J
Just Zis Guy
Guest
On Sun, 27 Apr 2003 22:22:51 +0100, Gonzalez <[email protected]> wrote:
>Cycling at 20 mph on a main road is not unreasonable.
I'll slow down a bit, then ;-)
>What price should we pay for safety? Restricting cyclists to under 15 mph on main roads? Under 10
>mph? Where will this end?
Not necessary. The point I was making (and in full and declared ignorance of the fine detail of the
case) was that when riding around town, especially near pedestrian crossings, kids will run out.
It's not their fault; that's what kids do. Riding within the limits etc. etc. should mean one is far
enough out and vigilant enough to stop or avoid the crash. Many of us would fail, but hopefully not
to quite the catastrophic degree of the OP.
Cars drive much closer to the line of parked cars, and much faster, and are habitually less
vigilant. The children concerned are lucky it wasn't a cager ensuring his safety by driving in
excess of the speed limit; if it had been they would be dead. In crahses where cars hit children the
children are more likely to have taken evasive action, as I think I said. That's a sobering thought.
But reading up on that kind of stuff has not only made me a substantially slower and more careful
driver, it's made me challenge my assumptions about the rights and wrongs of bike v. pavement
lemming crashes as well, particularly where said lemmings are children.
Sorry, soapbox mode off.
>Someone has even suggested a ban on bicycles in Greenwich Park, as it is, bicycles are restricted
>to one road and just one footpath within the park's boundaries.
Bikes and peds don't mix well. The government's inability to understand this simple and obvious
factis at the root of many of the legendary "farcilities" we now see, including shared use
pavements.
Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.
>Cycling at 20 mph on a main road is not unreasonable.
I'll slow down a bit, then ;-)
>What price should we pay for safety? Restricting cyclists to under 15 mph on main roads? Under 10
>mph? Where will this end?
Not necessary. The point I was making (and in full and declared ignorance of the fine detail of the
case) was that when riding around town, especially near pedestrian crossings, kids will run out.
It's not their fault; that's what kids do. Riding within the limits etc. etc. should mean one is far
enough out and vigilant enough to stop or avoid the crash. Many of us would fail, but hopefully not
to quite the catastrophic degree of the OP.
Cars drive much closer to the line of parked cars, and much faster, and are habitually less
vigilant. The children concerned are lucky it wasn't a cager ensuring his safety by driving in
excess of the speed limit; if it had been they would be dead. In crahses where cars hit children the
children are more likely to have taken evasive action, as I think I said. That's a sobering thought.
But reading up on that kind of stuff has not only made me a substantially slower and more careful
driver, it's made me challenge my assumptions about the rights and wrongs of bike v. pavement
lemming crashes as well, particularly where said lemmings are children.
Sorry, soapbox mode off.
>Someone has even suggested a ban on bicycles in Greenwich Park, as it is, bicycles are restricted
>to one road and just one footpath within the park's boundaries.
Bikes and peds don't mix well. The government's inability to understand this simple and obvious
factis at the root of many of the legendary "farcilities" we now see, including shared use
pavements.
Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.
