Does the Daily Mail hates Cyclists?

[Tony B]

NewRiderPS wrote:

> Sounds to me like the mother allowed the child out on her own, when
> she should not have

Why should 5 yo kids not be allowed out on their own (car free)doorstep?

T

 

[Rob Morley]

On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 13:38:35 +0100
Tony B <[email protected]> wrote:

> NewRiderPS wrote:
>
> > Sounds to me like the mother allowed the child out on her own, when
> > she should not have
>
> Why should 5 yo kids not be allowed out on their own (car
> free)doorstep?
>
Risk of massive head trauma?

 

[Squashme]

On 22 Jun, 13:38, Tony B <[email protected]> wrote:
> NewRiderPS wrote:
> > Sounds to me like the mother allowed the child out on her own, when
> > she should not have
>
> Why should 5 yo kids not be allowed out on their own (car free)doorstep?
>

Not car-free, just no through traffic. Motorists parking cars can
injure, I believe.

 

[Tony B]

Rob Morley wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 13:38:35 +0100
> Tony B <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> NewRiderPS wrote:
>>
>>> Sounds to me like the mother allowed the child out on her own, when
>>> she should not have
>> Why should 5 yo kids not be allowed out on their own (car
>> free)doorstep?
>>
> Risk of massive head trauma?
>
That happens indoors too - I understand stairs are particularly dangerous..

Point being, with obvious due concern and sympathy for this case, kids
of five are OK being outdoors. Mine are/were and plenty of others too.
Some kids have accidents; I'm glad every day that mine have been OK so
far. I myself almost lost a hand due to 7yo arsing about doing something
I shouldn't have been doing (my mum must have been in bits, but I
hardly remember the incident).

Today though, parents are keeping kids out of "danger" to the point of
caging them. Not ideal is it? So, I like to challenge any and every
reference to kids not belonging outdoors due to "danger" - outdoors is
precisely where kids should be. It's the things that people see as
reasons for keeping them in that should be addressed. Imprisonment is
not the solution.

I hope my homespun ramblings make sense, I know what I mean anyway

T

 

[Ekul Namsob]

Tony B <[email protected]> wrote:

> Rob Morley wrote:
> > On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 13:38:35 +0100
> > Tony B <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> NewRiderPS wrote:
> >>
> >>> Sounds to me like the mother allowed the child out on her own, when
> >>> she should not have
> >> Why should 5 yo kids not be allowed out on their own (car
> >> free)doorstep?
> >>
> > Risk of massive head trauma?
> >
> That happens indoors too - I understand stairs are particularly dangerous..
>
> Point being, with obvious due concern and sympathy for this case, kids
> of five are OK being outdoors. Mine are/were and plenty of others too.
> Some kids have accidents; I'm glad every day that mine have been OK so
> far. I myself almost lost a hand due to 7yo arsing about doing something
> I shouldn't have been doing (my mum must have been in bits, but I
> hardly remember the incident).
>
> Today though, parents are keeping kids out of "danger" to the point of
> caging them. Not ideal is it? So, I like to challenge any and every
> reference to kids not belonging outdoors due to "danger" - outdoors is
> precisely where kids should be. It's the things that people see as
> reasons for keeping them in that should be addressed. Imprisonment is
> not the solution.

Hear hear!

Certain activities are best avoided as the obvious health risks outweigh
any potential health benefits. My not-quite-five year old daughter's not
allowed to play in the road due to bad sight lines caused by parked
cars, she's welcome to play on the pavement and in the back garden. When
she's rather older, we'll probably let her play down by the river. We'll
not let her play on the eight lane road that slices through the valley,
no matter how much she protests that dodging the cars is good exercise
for the heart and the brain.

One could argue that 15 year old kids shouldn't be allowed out on their
bicycles due to the risk of massive head trauma. In actual fact, the
benefits, as may possibly have been mentioned on this group once or
twice before, enormously outweigh the risks.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

 

[Nigel Randell]

JNugent wrote:
> Nigel Randell wrote:
>
>>> Please treat "seriously injured" as meaning "life-threatening". I
>>> see no difference between them.
>
>> The experts in the field would seem to disagree with you.
>> http://www.trauma.org/archive/scores/ais.html
>> The AIS level of 3 is classed as "serious" with 4 and 5 being
>> "severe and critical". As a rating of 6 is unsurvivable it seems
>> reasonable that "life threatening" would usually describe a level 5
>> injury, or possibly a level 4.
>
> I didn't realise that all usenet posts had to be vetted by a doctor.

Could get it doctored by a vet if you prefer.

--

Nigel

 

[Andy Morris]

JNugent wrote:
>
> You are forgetting the main reason why it doesn't count - which is that
> cars (and vans, and lorries) don't travel along footways like (some)
> cyclists do.
>

They (the cars) were travelling along the footway, at greater than
walking speed speed. Why is it OK for them?
--
Andy Morris

AndyAtjinkasDotfreeserve.co.uk

 

[Dan Gregory]

Andy Morris wrote:
> JNugent wrote:
>>
>> You are forgetting the main reason why it doesn't count - which is
>> that cars (and vans, and lorries) don't travel along footways like
>> (some) cyclists do.
>>
>
> They (the cars) were travelling along the footway, at greater than
> walking speed speed. Why is it OK for them?
Like the one outside the Hippodrome in Bristol which hit 5 people.
I think the TV report said it was the 25th incident in the last year
including one actor they named ...

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, Andy Morris wrote:
>JNugent wrote:
>>
>> You are forgetting the main reason why it doesn't count - which is that
>> cars (and vans, and lorries) don't travel along footways like (some)
>> cyclists do.
>
>They (the cars) were travelling along the footway, at greater than
>walking speed speed. Why is it OK for them?

Because if he counted them, he'd have to admit he was wrong. Again.

Much easier to stick his fingers in his ears and shout "cars don't use
footways, and even if they do then it doesn't count". It's not about
the relative danger to pedestrians, it's about some artificial measure
by which cyclists are worse than drivers so long as you don't count
those drivers who are equally bad or worse.

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On 23 Jun 2008 13:00:49 +0100 (BST), [email protected]
(Alan Braggins) said in
<[email protected]>:

>Much easier to stick his fingers in his ears and shout "cars don't use
>footways, and even if they do then it doesn't count". It's not about
>the relative danger to pedestrians, it's about some artificial measure
>by which cyclists are worse than drivers so long as you don't count
>those drivers who are equally bad or worse.

Yes. It's not worth arguing with the Nugentoid of Cager IV since
this is his default stance on everything.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

 

[NewRiderPS]

On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 13:38:35 +0100, Tony B <[email protected]>
wrote:

>NewRiderPS wrote:
>
>> Sounds to me like the mother allowed the child out on her own, when
>> she should not have
>
>Why should 5 yo kids not be allowed out on their own (car free)doorstep?
>
>T

Agreed. I meant to say 'sounds like..., when she FELT she should not
have. I was trying to address the implied guilt in that post, not a
standard of practice in child rearing. My bad.

 

[Danny Colyer]

On 23/06/2008 00:46, Adam Lea wrote:
> This is irrelevant. We are examining the case of a cyclist hitting a child.

Has it now been established that the cyclist hit the child? The only
evidence that I've seen for this is a brace of press reports that we
know to have been false in at least one other important respect.

> Yes there was bias in the news report, yes cars may be more hazardous on
> average but it does not alter the fact that the cyclist was careless in
> hitting the child.

/If/ the cyclist hit the child.

--
Danny Colyer <http://www.redpedals.co.uk>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"The plural of anecdote is not data" - Frank Kotsonis

 

[Martin]

Dan Gregory wrote:
> Andy Morris wrote:
>> JNugent wrote:
>>>
>>> You are forgetting the main reason why it doesn't count - which is
>>> that cars (and vans, and lorries) don't travel along footways like
>>> (some) cyclists do.
>>>
>>
>> They (the cars) were travelling along the footway, at greater than
>> walking speed speed. Why is it OK for them?
> Like the one outside the Hippodrome in Bristol which hit 5 people.
> I think the TV report said it was the 25th incident in the last year
> including one actor they named ...

Funny thing is that when they redesigned that bit of Bristol [1] a few
years ago, many people predicted that they amount of vehicles hitting
pedestrians would go up. This is also a place where I regularly see
motorists driving on the footpaths, despite the amount of pedestrians
walking along there.


[1] St Augustine's Parade, Anchor road, Colston avenue and the
pedestrianised bits around there.

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, Danny Colyer wrote:
>On 23/06/2008 00:46, Adam Lea wrote:
>> This is irrelevant. We are examining the case of a cyclist hitting a child.
>
>Has it now been established that the cyclist hit the child? The only
>evidence that I've seen for this is a brace of press reports that we
>know to have been false in at least one other important respect.

There's a police report that they were talking to the cyclist who stopped
and contacted them, and no mention that they were looking for anyone else.
It's possible that the cyclist was a witness to the child being injured
after something like tripping and banging her head on the bollard with no
collision involved at all, but it seems unlikely.


>> Yes there was bias in the news report, yes cars may be more hazardous on
>> average but it does not alter the fact that the cyclist was careless in
>> hitting the child.
>
>/If/ the cyclist hit the child.

Ideally all road users would be prepared for a child to run out of a doorway
and into the road and be able to avoid the child if it happened, but whether
not doing so is criminally careless is arguable.

 

[Squashme]

On 24 Jun, 08:42, [email protected] (Alan Braggins) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Danny Colyer wrote:
> >On 23/06/2008 00:46, Adam Lea wrote:
> >> This is irrelevant. We are examining the case of a cyclist hitting a child.
>
> >Has it now been established that the cyclist hit the child? The only
> >evidence that I've seen for this is a brace of press reports that we
> >know to have been false in at least one other important respect.
>
> There's a police report that they were talking to the cyclist who stopped
> and contacted them, and no mention that they were looking for anyone else.
> It's possible that the cyclist was a witness to the child being injured
> after something like tripping and banging her head on the bollard with no
> collision involved at all, but it seems unlikely.
>
> >> Yes there was bias in the news report, yes cars may be more hazardous on
> >> average but it does not alter the fact that the cyclist was careless in
> >> hitting the child.
>
> >/If/ the cyclist hit the child.
>
> Ideally all road users would be prepared for a child to run out of a doorway
> and into the road and be able to avoid the child if it happened, but whether
> not doing so is criminally careless is arguable.

Arguably only criminal if you are car-less. Cars have a good excuse,
unlike cyclists.

 

[Ekul Namsob]

Squashme <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 24 Jun, 08:42, [email protected] (Alan Braggins) wrote:

> > Ideally all road users would be prepared for a child to run out of a doorway
> > and into the road and be able to avoid the child if it happened, but whether
> > not doing so is criminally careless is arguable.
>
> Arguably only criminal if you are car-less. Cars have a good excuse,
> unlike cyclists.

Go on. I'm intrigued. Why should a licensed motorist, who has been
trained to look out for hazards, have a good excuse? Or do you really
mean 'cars'?

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>