a person can look at "heavy traffic" - which as we know kills thousands of people prematurely in London each year, contributes to the ruination of our planet and so forth, and doesn't ask why that's there, instead choosing to whine about someone cycling their children to school.


By the way I've never seen anyone cycling with children round here in a "homemade plastic cart".

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. I've seen a

> person cycling with their newborn strapped to

> their chest in a sling.


Yes- you've only got to have one inattentive motorist open their car door.....

And risk being hit, beeped at and generally harassed by the vehicle that sweeps around to try to overtake you as cars own the road......


Of course people with child carriers need to be safety conscious....... and drivers need to let go of the notion that they have priority on the road


Asset Wrote:

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

> Don't ride close to car doors - 'the width of a

> door and a little bit more'

Some of the comments demonstrate exactly the sort of arse-about-face thinking Chris Boardman and others have been campaigning against: "The roads are dangerous, cyclists shouldn't be on them!" How about "The roads are dangerous because of cars, what can we do to stop them being dangerous?"
I still have the scar on my neck where I went over a car door on my bicycle, and it cut my throat. You may think you look cool with your baby in your sling, your precious kids on your handle bars , no one wearing a crash helmet, but you are irresponsible, look after yourselves. I am sure it's against the law to not wear a crash helmet now.

niall Wrote:

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

> those little trolleys cyclists pull their kids in

> are ridiculous. lovely and vulnerable, low to the

> ground. kids love a bit of exhaust fume too.

>

> get in.


Actually trailers are probably a lot safer than carrying the kid on a bike, for lots of reasons: they're more stable; if the bike and rider fall the kid remains safe; their wider profile makes it less likely drivers will try risky close passes; when brightly coloured and with a flag on they make the unit far more visible to drivers. Yes, kids are at exhaust level - just as they are when walking along the side of the road. At least in a buggy they'll be out of the pollution quicker. In forty years of cycling I've never heard of a child being injured or killed riding in a trailer - I sure there must be instances but they must be very rare.


I know you're a cyclist but as I mentioned above, your comment is very car-centric: why "Oh people are ridiculous trying to cycle amongst poisonous exhausts and dangerous cars"? Why not "Aren't we ridiculous allowing these dangerous vehicles that belch poison dominate our environment"?

I have never driven a car. But I find this kind of cycling behaviour very dangerous; people cycling without helmets, children perched on crossbars, children in flimsy carts behind the cyclist (which means the cyclist has no view of what is happening to the cart). If they are so worried about pollution and the environment why don't they walk to school? Much safer and less exposure to exhaust fumes. Also means the children will be fitter and stronger. My mother walked us to / from school for years.

Annie5 Wrote:

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

> I have never driven a car. But I find this kind

> of cycling behaviour very dangerous; people

> cycling without helmets, children perched on

> crossbars, children in flimsy carts behind the

> cyclist (which means the cyclist has no view of

> what is happening to the cart). If they are so

> worried about pollution and the environment why

> don't they walk to school? Much safer and less

> exposure to exhaust fumes. Also means the children

> will be fitter and stronger. My mother walked us

> to / from school for years.


Cycling without a helmet is not dangerous; being knocked off by a car without a helmet is dangerous.

Having a child on your crossbar with a proper crossbar seat is not dangerous; cars knocking your child off is dangerous.

Having a child in a trailer is not dangerous; cars threatening your child's safety is dangerous.


Can we please stop calling cyclists dangerous when they add no danger to the environment at all; the only thing that makes the roads dangerous and unhealthy is motor vehicles.


How do you figure a child walking along the side of a road gets less pollution than one in a trailer? That kerb hasn't got magic properties you know - and as noted above, a child in a trailer will spend a lot less time amongst the pollution.


Walking to school's great, but when a parent has several children in widely dispersed schools, has to get to work etc etc it's not always practical. The alternative then is to drive or cycle. Let's have a go at those who cycle and do no harm whatsoever, not those who drive Timmy and Molly in their diesel 4x4!

As cars are so dangerous, it is only sensible and prudent that cyclists protect themselves and their children appropriately. It makes no sense at all to point your finger at cars and say ?they?re dangerous? with the attitude that this entitles cyclists to behave in a way as if the cars weren?t there.

Rendell, you know I generally see eye to eye with you on most things, but I?m going to say this.


Several times now - I?m not exaggerating - I?ve encountered cyclists at the junction of East Dulwich Road and Peckham Rye jumping red lights, sometimes also taking the corners at dangerous speeds. One of them nearly hit me and my then 6-year old as we crossed on the green man, and then swore at us when I challenged him, and I?ve had others be similarly responsive. I?ve seen similar behaviour on other junctions but do some reason that one seems particularly bad; perhaps it?s the wide sight lines that make cyclists feel ok about it, but red lights are the rule of the road.


I fully agree cyclists overall are far less dangerous, and maybe I?ve just been unlucky in my encounters, but my personal (and I stress personal) experience is that the cycling community could maybe benefit from reminding it?s more overconfident members that red lights are not optional.

nxjen Wrote:

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

> As cars are so dangerous, it is only sensible and

> prudent that cyclists protect themselves and their

> children appropriately. It makes no sense at all

> to point your finger at cars and say ?they?re

> dangerous? with the attitude that this entitles

> cyclists to behave in a way as if the cars weren?t

> there.


Good job I wasn't then. What gives motorists the right to castigate cyclists for behaving perfectly legally on the roads?

JoeLeg Wrote:

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

> Rendell, you know I generally see eye to eye with

> you on most things, but I?m going to say this.

>

> Several times now - I?m not exaggerating - I?ve

> encountered cyclists at the junction of East

> Dulwich Road and Peckham Rye jumping red lights,

> sometimes also taking the corners at dangerous

> speeds. One of them nearly hit me and my then

> 6-year old as we crossed on the green man, and

> then swore at us when I challenged him, and I?ve

> had others be similarly responsive. I?ve seen

> similar behaviour on other junctions but do some

> reason that one seems particularly bad; perhaps

> it?s the wide sight lines that make cyclists feel

> ok about it, but red lights are the rule of the

> road.

>

> I fully agree cyclists overall are far less

> dangerous, and maybe I?ve just been unlucky in my

> encounters, but my personal (and I stress

> personal) experience is that the cycling community

> could maybe benefit from reminding it?s more

> overconfident members that red lights are not

> optional.


This could be the end of a beautiful friendship...except I entirely agree with you, I hate cyclists jumping red lights, I honestly never do it myself - I'll sit at a junction with no traffic about at 1AM rather than jump a red. I regularly shout like the mad old person I am at other cyclists if they ride through reds when I'm waiting at them. 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).


Thing is the OP and all those joining in on this thread aren't having a go at cyclists for illegal behaviour, apparently they have the right to criticise perfectly legal behaviour...

The whole helmet wearing thing is rubbish anyway. One of the most common form of injuries in a car accident is head injuries, which can easily be prevented wearing a helmet. Do you wear one though? Do the general public get all high-horsey and preach to people they don't even know who are not wearing them? No. Same can be said for walking down the street. If you make it up to the most vulnerable to protect themselves then we'd all be wrapped in bubble wrap.

dirac Wrote:

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

> The whole helmet wearing thing is rubbish anyway.

> One of the most common form of injuries in a car

> accident is head injuries, which can easily be

> prevented wearing a helmet. Do you wear one

> though? Do the general public get all high-horsey

> and preach to people they don't even know who are

> not wearing them? No. Same can be said for

> walking down the street. If you make it up to the

> most vulnerable to protect themselves then we'd

> all be wrapped in bubble wrap.


Wearing a helmet reduces the risk of serious head injury by 69% and fatal head injury by 65%. That's enough to keep me wearing one. If you don't want to that's fine and your legal right, but that well worn "argument" about not wearing one ("Why don't you wear one in the shower" etc) is just silly. You could be injured falling out of your armchair watching TV, yet you don't wear a seatbelt in your armchair; by your logic, then no point in wearing one in a car either. Presumably, you think motorcycle helmets are rubbish as well? Cyclists are easily the most vulnerable group in the road environment, and that's why many/most choose extra protection.

rendelharris Wrote:


> Can we please stop calling cyclists dangerous when

> they add no danger to the environment at all; the

> only thing that makes the roads dangerous and

> unhealthy is motor vehicles.


I'm a daily commuter cyclist and I would never say that. There are plenty of nutters amongst all road users and pedestrians that cause danger to others. How about the guy who knocked down and killed a woman at Old Street ?

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/sep/18/cyclist-charlie-alliston-jailed-for-18-months-over-death-of-pedestrian

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

    • So top of Lane. Local Sainsbury, middle Co Op and M and S and bottom Tesco Express…..now everyone should be happy except those that want a Waitrose as well…0h and  don’t forget M and S near ED Station….
    • Direct link to joint statement : https://thehaguegroup.org/meetings-bogota-en/?link_id=2&can_id=2d0a0048aad3d4915e3e761ac87ffe47&source=email-pi-briefing-no-26-the-bogota-breakthrough&email_referrer=email_2819587&email_subject=pi-briefing-no-26-the-bogot_-breakthrough&&   No. 26 | The Bogotá Breakthrough “The era of impunity is over.” That was the message from Bogotá, Colombia, where governments from across the Global South and beyond took the most ambitious coordinated action since Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza began 21 months ago. Convened by The Hague Group and co-chaired by the governments of Colombia and South Africa, the Emergency Conference on Palestine brought together 30 states for two days of intensive deliberation — and emerged with a concrete, coordinated six-point plan to restrain Israel’s war machine and uphold international law. States took up the call from their host, Colombian President and Progressive International Council Member Gustavo Petro, who had urged them to be “protagonists together.” Twelve governments signed onto the measures immediately. The rest now have a deadline: 20 September 2025, on the eve of the United Nations General Assembly. The unprecedented six measures commit states to:     Prevent military and dual use exports to Israel.     Refuse Israeli weapons transfers at their ports.     Prevent vessels carrying weapons to Israel under their national flags.     Review all public contracts to prevent public institutions and funds from supporting Israel’s illegal occupation.     Pursue justice for international crimes.     Support universal jurisdiction to hold perpetrators accountable. “We came to Bogotá to make history — and we did,” said Colombian President Gustavo Petro. “Together, we have begun the work of ending the era of impunity. These measures show that we will no longer allow international law to be treated as optional, or Palestinian life as disposable.” The measures are not symbolic. They are grounded in binding obligations under international law — including the International Court of Justice’s July 2024 advisory opinion declaring Israel’s occupation unlawful, and September 2024’s UN General Assembly Resolution ES-10/24, which gave states a 12-month deadline to act. UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory Francesca Albanese called them “a momentous step forward.” “The Hague Group was born to advance international law in an era of impunity,” said South Africa’s Foreign Minister, Ronald Lamola. “The measures adopted in Bogotá show that we are serious — and that coordinated state action is possible.” The response from Washington was swift — and revealing. In a threatening statement to journalists, a US State Department spokesperson accused The Hague Group of “seeking to isolate Israel” and warned that the US would “aggressively defend our interests, our military, and our allies, including Israel, from such coordinated legal and diplomatic” actions. But instead of deterring action, the threats have only clarified the stakes. In Bogotá, states did not flinch. They acted — and they invite the world to join them. The deadline for further states to take up the measures is now two months away. And with it, the pressure is mounting for governments across the world — from Brazil to Ireland, Chile to Spain — to match words with action. As Albanese said, “the clock is now ticking for states — from Europe to the Arab world and beyond — to join them.” This is not a moment to observe. It is a moment to act. Share the Joint Statement from Bogotá and popularise the six measures. Write to your elected representative and your government and demand they sign on before 20 September. History was made in Bogotá. Now, it’s up to all of us to ensure it becomes reality, that Palestinian life is not disposable and international law is not optional. The era of impunity is coming to an end. Palestine is not alone. In solidarity, The Progressive International Secretariat  
    • Most countries charge for entry to museums and galleries, often a different rate for locals (tax payers) and foreign nationals. The National Gallery could do this, also places like the Museums in South Kensington, the British Library and other tax-funded institutions. Many cities abroad add a tourist tax to hotel bills. It means tourists help pay for public services.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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