Car and cyclist meet
Discussion
Julian Scott said:
Awkward thing is, even if physically possible, the child isn't allowed to ride on the pavement.
In summary. Driver was a prick and should've stopped.
The view from Lincolnshire Police:In summary. Driver was a prick and should've stopped.
“Safety is our priority and cycling on the pavement is illegal. However, common sense obviously prevails and in the case of young children officers would use their discretion and offer the most appropriate advice for the circumstances.”
Looks a lot like the parent or guardian is putting their child in harms way for their crusade totally unnecessarily.
Julian Scott said:
Awkward thing is, even if physically possible, the child isn't allowed to ride on the pavement.
A grey area of the law considering the police can’t do anything to stop a child under 10 from cycling on the pavement which is where I’d be putting this child until they are less wobbly. BoRED S2upid said:
Julian Scott said:
Awkward thing is, even if physically possible, the child isn't allowed to ride on the pavement.
A grey area of the law considering the police can’t do anything to stop a child under 10 from cycling on the pavement which is where I’d be putting this child until they are less wobbly. Drezza said:
Bonefish Blues said:
Kid clearly rides well and maintains his course, so surprised to see this opinion.
Your definition of "rides well" and mine are clearly miles apart. Looks like an inexperienced (to be expected for his age) kid that should be on the pavement. TheInternet said:
Julian Scott said:
Awkward thing is, even if physically possible, the child isn't allowed to ride on the pavement.
In summary. Driver was a prick and should've stopped.
The view from Lincolnshire Police:In summary. Driver was a prick and should've stopped.
“Safety is our priority and cycling on the pavement is illegal. However, common sense obviously prevails and in the case of young children officers would use their discretion and offer the most appropriate advice for the circumstances.”
Looks a lot like the parent or guardian is putting their child in harms way for their crusade totally unnecessarily.
Looks a lot like like you are wildly assuming the parent is 'on a crusade'?
Seventyseven7 said:
Daveyraveygravey said:
If you replaced the child with a dog, or even a squirrel, I hope everyone here would stop. The driver is a clueless callous b
d.
It's a quiet residential street, the child was with his dad. Anyone saying the driver did nothing wrong should hand their licence in.
Would you stop if that was an adult on the bike? You wouldn’t have been required to. d. It's a quiet residential street, the child was with his dad. Anyone saying the driver did nothing wrong should hand their licence in.
But an out of control, clearly unstable 5 year old child, yes you should stop.
The issue here is that the driver shouldn’t be having to make a decision on whether to stop or not, that child shouldn’t be in the road.
king-hoo - if such decisions are tough, or beyond an individual's ability to comprehend, then those individuals are unsuited to the task of driving. And you're wrong. Legally that child really should be 'on the carriageway' as it constitutes an offence to ride a bicycle 'on the footway'... https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Will4/5-6/50/... True, police officers are encouraged to turn a blind eye when it's young kids on pavements, and children under ten are below the age of criminal responsibility... https://www.gov.uk/age-of-criminal-responsibility#... ...but that's what is written in statute law.As an aside, Section 72 of the Highways Act 1835 is also the law which should be utilised to clobber "pavement parking", because "driving a Carriage of any description" on a FOOTway is an offence, and unless you craned your car onto a pavement to park, then you're committing that offence. So, rather perversely, there is outcry against some cyclists complying with the law, and generally a defense of drivers who park outside of the law. PistonHeads. Hypocrisy matters!
Bonefish Blues said:
How does his inexperience show itself? Yes, I know he's 5, so has never done a TdF, but what are the signs I'm missing as what I see is the kid maintaining his separation from the vehicles, not wobbling, and doing exactly what he should do in that scenario?
He's quite clearly wobbling imoTheInternet said:
The view from Lincolnshire Police:
“Safety is our priority and cycling on the pavement is illegal. However, common sense obviously prevails and in the case of young children officers would use their discretion and offer the most appropriate advice for the circumstances.”
What a nobbish attitude from the police. So they see a family at the weekend bimbling along the pavement at about two miles a fortnight enjoying a bit of family time together and they're going 'offer the most appropriate advice'? Do f“Safety is our priority and cycling on the pavement is illegal. However, common sense obviously prevails and in the case of young children officers would use their discretion and offer the most appropriate advice for the circumstances.”
k off you pompous arses.Bonefish Blues said:
BoRED S2upid said:
Julian Scott said:
Awkward thing is, even if physically possible, the child isn't allowed to ride on the pavement.
A grey area of the law considering the police can’t do anything to stop a child under 10 from cycling on the pavement which is where I’d be putting this child until they are less wobbly. Seventyseven7 said:
Would you stop if that was an adult on the bike? You wouldn’t have been required to.
Would that driver have stopped if it was another car coming towards them?Because that should always be the measure of how a driver should behave around a bike. They should only do what they’d do if the bike was replaced with a car travelling at the same speed.
TheInternet said:
The view from Lincolnshire Police:
“Safety is our priority and cycling on the pavement is illegal. However, common sense obviously prevails and in the case of young children officers would use their discretion and offer the most appropriate advice for the circumstances.”
Looks a lot like the parent or guardian is putting their child in harms way for their crusade totally unnecessarily.
Is the parent also allowed to ride on the pavement in those circumstances?“Safety is our priority and cycling on the pavement is illegal. However, common sense obviously prevails and in the case of young children officers would use their discretion and offer the most appropriate advice for the circumstances.”
Looks a lot like the parent or guardian is putting their child in harms way for their crusade totally unnecessarily.
Julian Scott said:
"Yes your honour, I did realise it was illegal, but the police office said common sense prevails. Please stop laughing your honour. Yes I realise the using the words Common Sense when talking about police is unusual".
Looks a lot like like you are wildly assuming the parent is 'on a crusade'?
Terrific use of language for a 5 year old.Looks a lot like like you are wildly assuming the parent is 'on a crusade'?
And they are quite obviously on a crusade, probably a worthy one, but I'd hope they would put their child's safety above making a point.
I've since seen the full clip.
Kid asks his dad whether he should pull to the side, kid has obviously recognised the potential danger and sees a way to avoid it but for reasons unknown the dad says to carry on. The kid then gets a bit of a nerve wobble on but controls it as the car passes and carries on.
IMO that's mainly on the dad, shouting 'what are you doing' at the driver as if all responsibility for his kids safety lands on them. A decent parent and decent cyclist would never have let their kid get into that position in the first place.
There's also the sheer fking stupidity of cycling with a 5 year old on busy roads!
Kid asks his dad whether he should pull to the side, kid has obviously recognised the potential danger and sees a way to avoid it but for reasons unknown the dad says to carry on. The kid then gets a bit of a nerve wobble on but controls it as the car passes and carries on.
IMO that's mainly on the dad, shouting 'what are you doing' at the driver as if all responsibility for his kids safety lands on them. A decent parent and decent cyclist would never have let their kid get into that position in the first place.
There's also the sheer f
king stupidity of cycling with a 5 year old on busy roads! BoRED S2upid said:
Bonefish Blues said:
BoRED S2upid said:
Julian Scott said:
Awkward thing is, even if physically possible, the child isn't allowed to ride on the pavement.
A grey area of the law considering the police can’t do anything to stop a child under 10 from cycling on the pavement which is where I’d be putting this child until they are less wobbly. Yes the Kid is riding in a straight line but those handlebars are working overtime and the little wheels and pedals are going like the clappers......
The bike is NOT suitable for the road, it's essentially a toy, and whilst the kid knows the mechanics of riding a bike and balance, he's passing parked cars at a level where it's difficult for him to see risks that an older rider or adult would see. Dad riding along behind with a Go Pro strapped to his head is not in any position to protect his kid in anyway should an issue occur.
Bad parenting quite simply..........
I thought the car was going at a reasonable speed but what the hell was that Dad doing!! It's no good being martyr to the cause if you rode over your squashed kid whose riding out front. He should have AT LEAST been riding upfront where he can signal to oncoming traffic, or take a dominant position forcing the car to stop. At most he should be taking his kid to play in the park with his toy and not on the road!
The bike is NOT suitable for the road, it's essentially a toy, and whilst the kid knows the mechanics of riding a bike and balance, he's passing parked cars at a level where it's difficult for him to see risks that an older rider or adult would see. Dad riding along behind with a Go Pro strapped to his head is not in any position to protect his kid in anyway should an issue occur.
Bad parenting quite simply..........
I thought the car was going at a reasonable speed but what the hell was that Dad doing!! It's no good being martyr to the cause if you rode over your squashed kid whose riding out front. He should have AT LEAST been riding upfront where he can signal to oncoming traffic, or take a dominant position forcing the car to stop. At most he should be taking his kid to play in the park with his toy and not on the road!
Bonefish Blues said:
I might do the same as you - but you and another are stating the kid's wobbly when they're very much not, that's what I'm challenging.
Maybe more of a weave than a wobble and only slight, nothing that could have caused issue but there's a clear difference in the way the kids riding when passing the car. I point it out purely as it's indicative of the kid not feeling comfortable in that position which is one his dad shouldn't have allowed him to be in.
Again though, 5 years old, 5! Kid can clearly ride a bike but surely you keep kids that age to parks and greenways etc..? Is it me?
Bonefish Blues said:
BoRED S2upid said:
Bonefish Blues said:
BoRED S2upid said:
Julian Scott said:
Awkward thing is, even if physically possible, the child isn't allowed to ride on the pavement.
A grey area of the law considering the police can’t do anything to stop a child under 10 from cycling on the pavement which is where I’d be putting this child until they are less wobbly. Gassing Station | Pedal Powered | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff