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.
> 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.