Man rides bike with child in trailer down dual carriage way

[justleanitupabit]

I like how within 6 posts of the OP someone was slagging off car drivers.

[oyster]

ORD said:

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).

You'll have to post a link to a scientific model showing how lower speed limits cause congestion. I'd be amazed if there are any as it just doesn't make any sense at all. Congestion is all about volume flow of traffic. Unless you live in the wilderness, volume of vehicles will cause congestion, not speed limits.

ORD said:

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.

Do you really think those drivers don't snooze/text at 70?

[walm]

oyster said:

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.

Rubbish.
If those pesky cyclists just kept to their dedicated lanes and off our DCs then there wouldn't be any bad driving.
The problem is CAUSED by the cyclists - don't you see?

Let me try an analogy.
When a girl goes out in a short skirt and gets drunk, men will try to rape her.
This is quite clearly HER fault.

It is obviously VERY risky to go out in a short skirt and down Sambuca as fast as humanly possible while surrounded by a bunch of rapey men.
Therefore we must label those women as stupid risk-takers and try to stamp them out.
There is nothing wrong with the rapey men; that's just men being men.

Have I followed the argument correctly?

[DoubleSix]

pablo said:

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.

Oh dear god not another!

Look, nobody is failing to appreciate that but for the umpteenth time that isn't the prevailing situation. It's not even a situation which is vaguely likely to emerge in our lifetimes - this isn't the Netherlands, this isn't Norway. The roads are littered with selfish, ignorant, hurried and harassed individuals to whom your safety barely even features on their consciousness as they go about their daily A to B.

How many times does this have to be re-written for you to understand the basic standpoint from where this argument is positioned?

[IroningMan]

Walm said:

Have I followed the argument correctly?

Yep.

Edited by IroningMan on Monday 29th June 12:11

[DoubleSix]

walm said:

Have I followed the argument correctly?

No.

[ExPat2B]

oyster said:

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?

The problem with this, and all the other posts banging on about the source of the risk, is that on this road, with no hard shoulder and the trailer in the inside carriageway, is that there is very little time to see the danger and react correctly to it. This is not because people are bad drivers, it is because people are fallible, human, and prone to error. Every day you can take decisions lead to courses of action that accept this as the reality of our human existence and minimise your exposure to it, or you can be the mourning father of a dead child.

[lostkiwi]

ExPat2B said:

oyster said:

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?

The problem with this, and all the other posts banging on about the source of the risk, is that on this road, with no hard shoulder and the trailer in the inside carriageway, is that there is very little time to see the danger and react correctly to it. This is not because people are bad drivers, it is because people are fallible, human, and prone to error. Every day you can take decisions lead to courses of action that accept this as the reality of our human existence and minimise your exposure to it, or you can be the mourning father of a dead child.

The bold bit is where you contradict yourself. If drivers have so little time to react correctly they are driving at an unsafe speed or failing to correctly anticipate there may be other slower traffic on the road. Drivers that do not drive at a speed that is relevant to the conditions or in a manner that allows for other road users are 'bad drivers' and an accident waiting to happen. Its a sad fact a cyclist and his child in a trailer will be more likely to suffer serious injury or death but it could equally be a motorcyclist, car, tractor or HGV. A motorcyclist won't necessarily fare any better than a cyclist either.

[5-Oh]

lostkiwi said:

And if you had no choice because you lived on that section of road and had no alternative transport? Does that make you a bad/foolish/irresponsible parent?

I'm not in that situation though so hard to say, I'm merely saying that personally I probably wouldn't be too comfortable with it.

[ORD]

oyster said:

ORD said:

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).

You'll have to post a link to a scientific model showing how lower speed limits cause congestion. I'd be amazed if there are any as it just doesn't make any sense at all. Congestion is all about volume flow of traffic. Unless you live in the wilderness, volume of vehicles will cause congestion, not speed limits.

ORD said:

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.

Do you really think those drivers don't snooze/text at 70?

Are you that hard of thinking? A car travelling half as fast spends twice as long on the road. If you halve average speeds, you double the number of cars on the road.

[TankRizzo]

lostkiwi said:

If drivers have so little time to react correctly they are driving at an unsafe speed or failing to correctly anticipate there may be other slower traffic on the road.

Yes.

lostkiwi said:

Drivers that do not drive at a speed that is relevant to the conditions or in a manner that allows for other road users are 'bad drivers' and an accident waiting to happen.

Yes.

Nobody would disagree with these statements. It doesn't change the fact that this will most likely always be so due to human nature and general tttishness on the roads. But you'll still be dead. It's no consolation.

[Cfnteabag]

Surely there is the world in which the highway code exists as how everyone drives and then there is the real world where the roads are inhabited with texting, non attention paying drivers who drive because it is their god given right not some form of privilage. I people can drive along a dual carriageway and crash into a recovery vehicle covered in flashing yellow lights then what hope is there for a child in a bike trailer?

[DoubleSix]

Cfnteabag said:

Surely there is the world in which the highway code exists as how everyone drives and then there is the real world where the roads are inhabited with texting, non attention paying drivers who drive because it is their god given right not some form of privilage. I people can drive along a dual carriageway and crash into a recovery vehicle covered in flashing yellow lights then what hope is there for a child in a bike trailer?

And again, someone with a brain has popped in to say hello.

[DoubleSix]

DoubleSix said:

lostkiwi said:

DoubleSix said:

...with fast moving, hard, unpredictable objects

Unpredictable? We aren't talking cart horses here, we're supposed to be discussing responsibly driven motor vehicles being driven by properly qualified drivers. If its 'unpredictable' either the car or driver should not be on the road.

Go stand on the hard shoulder of the M25 for 45 mins just inside the white line and come back and tell us how 'predictable' these responsibly driven motor vehicles are.

Honestly I despair at the feebleness of your intellect.

How did you get on?

[lostkiwi]

DoubleSix said:

DoubleSix said:

lostkiwi said:

DoubleSix said:

...with fast moving, hard, unpredictable objects

Unpredictable? We aren't talking cart horses here, we're supposed to be discussing responsibly driven motor vehicles being driven by properly qualified drivers. If its 'unpredictable' either the car or driver should not be on the road.

Go stand on the hard shoulder of the M25 for 45 mins just inside the white line and come back and tell us how 'predictable' these responsibly driven motor vehicles are.

Honestly I despair at the feebleness of your intellect.

How did you get on?

Are you so simple we need to explain to you the difference between a motorway where people are not expecting a slow moving/stationary vehicle and a dual carriageway where such a thing is a distinct possibility?

Try firing up the brain before engaging fingers on keyboard. I'll happily go stand on the side of the A31 next time I'm down there. Might not be for a while as I live nowhere near it at present.

I had originally thought double six might be your IQ of 66 but now it looks increasingly as though it may be actually 12 - or maybe thats your age - seems about appropriate to the tripe you post.

Edited by lostkiwi on Monday 29th June 13:10

Edited by lostkiwi on Monday 29th June 13:22

[lostkiwi]

Cfnteabag said:

Surely there is the world in which the highway code exists as how everyone drives and then there is the real world where the roads are inhabited with texting, non attention paying drivers who drive because it is their god given right not some form of privilage. I people can drive along a dual carriageway and crash into a recovery vehicle covered in flashing yellow lights then what hope is there for a child in a bike trailer?

No one's disputing that. Its just proof that driving standards here are inferior to those of our continental neighbours as they don't seem to have quite so many problems avoiding cyclists.

[Mave]

DoubleSix said:

Cfnteabag said:

Surely there is the world in which the highway code exists as how everyone drives and then there is the real world where the roads are inhabited with texting, non attention paying drivers who drive because it is their god given right not some form of privilage. I people can drive along a dual carriageway and crash into a recovery vehicle covered in flashing yellow lights then what hope is there for a child in a bike trailer?

And again, someone with a brain has popped in to say hello.

And again, someone has popped in to say stuff that non-one is disagreeing with, whilst forgetting to condemn the texting, non attention paying drivers.

[anonymous-user]

DoubleSix said:

pablo said:

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 another big shiny brightly coloured car, chances of you avoiding the small trailer are slim....

Fundamental point, driving stndards in the UK are st.

Oh dear god not another!

Look, nobody is failing to appreciate that but for the umpteenth time that isn't the prevailing situation. It's not even a situation which is vaguely likely to emerge in our lifetimes - this isn't the Netherlands, this isn't Norway. The roads are littered with selfish, ignorant, hurried and harassed individuals to whom your safety barely even features on their consciousness as they go about their daily A to B.

How many times does this have to be re-written for you to understand the basic standpoint from where this argument is positioned?

I have highlighted the part where we are in violent agreement.

Lets be mature about this and move on, you know UK driving standards are st, I know UK driving standards are st, if there are people who would like to cycle more often but are in fear of being hit whilst on the road, what can we do about it?

Can I see the number of cyclists decreasing over time? not really, population increases and poor road infrastructure leads to longer commuting times if we all still drive to work, taxation increases the cost of motoring, health benefits etc all encourage more peopel to cycle... its clear UK road infrastructure can not cope with a significant increase in the number of cyclists commuting though and these cyclist/motorist confrontations arent helping anyone.

Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 29th June 14:31

[DoubleSix]

pablo said:

DoubleSix said:

pablo said:

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 another big shiny brightly coloured car, chances of you avoiding the small trailer are slim....

Fundamental point, driving stndards in the UK are st.

Oh dear god not another!

Look, nobody is failing to appreciate that but for the umpteenth time that isn't the prevailing situation. It's not even a situation which is vaguely likely to emerge in our lifetimes - this isn't the Netherlands, this isn't Norway. The roads are littered with selfish, ignorant, hurried and harassed individuals to whom your safety barely even features on their consciousness as they go about their daily A to B.

How many times does this have to be re-written for you to understand the basic standpoint from where this argument is positioned?

I have highlighted the part where we are in violent agreement.

Indeed.

Hence I honestly can't think of a single situation that would persuade me to pick my two year old up from nursery on my bike. Particularly at that time of day (school run) where I observe some of the poorest driving.

I'd sooner walk all the way there and back on broken glass tbh.

[Limpet]

Driving into the centre of Oxford on Saturday, I spotted a woman cycling along one of the main roads in and out of the city centre, in busy Saturday morning traffic, with a child of about 5 years old balanced on the crossbar.

Stupid doesn't even begin to cover it.