Man rides bike with child in trailer down dual carriage way

[Sad Ken]

wibblebrain said:

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.

This....and....

ORD said:

It is self-evidently massively stupid to do what this cyclist did.

Anyone arguing otherwise really does need to have a think about whether they would rather (a) proudly assert their right to be on whatever road they like, no matter the risk to themselves or others or (b) keep their child safe from an obvious and non-negligible risk of death.



If someone took those kind of risks with my child, they wouldn't be riding a bike again in a hurry

....and this....

smokeey said:

Jesus, you really are a dhead..

If the road is that dangerous to take your child on, regardless of who's in the wrong, then you don't take your child on it.

Would you walk down a street whilst a maniac gunman was shooting people, just because you should be able to or you have the right to ?

Anyone using this thread as an excuse to argue the toss about driving standards, or whether cyclists should or shouldn't be on the road is either massively missing the point, or deliberately trying to be a smart arse purely for the sake of being a smart arse.

Who in their right mind actually thinks it's a good idea to tow a child down ANY road in one of those flimsy bits of crap, never mind a 60mph road? I'm sure it'll be massively comforting when you're cradling a dead child and somebody says "ah, but you had every right to be there, those pesky drivers and their poor driving standards"

[saaby93]

Sad Ken said:

Anyone using this thread as an excuse to argue the toss about driving standards, or whether cyclists should or shouldn't be on the road is either massively missing the point, or deliberately trying to be a smart arse purely for the sake of being a smart arse.

Who in their right mind actually thinks it's a good idea to tow a child down ANY road in one of those flimsy bits of crap, never mind a 60mph road? I'm sure it'll be massively comforting when you're cradling a dead child and somebody says "ah, but you had every right to be there, those pesky drivers and their poor driving standards"

I think theyre missing the point too
If someone is ok towing their child in one of those basket things, the risk is higher around town than on a DC
On the other hand if you look at the health benefits of being out cycling
Do you still take the car?

ok is this time for a Twizy? You can get a child seat for it

[ORD]

saaby93 said:

think theyre missing the point too
If someone is ok towing their child in one of those basket things, the risk is higher around town than on a DC
On the other hand if you look at the health benefits of being out cycling
Do you still take the car?

ok is this time for a Twizy? You can get a child seat for it

Huh?

Not cycling has never made me less healthy or risked killing me. It might, in theory, make me healthier if I cycled (although I doubt it given the air pollution at street level).

But sticking a child in one of those daft trailers carries a real and imminent risk of death. Mentioning long-term health benefits to the cyclist stinks of having completely missed the point.

[Sad Ken]

saaby93 said:

If someone is ok towing their child in one of those basket things, the risk is higher around town than on a DC

I wouldn't use one on any road at all. I've often thought to myself that they're a canny idea for parks and purpose built cycle lanes (ie the segregated ones, not the type that are just painted off sections of road/pavement), but not for the road. What would be a bent bumper and some insurance inconvenience in a car, becomes a fractured skull and intensive care.

[saaby93]

Who posted up this link, I just found open?

https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2015/06/...

Woman drives 300 yards to avoid her kids walking ths road


Can you imagine a safer road? - it has pavements separated by grass verges, good view of the crossing points, what else would you want? The main danger, little there is, the parents driving 300 yds

[DJFish]

I've used one of those trailers in Centreparcs, they're a nice way of getting the kids about, my neighbour takes her kids to nursery in one (on the cycle path).

I also commute by cycle in central London so you could say I'm pretty pro-cycling.

But there's no way I'd be putting my kids in one and cycling down a dual carriageway.

Should I be able to?
In an ideal world, yes.

I also have the right to swim the channel dressed as the pope but it doesn't mean it's a sensible thing to do.

[Zod]

Sad Ken said:

saaby93 said:

If someone is ok towing their child in one of those basket things, the risk is higher around town than on a DC

I wouldn't use one on any road at all. I've often thought to myself that they're a canny idea for parks and purpose built cycle lanes (ie the segregated ones, not the type that are just painted off sections of road/pavement), but not for the road. What would be a bent bumper and some insurance inconvenience in a car, becomes a fractured skull and intensive care.

exactly! This is just obvious.

[Zod]

saaby93 said:

Who posted up this link, I just found open?

https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2015/06/...

Woman drives 300 yards to avoid her kids walking ths road


Can you imagine a safer road? - it has pavements separated by grass verges, good view of the crossing points, what else would you want? The main danger, little there is, the parents driving 300 yds

relevance?

[mph1977]

Diderot said:

lostkiwi said:

Diderot said:

It's amazing that in PH Lycra land, all DCs are arrow straight, have no awkward unsighted junctions and no undulations. And therefore utterly irresponsible fktards carrying their precious little Johnnies in a glorified tent on wheels with a safety flag pose no danger to themselves, their sprogs, and the other road users. Darwinism by proxy.

Not at all. You drive to the conditions. If you can't see you slow down. Otherwise that thing you might not see might kill you (fallen tree perhaps?). You should be able to stop in the distance of clear road in front of you.
Anyone not doing so could be said to be acting irresponsibly. I have no doubt what the police or a coroner would say to your view of the world.

So presumably you slow down every time there's a bend in the motorway?

I strongly suggest you go and do some driver development training before your complacency / Dunning -Kruger issues cause you problems ...

[rxtx]

Zod said:

Sad Ken said:

saaby93 said:

If someone is ok towing their child in one of those basket things, the risk is higher around town than on a DC

I wouldn't use one on any road at all. I've often thought to myself that they're a canny idea for parks and purpose built cycle lanes (ie the segregated ones, not the type that are just painted off sections of road/pavement), but not for the road. What would be a bent bumper and some insurance inconvenience in a car, becomes a fractured skull and intensive care.

exactly! This is just obvious.

Yet this is a commonplace sight in Scandinavia, adults riding bikes with their children towed behind. I've lived in Denmark and Norway, this happens every hour of every day in their cities. Granted, they have some segregated cycle paths, but not all of them are, especially in inner Copenhagen where the roads are still very narrow.

The difference is it's commonplace there and it isn't here so driver mentality is different.

[Mr Will]

Sad Ken said:

saaby93 said:

If someone is ok towing their child in one of those basket things, the risk is higher around town than on a DC

I wouldn't use one on any road at all. I've often thought to myself that they're a canny idea for parks and purpose built cycle lanes (ie the segregated ones, not the type that are just painted off sections of road/pavement), but not for the road. What would be a bent bumper and some insurance inconvenience in a car, becomes a fractured skull and intensive care.

Would you be happier if they used one of these:


Or should carrying children on bikes be completely banned on public roads?

[DoubleSix]

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.

[Mr Will]

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?

[DoubleSix]

Nice assumption.

No, I only cycle off road these days. Too many idiots on the road and feeble infrastructure make for a lethal combination.

Like I say, the risk reward just isn't there.

[RemyMartin]

ExPat2B said:

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

The Hogs back isnt a dangerous road. Its the drivers who make it dangerous. Its a drivers responsibility to risk assess and read the road. Those features make it a risky road but intelligent driving can remove those risks.

In regard to the death on the road. The police didnt reasonably expect a man to br walking in the road, in the fog at that time. Subequently the pissed man didnt think walking in the road was a bad idea and being pissed didnt notice the police car with sirens and lights. Even so, its a given acceptance that the police car was travelling too fast (even on a blue light run) in those conditions. Tragic all round.

[heebeegeetee]

Sad Ken said:

Who in their right mind actually thinks it's a good idea to tow a child down ANY road in one of those flimsy bits of crap, never mind a 60mph road?

You mean any road in the UK? They're widely used elsewhere in Northern Europe. It's possibly only UK drivers who struggle to cope with cyclists remember.

[saaby93]

heebeegeetee said:

You mean any road in the UK? They're widely used elsewhere in Northern Europe. It's possibly only UK drivers who struggle to cope with cyclists remember.

or the other way round or both

[vikingaero]

saaby93 said:

Who posted up this link, I just found open?

https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2015/06/...

Woman drives 300 yards to avoid her kids walking ths road


Can you imagine a safer road? - it has pavements separated by grass verges, good view of the crossing points, what else would you want? The main danger, little there is, the parents driving 300 yds

Quite normal in the UK. I see loads of stay at home mums who live near us load up the car in the morning, drive 250 yards to the school. Drive 200 yards past it to park and drive back...

I have a friend who lives in the country who is 10 minutes walk from school but normally drives, especailly in the winter months, because there is no footpath, which is understandable.

[saaby93]

RemyMartin said:

The Hogs back isnt a dangerous road. Its the drivers who make it dangerous. Its a drivers responsibility to risk assess and read the road. Those features make it a risky road but intelligent driving can remove those risks.

Not necessarily. The design of one particular piece of road can influence driver, cyclist pedestrian behaviour compared to another piece of road. If you have a particular hot spot, you need to check whether its just by chance its a hotspot or if there are particular circumstances
Have a look at
http://www.crashmap.co.uk/Search
Type in hogs back surrey, then cut the number of years back to 2011, 2012, 2013, the last 3 available
E Flexford lane crossing immediately stands out



Those on the right may be for the other carriageway (or maybe not)
What would you do to help improve safety here?

Perhaps change the painted road arrows to show options for turning left or right?
Something else?

Edited by saaby93 on Saturday 27th June 09:43

[blank]

Well this thread certainly explains the cyclists you sometimes see on the Milton Keynes grid roads. Bumbling along on a 70mph dual carriageway when there is a completely separate cycle path about 10m away.

Legal? Yes.
Stupid? Yes.