Cyclist with young kids on board - safely

Nick wrote:
On 19/05/2013 16:29, wrote:
On Sunday, 19 May 2013 15:16:56 UTC+1, Nick wrote:
On 19/05/2013 13:52, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:


No, which supports the point that people with a child on their
bike ar more likely to ride within the laws and their own
capabilities and be less likely to be involved in an accident.

Actually I suspect they are more likely to break the law by riding
on the pavement. You appear to be confusing obeying the law with
riding safely.
And they get all sanctimonious when challenged because YOU are
suggesting they put THEIR child at risk (so sod everyone else on the
pavement).

Why did you challenge them? As I understood it the pavement cycling
law was intended to be used only against those cycling irresponsibly.

Not in law.

On 20/05/2013 09:04, Nick wrote:

On 19/05/2013 16:29, wrote:
On Sunday, 19 May 2013 15:16:56 UTC+1, Nick wrote:
On 19/05/2013 13:52, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:

No, which supports the point that people with a child on their bike ar
more likely to ride within the laws and their own capabilities and be
less likely to be involved in an accident.

Actually I suspect they are more likely to break the law by riding on
the pavement. You appear to be confusing obeying the law with riding
safely.

And they get all sanctimonious when challenged because YOU are
suggesting they put THEIR child at risk (so sod everyone else
on the pavement).

Why did you challenge them? As I understood it the pavement cycling law
was intended to be used only against those cycling irresponsibly.

Cycling along a footway is a textbook definition of cycling irresponsibly.

On Mon, 20 May 2013 09:04:14 +0100, Nick wrote:

On 19/05/2013 16:29, wrote:
On Sunday, 19 May 2013 15:16:56 UTC+1, Nick wrote:
On 19/05/2013 13:52, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:


No, which supports the point that people with a child on their bike ar
more likely to ride within the laws and their own capabilities and be
less likely to be involved in an accident.

Actually I suspect they are more likely to break the law by riding on
the pavement. You appear to be confusing obeying the law with riding safely.

And they get all sanctimonious when challenged because YOU are suggesting they
put THEIR child at risk (so sod everyone else on the pavement).

Why did you challenge them? As I understood it the pavement cycling law
was intended to be used only against those cycling irresponsibly.


Oh really - and what makes you think that?

It is most odd that parliament did not actually make that proviso part of the
law - I wonder why they didn't?

--
Wearing a cycle helmet will not kill you.

On 20/05/2013 16:57, Judith wrote:

Why did you challenge them? As I understood it the pavement cycling law
was intended to be used only against those cycling irresponsibly.


Oh really - and what makes you think that?


The following letter is widely quoted on the internet.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
On 1st August 1999, new legislation came into force to allow a fixed
penalty notice to be served on anyone who is guilty of cycling on a
footway. However the Home Office issued guidance on how the new
legislation should be applied, indicating that they should only be used
where a cyclist is riding in a manner that may endanger others. At the
time Home Office Minister Paul Boateng issued a letter stating that:
“The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible
cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of
traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing
so. Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement,
acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people,
are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police
discretion is required.”
Almost identical advice has since been issued by the Home Office with
regards the use of fixed penalty notices by ‘Community Support Officers’
and wardens.
“CSOs and accredited persons will be accountable in the same way as
police officers. They will be under the direction and control of the
chief officer, supervised on a daily basis by the local community beat
officer and will be subject to the same police complaints system. The
Government have included provision in the Anti Social Behaviour Bill to
enable CSOs and accredited persons to stop those cycling irresponsibly
on the pavement in order to issue a fixed penalty notice.
I should stress that the issue is about inconsiderate cycling on the
pavements. The new provisions are not aimed at responsible cyclists who
sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of the traffic,
and who show consideration to other road users when doing so. Chief
officers recognise that the fixed penalty needs to be used with a
considerable degree of discretion and it cannot be issued to anyone
under the age of 16. (Letter to Mr H. Peel from John Crozier of The Home
Office, reference T5080/4, 23 February 2004)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------


It is most odd that parliament did not actually make that proviso part of the
law - I wonder why they didn't?


I wonder too. My suspicion is that it was felt that it would be easier
to enforce an absolute offence and hope that the police would use
discretion than it would be to have cyclists argue the toss about
whether they were behaving responsibly/considerately.

Personally I'm torn between a dislike for giving the police the role of
a judge but on the other hand see that for minor offences such as this
it might be a good pragmatic solution to tackle inconsiderate cyclists.

Do you have a view on why they would do such a thing?

On May 20, 6:11*pm, Nick wrote:
On 20/05/2013 16:57, Judith wrote:

Why did you challenge them? As I understood it the pavement cycling law
was intended to be used only against those cycling irresponsibly.

Oh really - and what makes you think that?

The following letter is widely quoted on the internet.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
On 1st August 1999, new legislation came into force to allow a fixed
penalty notice to be served on anyone who is guilty of cycling on a
footway. However the Home Office issued guidance on how the new
legislation should be applied, indicating that they should only be used
where a cyclist is riding in a manner that may endanger others. At the
time Home Office Minister Paul Boateng issued a letter stating that:
The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible
cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of
traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing
so.
[...]

Maybe some cyclists have a reasonable and well-founded fear of
motorists like this one:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-22596605
20 May 2013

Norwich woman's 'hit cyclist' tweet investigated by police

A woman who claimed on Twitter she had knocked a cyclist off his bike
is being investigated by Norfolk Police.

The Norwich woman's tweet on Sunday morning read: "Definitely knocked
a cyclist off his bike earlier.

"I have right of way - he doesn't even pay road tax! #Bloodycyclists."

Users forwarded the tweet to police, who confirmed they had spoken to
both parties. The woman, who described herself as a trainee
accountant, has removed her Twitter account.

Police said their investigations were continuing.

On Mon, 20 May 2013 18:11:16 +0100, Nick wrote:

On 20/05/2013 16:57, Judith wrote:

Why did you challenge them? As I understood it the pavement cycling law
was intended to be used only against those cycling irresponsibly.


Oh really - and what makes you think that?


The following letter is widely quoted on the internet.

snip

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

The letter from Boateng was a specific response to Ben Bradshaw MP, a cyclist
who had written to Boateng asking some questions. It was never guidance
formally issued by the Home Office to the police or anyone else - it had
precisely no standing in law at the time it was issued and has no standing
whatsoever now.

The letter from Crozier purely repeats what Boateng said - and has the same
legal power. (None whatsoever)


Do you have a view on why they would do such a thing?


Not really. I know that there are far too many cyclists using the pavements to
the detriment of pedestrians and they shouldn't be getting away with it.
--
Wearing a cycle helmet will not kill you.

On Sun, 19 May 2013 10:12:55 +0100, CJB wrote:

Wondering what folks here think are about cycling safely with young
kids on board. I've seen all kinds of methods from trailers (with
fkags on poles), to kiddie seats behind the parent (usually the
father) where a saddle bag might go.

But today I saw the most stupid arrangement in which a young kid was
sitting in a kind of seat attached to the FRONT of the handlebars.
This was not a home-made lash up but appeared to be a purposely made
manufactured seating fitment. It effectively clipped onto the handle
bars above the front wheel and was where a front basket on a utility
bike might have been. But if the bike had run into the back of a
suddenly stopping car (like they do), or if the bike had run into
something then the bike and parent and kid would have been catapulted
straight onto the kid's head. Incidentally the kid - a boy of about 3
- was NOT wearing a helmet, neither was his father,

Oh don't be such a pansy, go look at Vietnam.

--
A devout Muslim entered a black cab in London. He curtly asked the cabbie to turn off the radio because as decreed by his religious teaching, he must not listen to music because in the time of the prophet there was no music, especially Western music which is the music of the infidel.
The cab driver politely switched off the radio, stopped the cab and opened the door.
The Arab asked him, "What are you doing?"
The cabbie answered, "In the time of the prophet there were no taxis, so **** off and wait for a camel!!"

On 20/05/2013 20:57, Zapp Brannigan wrote:

"pensive hamster" wrote in message
...

Maybe some cyclists have a reasonable and well-founded fear of
motorists like this one:

The Norwich woman's tweet on Sunday morning read: "Definitely knocked
a cyclist off his bike earlier.

"I have right of way - he doesn't even pay road tax! #Bloodycyclists."

Everyone has reasonable and well-founded fear of someone as ****witted
as she appears to be. It would be poetically just if she was banned
from driving and had to resort to a bicycle.

Nothing ****witted about that at all, the lady is 100% correct.

Also, it turns out he was racing;

"Toby Hockley was on the 100-mile Boudicca Sportive ride in Norfolk on
Sunday when he was struck by a car and flung into a hedge, he said.
Mr Hockley, 29, of Norwich, was riding with Iceni Velo cycling club on a
narrow country lane, about five miles away from the end of the route at
Snetterton".

--
Dave-Cyclists VORT
Motorists pay £46 billion a year in extra taxes, specifically so they
can use the roads.
Less than £10 billion of this is spent on roads.
Q: Do you and your party support a new London-style bike plan for
Cambridgeshire?
A: No. This proposal amounts to theft from the people who pay to use
roads and the benefit given to those who don’t.

On May 21, 8:21*am, Dave-Cyclists VORT
wrote:
On 20/05/2013 20:57, Zapp Brannigan wrote:



"pensive hamster" wrote in message
....

Maybe some cyclists have a reasonable and well-founded fear of
motorists like this one:

The Norwich woman's tweet on Sunday morning read: "Definitely knocked
a cyclist off his bike earlier.

"I have right of way - he doesn't even pay road tax! #Bloodycyclists."

Everyone has reasonable and well-founded fear of someone as ****witted
as she appears to be. *It would be poetically just if she was banned
from driving and had to resort to a bicycle.

Nothing ****witted about that at all, the lady is 100% correct.


100% correct about what? That she has right of way?

Also, it turns out he was racing;

"Toby Hockley was on the 100-mile Boudicca Sportive ride in Norfolk on
Sunday when he was struck by a car and flung into a hedge, he said.
Mr Hockley, 29, of Norwich, was riding with Iceni Velo cycling club on a
narrow country lane, about five miles away from the end of the route at
Snetterton".



http://road.cc/content/news/84212-no...lision-cyclist
[...]
"I was riding on a country B-road with a friend, and descending a hill
on a blind right hand corner", Toby told us. "I was sticking to the
left as the corner was blind. A car came round in the opposite
direction going much too quickly to make the corner safely. It missed
the rider in front of me but hit me, my right leg caught the front
right wing. I was thrown up onto the bonnet, I hit the side of
windsrceen and the wing mirror. I bounced back off the car and went
through a hedge for about 20 metres. I managed to keep control of the
bike; the back brake had locked on but I managed to rejoin the road
and stop in the middle of it"


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-22602141
Twitter 'knocked off bike' cyclist 'lucky to be alive'

Mr Hockley, 29, of Norwich, was riding with Iceni Velo cycling club on
a narrow country lane, about five miles away from the end of the route
at Snetterton.

"A car came tearing round the blind corner and narrowly missed a
cyclist in front of me," he said.

"She came on to my side of the road, I took the wing mirror off and I
went flying off my bike into a hedge.

"She hit me hard, really hard. I am lucky to be alive.

"But I managed to get out of the hedge and stand up.

"The car was nowhere to be seen. She hit me, and she was gone.

"All I know is that it was a blonde girl driving."
[...]
The woman's Twitter account has been removed.

Norfolk Police said it was investigating and had spoken to both
parties.


Motorists pay £46 billion a year in extra taxes, specifically so they
can use the roads.

Cyclists pay the same as other zero-emission vehicles.

pensive hamster wrote:
On May 21, 8:21 am, Dave-Cyclists VORT
wrote:
On 20/05/2013 20:57, Zapp Brannigan wrote:



"pensive hamster" wrote in message
...

Maybe some cyclists have a reasonable and well-founded fear of
motorists like this one:

The Norwich woman's tweet on Sunday morning read: "Definitely
knocked a cyclist off his bike earlier.

"I have right of way - he doesn't even pay road tax!
#Bloodycyclists."

Everyone has reasonable and well-founded fear of someone as
****witted as she appears to be. It would be poetically just if she
was banned from driving and had to resort to a bicycle.

Nothing ****witted about that at all, the lady is 100% correct.


100% correct about what? That she has right of way?

Also, it turns out he was racing;

"Toby Hockley was on the 100-mile Boudicca Sportive ride in Norfolk
on Sunday when he was struck by a car and flung into a hedge, he
said.
Mr Hockley, 29, of Norwich, was riding with Iceni Velo cycling club
on a narrow country lane, about five miles away from the end of the
route at Snetterton".



http://road.cc/content/news/84212-no...lision-cyclist
[...]
"I was riding on a country B-road with a friend, and descending a hill
on a blind right hand corner", Toby told us. "I was sticking to the
left as the corner was blind. A car came round in the opposite
direction going much too quickly to make the corner safely. It missed
the rider in front of me but hit me, my right leg caught the front
right wing. I was thrown up onto the bonnet, I hit the side of
windsrceen and the wing mirror. I bounced back off the car and went
through a hedge for about 20 metres. I managed to keep control of the
bike; the back brake had locked on but I managed to rejoin the road
and stop in the middle of it"


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-22602141
Twitter 'knocked off bike' cyclist 'lucky to be alive'

Mr Hockley, 29, of Norwich, was riding with Iceni Velo cycling club on
a narrow country lane, about five miles away from the end of the route
at Snetterton.

"A car came tearing round the blind corner and narrowly missed a
cyclist in front of me," he said.

"She came on to my side of the road, I took the wing mirror off and I
went flying off my bike into a hedge.

"She hit me hard, really hard. I am lucky to be alive.

"But I managed to get out of the hedge and stand up.

"The car was nowhere to be seen. She hit me, and she was gone.

"All I know is that it was a blonde girl driving."
[...]
The woman's Twitter account has been removed.

Norfolk Police said it was investigating and had spoken to both
parties.


Motorists pay £46 billion a year in extra taxes, specifically so they
can use the roads.

Cyclists pay the same as other zero-emission vehicles.

So, does that mean that zero emission cars can be raced on the road and not
display number plates or registration and can be driven without insurance or
licence?
After all, you wouldn't want differing rules for different road users, would
you, it would be unfair.

As to the racing cyclists, they were probably all over the road, not caring
about the rules of the road in their self absorbed, adrenaline fuelled race
to the finish line. I have seen this situation first hand, happily the
cyclists all managed to miss my car, which was really lucky for all
concerned, and only a few fell off.