Helmets - Brussels adds to the debate



J

JNugent

Guest
Ekul Namsob wrote:

> 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'.


The discussion arose out of an incident where a child was apparently
advised by a police officer not to cycle along the footway (in a spot
where it was felt that cycling along the carriageway might have been too
dangerous). If anyone thinks that cycling along a busy road is "play",
or that a "right to play" (WTMB) implies a right to do things that are
illegal (and dangerous for others, let alone for the child), I think
they're wrong.
 
S

Squashme

Guest
On 9 Feb, 17:43, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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... :-(
>


Radio 4 today:-

Speed, Greed and the M25

James May uncovers the secret history of the M25 Road Race and looks
back at the greed of the late 1980s as Porsche-driving city traders
indulged in illegal contests of speed.

Indulging a ludic impulse on the roads. How unusual. I expect that it
was safe speed.
 
J

JNugent

Guest
Squashme wrote:

> JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:


>> 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... :-(


> Radio 4 today:-
> Speed, Greed and the M25


> James May uncovers the secret history of the M25 Road Race and looks
> back at the greed of the late 1980s as Porsche-driving city traders
> indulged in illegal contests of speed.


> Indulging a ludic impulse on the roads. How unusual. I expect that it
> was safe speed.


Racing on the highway is irresponsible - and rightly illegal.

Don't expect me to defend it.
 
M

Mike Sales

Guest
"Ekul Namsob" wrote to
> JNugent <


leave him alone Luke, he ain't werfit.

Mike Sales
 
D

dkahn400

Guest
On Feb 8, 11:20 pm, Sir Jeremy <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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.


I have, and you're wrong.

--
Dave...
 
P

percrime

Guest
dkahn400 wrote:
> On Feb 8, 11:20 pm, Sir Jeremy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> 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.

>
> I have, and you're wrong.
>
> --
> Dave...



Me too.. and he is really wrong

Another Dave (from a hotter climate)
 
E

Ekul Namsob

Guest
JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

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


> >> 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?


Yes.

> 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?


I've already answered that. See my ungracious response below.

> >> 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.


Yes, sorry. I was, as you may have spotted, rude in my reply.
>
> > 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.


That's exactly where I'm suggesting that children play.
>
> > 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.


Playing on a residential street is far from being unsafe and
impractical.

> 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.


It is, therefore, a relief to me that no policeman has ever chosen to
prevent the children down my street from playing on the footway.

> 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.


I mean that I expect an answer that does not assume that children can
only play at a park, for example.

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:

> Ekul Namsob wrote:
>
> > JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Simon Brooke wrote:


> >>> 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'.

>
> The discussion arose out of an incident where a child was apparently
> advised by a police officer not to cycle along the footway (in a spot
> where it was felt that cycling along the carriageway might have been too
> dangerous). If anyone thinks that cycling along a busy road is "play",
> or that a "right to play" (WTMB) implies a right to do things that are
> illegal (and dangerous for others, let alone for the child), I think
> they're wrong.


Where the discussion originated is irrelevant. You are responding to a
post about play which included the words "do you honestly think that
nine year old children should never cycle on the pavement?" and had
already responded to the follow-up in which it was made clear that my
'never' included the concept of play.

Please, don't be so disingenuous. It does you no favours.

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:
>>>> Simon Brooke wrote:


>>>>> 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'.


>> The discussion arose out of an incident where a child was apparently
>> advised by a police officer not to cycle along the footway (in a spot
>> where it was felt that cycling along the carriageway might have been too
>> dangerous). If anyone thinks that cycling along a busy road is "play",
>> or that a "right to play" (WTMB) implies a right to do things that are
>> illegal (and dangerous for others, let alone for the child), I think
>> they're wrong.


> Where the discussion originated is irrelevant. You are responding to a
> post about play which included the words "do you honestly think that
> nine year old children should never cycle on the pavement?" and had
> already responded to the follow-up in which it was made clear that my
> 'never' included the concept of play.
> Please, don't be so disingenuous. It does you no favours.


"Disingenuous"?

Moi?

Perish the thought - I try to answer questions in a straightforward manner.

I distinguish "playing" (cowboys and indians? tag? hopscotch?) from
cycling along the footway. The former are fine on the footway (and, as
you suggest elsewhere, perhaps even on the carriageway of a suitably
quiet cul-de-sac).
 
J

JNugent

Guest
Ekul Namsob wrote:

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


>>>> 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?


> Yes.


>> 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?


> I've already answered that. See my ungracious response below.


I couldn't discern an answer to that question, hence my asking again.

Am I to take it that you accept that this "right" does not exist in any
formal sense (or, alternatively, to the extent that it does exist, that
it is itself subject to the rights of others - particularly pedestrians
- to use the highway in safety and without obstruction)?

>>>> 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.


> Yes, sorry. I was, as you may have spotted, rude in my reply.


That's OK. You are not usually rude, hence my surprise. You usually post
like I try to - in an urbane and non-confrontational manner.

>>> 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.


> That's exactly where I'm suggesting that children play.


Where? On the highway, or 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.


> Playing on a residential street is far from being unsafe and
> impractical.


True. I remember it well.

>> 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.


> It is, therefore, a relief to me that no policeman has ever chosen to
> prevent the children down my street from playing on the footway.


Why would he?

>> 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.


> I mean that I expect an answer that does not assume that children can
> only play at a park, for example.


As long as the playing does not involve something illegal and/or
dangerous, such as discharging airguns, shooting arrows or crossbolts or
riding a bicycle along the footway, I agree. When I was a child, there
were lots of places in inner Liverpool for us to play: the street, waste
ground (of which there was then a lot), playgrounds, public parks, etc.
 
?

_

Guest
On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 17:43:10 +0000, JNugent wrote:

> 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.


We don't need "special rules" to be imposed on everyone.

We just need "special rules" to be imposed on the police; to wit, that they
arrest and charge all motorists who break any of the "normal rules".
 
?

_

Guest
On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 20:46:20 +0000, 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!
>


No, they are not designed even for the first instance you mention. They
are instead designed to produce profit for the manufacturers.
 
?

_

Guest
On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 22:36:05 +0000, 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?


Certainly there is.

No helmet at all (which has no effect on the risk of head injury) is a
perfectly acceptable trade-off.
 
C

CJ

Guest
On 7 Feb, 16:00, 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/2...>
>
> 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."
>
> I'd have appreciated it were the Commission to have said exactly who
> these "Stakeholders" are, and what their evidence is - otherwise, the
> uncharitable interpretation might be that once again, the EC is being
> used by lobbyists to attain commercial goals.


Looks like stakeholders didn't include any representative European
cycling organisations. Suggested strategies for increasing cycling are
wooly and weak, such as: "Initiatives in cities, companies and schools
can promote cycling and walking, for example through traffic games,
road safety assessments or educational packages. Stakeholders have
proposed that bigger towns and cities could consider appointing a
policy officer specifically for walking and cycling." Reallocation of
road space is not suggested unless it "becomes available after
congestion mitigation measures."

With regard to safety, the report blithely overlooks the fact that
cycling and walking is many times safer in those European countries
that have stricter laws on motorists, that cycling is actually more
hazardous wherever significant percentages of riders wear helmets and
that helmet wearing is also associated with very low levels of urban
cycling.

But rather than argue with the usual suspects on here, I suggesst you
download the report, read it yourself and accept its invitation to
email your response to:
[email protected]
 
E

Ekul Namsob

Guest
JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

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


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

>
> > That's exactly where I'm suggesting that children play.

>
> Where? On the highway, or off the highway?


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.

>
> > Playing on a residential street is far from being unsafe and
> > impractical.

>
> True. I remember it well.
>
> >> 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.

>
> > It is, therefore, a relief to me that no policeman has ever chosen to
> > prevent the children down my street from playing on the footway.

>
> Why would he?


Because they frequently ride bicycles on it.
>
> >> 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.

>
> > I mean that I expect an answer that does not assume that children can
> > only play at a park, for example.

>
> As long as the playing does not involve something illegal and/or
> dangerous, such as discharging airguns, shooting arrows or crossbolts or
> riding a bicycle along the footway, I agree. When I was a child, there
> were lots of places in inner Liverpool for us to play: the street, waste
> ground (of which there was then a lot), playgrounds, public parks, etc.


How much of that do you think is regularly accessible to four and five
year old children?

When I was a child, we played in the road.

Cheers,
Luke


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

Just zis Guy, you know?

Guest
On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 19:44:07 +0000, Tom Crispin
<[email protected]> said in
<[email protected]>:

>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?


Or jumping traffic lights, parking on yellow lines, speeding, or any
one of the offences committed as a matter of routine by motorists.

Thing is, I see no evidence that *any* road user group is especially
given to obeying the laws and rules that exist to regulate them.

The only really obvious difference between the various road user
groups in this respect is the degree of danger their illegal
behaviour poses to others.

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
 
F

Franco

Guest
On Feb 10, 10:59 am, Squashme <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 9 Feb, 17:43, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > 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... :-(

>

Oh Squisho
I've told you before
"If you play on the Motorway, you will become "run-over""
I've lectured this to my children - and thay have now been safely
delivered to adulthood. They know never to venture onto the road
without protection or purpose.
Did your father teach you this. Did he tell you about his sins - or
did he just encumber them upon you?

Saf
 
F

Franco

Guest
On Feb 10, 10:59 am, Squashme <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 9 Feb, 17:43, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > 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... :-(

>

Oh Squisho
I've told you before
"If you play on the Motorway, you will become "run-over""
I've lectured this to my children - and thay have now been safely
delivered to adulthood. They know never to venture onto the road
without protection or purpose.
Did your father teach you this. Did he tell you about his sins - or
did he just encumber them upon you?

Saf
 
J

John Clayton

Guest
"JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> 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).


Should you be on here?
You seem to be fairly anti-cyclist and provocative.
Or do you simply "enjoy" getting in the way of a sensible discussion?
John
 
J

JNugent

Guest
_ wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 17:43:10 +0000, JNugent wrote:
>
>> 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.

>
> We don't need "special rules" to be imposed on everyone.
>
> We just need "special rules" to be imposed on the police; to wit, that they
> arrest and charge all motorists who break any of the "normal rules".


And any other road-users who break the rules to which they are subject.