Man rides bike with child in trailer down dual carriage way

[Mr Will]

I've ridden down a dual carriage way with a child-trailer attached. Ridden through the centre of London with one as well.

Didn't have my daughter in at either of those points though, it was just quite handy for carting stuff about.

[ExPat2B]

gazchap said:

Would you have expected the drivers to not take action to avoid the cyclist if he didn't have the trailer behind him?

I wouldn't ride a bike on a dual carriageway full-stop, but given that there's a high chance that it was a two-lane carriageway, in theory it should be SAFER to ride on one than on a single-laned carriageway.

I don't know if you have seen one of these Child Bike Trailers, but they have two wheels, flags and are approx. 1m + across, they take up quite a bit of road space. I have seen people riding bikes on dual carriage ways, and it did not require every person that pass them to move over into the next lane for them not be squashed flat.

Perhaps for visualisation, you could consider what it would be like to ride an electric mobility scooter at 10mph down a busy dual carriage way, the kind of chaos it would cause, you are dealing with 70mph + closing speeds, HGV's that require considerable forward planning in order to move out etc. If you think that is safe, or safer that riding a bike in a 30 limit, then I would respectfully suggest the learned gentleman has his head examined.

[Mr2Mike]

lostkiwi said:

Simple fact is the cyclist has as much right to be there as anyone.

Just for the hard of thinking:

The OP did not suggest that riding on a DCW is illegal.
The OP did not suggest that the cyclist has no right to be on the DCW.

Cycling on a road with cars an HGVs travelling at high speed presents a not inconsiderable amount of risk, and deliberately exposing a small child to that risk is completely irresponsible.

[Zod]

Mr Will said:

I've ridden down a dual carriage way with a child-trailer attached. Ridden through the centre of London with one as well.

Didn't have my daughter in at either of those points though, it was just quite handy for carting stuff about.

I see people with them at places like Highbury Corner and even Knightsbridge, with children inside.

[andrewparker]

I regularly see a guy trailering his child around the ring round in Huddersfield in rush hour traffic. It has always struck me as a completely bonkers thing to do. Regardless of your right to be there, all it takes is one mistake, and I don't personally agree with placing a child at that sort of risk.

[mph1977]

Zod said:

BGarside said:

Since when is it illegal or irresponsible to cycle along a dual carriageway?

Surely it is easier to pass a cyclist than on a narrow country road or single lane 'A' or 'B'-road??

Perhaps the OP would be happier if cyclists didn't use the roads at all? (Cue plenty of aggressive driving to try to scare us off)

So you'd tow small children in a trailer on a dual carriageway? That is utterly irresponsible.

The "cyclists are always right" lobby on here are beyond credibility. I cycle. I drive. I make mistakes doing both. I see plenty of idiots doing both.

as usual , the conditional right of motr vehicles to use roads is being presumed by the idiot steering wheel operatives to be of greater 'worthiness' than the un condition rights or pedestrians , equestirans and cyclists to use the road ...

[Zod]

mph1977 said:

as usual , the conditional right of motr vehicles to use roads is being presumed by the idiot steering wheel operatives to be of greater 'worthiness' than the un condition rights or pedestrians , equestirans and cyclists to use the road ...

Careful, people might not realise how deeply your tongue is in your cheek!

[DamienB]

marshalla said:

Sounds more like there was a lot of bad driving (lack of observation) going on if people were having to brake and take avoiding action.

Are you suggesting it would be good driving to continue at whatever speed you're doing and not take avoiding action?

I'd prefer my car not to have a cyclist embedded in the radiator, thanks...

[ExPat2B]

Mr2Mike said:

lostkiwi said:

Simple fact is the cyclist has as much right to be there as anyone.

Just for the hard of thinking:

The OP did not suggest that riding on a DCW is illegal.
The OP did not suggest that the cyclist has no right to be on the DCW.

Cycling on a road with cars an HGVs travelling at high speed presents a not inconsiderable amount of risk, and deliberately exposing a small child to that risk is completely irresponsible.

I think we should make it illegal, and that nobody should have the right to expose an innocent child to that level of risk.

[anonymous-user]

Ste1987 said:

Freddy88FM said:

What a fking idiotic comment.

That was meant to be sarcasm, based on what I've read on other anti-cycle threads

I think Freddy needs a woosh parrot and from the sounds of it, a relaxing holiday

[Mandat]

DamienB said:

marshalla said:

Sounds more like there was a lot of bad driving (lack of observation) going on if people were having to brake and take avoiding action.

Are you suggesting it would be good driving to continue at whatever speed you're doing and not take avoiding action?

I'd prefer my car not to have a cyclist embedded in the radiator, thanks...

I think that good driving would be observing and anticipating the road ahead appropriately so that the cyclist can be overtaken safely and in good time, without having to resort to braking and taking avoiding action, as the OP said was happening.

[saaby93]

ExPat2B said:

I think we should make it illegal, and that nobody should have the right to expose an innocent child to that level of risk.

Why dont we just ban everything if we think there's any risk in it
(even drinking coffee)

A huge number of A roads have the odd stretch of DC sometimes just for a road junction, at other tiems for convenience of road users. Think of DCs as upgrades for roads that have been there since before there were motor vehicles

Are we going to ban horses and bikes from these bits and hence the whole road just because we feel like it?
DCs generally retain all user traffic rights because there isnt an alternave road theyre the original road, unlike motorways which are specifically designed to take motor vehicles but leaving the old roads where they were.

Sometimes you'll see a brand spanking new town relief road single carriageway with no footway - why?

Now look at the safety stats - begin with bikes.
Are you more likely to have a crash in a built up place like London or the open road?

If youre going to have a bike with a kiddie trailer on the back what makes you think it's more dangerous on a DC than using it around town?
Now do the same with a horse.

[ExPat2B]

saaby93 said:

ExPat2B said:

I think we should make it illegal, and that nobody should have the right to expose an innocent child to that level of risk.

Why dont we just ban everything if we think there's any risk in it
(even drinking coffee)

A huge number of A roads have the odd stretch of DC sometimes just for a road junction, at other tiems for convenience of road users. Think of DCs as upgrades for roads that have been there since before there were motor vehicles

Are we going to ban horses and bikes from these bits and hence the whole road just because we feel like it?
DCs generally retain all user traffic rights because there isnt an alternave road theyre the original road, unlike motorways which are specifically designed to take motor vehicles but leaving the old roads where they were.

Sometimes you'll see a brand spanking new town relief road single carriageway with no footway - why?

Now look at the safety stats - begin with bikes.
Are you more likely to have a crash in a built up place like London or the open road?

If youre going to have a bike with a kiddie trailer on the back what makes you think it's more dangerous on a DC than using it around town?
Now do the same with a horse.

Driving an electric mobility scooter which has a similar speed and rear profile to a bike trailer is already illegal on an unrestricted DC.

[oyster]

ExPat2B said:

Mr2Mike said:

lostkiwi said:

Simple fact is the cyclist has as much right to be there as anyone.

Just for the hard of thinking:

The OP did not suggest that riding on a DCW is illegal.
The OP did not suggest that the cyclist has no right to be on the DCW.

Cycling on a road with cars an HGVs travelling at high speed presents a not inconsiderable amount of risk, and deliberately exposing a small child to that risk is completely irresponsible.

I think we should make it illegal, and that nobody should have the right to expose an innocent child to that level of risk.

In what perverse world do you want to live where you want to make something illegal to protect against risk from someone else doing something illegal?

Not saying I'd expose my children to such risk, please be aware of that. But also please be very clear that the reason it's a risk is not because of the bike, or the child - but because too many feckwits are behind the wheel.

[anonymous-user]

ExPat2B said:

Mr2Mike said:

lostkiwi said:

Simple fact is the cyclist has as much right to be there as anyone.

Just for the hard of thinking:

The OP did not suggest that riding on a DCW is illegal.
The OP did not suggest that the cyclist has no right to be on the DCW.

Cycling on a road with cars an HGVs travelling at high speed presents a not inconsiderable amount of risk, and deliberately exposing a small child to that risk is completely irresponsible.

I think we should make it illegal, and that nobody should have the right to expose an innocent child to that level of risk.

Is it that risky though? I mean really? in your example, everyone saw it because they were paying attention, took mitigating action and no one came to any harm. Its only a risk if there is someone not paying attention, on their phone, eating cereal etc etc or of course, if the cyclist does something stupid but as we are assuming they have some form of paternal instinct, thats unlikely,....

So the biggest risk is the motorist not paying attention and driving into the trailer and the cyclist can not do anything about that, like the rest of the road users, he just has to assume that people are driving with due care and attention....

[Zod]

pablo said:

Is it that risky though? I mean really? in your example, everyone saw it because they were paying attention, took mitigating action and no one came to any harm. Its only a risk if there is someone not paying attention, on their phone, eating cereal etc etc or of course, if the cyclist does something stupid but as we are assuming they have some form of paternal instinct, thats unlikely,....

So the biggest risk is the motorist not paying attention and driving into the trailer and the cyclist can not do anything about that, like the rest of the road users, he just has to assume that people are driving with due care and attention....

If the cyclist had "some sort of paternal instinct" he would not have been riding there. Anyone who travels around the road network assuming that everone else is driving with due care and attention is likely to come a cropper.

[lostkiwi]

pablo said:

ExPat2B said:

Mr2Mike said:

lostkiwi said:

Simple fact is the cyclist has as much right to be there as anyone.

Just for the hard of thinking:

The OP did not suggest that riding on a DCW is illegal.
The OP did not suggest that the cyclist has no right to be on the DCW.

Cycling on a road with cars an HGVs travelling at high speed presents a not inconsiderable amount of risk, and deliberately exposing a small child to that risk is completely irresponsible.

I think we should make it illegal, and that nobody should have the right to expose an innocent child to that level of risk.

Is it that risky though? I mean really? in your example, everyone saw it because they were paying attention, took mitigating action and no one came to any harm. Its only a risk if there is someone not paying attention, on their phone, eating cereal etc etc or of course, if the cyclist does something stupid but as we are assuming they have some form of paternal instinct, thats unlikely,....

So the biggest risk is the motorist not paying attention and driving into the trailer and the cyclist can not do anything about that, like the rest of the road users, he just has to assume that people are driving with due care and attention....

Well said and that was my point. Some people seem to have an issue with cyclist even being on the road (and since Mr2Mike seems to be had of comprehension let alone thinking) that was what I was getting at.
As I said in my post previously we don't know why he was on that road and what it was that influenced his decision so without that information how can we judge his decision to be good or bad irrespective of some sanctimonious people saying it should be banned. If the other road users acknowledged the fact there is a bike on the road (with or without a trailer and with or without a child in it) and behaved accordingly then it would never be an issue. Other countries in Europe seem able to manage it without any issues why can't we in this country?

[ExPat2B]

oyster said:

ExPat2B said:

Mr2Mike said:

lostkiwi said:

Simple fact is the cyclist has as much right to be there as anyone.

Just for the hard of thinking:

The OP did not suggest that riding on a DCW is illegal.
The OP did not suggest that the cyclist has no right to be on the DCW.

Cycling on a road with cars an HGVs travelling at high speed presents a not inconsiderable amount of risk, and deliberately exposing a small child to that risk is completely irresponsible.

I think we should make it illegal, and that nobody should have the right to expose an innocent child to that level of risk.

In what perverse world do you want to live where you want to make something illegal to protect against risk from someone else doing something illegal?

Not saying I'd expose my children to such risk, please be aware of that. But also please be very clear that the reason it's a risk is not because of the bike, or the child - but because too many feckwits are behind the wheel.

It is not feckwittedness not to expect to encounter something with a speed differential of 60mph on a DC.

In the same way that if you drive on the motorway below 30mph in Ireland you are committing an offence, in the same way you don't allow horses or pedestrians on motorways, in the same way that mobility scooters are not allowed on DC's, I see no problem with traffic that is clearly not suited to the conditions and presents a hazard both to themselves and everyone around them being legislated against.

If it was a car it would clearly fail the definition of dangerous driving "
" and it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous"

I think we all can agree that taking your child on the road in this fashion is dangerous. The source of that danger is immaterial.

[otolith]

I do find it strange that it is a legal requirement to strap your kids into child seats inside a two tonne SUV but legal to drag them behind your bike in a glorified pushchair. People make their own assessment of risk, though, and if you aren't looking far enough ahead to avoid a cyclist on a dual carriageway, you shouldn't have a licence. Because I suspect that there are too many people out there who shouldn't have a licence, personally, I choose not to ride on the local DC.

[wibblebrain]

Mr2Mike said:

Just for the hard of thinking:

The OP did not suggest that riding on a DCW is illegal.
The OP did not suggest that the cyclist has no right to be on the DCW.

Cycling on a road with cars an HGVs travelling at high speed presents a not inconsiderable amount of risk, and deliberately exposing a small child to that risk is completely irresponsible.

^^^
Nail, head, bang on.

Can't believe the self righteous responses earlier in the thread.