Cyclist beware of children

beazee

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18kqfTd0rAE

Happened on Tuesday in one of Polish cities.
Identity of the culprit remains unknown. The cyclist after taken to hospital for examination, was fined for not using the bicycle lane.

seamus

Stupid kid. Future Darwin award winner I reckon.

Jarren

That kid got very lucky,it could be a truck/car and this wouldn't end well .

listermint

Jebus, thats some response time from the Ambulance....

dave_o_brien

Cyclists should also be aware of buskers who decide to jog across O'Connell Street while the pedestrian lights are red dragging their instrument in a bag behind them who upon hearing your shout and breaks squeal, manage to leap out of your way leaving their bag right in your way, so that despite your efforts to swerve, it still makes strong enough contact with you that you come down.

Just saying.

manwithaplan

I can get you a good deal on one of these bad boys:

dave_o_brien

manwithaplan wrote: »

I can get you a good deal on one of these bad boys:

Hey, I'm not against musicians at all, just idiots! Unfortunately a Venn diagram would show this particular musician in the intersection of those two groups. Shame really, it was an otherwise lovely commute.

Lumen

seamus wrote: »

Stupid kid. Future Darwin award winner I reckon.

Most kids check most of the time, but when I was taught to drive my (professional) driving instructor drummed into me that children tend to take two or three steps out from the parked cars and then look.

MakeNine

The kid got up and got away quicker than Usain Bolt

magicbastarder

i once knocked a five or six year old kid down while cycling along the grand canal, near the junction with harold's cross road. he was standing beside his dad, waiting to cross, and as i passed by, the little ****er stepped out and kicked me in the shin.
i spun him like a top - i was sprinting for the lights, so was doing maybe 35kph. his dad was absolutely mortified.

GlennaMaddy

Same thing happened to me as in that video, kids must be made or rubber or something, I went off the hospital in an ambulance and had to pay for crowns on my front teeth, kid legged it, probably with my teeth embedded in his head

enas

Pretty much same thing happened to me (my only serious bike accident ever), with a kid who ran as unpredictably as the one on this video. He came through unscathed (but with a decent fear), but I went over the bars (at a high speed) and knocked unconscious. No head injury found (wasn't wearing any helmet), but my ear have been pretty much ****ed up (lacerated in three or four strips, luckily all holding by the earlobe), plus a small fracture at the elbow. Luckily too, all the witnesses told the Guards the exact same story (that there was no way I could avoid the kid). That's quite fortunate, since I still have no recollection of the accident.

(Don't mean to start any helmet debate, but that has since given an argument to my wife to wear a helmet, as she claims it would have avoided the laceration.)

Qualitymark

Love the way the officious cyclist who comes along and takes over organises everything while the (black?) guy who's been the injured person's guardian angel all along goes quietly away.

What happens to the bicycle? Couldn't see - did they put it in the ambulance with him?

beazee

The helmet very much saved his life. In an interview the guy described himself as a triathlonist, spending most of his time cycling. His little fella is no longer fussy about the helmet. After seeing what happened to his dad he understands now it's a must.



Went OTB two times in my life. One on a country road when a dog went straight under my front wheel, poor little fecker. Got away fast. Minor scratches to me hands and a knee.
The other time was on Westmoreland St, Dublin, evening time, cycling along cars sitting in a traffic jam, parked buses to me left. Suddenly some Spanish fella appeared from between the buses, sees me and stays there petrified. Quick grab on the levers and this is when I realise my hybrid was just serviced and I should have loosened the front brake line. Hands, elbow and knee scratched, painful wrist. Fella got away unscratched with "sorry, sorry, sorry" and a bus driver had some show watching me getting me stuff together. This was the last time I drove in traffic jam by the buses parked/sitting along.

droidus

beazee wrote: »

The helmet very much saved his life. In an interview the guy described himself as a triathlonist, spending most of his time cycling. His little fella is no longer fussy about the helmet. After seeing what happened to his dad he understands now it's a must.

Nothing to see here people. Move along now.

Bradidup

It's good to show a video proving the effectiveness of cycle helmet safety

The Government should make cycle helmets compulsory in this country. It would certainly cut down on the escilating HSE bill.

It would also be a good idea for Dublin Bikes and Dublin City Council to introduce a no helmet no bike rental law.. Set an example for the city.

I also hate to see children cycling bicycles to school on main roads without using helmets.

magicbastarder

Bradidup wrote: »

The Government should make cycle helmets compulsory in this country. It would certainly cut down on the escilating HSE bill.

no, it'd do the opposite. and it'd be the death of the dublin bike scheme.

rp

Bradidup wrote: »

The Government should make cycle helmets compulsory in this country. It would certainly cut down on the escilating HSE bill.

If you want to save HSE money, why not make helmets compulsory for car occupants first, as c. 50% of head injury admissions are from car drivers/passengers (compared to 1% for cyclists and pedestrians)?

buffalo

Bradidup wrote: »

It's good to show a video proving the effectiveness of cycle helmet safety

The Government should make cycle helmets compulsory in this country. It would certainly cut down on the escilating HSE bill.

It would also be a good idea for Dublin Bikes and Dublin City Council to introduce a no helmet no bike rental law.. Set an example for the city.

I also hate to see children cycling bicycles to school on main roads without using helmets.

Cyclists' head injuries are 95% of the HSE bill - FACT

enas

Bradidup wrote: »

It's good to show a video proving the effectiveness of cycle helmet safety

The Government should make cycle helmets compulsory in this country. It would certainly cut down on the escilating HSE bill.

It would also be a good idea for Dublin Bikes and Dublin City Council to introduce a no helmet no bike rental law.. Set an example for the city.

I also hate to see children cycling bicycles to school on main roads without using helmets.

Honestly, that's a troll isn't it? I mean, it contains all the pro-helmets platitudes in the most condensed form.

RobertFoster

buffalo wrote: »

Cyclists' head injuries are 95% of the HSE bill - FACT

So, if I leave my head at home when I go for a cycle, I'll be saving the HSE money? Well, Worzel my Gummidge! You're on to a winner there, buffalo.

droidus

enas wrote: »

Honestly, that's a troll isn't it? I mean, it contains all the pro-helmets platitudes in the most condensed form.

You have to admire the efficiency of it though. It's almost a thing of wonder.

Qualitymark

Could we make a rule that all thread-creep postings on helmets are auto-rerouted into a special helmets thread? My head hurts <stitch> from all these pro- and anti-helmet posts.

galwaycyclist

Before this thread goes other uncomfortable places. I want to throw this up from the German traffic regulations.

http://www.verkehrsportal.de/stvo/stvo_03.php

(2a) Die Fahrzeugführer müssen sich gegenüber Kindern, Hilfsbedürftigen und älteren Menschen, insbesondere durch Verminderung der Fahrgeschwindigkeit und durch Bremsbereitschaft, so verhalten, daß eine Gefährdung dieser Verkehrsteilnehmer ausgeschlossen ist.

Or roughly translated - (adult) drivers who encounter children, the elderly or disabled - shall conduct themselves such as to ensure these road users' safety, specifically by slowing down and being ready to brake.

rp

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Before this thread goes other uncomfortable places. I want to throw this up from the German traffic regulations.

http://www.verkehrsportal.de/stvo/stvo_03.php

Or roughly translated - (adult) drivers who encounter children, the elderly or disabled - shall conduct themselves such as to ensure these road users' safety, specifically by slowing down and being ready to brake.

I remember that from my driving lessons in Germany: they showed us slides of kids playing ball near the road, and stressed that we should slow down and expect one to run out into the road - doesn't that get taught here? Is it not part of the "Duty of Care"?

enas

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Before this thread goes other uncomfortable places. I want to throw this up from the German traffic regulations.

http://www.verkehrsportal.de/stvo/stvo_03.php



Or roughly translated - (adult) drivers who encounter children, the elderly or disabled - shall conduct themselves such as to ensure these road users' safety, specifically by slowing down and being ready to brake.

Of course, that's what we should do. But do you honestly believe that the rider on the video did anything wrong or could have done something better to anticipate and thus avoid what happened? As a cyclist, you have to anticipate things, especially the behaviour of less predictable road users. But you can only expect anticipation up to a certain reasonable extent.

buffalo

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Or roughly translated - (adult) drivers who encounter children, the elderly or disabled - shall conduct themselves such as to ensure these road users' safety, specifically by slowing down and being ready to brake.

There's a difference between being ready to brake and expecting a child to run out at full speed from between parked cars without so much as a cursory glance for traffic.

galwaycyclist

rp wrote: »

I remember that from my driving lessons in Germany: they showed us slides of kids playing ball near the road, and stressed that we should slow down and expect one to run out into the road - doesn't that get taught here? Is it not part of the "Duty of Care"?

No there is no specific duty towards children in the traffic regulations here

If you look at the annual RSA hi-viz for kids going back to school campaign there is no mention of any need for motorists (or other types of driver) to modify their behaviour in the presence of children.

http://www.rsa.ie/en/Utility/News/2012/778-Reduction-in-Child-Fatalities-Between-1997-and-2010/

The implied subtext is that it is childrens' responsibility to know the rules not the adults responsibility to recognise their limitations.

galwaycyclist

buffalo wrote: »

There's a difference between being ready to brake and expecting a child to run out at full speed from between parked cars without so much as a cursory glance for traffic.

No while you may have heightened or lessened expectations of something happening on particular roads an adult should always expect children to behave unpredictably and moderate their own behaviour accordingly.

enas

galwaycyclist wrote: »

No while you may have heightened or lessened expectations of something happening on particular roads an adult should always expect children to behave unpredictably and moderate their own behaviour accordingly.

You're not answering the question. Do you believe this cyclist could have avoided the accident? Said otherwise, are you convinced that, were you the cyclist, it wouldn't have happened to you?

As far as I can see, the cyclist wouldn't even be able to see the child behind the cars. Are you saying you should anticipate that non-visible children could be jumping literally in front of you?

Mind you, I'm not putting any blame on the child (and I wouldn't even if it was an adult), and I'm happy nothing happened to him, but I sympathise with the cyclist too who's also a victim in this situation. It's just an unfortunate situation that could have turned nasty for both the child and the cyclist.

vistafinder

There should also be a thread named Cyclists beware of adults crossing without looking, Would love to give them a smack across the the back of the head. At least 15 times this year and no where near a city with parked cars either.

rp

galwaycyclist wrote: »

No while you may have heightened or lessened expectations of something happening on particular roads an adult should always expect children to behave unpredictably and moderate their own behaviour accordingly.

Most motorcycle training emphasises the principle that you "don't out-ride your sight lines", that is, ride so that you can brake/swerve safely if the unexpected happens. Mostly, I think its for self-preservation (along with the 2-second rule, and the "life saver"), because if you hit someone, its just an "accident", and ok really.

Lumen

rp wrote: »

Most motorcycle training emphasises the principle that you "don't out-ride your sight lines", that is, ride so that you can brake/swerve safely if the unexpected happens. Mostly, I think its for self-preservation (along with the 2-second rule, and the "life saver"), because if you hit someone, its just an "accident", and ok really.

Same thing with driver training.

"You must proceed at a speed which allows you to stop on your side of the road in the space that you can see to be clear and is likely to remain so."

Or something very similar, from Roadcraft.

Unfortunately most drivers are about as close to Roadcraft best practice as I am to winning an individual time trial in the TdF.

buffalo

galwaycyclist wrote: »

No while you may have heightened or lessened expectations of something happening on particular roads an adult should always expect children to behave unpredictably and moderate their own behaviour accordingly.

As enas said, the child wasn't even in sight at the time. Fair enough, you're in a residential estate, you slow down, or a road beside a park,etc. This looks like a major thoroughfare, It's a case of 'coming from nowhere' (much as I hate that excuse). So if I'm cycling on the opposite side of the road from parked cars I should be able to stop on a penny?

seamus

enas wrote: »

As far as I can see, the cyclist wouldn't even be able to see the child behind the cars. Are you saying you should anticipate that non-visible children could be jumping literally in front of you?

The most basic principle of driving, as mentioned above, means that yes, you should drive/cycle past parked cars on the basis that an unseen child may appear from between them.

But most of us forget or don't consider this. In reality where you're driving along a road which is lined with parked cars so you can't see behind any of them, you should be driving at 10km/h or less, otherwise you risk a child popping out from between them.

In reality none of us do this unless the road is narrow, even though we would perfectly accept that there is a chance a child may appear and we would be going too fast to catch it.

So in theory, this cyclist should have anticipated a child appearing from between the vehicles and acted accordingly. In practice, few if any of us would have done so. Without multiple vantage points I'd like to think that I would have seen the child running behind the cars, then disappearing, which would have caused my spidey senses to tingle. But there could have been a corner, or another vehicle or anything which obscured this.

galwaycyclist

enas wrote: »

You're not answering the question. Do you believe this cyclist could have avoided the accident? Said otherwise, are you convinced that, were you the cyclist, it wouldn't have happened to you?

As far as I can see, the cyclist wouldn't even be able to see the child behind the cars. Are you saying you should anticipate that non-visible children could be jumping literally in front of you?

Mind you, I'm not putting any blame on the child (and I wouldn't even if it was an adult), and I'm happy nothing happened to him, but I sympathise with the cyclist too who's also a victim in this situation. It's just an unfortunate situation that could have turned nasty for both the child and the cyclist.

I am not answering the question because my comment was not made with direct reference to the original video. I don't know enough about the wider context of that street to comment. For instance does the doorway the child ran for lead to a school? If it did then I would very much anticipate a non-visible child jumping out. As I would if approaching a stopped schoolbus.

In other contexts these type of discussions sometimes degenerate into something along the lines of:

"I can drive how I like, when I like and its up to kids/parents/teachers to keep the road free for me to do so"

So in anticipation of that type of thing kicking off here, I was putting down a marker.

Beasty

enas wrote: »

Honestly, that's a troll isn't it? I mean, it contains all the pro-helmets platitudes in the most condensed form.

If you have a problem with a post, report it. Calling anyone a troll is back-seat modding and can expect to be sanctioned.

Thanks

Beasty

Beasty

vistafinder wrote: »

There should also be a thread named Cyclists beware of adults crossing without looking, Would love to give them a smack across the the back of the head.

No advocating violence

galwaycyclist

And just to point out that I do feel some sympathy for the cyclist in the original video. If he wanted to cycle fast then he was doing the right thing in avoiding the cycle-path/footway. That still leaves the question open of whether this was a good place to cycle fast. And no, before anyone asks, if it was me I doubt if I could have avoided it, but I might still bear some blame.

enas

galwaycyclist wrote: »

I am not answering the question because my comment was not made with direct reference to the original video. I don't know enough about the wider context of that street to comment. For instance does the doorway the child ran for lead to a school? If it did then I would very much anticipate a non-visible child jumping out. As I would if approaching a stopped schoolbus.

Fair enough, that's a very valid point.

galwaycyclist wrote: »

"I can drive how I like, when I like and its up to kids/parents/teachers to keep the road free for me to do so"

Of course we agree that this is a disgusting line of thinking, but since no one really raised it before your post, I wrongly understood that you were reacting to this very incident.

Iwannahurl

beazee wrote: »

The cyclist after taken to hospital for examination, was fined for not using the bicycle lane.

As a punishment for hitting the child, or as a general zero tolerance response from the police?

The child ran across the road from between parked cars, and then ran across the cycle path on the other side.

If the child was hit by a motorised vehicle travelling at a legal and appropriate speed on the road, would the driver have been similarly fined I wonder?

And if the child was struck by a cyclist after running across the cycle path...?

buffalo

Iwannahurl wrote: »

As a punishment for hitting the child, or as a general zero tolerance response from the police?

The child ran across the road from between parked cars, and then ran across the cycle path on the other side.

If the child was hit by a motorised vehicle travelling at a legal and appropriate speed on the road, would the driver have been similarly fined I wonder?

And if the child was struck by a cyclist after running across the cycle path...?

I presume if it had been as a punishment for hitting the child, it would've been a charge of "reckless behaviour on the road" or something similar.

doozerie

rp wrote:

I remember that from my driving lessons in Germany: they showed us slides of kids playing ball near the road, and stressed that we should slow down and expect one to run out into the road - doesn't that get taught here? Is it not part of the "Duty of Care"?

On that topic, whatever about what is taught (and I think the quality of teaching is patchy), based on my observations of driving within the (large) estate that I live, many people seem to have absolutely no consideration for the safety of kids that are hanging around near the roads. I've lost count of the number of times that I've seen people drive past groups of kids, including very young kids, at a speed that would have been questionable within an estate at any time and that was completely reckless given the proximity of the kids.

In some of these instances, the driver was a parent, and their own kid(s) was amongst those at risk by their driving. It is probably no coincidence that quite a few of these kids themselves have absolutely no road sense whatsoever and, as an example, have casually walked in front of me both while I've been driving and while I've been cycling - sometimes they've done so oblivious to my presence, sometimes they've done so in the full expectation that I'll be willing and able to avoid colliding with them. I guess if their parents have no common sense it is almost inevitable that the kids themselves will have no common sense when it comes to traffic either.

In the last 10 years of living in our estate I have come across two incidents where a kid was hit by a car, and was told of a third. I'm not sure how that compares to the national average but 3 serious incidents (that I'm aware of) seems like a lot to me for one estate (and more particularly for one strip of road in the estate). The standard of driving in my estate is poor, and shockingly bad at times, the road sense of the next generation of drivers is in the same category, so for this estate at least it seems like things won't get better for a long time to come, which is both worrying and very sad.

Iwannahurl

buffalo wrote: »

I presume if it had been as a punishment for hitting the child, it would've been a charge of "reckless behaviour on the road" or something similar.

Not necessarily. Al Capone was done for tax evasion, remember...;)