Man rides bike with child in trailer down dual carriage way

[ExPat2B]

Well, I thought I had seen all the stupid things you could do on a road, but this week I saw a man riding a bike with a child trailer attached down a dual carriage way. To make it worse, it was not even a proper dual carriage way, it doesn't have a hard shoulder, just a soft verge, so people were having to brake and move into the next lane to pass.

There is no amount of money you could pay me to put all that I hold dear in a tiny trailer at wheel height and do the same thing. WTF was he thinking ?

[ExPat2B]

marshalla said:

No requirement for a hard shoulder for it to be a dual carriageway, and nothing illegal about riding a bike on one either, no matter how ill-advised it might appear to be to be towing a child in a trailer at the time.

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.

I didn't say it was illegal, just incredibly stupid. However in true PH Cycling lobby form, you have found a way to blame the drivers, for taking the only course of action they could in order to avoid him. I needed a laugh this morning, and thank you, as you have done an excellent job of providing one.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[ExPat2B]

MoelyCrio said:

OP doesn't mention any child present?

I use mine to carry stuff, my toddler refuses to get in it these days. You wouldn't be able to tell whether he was in it or not from a passing car. Especially if you're lack of awareness means you're having to emergency brake to pass something in front of you.

Child present, quite clearly silhouetted by the sun through the mesh.

[ExPat2B]

thelawnet1 said:

ExPat2B said:

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

No it isn't.

You just need to have a flashing light.

https://www.gov.uk/mobility-scooters-and-powered-w...

Mobility scooter definitely slower than a bike btw.

Interesting, it does says "should not be used on a DC where the speed limit is above 50" but there is no "hard stop" use of the word must.

[ExPat2B]

If you are still not getting it, try this as thought experiment - you have been asked to close one lane of a DC so roadworks can occur.

Your proposal is to have no warning signs, no cones, no flashing lights, but a small brightly coloured flag and a flimsy metal cage, inside which you place your own child.

Would this be your preferred method ? Would you stand at your child's funeral and blame the driver that didn't see it, believing yourself to have done no wrong ?

[ExPat2B]

thelawnet1 said:

What was the speed limit on the road in your OP?

60mph, It is infamous for road accidents, recently a Police car stuck and killed a pedestrian walking along that road and the inquest cleared him

"prosecutors said the officer driving the car could not have expected someone to be walking on the side of the A31"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-32353820

[ExPat2B]

Mr Will said:

ExPat2B said:

60mph, It is infamous for road accidents, recently a Police car stuck and killed a pedestrian walking along that road and the inquest cleared him

"prosecutors said the officer driving the car could not have expected someone to be walking on the side of the A31"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-32353820

Drunk, walking in lane 2 on a foggy night wearing dark clothing. Just slightly different!

How about this one :

http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/local-news/recap-m...

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/9998742.Calls_to_t...appallingA31_accident_rate/

It is not a road you would willingly walk down unless you had a death wish.

[ExPat2B]

thelawnet1 said:

ExPat2B said:

60mph, It is infamous for road accidents, recently a Police car stuck and killed a pedestrian walking along that road and the inquest cleared him

"prosecutors said the officer driving the car could not have expected someone to be walking on the side of the A31"

Was this in Farnham? If so I can understand why because there is no other road through Farnham.

Edited by thelawnet1 on Friday 26th June 15:54

Nope, it was on the westbound DC between guidford A3 and before the dogging layby.

It is a dangerous bit of road as

- no hard shoulder
- road surface is poor
- undulations and dips leading to poor sighting. Also the undulations fill with water during rain creating standing water in outside and inside lane.
- a number of 90 degree cuts in the central reservation that mean traffic crosses directly over in front of oncoming traffic
- number of junctions that have joining slips just a hundred metres long, which does not allow joining traffic to match speed of traffic on DC
-a number of laybys and houses have driveways with no slip road leading directly onto the DC.
-no lighting

[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.

[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.