Jump to content

To the Cycling Adult with a child on Goodrich Road at 22.45 on Sat 26th July


Recommended Posts

I sincerely hope that you got home safely because you were doing everything in your power to try and kill you and your child. If you want to cycle on the road without any lights or reflective gear at night, you are already an irresponsible piece of ****. But to allow, ney, encourage and endorse your what, 9/10(?) year old child to also cycle on dark roads, at nearly 11pm without lights, is wilfully negligent.


You'll know if I'm talking to you because 1) I fail to believe that there are too many adults around stupid enough to do this and 2) I shouted at you to get your kid with no lights off the road (apologies to any local residents I disturbed). I'd have stopped and followed you but sadly I was going in the other direction at speed and my cycling prowess isn't such that I could have stopped, turned and caught you up.


If you, or anyone else, thinks I'm being harsh, I really don't give a monkeys - this is a child safety issue and I'd call anyone else that sees this carelessness to try to stop it (obviously if safe to try and do so without risking the child's safety further, etc.)


Hope you sleep tight x

Do you know if the cyclist was female ? I saw a woman on a bike about this time cycling up Barry Rd v close to Goodrich . She had no lights and was on wrong side ( admittedly quiet and straight rd ) for some time .


Not that it matters really ,just curious .

I see lots of ladies wobbling around Dulwich in traffic on their bikes with small children perched on the back, sometimes in flimsy little carts and even once on the handlebars!! Madness. Where are the hordes of Health and Safety fanatics when they are needed??
LadyDeliah - I think the issue is no lights in the dead of night, which means someone might not be able to see them to avoid the collision, with terrible consequences for the child, as well as for them..... It's not legal to cycle on the road at night with no lights, same as it isn't legal to drive with no lights...

If you could see the child well enough to guess its age to within a year, I'd say they were plenty visible to anyone. Why so angry cedges? Sounds close to victim blaming


"Everything in your power to kill.."


Strong stuff.

Victim blaming?! The cyclist was on the road at nearly 11pm, with a child, with NO lights and no reflective gear. Had a car collided with the cyclist then I think the cyclist would have justifiably been at least partly responsible. Surely if I decided to walk on a road at night with nothing to illuminate me and got hit by a car I would be to blame? I have followed many previous posts on the EDF r.e cyclists/motorists but have never commented before as I can appreciate both sides of the argument, but I fail to see how the OP of this thread can be criticised for feeling angry at the irresponsible nature of this person. To put themselves at risk is bad enough, but to endanger the life of a child is even worse. The fact that the OP could guess at the child's age does not surely eliminate the need for lights and reflective gear. Yes, the OP used strong words, but were I to stand my child on a road at night with nothing to protect them with, I would understand someone accusing me of having a death wish for my child.

Who is standing a child on the road at night?


Nobody


Is walking on the side of the road in normal attire at night a bad thing as well now? Really ?


Wearing reflective gear at night might be advisable, but as a motorist you are responsible for anything you hit. Things don't appear out of nowhere, even without reflective wear. How fast are you driving that you can't see movement on the road?


Me? I would probably wear reflective lights. Probably. But somehow I don't think this guy was doing everything in his power to have himself and his daughter killed


I'll go out on a limb and say if asked he wouldn't even be neutral. He definitely wouldn't want that to happen


I drive at night. I observe. Nobody wearing normal clothes is going to get killed by me

If a motorist was driving along a road with no lights on, he or she would still not deserve to be accused of being doing everything in their power to kill people


Again, as a driver I have eyes and would clock that car in front of me ( and wonder why they haven't got lights in)


Accusing them of doing everything in their power to kill people is wrong


And it's not a cyclist v driver thing really. ( other than the driver will always kill the cyclist and not the other way around, in any given collision bad enough)


Bad driving is the problem. Not luminosity

But surely it is the responsibility of ALL road users to do whatever they can to prevent death and injury (including their own). But claiming possible 'victim blaming' in this incident, you are completely absolving one party of any responsibility.

Do you mean when someone says "they were doing everything in there power" to be killed, I am saying that's an overreaction and is victim blaming?


Then yes


It doesn't sound from the op there was any danger. They were able to id the child's age ( or at least tried to. Why if they couldn't see?)


Nothing happened here. It's someone going ott with a new thread

StraferJack Wrote:

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

> And by "problem" I mean the degree of culpability

> in causing death

>

> Not wearing lights is culpable but not actually

> cause of death

> Bad driving is culpable but is the cause of death



Yep, there needs to be a change of mindset where motorists are forced to accept the responsibility for their actions when their lethal piece of metal kills/maims/injures others.


And my post above was actually in response to apbremer.

As I said, I wouldn't normally do it


But if someone does, should they be injured or worse, I would be loathe to say it was their fault. But illumination and hi viz for all modes of transport is ultimately largely necessary because of bad driving


If the roads were dedicated to cyclists not wearing hi viz jackets, what's the worst that could happen


But driving a car is putting you in charge of a machine that can mow people over without even realising. So I think it's beholden on us when we are driving to bear the ultimate responsibility


I don't fundamentally have a problem with people cycling at night. Even kids. There is street lighting and your headlamps. How much help do drivers need not to kill someone ?

Would the issue not be that the child was riding their own bike (according to the OP) and so

didn't even have the "protective factor" of the adult being fully in charge of the bike.


I really don understand why bikes don't come with lights built in and have reflective bodywork/tape as this would avoid most problems with visibility, after all, you wouldn't be sold a car on the promise that you'd get your own headlights, it just seems v backwards - especially now there are dynamo lights which wouldn't have battery issues.


Having grown up out if London, I'm aware that it doesn't get "properly dark" & so if driving or on foot I do often see cyclists despite their best efforts, but, as a former A&E nurse, I don't see the sense in taking the risk - there's surely a message in this ad for cyclists as well as other road users (looking like the Blackpool illuminations obv not obligatory!)


http://youtu.be/eOpoBFaDnzs

Think the reaction is a bit over the top - I would not personally ride a bike at night without lights ( too scared to ride a bike at all , though I did so in the distant past )However this was not a dark night in middle of the country, roads are reasonably well lit and you did see them as you sped past! In the UK motorist do not respect other road user and drive far too fast in town. Try to maintain 30mph or more with bikes around is madness.

"I don't fundamentally have a problem with people cycling at night. Even kids. There is street lighting and your headlamps. How much help do drivers need not to kill someone ?"


...but SJ in this case there were NO headlamps. It is irresponsible of the parent/adult not practising safe cycling esp where a child is involved, they don't make the choices. Please don't tell me everyone who is anti-car has never made use of it or do we all cycle to the airport to catch those completely unnecessary flights these days? I find your comments on this thread to be doing nothing other than stoking the fire of the cyclist v's drivers 'debate'.


I agree with everything cedges said and although the comments may come across as over the top, you can tell how strongly they feel about it after witnessing it. All road users should be concerned about safety of course. Cedges is a cyclist quite rightly commenting on the bad practice of another cyclist. Is that not allowed? If you are an adult and want to cycle without lights, go ahead. You are contributing towards giving other cyclists a bad name which really does nothing to help further the 'cause' of road safety for all.


east dulwich!

Sorry numbers but none of that made sense


No headlights? Who is cedges worrying about? Drivers who don't have headlights on? Headlights will be involved with any car surely?



"

Please don't tell me everyone who is anti-car has never made use of it or do we all cycle to the airport to catch those completely unnecessary flights "


I've read this several times. Don't know what it means

okay excuse my bad grammar.


headlights - I meant on the bike, not car.


is everyone so anti-car they never make use of them? ever? it benefits all road users to have lights at night, every safety measure we can possibly take will help, won't it?

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

    • why do we think we have the right for the elected local council to be transparent?
    • Granted Shoreditch is still London, but given that the council & organisers main argument for the festival is that it is a local event, for local people (to use your metaphor), there's surprisingly little to back this up. As Blah Blah informatively points out, this is now just a commercial venture with no local connection. Our park is regarded by them as an asset that they've paid to use & abuse. There's never been any details provided of where the attendees are from, but it's still trotted out as a benefit to the local community.  There's never been any details provided of any increase in sales for local businesses, but it's still trotted out as a benefit to the local community.  There's promises of "opportunities" for local people & traders to work at the festival, but, again, no figures to back this up. And lastly, the fee for the whole thing goes 100% to running the Events dept, and the dozens of free events that no-one seems able to identify, and, yes, you guessed it - no details provided for by the council. So again, no tangible benefit for the residents of the area.
    • I mean I hold no portfolio to defend Gala,  but I suspect that is their office.  I am a company director,  my home address is also not registered with Companies House. Also guys this is Peckham not Royston Vasey.  Shoreditch is a mere 20 mins away by train, it's not an offshore bolt hole in Luxembourg.
    • While it is good that GALA have withdrawn their application for a second weekend, local people and councillors will likely have the same fight on their hands for next year's event. In reading the consultation report, I noted the Council were putting the GALA event in the same light as all the other events that use the park, like the Circus, the Fair and even the FOPR fete. ALL of those events use the common, not the park, and cause nothing like the level of noise and/or disruption of the GALA event. Even the two day Irish Festival (for those that remember that one) was never as noisy as GALA. So there is some disingenuity and hypocrisy from the Council on this, something I wll point out in my response to the report. The other point to note was that in past years branches were cut back for the fencing. Last year the council promised no trees would be cut after pushback, but they seem to now be reverting to a position of 'only in agreement with the council's arbourist'. Is this more hypocrisy from 'green' Southwark who seem to once again be ok with defacing trees for a fence that is up for just days? The people who now own GALA don't live in this area. GALA as an event began in Brockwell Park. It then lost its place there to bigger events (that pesumably could pay Lambeth Council more). One of the then company directors lived on the Rye Hill Estate next to the park and that is likely how Peckham Rye came to be the new choice for the event. That person is no longer involved. Today's GALA company is not the same as the 'We Are the Fair' company that held that first event, not the same in scope, aim or culture. And therein lies the problem. It's not a local community led enterprise, but a commercial one, underwritten by a venture capital company. The same company co-run the Rally Event each year in Southwark Park, which btw is licensed as a one day event only. That does seem to be truer to the original 'We Are the Fair' vision, but how much of that is down to GALA as opoosed to 'Bird on the Wire' (the other group organising it) is hard to say.  For local people, it's three days of not being able to open windows, As someone said above, if a resident set up a PA in their back garden and subjected the neighbours to 10 hours of hard dance music every day for three days, the Council would take action. Do not underestimate how distressing that is for many local residents, many of whom are elderly, frail, young, vulnerable. They deserve more respect than is being shown by those who think it's no big deal. And just to be clear, GALA and the council do not consider there to be a breach of db level if the level is corrected within 15 minutes of the breach. In other words, while db levels are set as part of the noise management plan, there is an acknowledgement that a breach is ok if corrected within 15 minutes. That is just not good enough. Local councillors objected to the proposed extension. 75% of those that responded to the consultation locally did not want GALA 26 to take place at all. For me personally, any goodwill that had been built up through the various consultations over recent years was erased with that application for a second weekend, and especially given that when asked if there were plans for that in post 2025 event feedback meetings (following rumours), GALA lied and said there were no plans to expand. I have come to the conclusion that all the effort to appease on some things is merely an exercise in show, to get past the council's threshold for the events licence. They couldn't give a hoot in reality for local people, and people that genuinely care about parkland, don't litter it with noisy festivals either.   
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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