Helmets - Brussels adds to the debate



S

Simon Brooke

Guest
JNugent wrote:

> Shane Badham wrote:
>
>> Andrew Price <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>>> In a "Green Paper" published by the European Commission entitled
>>> "Towards a new culture for urban mobility":
>>> <http://ec.europa.eu/transport/clean/green_paper_urban_transport
>>> /doc/2007_09_25_gp_urban_mobility_en.pdf>
>>> one can read on page 18:

>
>>> "Stakeholders have also suggested encouraging safe behaviour among
>>> cyclists, for example by promoting the use of bicycle helmets across
>>> Europe

>
>>> or by encouraging research on more ergonomic design of
>>> helmets."

>
>> Now that bit I like! I have thought for some time the design of cycle
>> helmets is flawed. They are designed specifically for going a over t
>> over the handle-bars, no thought for side swipes, or being dragged down
>> sideways by a vehicle passing too close to you!

>
> Would it be feasible to wear a motor-cycle helmet whilst cycling? I note
> that some workers wear them (or something closely resembling them)
> whilst carrying what I assume are relatively large amounts of cash.
> Would such a proper crash helmet give the better protection you would
> prefer?


When cycling fast you're radiating very considerable amounts of heat through
your scalp. If the temperature of your brain increases by only a very small
amount, you die.

The answer, in simple terms, is 'don't be silly'.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

' ' <------- this blank intentionally spaced left
 
T

Tom Crispin

Guest
On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 20:56:57 +0000, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

>Tom Crispin wrote:
>> On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 18:48:33 +0000, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> The Luggage wrote:
>>>
>>>> Rob Morley <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> Paul Luton [email protected] says...
>>>>>> and on the next line " Strict enforcement of traffic rules is also
>>>>>> essential for all motorcyclists, scooter drivers and cyclists. " which
>>>>>> looks like more of "blame the victims".
>>>>> Why? Antisocial riding is a problem that needs attention.
>>>> I think Puls' point was that the list didn't include the drivers of
>>>> cars, buses, lorries etc, who should also be subject to enforcement of
>>>> the ruls that is jut as strict as for everyone else.

>
>>> Absolutely.

>
>>> It's about time it was an offence to drive a car, bus or lorry through a
>>> red traffic light, along the footway, through a pedestrianised area,
>>> across a pedestrian crossing without giving way to pedestrians, the
>>> wrong way along a one-way street or without the lights required by law
>>> (whether the vehicle is being used at night or not).

>
>> What about partially obstructing footways by parking on them? Stopping
>> in an advance stop line cycle box? Exceeding the speed limit by less
>> than 10%? Obstructing pedestrian crossings? Failing to giv way to
>> pedestrians at road junctions?

>
><steps back in amazement>
>
>What? You'd rather drivers exceeded the speed limit by >10%?
>
>But all of the above are offences, AFAIAA. Are you saying they're not?
>
>> These are all misdemeanours commonly committed by motorists, but to
>> which the police nearly always turn a blind eye.

>
>They're not the only things to which the polce habitually turn a blind
>eye though, hmm?


I have observed a policeman instruct a young child, probably about
9/10 years old not to cycle on the pavement. The road was a narrow
and busy humpback bridge over a railway.

It is exceptionally rare for the police to take any action against
motorists committing any of the above listed by me, yet are all more
frequently committed and dangerous than the offences commonly
committed by a minority of cyclists.
 
J

JNugent

Guest
Simon Brooke wrote:
> JNugent wrote:
>
>> Shane Badham wrote:
>>
>>> Andrew Price <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> In a "Green Paper" published by the European Commission entitled
>>>> "Towards a new culture for urban mobility":
>>>> <http://ec.europa.eu/transport/clean/green_paper_urban_transport
>>>> /doc/2007_09_25_gp_urban_mobility_en.pdf>
>>>> one can read on page 18:
>>>> "Stakeholders have also suggested encouraging safe behaviour among
>>>> cyclists, for example by promoting the use of bicycle helmets across
>>>> Europe
>>>> or by encouraging research on more ergonomic design of
>>>> helmets."
>>> Now that bit I like! I have thought for some time the design of cycle
>>> helmets is flawed. They are designed specifically for going a over t
>>> over the handle-bars, no thought for side swipes, or being dragged down
>>> sideways by a vehicle passing too close to you!

>> Would it be feasible to wear a motor-cycle helmet whilst cycling? I note
>> that some workers wear them (or something closely resembling them)
>> whilst carrying what I assume are relatively large amounts of cash.
>> Would such a proper crash helmet give the better protection you would
>> prefer?

>
> When cycling fast you're radiating very considerable amounts of heat through
> your scalp. If the temperature of your brain increases by only a very small
> amount, you die.
>
> The answer, in simple terms, is 'don't be silly'.


That's a good answer - the best I've seen on the topic of crash helmets.

There must be some sort of acceptable trade-off, though?
 
J

JNugent

Guest
Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 20:56:57 +0000, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>> On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 18:48:33 +0000, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Luggage wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Rob Morley <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> Paul Luton [email protected] says...
>>>>>>> and on the next line " Strict enforcement of traffic rules is also
>>>>>>> essential for all motorcyclists, scooter drivers and cyclists. " which
>>>>>>> looks like more of "blame the victims".
>>>>>> Why? Antisocial riding is a problem that needs attention.
>>>>> I think Puls' point was that the list didn't include the drivers of
>>>>> cars, buses, lorries etc, who should also be subject to enforcement of
>>>>> the ruls that is jut as strict as for everyone else.
>>>> Absolutely.
>>>> It's about time it was an offence to drive a car, bus or lorry through a
>>>> red traffic light, along the footway, through a pedestrianised area,
>>>> across a pedestrian crossing without giving way to pedestrians, the
>>>> wrong way along a one-way street or without the lights required by law
>>>> (whether the vehicle is being used at night or not).
>>> What about partially obstructing footways by parking on them? Stopping
>>> in an advance stop line cycle box? Exceeding the speed limit by less
>>> than 10%? Obstructing pedestrian crossings? Failing to giv way to
>>> pedestrians at road junctions?

>> <steps back in amazement>


>> What? You'd rather drivers exceeded the speed limit by >10%?


>> But all of the above are offences, AFAIAA. Are you saying they're not?


>>> These are all misdemeanours commonly committed by motorists, but to
>>> which the police nearly always turn a blind eye.

>> They're not the only things to which the polce habitually turn a blind
>> eye though, hmm?


> I have observed a policeman instruct a young child, probably about
> 9/10 years old not to cycle on the pavement. The road was a narrow
> and busy humpback bridge over a railway.


Quite right too.

The child (to the extent that they exist) was, of course, free to push
the bike on foot past this spot you seem to think was so dangerous
(which would obviously be the absolute safest solution). And it wouldn't
be too much hardship, as I think you'll agree.

What a shame that your heart-rending story (the poor defenceless child
on the dangerous hump-back bridge, trapped by all those nasty lorries,
vans and cars) has such a simple, safe and obvious solution and doesn't
act as justification for adult yobs cycling on the footway in C. London, eh?

> It is exceptionally rare for the police to take any action against
> motorists committing any of the above listed by me, yet are all more
> frequently committed and dangerous than the offences commonly
> committed by a minority of cyclists.


Complain.
 
S

Sir Jeremy

Guest
On 8 Feb, 21:06, Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
> JNugent wrote:
> > Shane Badham wrote:

>
> >> Andrew Price <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> >>> In a "Green Paper" published by the European Commission entitled
> >>> "Towards a new culture for urban mobility":
> >>> <http://ec.europa.eu/transport/clean/green_paper_urban_transport
> >>> /doc/2007_09_25_gp_urban_mobility_en.pdf>
> >>> one can read on page 18:

>
> >>> "Stakeholders have also suggested encouraging safe behaviour among
> >>> cyclists, for example by promoting the use of bicycle helmets across
> >>> Europe

>
> >>> or by encouraging research on more ergonomic design of
> >>> helmets."

>
> >> Now that bit I like! I have thought for some time the design of cycle
> >> helmets is flawed. They are designed specifically for going a over t
> >> over the handle-bars, no thought for side swipes, or being dragged down
> >> sideways by a vehicle passing too close to you!

>
> > Would it be feasible to wear a motor-cycle helmet whilst cycling? I note
> > that some workers wear them (or something closely resembling them)
> > whilst carrying what I assume are relatively large amounts of cash.
> > Would such a proper crash helmet give the better protection you would
> > prefer?

>
> When cycling fast you're radiating very considerable amounts of heat through
> your scalp. If the temperature of your brain increases by only a very small
> amount, you die.
>
> The answer, in simple terms, is 'don't be silly'.
>
> --
> [email protected] (Simon Brooke)http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
>
>         ' '     <-------  this blank intentionally spaced left- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -




Try driving a racing car wearing a three layer nomex suit, nomex
underwear, balaclava and helmet then you'll know the meaning of hot.
Riding a bike in a crash helmet comes nowhere near.
 
D

David Hansen

Guest
On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 21:27:27 +0000 someone who may be Tom Crispin
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>It is exceptionally rare for the police to take any action against
>motorists committing any of the above listed by me,


I have seen motorists who happened to be police officers doing all
the things you listed. Neither they or their colleagues took any
action.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54
 
E

Ekul Namsob

Guest
JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

> Tom Crispin wrote:


> > I have observed a policeman instruct a young child, probably about
> > 9/10 years old not to cycle on the pavement. The road was a narrow
> > and busy humpback bridge over a railway.

>
> Quite right too.
>
> The child (to the extent that they exist) was, of course, free to push
> the bike on foot past this spot you seem to think was so dangerous
> (which would obviously be the absolute safest solution). And it wouldn't
> be too much hardship, as I think you'll agree.


You are of course right that the child could have pushed the bike on
foot. However, do you honestly think that nine year old children should
never cycle on the pavement? If so, where do you believe they should
cycle?

Sadly, in this day and age, where many motorists believe that the road
is their car park, I don't believe that it is generally sensible for
young children to cycle on the road.

> What a shame that your heart-rending story (the poor defenceless child
> on the dangerous hump-back bridge, trapped by all those nasty lorries,
> vans and cars) has such a simple, safe and obvious solution and doesn't
> act as justification for adult yobs cycling on the footway in C. London, eh?


I don't believe that anyone is trying to justify the behaviour of yobs.

> > It is exceptionally rare for the police to take any action against
> > motorists committing any of the above listed by me, yet are all more
> > frequently committed and dangerous than the offences commonly
> > committed by a minority of cyclists.

>
> Complain.


Indeed. As I understand it, the police are obliged to investigate crimes
reported to them.

Cheers,
Luke


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

Esra Sdrawkcab

Guest
Shane Badham wrote:
> Andrew Price <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> In a "Green Paper" published by the European Commission entitled
>> "Towards a new culture for urban mobility":
>>
>> <http://ec.europa.eu/transport/clean/green_paper_urban_transport
>> /doc/2007_09_25_gp_urban_mobility_en.pdf>
>>
>> one can read on page 18:
>>
>> "Stakeholders have also suggested encouraging safe behaviour among
>> cyclists, for example by promoting the use of bicycle helmets across
>> Europe

>
>> or by encouraging research on more ergonomic design of
>> helmets."

>
> Now that bit I like! I have thought for some time the design of cycle
> helmets is flawed. They are designed specifically for going a over t
> over the handle-bars, no thought for side swipes, or being dragged down
> sideways by a vehicle passing too close to you!


That's what we need: a full-body helmet!

http://www.geocities.com/yank2010/drkhlmt.jpg
 
J

JNugent

Guest
Ekul Namsob wrote:

> JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Tom Crispin wrote:


>>> I have observed a policeman instruct a young child, probably about
>>> 9/10 years old not to cycle on the pavement. The road was a narrow
>>> and busy humpback bridge over a railway.

>> Quite right too.


>> The child (to the extent that they exist) was, of course, free to push
>> the bike on foot past this spot you seem to think was so dangerous
>> (which would obviously be the absolute safest solution). And it wouldn't
>> be too much hardship, as I think you'll agree.


> You are of course right that the child could have pushed the bike on
> foot. However, do you honestly think that nine year old children should
> never cycle on the pavement? If so, where do you believe they should
> cycle?


No. Nine-year-old children (indeed, children of all ages, right up to
ninety) should not cycle on footways. No excuses. If the road is too
dangerous for a nine-year-old to cycle on (and it may well be - I accept
that without difficulty), the nine-year-old should not be out on a bike
in that area. It's that straightforward. Except for barely-imaginable
and unforseeable emergencies, there are no justifiable exceptions.

And of course, the question arises: do youy honestly think that a police
officer could ever advise anyone to ride on the footway? The best advice
he could give in that circumstance was "Push it over the bridge (along
the footway) and only remount when you can do safely - on the carriageway".

> Sadly, in this day and age, where many motorists believe that the road
> is their car park, I don't believe that it is generally sensible for
> young children to cycle on the road.


That is a view based on something other than relevant data. If it's too
dangerous for children to cycle, then letting them out on to the road in
a dangerous location on a bike comes close to child-neglect. I wouldn't
do it. You wouldn't do it.

>> What a shame that your heart-rending story (the poor defenceless child
>> on the dangerous hump-back bridge, trapped by all those nasty lorries,
>> vans and cars) has such a simple, safe and obvious solution and doesn't
>> act as justification for adult yobs cycling on the footway in C. London, eh?


> I don't believe that anyone is trying to justify the behaviour of yobs.


It's at the back of all of these "thin end of the wedge" examples -
trying to justify the City of London cycling yobs (which is the majority
of cyclists in that place on a weekday) and others who behave in a
similar way. Just don't cycle along the footway. Full stop. Don't just
pass what you imagine are threats against you to innocent others.

>>> It is exceptionally rare for the police to take any action against
>>> motorists committing any of the above listed by me, yet are all more
>>> frequently committed and dangerous than the offences commonly
>>> committed by a minority of cyclists.


>> Complain.


> Indeed. As I understand it, the police are obliged to investigate crimes
> reported to them.


Quite.
 
S

Simon Brooke

Guest
JNugent wrote:

> Simon Brooke wrote:
>> JNugent wrote:
>>
>>> Shane Badham wrote:
>>>
>>>> Andrew Price <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> In a "Green Paper" published by the European Commission entitled
>>>>> "Towards a new culture for urban mobility":
>>>>> <http://ec.europa.eu/transport/clean/green_paper_urban_transport
>>>>> /doc/2007_09_25_gp_urban_mobility_en.pdf>
>>>>> one can read on page 18:
>>>>> "Stakeholders have also suggested encouraging safe behaviour among
>>>>> cyclists, for example by promoting the use of bicycle helmets across
>>>>> Europe
>>>>> or by encouraging research on more ergonomic design of
>>>>> helmets."
>>>> Now that bit I like! I have thought for some time the design of cycle
>>>> helmets is flawed. They are designed specifically for going a over t
>>>> over the handle-bars, no thought for side swipes, or being dragged down
>>>> sideways by a vehicle passing too close to you!
>>> Would it be feasible to wear a motor-cycle helmet whilst cycling? I note
>>> that some workers wear them (or something closely resembling them)
>>> whilst carrying what I assume are relatively large amounts of cash.
>>> Would such a proper crash helmet give the better protection you would
>>> prefer?

>>
>> When cycling fast you're radiating very considerable amounts of heat
>> through your scalp. If the temperature of your brain increases by only a
>> very small amount, you die.
>>
>> The answer, in simple terms, is 'don't be silly'.

>
> That's a good answer - the best I've seen on the topic of crash helmets.
>
> There must be some sort of acceptable trade-off, though?


Look, there's no evidence -at all - that these things make you any safer.
Serious injuries to cyclists are very rare, and fatal accidents usually
involve unsustainable injury to the chest. There are occasional accidents
which involve serious head injury but no other serious injury, but they're
very rare. Everywhere mandatory helmet laws have been enforced, the number
of serious and fatal injuries per kilometer cycled has actually risen, not
fallen.

So it's a non-solution to a non problem.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; For in much wisdom is much grief; and he that increaseth
;; knowledge increaseth sorrow.." - Ecclesiastes 1:18
 
E

Ekul Namsob

Guest
JNugent <JN[email protected]> wrote:

> Ekul Namsob wrote:
>
> > JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Tom Crispin wrote:

>
> >>> I have observed a policeman instruct a young child, probably about
> >>> 9/10 years old not to cycle on the pavement. The road was a narrow
> >>> and busy humpback bridge over a railway.
> >> Quite right too.

>
> >> The child (to the extent that they exist) was, of course, free to push
> >> the bike on foot past this spot you seem to think was so dangerous
> >> (which would obviously be the absolute safest solution). And it wouldn't
> >> be too much hardship, as I think you'll agree.

>
> > You are of course right that the child could have pushed the bike on
> > foot. However, do you honestly think that nine year old children should
> > never cycle on the pavement? If so, where do you believe they should
> > cycle?

>
> No. Nine-year-old children (indeed, children of all ages, right up to
> ninety) should not cycle on footways. No excuses. If the road is too
> dangerous for a nine-year-old to cycle on (and it may well be - I accept
> that without difficulty), the nine-year-old should not be out on a bike
> in that area. It's that straightforward. Except for barely-imaginable
> and unforseeable emergencies, there are no justifiable exceptions.


Here's one: children have the right to play. How do you expect children
to play? Do you expect them to stay indoors and play on their games
consoles?

Cheers,
Luke


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

Simon Brooke

Guest
JNugent wrote:

> Ekul Namsob wrote:
>
>> You are of course right that the child could have pushed the bike on
>> foot. However, do you honestly think that nine year old children should
>> never cycle on the pavement? If so, where do you believe they should
>> cycle?

>
> No. Nine-year-old children (indeed, children of all ages, right up to
> ninety) should not cycle on footways. No excuses. If the road is too
> dangerous for a nine-year-old to cycle on (and it may well be - I accept
> that without difficulty), the nine-year-old should not be out on a bike
> in that area. It's that straightforward. Except for barely-imaginable
> and unforseeable emergencies, there are no justifiable exceptions.


Seems to me you've got your priorities all the wrong way round. If the road
is too dangerous for a nine-year-old to cycle on (and it may well be - I
accept that without difficulty), then high profile, rigorous policing
should be applied until it is safe for a nine year old to cycle on. It is
unacceptable that the young and the elderly should be bullied off the roads
by inadequate policing of Britain's generally atrocious driving standards.

If that means jailing a lot of drivers, frankly that seems to me a price
worth paying.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
There's nae Gods, an there's precious few heroes
but there's plenty on the dole in th Land o th Leal;
And it's time now, tae sweep the future clear o
th lies o a past that we know wis never real.
 
J

JNugent

Guest
Ekul Namsob wrote:

> JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Ekul Namsob wrote:
>>> JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Tom Crispin wrote:


>>>>> I have observed a policeman instruct a young child, probably about
>>>>> 9/10 years old not to cycle on the pavement. The road was a narrow
>>>>> and busy humpback bridge over a railway.
>>>> Quite right too.
>>>> The child (to the extent that they exist) was, of course, free to push
>>>> the bike on foot past this spot you seem to think was so dangerous
>>>> (which would obviously be the absolute safest solution). And it wouldn't
>>>> be too much hardship, as I think you'll agree.
>>> You are of course right that the child could have pushed the bike on
>>> foot. However, do you honestly think that nine year old children should
>>> never cycle on the pavement? If so, where do you believe they should
>>> cycle?


>> No. Nine-year-old children (indeed, children of all ages, right up to
>> ninety) should not cycle on footways. No excuses. If the road is too
>> dangerous for a nine-year-old to cycle on (and it may well be - I accept
>> that without difficulty), the nine-year-old should not be out on a bike
>> in that area. It's that straightforward. Except for barely-imaginable
>> and unforseeable emergencies, there are no justifiable exceptions.


> Here's one: children have the right to play. How do you expect children
> to play? Do you expect them to stay indoors and play on their games
> consoles?


That's going to depend totally on where it is that this alleged "right
to play" is enshrined, and, indeed, on whether it exists as anything
other than a meaningless soundbite (which is what my money would be on).

Point me to the document and I'll try to give you an answer based on it.

Even in the unlikely event that there is a written down and
legally-provided-for "right to play", it will not - because it could not
- mean that children have a right to play wherever and whenever they
choose.
 
J

JNugent

Guest
Simon Brooke wrote:

> JNugent wrote:
>> Ekul Namsob wrote:


>>> You are of course right that the child could have pushed the bike on
>>> foot. However, do you honestly think that nine year old children should
>>> never cycle on the pavement? If so, where do you believe they should
>>> cycle?


>> No. Nine-year-old children (indeed, children of all ages, right up to
>> ninety) should not cycle on footways. No excuses. If the road is too
>> dangerous for a nine-year-old to cycle on (and it may well be - I accept
>> that without difficulty), the nine-year-old should not be out on a bike
>> in that area. It's that straightforward. Except for barely-imaginable
>> and unforseeable emergencies, there are no justifiable exceptions.


> Seems to me you've got your priorities all the wrong way round. If the road
> is too dangerous for a nine-year-old to cycle on (and it may well be - I
> accept that without difficulty), then high profile, rigorous policing
> should be applied until it is safe for a nine year old to cycle on. It is
> unacceptable that the young and the elderly should be bullied off the roads
> by inadequate policing of Britain's generally atrocious driving standards.


> If that means jailing a lot of drivers, frankly that seems to me a price
> worth paying.


OK - how about "safe enough for a five-year-old to cycle on"?

Or, come to that, an 18-month-old?

Where would the line fall to be drawn?
 
S

Simon Brooke

Guest
JNugent wrote:

> Simon Brooke wrote:
>
>> JNugent wrote:
>>> Ekul Namsob wrote:

>
>>>> You are of course right that the child could have pushed the bike on
>>>> foot. However, do you honestly think that nine year old children should
>>>> never cycle on the pavement? If so, where do you believe they should
>>>> cycle?

>
>>> No. Nine-year-old children (indeed, children of all ages, right up to
>>> ninety) should not cycle on footways. No excuses. If the road is too
>>> dangerous for a nine-year-old to cycle on (and it may well be - I accept
>>> that without difficulty), the nine-year-old should not be out on a bike
>>> in that area. It's that straightforward. Except for barely-imaginable
>>> and unforseeable emergencies, there are no justifiable exceptions.

>
>> Seems to me you've got your priorities all the wrong way round. If the
>> road is too dangerous for a nine-year-old to cycle on (and it may well be
>> - I accept that without difficulty), then high profile, rigorous policing
>> should be applied until it is safe for a nine year old to cycle on. It is
>> unacceptable that the young and the elderly should be bullied off the
>> roads by inadequate policing of Britain's generally atrocious driving
>> standards.

>
>> If that means jailing a lot of drivers, frankly that seems to me a price
>> worth paying.

>
> OK - how about "safe enough for a five-year-old to cycle on"?
>
> Or, come to that, an 18-month-old?
>
> Where would the line fall to be drawn?


Below nine, anyway. At five I'd still expect a child to be supervised when
playing out of doors, but not at nine.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Just as defying the law of gravity through building aircraft requires
careful design and a lot of effort, so too does defying laws of
economics. It seems to be a deeply ingrained aspect of humanity to
forever strive to improve things, so unquestioning acceptance of a
free market system seems to me to be unnatural. ;; Charles Bryant
 
J

JNugent

Guest
Simon Brooke wrote:

> JNugent wrote:
>> Simon Brooke wrote:
>>> JNugent wrote:
>>>> Ekul Namsob wrote:


>>>>> You are of course right that the child could have pushed the bike on
>>>>> foot. However, do you honestly think that nine year old children should
>>>>> never cycle on the pavement? If so, where do you believe they should
>>>>> cycle?


>>>> No. Nine-year-old children (indeed, children of all ages, right up to
>>>> ninety) should not cycle on footways. No excuses. If the road is too
>>>> dangerous for a nine-year-old to cycle on (and it may well be - I accept
>>>> that without difficulty), the nine-year-old should not be out on a bike
>>>> in that area. It's that straightforward. Except for barely-imaginable
>>>> and unforseeable emergencies, there are no justifiable exceptions.
>>> Seems to me you've got your priorities all the wrong way round. If the
>>> road is too dangerous for a nine-year-old to cycle on (and it may well be
>>> - I accept that without difficulty), then high profile, rigorous policing
>>> should be applied until it is safe for a nine year old to cycle on. It is
>>> unacceptable that the young and the elderly should be bullied off the
>>> roads by inadequate policing of Britain's generally atrocious driving
>>> standards.
>>> If that means jailing a lot of drivers, frankly that seems to me a price
>>> worth paying.


>> OK - how about "safe enough for a five-year-old to cycle on"?
>> Or, come to that, an 18-month-old?
>> Where would the line fall to be drawn?


> Below nine, anyway. At five I'd still expect a child to be supervised when
> playing out of doors, but not at nine.


We aren't talking about "playing". We are discussing cycling along the
highway (which should not be regarded as trivially as "playing".

You don't "play" on the highway in a car, lorry or van, nor yet on a
motorbike. At least, you shouldn't... :-(

I'm glad we agree that five is too young. I think nine is too young.
AAMOF, I think that a child is too young to be cycling along the highway
whenever special rules would "need" to be imposed on everyone else in
order to keep that child as safe you would expect an adult to be without
the special rules.
 
M

Mark T

Guest
JNugent writtificated

> I'm glad we agree that five is too young. I think nine is too young.


What you're really thinking about is ability, which is linked only
indirectly with age.
 
E

Ekul Namsob

Guest
JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

> Ekul Namsob wrote:
>
> > JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Ekul Namsob wrote:
> >>> JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> Tom Crispin wrote:

>
> >>>>> I have observed a policeman instruct a young child, probably about
> >>>>> 9/10 years old not to cycle on the pavement. The road was a narrow
> >>>>> and busy humpback bridge over a railway.
> >>>> Quite right too.
> >>>> The child (to the extent that they exist) was, of course, free to push
> >>>> the bike on foot past this spot you seem to think was so dangerous
> >>>> (which would obviously be the absolute safest solution). And it wouldn't
> >>>> be too much hardship, as I think you'll agree.
> >>> You are of course right that the child could have pushed the bike on
> >>> foot. However, do you honestly think that nine year old children should
> >>> never cycle on the pavement? If so, where do you believe they should
> >>> cycle?

>
> >> No. Nine-year-old children (indeed, children of all ages, right up to
> >> ninety) should not cycle on footways. No excuses. If the road is too
> >> dangerous for a nine-year-old to cycle on (and it may well be - I accept
> >> that without difficulty), the nine-year-old should not be out on a bike
> >> in that area. It's that straightforward. Except for barely-imaginable
> >> and unforseeable emergencies, there are no justifiable exceptions.

>
> > Here's one: children have the right to play. How do you expect children
> > to play? Do you expect them to stay indoors and play on their games
> > consoles?

>
> That's going to depend totally on where it is that this alleged "right
> to play" is enshrined, and, indeed, on whether it exists as anything
> other than a meaningless soundbite (which is what my money would be on).


Some rights have no legal basis. However, article 31 of the UN
Convention on the Rights of the Child, which the UK has ratified, may be
useful to you.

> Point me to the document and I'll try to give you an answer based on it.
>
> Even in the unlikely event that there is a written down and
> legally-provided-for "right to play", it will not - because it could not
> - mean that children have a right to play wherever and whenever they
> choose.


That's as maybe. Where would you oblige your children (hypothetical or
otherwise) to play? Do you expect them to stay indoors and play on their
games consoles?

Where would you allow children to ride bicycles (for recreational or
other purposes)? And how would you expect them to learn to ride
bicycles? Please be practical in your reply.

Cheers,
Luke


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

Ekul Namsob

Guest
JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

> Simon Brooke wrote:
>
> > JNugent wrote:
> >> Simon Brooke wrote:


> >>> Seems to me you've got your priorities all the wrong way round. If the
> >>> road is too dangerous for a nine-year-old to cycle on (and it may well be
> >>> - I accept that without difficulty), then high profile, rigorous policing
> >>> should be applied until it is safe for a nine year old to cycle on. It is
> >>> unacceptable that the young and the elderly should be bullied off the
> >>> roads by inadequate policing of Britain's generally atrocious driving
> >>> standards.
> >>> If that means jailing a lot of drivers, frankly that seems to me a price
> >>> worth paying.

>
> >> OK - how about "safe enough for a five-year-old to cycle on"?
> >> Or, come to that, an 18-month-old?
> >> Where would the line fall to be drawn?

>
> > Below nine, anyway. At five I'd still expect a child to be supervised when
> > playing out of doors, but not at nine.

>
> We aren't talking about "playing". We are discussing cycling along the
> highway (which should not be regarded as trivially as "playing".


Sorry, /you/ are discussing cycling along the highway. I was talking
about play. The clue was in the word 'play'.

Cheers,
Luke

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

JNugent

Guest
Ekul Namsob wrote:

> JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Ekul Namsob wrote:
>>> JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Ekul Namsob wrote:
>>>>> JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> Tom Crispin wrote:


>>>>>>> I have observed a policeman instruct a young child, probably about
>>>>>>> 9/10 years old not to cycle on the pavement. The road was a narrow
>>>>>>> and busy humpback bridge over a railway.


>>>>>> Quite right too.
>>>>>> The child (to the extent that they exist) was, of course, free to push
>>>>>> the bike on foot past this spot you seem to think was so dangerous
>>>>>> (which would obviously be the absolute safest solution). And it wouldn't
>>>>>> be too much hardship, as I think you'll agree.


>>>>> You are of course right that the child could have pushed the bike on
>>>>> foot. However, do you honestly think that nine year old children should
>>>>> never cycle on the pavement? If so, where do you believe they should
>>>>> cycle?


>>>> No. Nine-year-old children (indeed, children of all ages, right up to
>>>> ninety) should not cycle on footways. No excuses. If the road is too
>>>> dangerous for a nine-year-old to cycle on (and it may well be - I accept
>>>> that without difficulty), the nine-year-old should not be out on a bike
>>>> in that area. It's that straightforward. Except for barely-imaginable
>>>> and unforseeable emergencies, there are no justifiable exceptions.


>>> Here's one: children have the right to play. How do you expect children
>>> to play? Do you expect them to stay indoors and play on their games
>>> consoles?


>> That's going to depend totally on where it is that this alleged "right
>> to play" is enshrined, and, indeed, on whether it exists as anything
>> other than a meaningless soundbite (which is what my money would be on).


> Some rights have no legal basis. However, article 31 of the UN
> Convention on the Rights of the Child, which the UK has ratified, may be
> useful to you.


So does this "right to play" actually exist? If so, in what form is the
right provided? Does it mean that chldren must be allowed to do what
they like, where they like, when they like?

>> Point me to the document and I'll try to give you an answer based on it.


>> Even in the unlikely event that there is a written down and
>> legally-provided-for "right to play", it will not - because it could not
>> - mean that children have a right to play wherever and whenever they
>> choose.


> That's as maybe.


That's a very ungracious way of agreeing that I was right.

I wonder how you'd have put it had I been wrong.

> Where would you oblige your children (hypothetical or
> otherwise) to play? Do you expect them to stay indoors and play on their
> games consoles?


Whatever they did, never fear, they did it off the highway.

> Where would you allow children to ride bicycles (for recreational or
> other purposes)? And how would you expect them to learn to ride
> bicycles? Please be practical in your reply.


You might as well ask where they can drive go-karts or fly hang-gliders,
because the answer is, I suggest, much the same in practical terms:
wherever it is safe and practical (for them and for others). There is
certainly no obligation (either in person or collectively) for citizens
to cater for just any old thing that anyone might wish to do.

For some children, in certain family and economic circumstances, in some
locations, for any or all of those pastimes, the answer may well be (in
effect) "nowhere that happens to be practical or affordable". That's
life. We are all subject to constraints.

BTW: What does "Pleease be practical in your reply" mean? I suspect it
means that you think that all your implicit assumptions, expectations
and desires should be treated as "givens" and that the answer should
therefore cater for them, no matter what other factors may exist.