Man rides bike with child in trailer down dual carriage way

[lostkiwi]

ORD said:

It doesn't prove a thing, either.

The hypothetical cyclist would, unles he was an idiot, choose another house or learn to drive.

You're assuming again. They may have lived there for some time and the child is a recent addition to the family. He may have a car which has broken down, or be unavailable for some reason, or perhaps lost his licence. Its a bit facile to say 'He should move house or get a licence'.

Like I have said all along who are we to judge his actions without a full understanding of the facts that influenced his decisions?

TankRizzo - its irrelevant how many there are. The OP stated there are some houses with driveways opening onto that dual carriageway and it only requires one house to make it a valid discussion point. I am sure most people who had an alternative route would take it.

Edit:
Take a look here. I can count about 15 houses just in this small section:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Esso/@51.22655...

Edited by lostkiwi on Monday 29th June 10:00

[ORD]

What the guy above said.

It's a bit like asking whether it would be sensible to walk through a really rough part of a city holding thousands of pounds in cash for everyone to see.
Sure, you have every right to do it.

Sure, nobody should rob you.

But you would be a bloody idiot to do it.

[saaby93]

I think there's a trap being set here.
If many PHers are saying they cant adjust their speed or control their vehicles to allow for cyclists or other road users on DCs, don't be surprised if DCs become subject to ultra low speed limits, even if that doesnt really solve the issue.

[lostkiwi]

saaby93 said:

I think there's a trap being set here.
If many PHers are saying they cant adjust their speed or control their vehicles to allow for cyclists or other road users on DCs, don't be surprised if DCs become subject to ultra low speed limits, even if that doesnt really solve the issue.

We're already seeing it with 50 limits and 40 limits imposed where previously it was NSL. Take the Snake Pass for example or large chunks of the Dales/Lakes, the A361 north of Banbury and plenty of other places.

[Hackney]

Mr Will said:

DoubleSix said:

Don't know about banned but I'd never do it. Simple risk/reward analysys says it's daft to put the most important thing in my life at the mercy of others.

You are happy to put yourself at the mercy of others though? How do you think your children would cope if you were hit?

Because adults will generally fair a little better if hit by a car.
That's the reason we have so many 20mph limits outside schools, where children are more likely to be, and we can drive at 70 on the motorway.

Or are you advocating 20mph limits everywhere because parents may die and how would the children cope.

[saaby93]

Hackney said:

Because adults will generally fair a little better if hit by a car.
That's the reason we have so many 20mph limits outside schools, where children are more likely to be, and we can drive at 70 on the motorway.

Or are you advocating 20mph limits everywhere because parents may die and how would the children cope.

Youre on a slippery slope there. There are many schools without 20 limits and there isnt carnage, you could go as far as saying the opposite, more accidents where there are 20 limits hence why there are 20 limits, is one leading to the other? Since most child accidents happen away from school youd have a good case for 20 everywhere except school, only if you believe that 20 improves accident rates

[ORD]

saaby93 said:

I think there's a trap being set here.
If many PHers are saying they cant adjust their speed or control their vehicles to allow for cyclists or other road users on DCs, don't be surprised if DCs become subject to ultra low speed limits, even if that doesnt really solve the issue.

Strange post.

(1) Nobody, as far as I am aware, has said that they, themselves, cannot drive so as to minimise risk to other road users. The point is that, in general, cars moving at 70mph or so are a huge danger to a bike and a little box with a child in it! The danger would be less if driving standards were better, but it still would be unacceptable.

(2) Accident risk isn't the only consideration in setting speed limits. Limits are already so low as to be completely out of touch with changes in car safety and technology, and there are very substantial economic costs to lowering them yet further (congestion, wasted travelling time that could be working time, etc).

It is also highly questionable whether lower limits reduce the number of accidents. I feel far safer at 70mph than I do in those absurd 50mph limits on motorways - the road is full of snoozing / texting drivers at those kind of speeds.

[DoubleSix]

Hackney said:

Mr Will said:

DoubleSix said:

Don't know about banned but I'd never do it. Simple risk/reward analysys says it's daft to put the most important thing in my life at the mercy of others.

You are happy to put yourself at the mercy of others though? How do you think your children would cope if you were hit?

Because adults will generally fair a little better if hit by a car.
That's the reason we have so many 20mph limits outside schools, where children are more likely to be, and we can drive at 70 on the motorway.

Or are you advocating 20mph limits everywhere because parents may die and how would the children cope.

You really ought to ignore the sillier posts on here otherwise any distant prospect of meaningful discourse is lost amongst ever increasing nonsense.

[TankRizzo]

saaby93 said:

I think there's a trap being set here.
If many PHers are saying they cant adjust their speed or control their vehicles to allow for cyclists or other road users on DCs, don't be surprised if DCs become subject to ultra low speed limits, even if that doesnt really solve the issue.

That's already happening and is outside the control of anyone on PH. Fatalities are used to justify placing of speed cameras and 20mph limits, without perhaps examining (because it's an almost impossible job) the choices and weighing of risk which led to the fatality.

Example: Child decides to leg it out right in front of a car doing 30mph, to get to his mates on the other side. Driver cannot avoid hitting him. Dead child.

A child has died and a 20mph limit is introduced. But the fatality could have been avoided, had some logic and risk assessment been applied properly by both of the parties - the child for deciding to run, and the driver for deciding to do 30mph past the school. Blame could be pointed at both. But it doesn't matter. The kid is dead.

[saaby93]

ORD said:

(1) Nobody, as far as I am aware, has said that they, themselves, cannot drive so as to minimise risk to other road users. The point is that, in general, cars moving at 70mph or so are a huge danger to a bike and a little box with a child in it! The danger would be less if driving standards were better, but it still would be unacceptable.

the thing is as soon as someone says their driving is dangerous for a small child in a box behind a bike, it doesnt take much to say the same for the bike, or any other road user.
Although theres a 70 limit on DCs we're all supposed to adjust our speed and control so its safe for other road users and ourselves. If there is another road user in front, horse, bike even a pedestrian theres no need to plough into it at 70mph.
Surely the purpose fo DCs with more than one lane each side is to make it easier for differing types of road user to use the road, not less.
There's a few posters shooting themselves in the foot, and if we're not careful taking the rest of road users with them.

[Hackney]

DoubleSix said:

You really ought to ignore the sillier posts on here otherwise any distant prospect of meaningful discourse is lost amongst ever increasing nonsense.

That's a very good point. I'll do my best but sometimes my amazement / incredulity gets the better of me.

[lostkiwi]

DoubleSix said:

The question was so risible it was unworthy of a response. I admire your charity though chaps.

Unworthy or you just can't answer it without looking like a prat?
I suspect you didn't answer because you don't have an answer to it and its just easier to try and ridicule.
Classic fail.

[Mave]

Diderot said:

I think that argument is flawed Mave. Why aren't cyclists allowed to ride on the motorway network? Why aren't cyclists allowed to ride through the Southwick Tunnel on the A 27 or the Hindhead Tunnel on the A3?

Because the motorway network is specifically designed from the outset to facilitate high speed motorised traffic. By contrast DCs are an evolution of low speed networks. I don't know the background to the tunnels (I'll Google later) so can't comment.

[otolith]

It's interesting how often there is an overlap between people who don't think others should cycle in certain places because of heartfelt and selfless concerns for their safety, and people who don't much like sharing the road with cyclists.

[ExPat2B]

There seems to be a dearth of commonsense in this thread.

There are many things I have the right to do.

I can cycle up the left of a lorry with its indicator on.

I can ride a bike with a 6x4 sheet of MDF strapped to it down a busy road on a windy day.

I have the right to walk down a country lane dressed all in black at night.

I have seen people do all of these things and they are all equally stupid. I also have the right enshrined in law to mock, draw attention to and generally denigrate the intellect of people doing these things. However I have learned something new, that people will defend even the most foolish actions of someone as long as they are a cyclist.

[DoubleSix]

ExPat2B said:

There seems to be a dearth of commonsense in this thread.

There are many things I have the right to do.

I can cycle up the left of a lorry with its indicator on.

I can ride a bike with a 6x4 sheet of MDF strapped to it down a busy road on a windy day.

I have the right to walk down a country lane dressed all in black at night.

I have seen people do all of these things and they are all equally stupid. I also have the right enshrined in law to mock, draw attention to and generally denigrate the intellect of people doing these things. However I have learned something new, that people will defend even the most foolish actions of someone as long as they are a cyclist.

Each time a poster pops in to highlight the stupidity on display here a little of my faith in humanity is restored.

[lostkiwi]

ExPat2B said:

There seems to be a dearth of commonsense in this thread.

There are many things I have the right to do.

I can cycle up the left of a lorry with its indicator on.

I can ride a bike with a 6x4 sheet of MDF strapped to it down a busy road on a windy day.

I have the right to walk down a country lane dressed all in black at night.

I have seen people do all of these things and they are all equally stupid. I also have the right enshrined in law to mock, draw attention to and generally denigrate the intellect of people doing these things. However I have learned something new, that people will defend even the most foolish actions of someone as long as they are a cyclist.

Yep thats all true, but it doesn't paint a good picture of anyone who feels they can call someone else stupid without knowing the background to the decisions that person made.
Would I tow my kids behind my bike on a DC if there was a sensible alternative route? Probably not.
If I saw someone else doing it would I call them stupid? No. I'd wonder why they were doing it but I wouldn't call them stupid or say their action was idiotic. I don't know why they are doing it so how can I say its stupid or idiotic.
There was a scenario provided where it would be perfectly reasonable for the cyclist to be doing what he did but rather than accept that there could be a valid reason some people jump all over the fact they wouldn't do it and its dangerous and yadda yadda yadda conveniently ignoring the idea that he may not have had a reasonable alternative. The idea that its dangerous is not down to him in any way - that's own to poor driving from other people he is forced to share a road with. All he's doing is trying to get from one place to another with his child.

[saaby93]

DoubleSix said:

ExPat2B said:

There seems to be a dearth of commonsense in this thread.

There are many things I have the right to do.

I can cycle up the left of a lorry with its indicator on.

I can ride a bike with a 6x4 sheet of MDF strapped to it down a busy road on a windy day.

I have the right to walk down a country lane dressed all in black at night.

I have seen people do all of these things and they are all equally stupid. I also have the right enshrined in law to mock, draw attention to and generally denigrate the intellect of people doing these things. However I have learned something new, that people will defend even the most foolish actions of someone as long as they are a cyclist.

Each time a poster pops in to highlight the stupidity on display here a little of my faith in humanity is restored.

Well no because the poster has highlighted another set of circumstances which may or may not be defensible and argue against those to show theyre right rather than the subject in hand.
It's typical strawman and can lead to a discussion of mens right to have babies

[anonymous-user]

ExPat2B said:

There seems to be a dearth of commonsense in this thread.

There are many things I have the right to do.

I can cycle up the left of a lorry with its indicator on.

I can ride a bike with a 6x4 sheet of MDF strapped to it down a busy road on a windy day.

I have the right to walk down a country lane dressed all in black at night.

I have seen people do all of these things and they are all equally stupid. I also have the right enshrined in law to mock, draw attention to and generally denigrate the intellect of people doing these things. However I have learned something new, that people will defend even the most foolish actions of someone as long as they are a cyclist.

I am not a cyclist, I am a father and a husband. Infrequently I use my bicycle to ransport my child to and from nursery should it be necessary.

Most peeople on this thread are failing to appreciate that were we all to ride or drive with courtesy and respect for others, there is actually precious little dangerous about sharing the road with other more vulnerable users.

Unfortuantely hyperbole takes over and peopel rant about 1+ tonnes of metal and squishing children without thinking logically. I am not defending the use of a child trailer on a dual carriageway, I am simply saying its not actually that dangerous. I do find it odd that on a driving enthusiasts website, most people are scared of sharing the road with one though for fear of squishing said child. Its like the moment we drive onto a road with two lanes of traffic or more, the road instantly becomes some sort of weird driving skill neutraliser?... if you can avoid a child trailer on a suburban road or twon centre, you can avoid one at 60mph.

Meanhile, statistics say that 2 car occupants will die in accidents today... and tomorrow, and Wednesday.... so to take the points on board that you are placing your trust in people not to drive over the trailer, yeah point made and I take that, if you cant avoid anohter big shiny brightly coloured car, chances of you avoiding the small trailer are slim....

Fundamental point, driving stndards in the UK are st.

[oyster]

mygoldfishbowl said:

Yet another thread where some cyclists have without doubt proved themselves to be the most stupid SOBs on the face of this Earth.

The irony you seem to have missed is that your claim of stupidity is based on an acceptance that risk is created by bad drivers. So thereby admitting the problem of safety is not one created by cyclists, but by drivers.

In which case, surely you must support more measure to make those drivers drive with more care? Perhaps more rigorous training? Lower speed limits? Which is it?