Safety Concern for a Child (on the back of a bike)

[Earl Aelfheah]

I just saw this by East Dulwich station. No sign of a helmet either:

 

[Otta]

God I wish I was more motivated to work today. I'm involving myself in this nonsense for something to pass the time.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Otta Wrote:

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

> I wasn't missing your point rahrahrah, I was just

> not really agreeing with it.

>

> More people may die / get injured playing football

> than cycling, but why do they die / get injured?

> In a lot of cases it will be because of the

> unpredictable actions of another player.

Well sure, but in lot of cases it will be the unpredictable actions of another road user which lead to injuries on a bike. I just think that there is a general perception (misconception imo) that cycling is some kind of high danger activity. I don't believe the statistics bare this out and the perception dissuades people from getting on their bike / doing what they want to do. We shouldn't live in fear, especially when the fears are out of all proportion with the reality.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Otta Wrote:

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

> God I wish I was more motivated to work today. I'm

> involving myself in this nonsense for something to

> pass the time.

The forum would struggle if we were all motivated, productive employees :-)

[Cyclist]

If the term "child leash" causes upset then my apology. I will refer to it as child harness.

The highway code did not specify that cycling with dog is illegal.

Otta Wrote:

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

> I wish you'd stop calling iot a child leash,

> that's just language designed to wind people up

> (even if you did find a profuct with that title).

> And whilst I understand the point you are making,

> I don't think it's comparable (child walking /

> running on pavement compared to child passenger on

> bike).

>

>

>

> I guess the most apt comparrison could be seat

> belts in cars. You may have never been involved in

> a crash. Every time you get in your car you

> PROBABLY won't have an accident, and yet you belt

> up. I know this is the law, but even bofore that,

> most people did it anyway, because despite the

> fact that it probably wouldn't be needed, people

> just felt it more sensible to play it safe.

>

> But again for me it was the whole dog thing. I've

> never seen that on the roads, and if it is legal

> I'd be quite surprised.

[edcam]

But common sense would dictate that it's a very stupid thing to do.

Cyclist Wrote:

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

>

> The highway code did not specify that cycling with

> dog is illegal.

>

[Earl Aelfheah]

.

[Otta]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> I just think that there is a general

> perception (misconception imo) that cycling is

> some kind of high danger activity. I don't believe

> the statistics bare this out and it dissuades

> people from getting on their bike.

But maybe this is exactly why the stats do look so good. It's entirely possible that is there wasn't some healthy fear attached then every fucker woukd jump on a bike and we'd end up with carnage.

Obviously I have absolutely nowhere evidence to back that up, but it's possible.

[Cyclist]

Well, this is the whole question isn't it. Unpack the term "common sense", then it opens up the whole question of the applicability of "a" common sense as perceived by a particular individual to a specific situation.

edcam Wrote:

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

> But common sense would dictate that it's a very

> stupid thing to do.

>

> Cyclist Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> >

> > The highway code did not specify that cycling

> with

> > dog is illegal.

> >

[robbin]

No it isn't the whole question.

It's just more argumentative rambling that makes no grammatical or semantic sense.

Fyi - Common sense is a basic ability to perceive, understand, and judge things, which is shared by ("common to") nearly all people, and can be reasonably expected of nearly all people without any need for debate.

[edcam]

Quite.

robbin Wrote:

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

> No it isn't the whole question.

>

> It's just more argumentative rambling that makes

> no grammatical or semantic sense.

>

> Fyi - Common sense is a basic ability to perceive,

> understand, and judge things, which is shared by

> ("common to") nearly all people, and can be

> reasonably expected of nearly all people without

> any need for debate.

[Cyclist]

You would find that most dictionaries including Oxford define common sense as a judgement rather than "a basic ability".

edcam Wrote:

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

> Quite.

>

> robbin Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > No it isn't the whole question.

> >

> > It's just more argumentative rambling that

> makes

> > no grammatical or semantic sense.

> >

> > Fyi - Common sense is a basic ability to

> perceive,

> > understand, and judge things, which is shared

> by

> > ("common to") nearly all people, and can be

> > reasonably expected of nearly all people

> without

> > any need for debate.

[robbin]

And your point?!

I'm glad you looked it up - now you see what nonsense you were spouting.

[Cyclist]

If common sense is an "ability", then that implies anyone who does not share that common sense has a shortcoming in his/her natural ability. In the "ability" definition, anyone who does not share what some perceived as "common sense" risked being defined to be lacking in his or her natural ability. Not many people would appreciate that insinuation.

On the other hand, it is much more appropriate to see common sense as a "judgement" because it then admits the possibility of multiple common sense. Whose common sense we are talking about and which common sense in the particular situation we are talking about exactly ?

I don't think I have been talking nonsense at all. I have instead observed the fairly acute reaction from commentators when their version of common sense is challenged.

robbin Wrote:

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

> And your point?!

>

> I'm glad you looked it up - now you see what

> nonsense you were spouting.

[robbin]

I think you are the only person reading this thread who does not know (or pretends not to know) the meaning of something as simple and widely understood as the term 'common sense'.

It's embarrassing.

[edcam]

Yes, you are making something of a tit of yourself Cyclist. It all looks a bit masochistic to be honest.

[Cyclist]

surely you understand "basic ability to judge" and "judgement" have two very different meanings.

robbin Wrote:

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

>

> Fyi - Common sense is a basic ability to perceive,

> understand, and judge things, which is shared by

> ("common to") nearly all people, and can be

> reasonably expected of nearly all people without

> any need for debate.

[robbin]

And yet still he goes on digging!

[robbin]

Cyclist - I suggest if you are going to tangle with the meaning of words, you start by opening up your dictionary and looking up the meaning of "pavement" and "pedestrian", as you also seem not to have got to grips with those words (a pavement being something people walk along - and a pedestrian is someone who walks along it).

[Cyclist]

yes you are right. I mean "pavement". Great pick up Robbin. Thanks. Now perhaps you could consider your common sense to give your child the safety harness while on the pavement. It is safer than without and only costs a few quids, as you put it. Quite a few people harness their child while walking on lordship lane, particularly in the weekend. Don't let your common sense fall behind their common sense !

My child and dogs are living happily without your wishes of "good luck" or the sort. You go your way, I go my way. And that's the way it should be unless your ego dictates otherwise.

robbin Wrote:

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

> Cyclist - I suggest if you are going to tangle

> with the meaning of words, you start by opening up

> your dictionary and looking up the meaning of

> "pavement" and "pedestrian", as you also seem not

> to have got to grips with those words (a pavement

> being something people walk along - and a

> pedestrian is someone who walks along it).

[robbin]

You really are a strange man.

No matter how repugnant you are though, I hope you (and particularly your child) both stay safe on the road. I hope putting your ego first doesn't end in tears.