Children too scared to walk or cycle

"Bryan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Heard on Radio and TV this am,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4415636.stm

Aparently children are too scared to walk or cycle to school now
because of teh traffic. On 5 live there a reported at a school in
Wlaes asked the few who cycled what had happened recently and one said
eh had been hit by a car the 'I did not see', from what he also said it
sounded like he was on the pavement at the time crossing a junction.

Can you clarify what you heard please. Particularly:
1. Who said "I did not see" (the cyclist or the driver), and what didn't
they see?
2. Does the pavement cross the junction?
3. Was the car on the pavement when it hit the child?

--
Matt B

Matt B said:

"Bryan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Heard on Radio and TV this am,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4415636.stm

Aparently children are too scared to walk or cycle to school now
because of teh traffic. On 5 live there a reported at a school in
Wlaes asked the few who cycled what had happened recently and one said
eh had been hit by a car the 'I did not see', from what he also said it
sounded like he was on the pavement at the time crossing a junction.

Can you clarify what you heard please. Particularly:
1. Who said "I did not see" (the cyclist or the driver), and what didn't
they see?
2. Does the pavement cross the junction?
3. Was the car on the pavement when it hit the child?

--
Matt B

Thought that was fairly obvious from what I wrote 'it was the cyclist
who didn;t see teh car, and since I wasn't there I cannot comment on
the junction where the accident occurred. My point was that, as has
been pointed out by Guy many times, riding on the pavement is more
dangerouse than cycling on the road for the precise reason that the
driver is not expecting a bike to be on the pavement at a junction, and
the typical pavement yoof cyclist doean't pay any attention to
junctions.

If you want to listen again it was on about 7:45 on 5 live, you can
then make your own min up.

Matt B said:

"Bryan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Heard on Radio and TV this am,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4415636.stm

Aparently children are too scared to walk or cycle to school now
because of teh traffic. On 5 live there a reported at a school in
Wlaes asked the few who cycled what had happened recently and one said
eh had been hit by a car the 'I did not see', from what he also said it
sounded like he was on the pavement at the time crossing a junction.

Can you clarify what you heard please. Particularly:
1. Who said "I did not see" (the cyclist or the driver), and what didn't
they see?
2. Does the pavement cross the junction?
3. Was the car on the pavement when it hit the child?

--
Matt B

Thought that was fairly obvious from what I wrote 'it was the cyclist
who didn;t see teh car, and since I wasn't there I cannot comment on
the junction where the accident occurred. My point was that, as has
been pointed out by Guy many times, riding on the pavement is more
dangerouse than cycling on the road for the precise reason that the
driver is not expecting a bike to be on the pavement at a junction, and
the typical pavement yoof cyclist doean't pay any attention to
junctions.

If you want to listen again it was on about 7:45 on 5 live, you can
then make your own min up.

Bryan

Bryan said:

Heard on Radio and TV this am,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4415636.stm

Quoted message said:

From the link - the research found 34% had been hit or nearly struck

while walking or cycling.

Is it just me or does this iritate everyone. Using one figure to
represent two different things. "34% hit or nearly struck" implies
carnage on our roads while something like 0.01% hit and 34% nearly
struck sounds totally different. I was nearly struck twice going to
work this week but I,ve never been hit by a car in 40 odd years of
cycling.
Iain

Quoted message said:

Is it just me or does this iritate everyone.

I don't know about "everyone", but it isn't just you.

We /nearly/ had a few all out superpower nuclear wars from the 50s
through to the back end of the 80s that would have decimated civilisation...

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

This is always a difficult one - almost certainly the degree of danger
is less than the children perceive, but it's worth listening to the
children's fears and taking them seriously. The behaviour of motorists
I see every day on the roads around my children's school makes me agree
with their general sentiment and support this campaign from Brake.

My children cycle to their primary school every day.

Paul

yorky said:

the junction where the accident occurred. My point was that, as has
been pointed out by Guy many times, riding on the pavement is more
dangerouse than cycling on the road for the precise reason that the
driver is not expecting a bike to be on the pavement at a junction, and
the typical pavement yoof cyclist doean't pay any attention to
junctions.

I'd agree as a generalisation, but it all depends on the age of the
child and the type of road. My 5 year old cycles next to me on quiet
residential streets, but goes on the pavement on more hostile roads
with buses etc. I make flexible decisions all the time about whether my
children (5,8,10) should go on-road or on the pavement. They are also
taught the risks and specific dangers of cycling along the pavement
(slowly with pedestrian priority and extreme care crossing side roads).

I agree with the general issue though of the dangers of cycling at some
speed along the pavement being far more dangerous than being on the
road.

Paul

On 8 Nov 2005 11:06:10 -0800,

Paul said:

This is always a difficult one - almost certainly the degree of danger
is less than the children perceive, but it's worth listening to the
children's fears and taking them seriously. The behaviour of motorists

Actually I think the children sound very rational - they are more scared
of being hit by a car than being abducted by a stranger. But then, of
course, children don't read the Daily Wail.

Tim.

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and there was light.

http://tjw.hn.org/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/

On 8 Nov 2005 03:48:38 -0800, "yorky" <[email hidden]> said
in <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

If you want to listen again it was on about 7:45 on 5 live, you can
then make your own min up.

I'm torn. Part of me says "what mind" and another part says "being
MattB he'll have made it up beforehand anyway". Decisions,
decisions...

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 14:35:39 +0000, Peter Clinch
<[email hidden]> said in <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

We /nearly/ had a few all out superpower nuclear wars from the 50s
through to the back end of the 80s that would have decimated civilisation...

# If I had a bomb
# and a plane to drop it from
# There'd be an all out superpower confrontation!
# All out superpower confrontation!

It's me age, you know.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

Tim Woodall said:

On 8 Nov 2005 11:06:10 -0800,

Paul said:

This is always a difficult one - almost certainly the degree of danger
is less than the children perceive, but it's worth listening to the
children's fears and taking them seriously. The behaviour of motorists

Actually I think the children sound very rational - they are more scared
of being hit by a car than being abducted by a stranger.

The problem is, they are too scared on the roads. Almost from birth
they are taught over and over again that moving motor vehicles are
dangerous and the only defence is to stay away from them.

So when we first take cycle trainees on the road, they do the drills
fine, right up to the point the first car appears. Then a lot of them
just dive for cover. No wonder drivers think they own the roads.

Colin McKenzie

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If you want to listen again it was on about 7:45 on 5 live, you can
then make your own min up.

Quoted message said:

I'm torn. Part of me says "what mind" and another part says "being
MattB he'll have made it up beforehand anyway".

Don't be such an ass, Guy - you are quoting "Yorky" not MattB.

FWIW, I am getting heartily sick of a few posters here attacking
certain others/parading othere evidence of bigotry at every
opportunity. Can we have fewer knee-jerk rants, please?

--
Peter Headland

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On 8 Nov 2005 03:48:38 -0800, "yorky" <[email hidden]> said
in <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

If you want to listen again it was on about 7:45 on 5 live, you can
then make your own min up.

I'm torn. Part of me says "what mind" and another part says "being
MattB he'll have made it up beforehand anyway". Decisions,
decisions...

Sad, isn't it, how losing an argument affects some apparently intelligent
people. I wonder what the world record is for the longest length of time for
bearing a grudge.

--
Matt B

Peter Headland said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If you want to listen again it was on about 7:45 on 5 live, you can
then make your own min up.

Quoted message said:

I'm torn. Part of me says "what mind" and another part says "being
MattB he'll have made it up beforehand anyway".

Don't be such an ass, Guy - you are quoting "Yorky" not MattB.

FWIW, I am getting heartily sick of a few posters here attacking
certain others/parading othere evidence of bigotry at every
opportunity. Can we have fewer knee-jerk rants, please?

NO! Where would all the entertainment come from?

Guy:

Quoted message said:

# If I had a bomb
# and a plane to drop it from
# There'd be an all out superpower confrontation!
# All out superpower confrontation

A great song, but without the subtle social commentry of "Gob on you"

sothach said:

A great song, but without the subtle social commentry of "Gob on you"

Or my personal fave, "I like bouncing".

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Paul said:

yorky said:

the junction where the accident occurred. My point was that, as has
been pointed out by Guy many times, riding on the pavement is more
dangerouse than cycling on the road for the precise reason that the
driver is not expecting a bike to be on the pavement at a junction, and
the typical pavement yoof cyclist doean't pay any attention to
junctions.

I'd agree as a generalisation, but it all depends on the age of the
child and the type of road. My 5 year old cycles next to me on quiet
residential streets, but goes on the pavement on more hostile roads
with buses etc. I make flexible decisions all the time about whether my
children (5,8,10) should go on-road or on the pavement. They are also
taught the risks and specific dangers of cycling along the pavement
(slowly with pedestrian priority and extreme care crossing side roads).

I appear to have so scared my daughters (9, 7) with warnings about cars
reversing out of drives that they refuse to ride on pavements.

Quoted message said:

I agree with the general issue though of the dangers of cycling at some
speed along the pavement being far more dangerous than being on the
road.

Paul

On 8 Nov 2005 12:58:20 -0800, "Peter Headland" <[email hidden]>
said in <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'm torn. Part of me says "what mind" and another part says "being
MattB he'll have made it up beforehand anyway".

Don't be such an ass, Guy - you are quoting "Yorky" not MattB.

Yes, specifically, quoting Yorky's reply to Matt B inviting him to...
oh I give up. A joke's never funny if you have to explain it, after
all.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 08:51:06 +0000, Peter Clinch
<[email hidden]> said in <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

A great song, but without the subtle social commentry of "Gob on you"

Or my personal fave, "I like bouncing".

Yes, although "Kinda lingers" had a certain resonance, and "I Like
Trucking" was undoubtedly a classic of the modern idiom, in the end
I'd have to say my favourite was probably the Ayatollah Song.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken