Cycle train

Corca Baiscinn · 29-01-2019 10:28pm

Twenty Grand wrote: »

Eh no. Slow vehicles frequently pull in to allow cars to pass.

You need to be considerate of other road users.
A tractor driver was banned for causing a tailback in Mayo.

I totally agree that cyclists should have segregated paths, but until then we all have to share the road.

Have come late to this thread and had my bubble burst, was smiling to myself all weekend whenever i thought of the video and gobsmacked to see all the naysayers.
The tractor analogy case is irrelevant as it occurred on an N or R Rural Road not a congested urban one at rush hour.

As to "sharing the road" of course - with the proviso that the person driving the more lethal of the vehicles (hint: it's not the bike) carries by far the greatest responsibility

To the poster who said its ok if it was a once-off, well numbers were up on Friday as it was a family day and politicians had also been invited but it's a DAILY occurrence to 2 primary schools and as Da Cor said there are plans to expand. I follow the Cycle Bus on SM and they plan to have the family days once a month.

As for the post re drivers "going about their business" while pesky schoolchildren get in their way, this always intrigues me. In this case the "business" of the children was to get to school but the driver heading to the golf club/coffee-meet-up also often seem to think their right to the road is greater than that of the guy on a bike cycling to work say. in other words the unthinking assumption is that it stands t reason that the driver has superior rights

beauf · 29-01-2019 11:24pm

There is an endless supply of threads where traffic is complaining about traffic.

Carawaystick · 30-01-2019 12:22am

Lord Glentoran wrote: »

Simples.

Parents teach kids from an early age to ride a bike safely.
They then move from being supervised to riding on their own.
All this on the basis that the kids know and use the Rules of the Road and are confident in differing levels of traffic.
This involves a hands on and tailored level of supervision until the kid is responsible to travel on the roads themselves.
It involves parents taking responsibility, and children learning responsibility.

It couldn’t be any clearer than that.

Several posters on here and in the cycling forum have given adults cycling lessons about cycling in a group.
Because learning to cycle in a group involves a tailored level of supervision until the adultis responsible to travel on the roads in a group themselves.

quietsailor · 04-02-2019 1:13pm

Carawaystick wrote: »

Several posters on here and in the cycling forum have given adults cycling lessons about cycling in a group.
Because learning to cycle in a group involves a tailored level of supervision until the adultis responsible to travel on the roads in a group themselves.

This sounds wrong, any other form of transport - car, truck, motorbike, bus you are required to have one on one supervision. Yet these cycle busses don't require it????? The most vulnerable (children ), least able to read the traffic arround them and take corrective action (again children ) are given the least training. How is that sensible or even safe?

magicbastarder · 04-02-2019 1:29pm

there's a *subtle* difference between learning to drive a truck and learning to cycle a bike.

quietsailor · 04-02-2019 11:14pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

there's a *subtle* difference between learning to drive a truck and learning to cycle a bike.

I don't know if you thought that was funny but it bloody well isn't. It has nothing to do with learning to cycle, in fact only a complete ****wit would suggest children be taught to cycle on an open road. Children have no concept of the dangers on a road, neither do learner car drivers yet we insist that the 16+yr olds, the ones who have some hope of intuiting what's dangerous, get one on one supervision but the primary school ones don't.

beauf · 04-02-2019 11:22pm

If its dangerous post some stats on how dangerous it is.

...Some 20,000 primary school children currently attend cycle training,....

http://www.cycleright.ie/

magicbastarder · 04-02-2019 11:25pm

quietsailor wrote: »

only a complete ****wit would suggest children be taught to cycle on an open road.

grand so, i'm not a complete ****wit as these children clearly know how to cycle.
they're being supervised in a mass cycle ride on an open road; what more 'protected' a manner do you think their cycle on an open road could be?

and FWIW, i don't think it's funny. i actually think it's kinda tragic that for a child to cycling to school - even in a supervised cycle train - people think it's the ****ing child who is creating the danger.
if it's that remarkably dangerous for a child to cycle to school, you're not even asking the wrong question to ask if the child is the one creating danger.
you've decided the question is not even worth asking.

quietsailor · 04-02-2019 11:36pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

grand so, i'm not a complete ****wit as these children clearly know how to cycle.
they're being supervised in a mass cycle ride on an open road; what more 'protected' a manner do you think their cycle on an open road could be?

and FWIW, i don't think it's funny. i actually think it's kinda tragic that for a child to cycling to school - even in a supervised cycle train - people think it's the ****ing child who is creating the danger.
if it's that remarkably dangerous for a child to cycle to school, you're not even asking the wrong question to ask if the child is the one creating danger.
you've decided the question is not even worth asking.

My god are you deliberately reading that post wrong to get a rise or are you really that dense - the child isn't the one causing the danger, the child is the one IN danger. But hey, what do their lives matter, you got one up on someone on the internet, you go keyboard warrior!

No child of that age should be on an open road without an adult directly next to them, do you really think an adult a few meters back is going to be able to stop a child from swerving out around a pothole. It isn't Harry Potter land here, shouting at a child to stop doesn't make them stop, and please don't tell me " it's the cars responsibility to look out for them" it's legally is, but that's no use at all when the child gets hurt or killed.

If you really want them to get exercise have a walking bus instead of a cycle bus where it is safe for them on a pavement. If you insist on them cycling to school it's a vanity project dressed up as a health initiative

Pinch Flat · 04-02-2019 11:42pm

quietsailor wrote: »

My god are you deliberately reading that post wrong to get a rise or are you really that dense - the child isn't the one causing the danger, the child is the one IN danger. But hey, what do their lives matter, you got one up on someone on the internet, you go keyboard warrior!

No child of that age should be on an open road without an adult directly next to them, do you really think an adult a few meters back is going to be able to stop a child from swerving out around a pothole. It isn't Harry Potter land here, shouting at a child to stop doesn't make them stop, and please don't tell me " it's the cars responsibility to look out for them" it's legally is, but that's no use at all when the child gets hurt or killed.

If you really want them to get exercise have a walking bus instead of a cycle bus where it is safe for them on a pavement. If you insist on them cycling to school it's a vanity project dressed up as a health initiative

You’re right. All those kids should be safely belted into the back on mummies SUV so they can arrive nice and safe. What about it if there’s a few more dozen cars on the roads.

It’s amazing how people justify the danger caused by Motor vehicles as a fait accompli. I’d much prefer if wills drive with more consideration and respect , particularly when there’s kids about. It’s done on other country countries, but we still see the car as king and everyone has to bow before it

AndrewJRenko · 04-02-2019 11:44pm

quietsailor wrote: »

Children have no concept of the dangers on a road, neither do learner car drivers yet we insist that the 16+yr olds, the ones who have some hope of intuiting what's dangerous, get one on one supervision but the primary school ones don't.

quietsailor wrote: »

This sounds wrong, any other form of transport - car, truck, motorbike, bus you are required to have one on one supervision. Yet these cycle busses don't require it?????

I'm not sure why you're comparing kids on bikes to various forms of vehicular transport on the road? You might as well be comparing paracetamol and morphine, and questioning why people don't need a prescription for paracetamol.

The answer in both cases is that they don't kill people - kids on bikes don't kill people and paracetamol (by and large) doesn't kill people.

That's why you don't have the same kinds of controls for both.

beauf · 05-02-2019 12:34am

quietsailor wrote: »

..., the child is the one IN danger. ,..

Back it up with some stats.....

Hurrache · 05-02-2019 12:39am

quietsailor wrote: »

My god are you deliberately reading that post wrong to get a rise or are you really that dense - the child isn't the one causing the danger, the child is the one IN danger. But hey, what do their lives matter, you got one up on someone on the internet, you go keyboard warrior!

No child of that age should be on an open road without an adult directly next to them, do you really think an adult a few meters back is going to be able to stop a child from swerving out around a pothole. It isn't Harry Potter land here, shouting at a child to stop doesn't make them stop, and please don't tell me " it's the cars responsibility to look out for them" it's legally is, but that's no use at all when the child gets hurt or killed.

If you really want them to get exercise have a walking bus instead of a cycle bus where it is safe for them on a pavement. If you insist on them cycling to school it's a vanity project dressed up as a health initiative

And yet they all somehow manage to arrive to and from school each day successfully.

quietsailor · 05-02-2019 9:42am

Hurrache wrote: »

And yet they all somehow manage to arrive to and from school each day successfully.

I skydived for several years and never had a major accident just some very rough landings, a sub set of that sport is swoop landings - the mad sods deliberately flying fast at the ground and pulling up at the last moment to skim the ground -there is plenty of videos of them successfully negotiating a jump yet their accident rate is ridiculously high - 34% serious injury or fatalities.

I enjoyed skydiving yet I'll never try swooping. I've never been hurt by swooping yet I know the risks are there and refuse to risk it. In

In the skydiving analogy your the fella who tells others to go on, give it a lash, what's the worst that can happen?

I can't multi quote on this phone but someone asked for stats on children getting injured on bikes by cars - well in a sample size of one, me, the answer is 100%

At the age of fourteen, when I was well able to cycle and strong enough to cycle off road around fields at the time my front wheel went into a pothole, jack knifed the handle bars and my head slammed into the car passing me, enough to dent the wing.

I'm that one in a million "happy " accident where the car was not too near in, not too far away, not to far ahead and not too far behind. My friend (another teenager ,not a primary school child ) and the driver (an adult ) both saw the accident starting and could do nothing about it. How do you expect primary age children to cope in a similar scenario?
I was a teenager;
-physically fit enough to muscle a bike around offroad
-actually traffic aware which primary children can never be
and yet I only survived by pure luck. You're all saying accidents like that can never happen to primary school age children because an adult is close by. That's literally the safely factor you are applying to small children "an adult will be close by so they can shout and there will be no accident"

And the 1.5m rule? The car behind the one I smacked off of was driven by a friend of the family who saw the whole thing and satisfied my father that the car I bounced off of was passing safely wide of me. They had no way of anticipating I would fall out that far. I was aware enough to try and pull the bike towards the ditch and I was helpless, what hope has a small child, if they even have the mental capacity to understand they're in a dangerous situation, to react quickly enough and correctly to avoid getting hurt in a similar situation

Fighting Tao · 05-02-2019 9:45am

quietsailor wrote: »

I skydived for several years and never had a major accident just some very rough landings, a sub set of that sport is swoop landings - the mad sods deliberately flying fast at the ground and pulling up at the last moment to skim the ground -there is plenty of videos of them successfully negotiating a jump yet their accident rate is ridiculously high - 34% serious injury or fatalities.

I enjoyed skydiving yet I'll never try swooping. I've never been hurt by swooping yet I know the risks are there and refuse to risk it. In

In the skydiving analogy your the fella who tells others to go on, give it a lash, what's the worst that can happen?

I can't multi quote on this phone but someone asked for stats on children getting injured on bikes by cars - well in a sample size of one, me, the answer is 100%

At the age of fourteen, when I was well able to cycle and strong enough to cycle off road around fields at the time my front wheel went into a pothole, jack knifed the handle bars and my head slammed into the car passing me, enough to dent the wing.

I'm that one in a million "happy " accident where the car was not too near in, not too far away, not to far ahead and not too far behind. My friend (another teenager ,not a primary school child ) and the driver (an adult ) both saw the accident starting and could do nothing about it. How do you expect primary age children to cope in a similar scenario?
I was a teenager;
-physically fit enough to muscle a bike around offroad
-actually traffic aware which primary children can never be
and yet I only survived by pure luck. You're all saying accidents like that can never happen to primary school age children because an adult is close by. That's literally the safely factor you are applying to small children "an adult will be close by so they can shout and there will be no accident"

And the 1.5m rule? The car behind the one I smacked off of was driven by a friend of the family who saw the whole thing and satisfied my father that the car I bounced off of was passing safely wide of me. They had no way of anticipating I would fall out that far. I was aware enough to try and pull the bike towards the ditch and I was helpless, what hope has a small child, if they even have the mental capacity to understand they're in a dangerous situation, to react quickly enough and correctly to avoid getting hurt in a similar situation

I can think of only two solution for all of life’s problems. Firstly cover you in bubble wrap. Failing that then ban all motor vehicles.

It’s the drivers that need sorting out, not the kids cycling.

Hurrache · 05-02-2019 11:13am

quietsailor wrote: »

and yet I only survived by pure luck. You're all saying accidents like that can never happen to primary school age children because an adult is close by. That's literally the safely factor you are applying to small children "an adult will be close by so they can shout and there will be no accident"

With this outlook on life, you're better off never leaving your bed.

What a bizarre analogy, 'swooping' to kids cycling a bike. Do you not see all the car accidents in which cars end up on the footpath, or hit posts or poles that crash onto the footpaths?

It's only a matter of luck that we don't have only 50% of kids that walk to school making it the whole way without being picked off by careering cars, crashing lamp posts and pesky swooping skydivers.

magicbastarder · 05-02-2019 11:24am

quietsailor wrote: »

I can't multi quote on this phone but someone asked for stats on children getting injured on bikes by cars - well in a sample size of one, me, the answer is 100%

At the age of fourteen, when I was well able to cycle and strong enough to cycle off road around fields at the time my front wheel went into a pothole, jack knifed the handle bars and my head slammed into the car passing me, enough to dent the wing.

this accident has nothing to do with you having been a child, though?
you've seemingly posted it as a statistic on why kids shouldn't be out on the road, but it has nothing to do with lack of awareness of the ROTR or anything else you can say is endemic to being a child.

beauf · 05-02-2019 11:27am

quietsailor wrote: »

...but someone asked for stats on children getting injured on bikes by cars - well in a sample size of one, me, the answer is 100%...

Actually you didn't die. So it's 0% you didn't mention injury so that's also 0%. You weren't even primary school age. Also 0%.

How is any one expected to take you seriously...

quietsailor · 05-02-2019 11:45am

Pinch Flat wrote: »

You’re right. All those kids should be safely belted into the back on mummies SUV so they can arrive nice and safe. What about it if there’s a few more dozen cars on the roads.

It’s amazing how people justify the danger caused by Motor vehicles as a fait accompli. I’d much prefer if wills drive with more consideration and respect , particularly when there’s kids about. It’s done on other country countries, but we still see the car as king and everyone has to bow before it

Where did I say they should go to school in a vehicle of any kind? Go on, actually quote the line I said that.

The point I made in an earlier post is that they should be walking to school. In that video they all talk about the benefits of an early start for exercise and how it wakes the children up. Walking answers all those points without the added risk of interacting with heavy moving machinery. The spokesman in that video even said it was dangerous - that there is no proper cycle infrastructure.

Yet no one is willing to answer me - why have children cycle to school rather than walk? Walking gets is as healthy but has less risk - why use the mode of transport with higher risk to the children.

quietsailor · 05-02-2019 11:51am

beauf wrote: »

Actually you didn't die. So it's 0% you didn't mention injury so that's also 0%. You weren't even primary school age. Also 0%.

How is any one expected to take you seriously...

Because ye asked for examples of children getting hurt cycling. Are you saying that you only care about children getting killed? That's a fairly **** attitude to life so I don't think (and hope none of ye) have this attitude to children.

magicbastarder · 05-02-2019 11:51am

quietsailor wrote: »

Walking gets is as healthy but has less risk

source, please.

also, the blindingly obvious point is why we're debating if the children should walk, rather than debating if the drivers should get out and walk.

beauf · 05-02-2019 11:51am

quietsailor wrote: »

Where did I say they should go to school in a vehicle of any kind? Go on, actually quote the line I said that.

The point I made in an earlier post is that they should be walking to school. In that video they all talk about the benefits of an early start for exercise and how it wakes the children up. Walking answers all those points without the added risk of interacting with heavy moving machinery. The spokesman in that video even said it was dangerous - that there is no proper cycle infrastructure.

Yet no one is willing to answer me - why have children cycle to school rather than walk? Walking gets is as healthy but has less risk - why use the mode of transport with higher risk to the children.

It's not dangerous. Your own stats prove it isn't.

I tripped one walking and sprained my ankle so thats dangerous.

Id guess motorcycling or skydiving is more dangerous method of getting to school.

But if you've never had an accident while sky diving that means it safe right...

beauf · 05-02-2019 11:55am

quietsailor wrote: »

Because ye asked for examples of children getting hurt cycling. Are you saying that you only care about children getting killed? That's a fairly **** attitude to life so I don't think (and hope none of ye) have this attitude to children.

You didn't provide any stats.

How about stats on panda cycling to school. Do you not care about the Panda's. You don't mention adults either. You don't care about anyone getting including. Maybe you're just here to gloat.

Nice...

quietsailor · 05-02-2019 11:55am

beauf wrote: »

It's not dangerous. Your own stats prove it isn't.

I tripped one walking and sprained my ankle so thats dangerous.

Id guess motorcycling or skydiving is more dangerous method of getting to school.

But if you've never had an accident while sky diving that means it safe right...

Ah read what I wrote, I was in minor accidents, I had bad landings that I walked away from. ANYTHING is dangerous, getting out of bed is dangerous. Where the stupidity comes in is where there are several ways of getting children to school; driving, cycling walking. We all agree it would be good to get the children out of the car but all of you them decide to putting the children in a higher risk situation is better than putting them in the lower risk situation. How is that clever?

quietsailor · 05-02-2019 11:57am

magicbastarder wrote: »

source, please.

also, the blindingly obvious point is why we're debating if the children should walk, rather than debating if the drivers should get out and walk.

Yes, it would help if more drivers walked or cycled. It doesn't prove your logic that its OK to put children in a higher risk scenario when there is a safer one

beauf · 05-02-2019 11:58am

quietsailor wrote: »

Ah read what I wrote, I was in minor accidents, I had bad landings that I walked away from. ANYTHING is dangerous, getting out of bed is dangerous. Where the stupidity comes in is where there are several ways of getting children to school; driving, cycling walking. We all agree it would be good to get the children out of the car but all of you them decide to putting the children in a higher risk situation is better than putting them in the lower risk situation. How is that clever?

You think people should walk to sky diving because it's safer than driving.

beauf · 05-02-2019 11:59am

quietsailor wrote: »

Yes, it would help if more drivers walked or cycled. It doesn't prove your logic that its OK to put children in a higher risk scenario when there is a safer one

So sending them to school is dangerous, they should be sky diving.

quietsailor · 05-02-2019 12:00pm

beauf wrote: »

You didn't provide any stats.

How about stats on panda cycling to school. Do you not care about the Panda's. You don't mention adults either. You don't care about anyone getting including. Maybe you're just here to gloat.

Nice...

Thank you for proving my arguement. When people resort to stupidity like this i know I'm on the right side. Rebut my my main point if you can - why are people picking the less safe method of getting children to school

Pinch Flat · 05-02-2019 12:00pm

They could drop the kids out of a plane with a parachute over the school. Might be safer than cycling.

quietsailor · 05-02-2019 12:01pm

beauf wrote: »

So sending them to school is dangerous, they should be sky diving.

Nice mis direct but it still doesn't answer my question to you. Why pick the less safe mode of transport?

magicbastarder · 05-02-2019 12:03pm

quietsailor wrote: »

why are people picking the less safe method of getting children to school

you keep repeating this. do you have a source?
how much more dangerous is it to cycle?
take a child doing the full 3km; they'll probably do it in 12 minutes or so on the bike, or 45 minutes walking. they're getting full (and very visible) supervision on the cycle. you're saying they'd be safer walking; i'm saying that's an assumption.

marvin80 · 05-02-2019 12:05pm

Just a point in general - in Galway they've organised a cycle bus to get children cycling to school safely. Massive increase in obesity rates in Ireland so we should be promoting more exercise for children to get them fit, healthy and also into good habits of regular exercise.

If there's 20 children cycling that's surely at least 10 potential cars off the road (as in their not getting a lift).

I can't see any negative points to this scheme - the organisers in Galway should be applauded - it should be rolled out nationwide.

beauf · 05-02-2019 12:06pm

quietsailor wrote: »

Thank you for proving my arguement. When people resort to stupidity like this i know I'm on the right side. Rebut my my main point if you can - why are people picking the less safe method of getting children to school

You're the one who introduced skydiving in a discussion about supervised cycling.

You've not proved cycling is more dangerous. You've proved you're a danger to yourself cycling, and perhaps skydiving too since you admitted to having bad landings there also.

If you don't know why someone would cycle instead of walking. Or drive instead of walking. I'm not sure explaining is going to add clarity for you.

magicbastarder · 05-02-2019 12:07pm

marvin80 wrote: »

Just a point in general - in Galway they've organised a cycle bus to get children cycling to school safely.

that's what this thread is about.

AndrewJRenko · 05-02-2019 12:09pm

quietsailor wrote: »

beauf wrote: »

So sending them to school is dangerous, they should be sky diving.

Nice mis direct but it still doesn't answer my question to you. Why pick the less safe mode of transport?

Far more pedestrians are killed on the road than cyclists. And you want MORE people to be doing this dangerous walking?

Won't someone please think of the children?

beauf · 05-02-2019 12:10pm

Why pick walking if it's more dangerous.

TheQuietFella · 05-02-2019 12:11pm

marvin80 wrote: »

Just a point in general - in Galway they've organised a cycle bus to get children cycling to school safely. Massive increase in obesity rates in Ireland so we should be promoting more exercise for children to get them fit, healthy and also into good habits of regular exercise.

Maybe if their Mothers cooked a little bit more at home we wouldn't have this situation!

Hurrache · 05-02-2019 12:14pm

quietsailor wrote: »

- why use the mode of transport with higher risk to the children.

Cars, cars kill, injure or maim more people than any other form of transport.

amcalester · 05-02-2019 12:16pm

marvin80 wrote: »

Just a point in general - in Galway they've organised a cycle bus to get children cycling to school safely. Massive increase in obesity rates in Ireland so we should be promoting more exercise for children to get them fit, healthy and also into good habits of regular exercise.

If there's 20 children cycling that's surely at least 10 potential cars off the road (as in their not getting a lift).

I can't see any negative points to this scheme - the organisers in Galway should be applauded - it should be rolled out nationwide.

Apparently these kids should be skydiving to school instead as it is safer.

As long as there's no swooping.

AndrewJRenko · 05-02-2019 12:18pm

TheQuietFella wrote: »

marvin80 wrote: »

Just a point in general - in Galway they've organised a cycle bus to get children cycling to school safely. Massive increase in obesity rates in Ireland so we should be promoting more exercise for children to get them fit, healthy and also into good habits of regular exercise.

Maybe if their Mothers cooked a little bit more at home we wouldn't have this situation!

The 1960s called for you. They'd like their thinking back.

Mrs OBumble · 05-02-2019 12:23pm

Hurrache wrote: »

Cars, cars kill, injure or maim more people than any other form of transport.

Yes.

So the kids should be WALKING not using wheely things.

This isn't two-wheels good, four wheels bad.

It's don't wheel when walking will do the trick.

Walking also includes the kids whose parents cannot afford bikes. Its kinder to everyone and needs less supervision. What's not to love.

The real issue is that in this neighbourhood parents have delegated school transport to a volunteer community group. What keeps the volunteers motivated is their desire to spread the gospel of bicycling. Remove that and the programme falls apart.

Hurrache · 05-02-2019 12:23pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The 1960s called for you. They'd like their thinking back.

I've personally been triggered as a man who manages the kids to and from school, and their dinners.

Hurrache · 05-02-2019 12:28pm

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Yes.

So the kids should be WALKING not using wheely things.

This isn't two-wheels good, four wheels bad.

It's don't wheel when walking will do the trick.

Walking also includes the kids whose parents cannot afford bikes. Its kinder to everyone and needs less supervision. What's not to love.

The real issue is that in this neighbourhood parents have delegated school transport to a volunteer community group. What keeps the volunteers motivated is their desire to spread the gospel of bicycling. Remove that and the programme falls apart.

I've no idea what points you're trying to make?

So people shouldn't bring their kids to school on bikes because it makes those who can't afford bikes feel bad?

I'm absolutely staggered that your post is coming from someone with a signature like yours though, demonstrates a massive ignorance when it comes to anything transport related.

For those on mobiles, this is her signature.

Galway City traffic solutions: Think systemic not simplistic. --- Official purple route map. --- Unofficial Google Maps version --- Official OSI map

beauf · 05-02-2019 12:29pm

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Y...So the kids should be WALKING not using wheely things.

This isn't two-wheels good, four wheels bad.

It's don't wheel when walking will do the trick....

People get killed walking. Why do you want them to get killed?

beauf · 05-02-2019 12:32pm

TheQuietFella wrote: »

Maybe if their Mothers cooked a little bit more at home we wouldn't have this situation!

I like the way you are trying to derail this.

Can people not get overweight though home cooking?

AndrewJRenko · 05-02-2019 12:32pm

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Hurrache wrote: »

Cars, cars kill, injure or maim more people than any other form of transport.

The real issue is that in this neighbourhood parents have delegated school transport to a volunteer community group. What keeps the volunteers motivated is their desire to spread the gospel of bicycling. Remove that and the programme falls apart.

The motivated volunteers ARE the neighbourhood parents. They have a rota.

What's not to like?

Hurrache · 05-02-2019 12:33pm

beauf wrote: »

People get killed walking. Why do you want them to get killed?

Equal opportunities for all apparently. Those elites with their bikes should be equally liable to be killed as those who can't afford bikes. That's my take from it.

Fighting Tao · 05-02-2019 12:33pm

Hurrache wrote: »

Cars, cars kill, injure or maim more people than any other form of transport.

It’s the people driving the cars that kill other people. The car is the weapon.

_Puma_ · 05-02-2019 12:34pm

Fantastic community led Initiative in Galway and has got a lot of support locally. It has seen a large increase in popularity since it began.

monument · 05-02-2019 12:38pm

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Yes.

So the kids should be WALKING not using wheely things.

This isn't two-wheels good, four wheels bad.

It's don't wheel when walking will do the trick.

Walking also includes the kids whose parents cannot afford bikes. Its kinder to everyone and needs less supervision. What's not to love.

The real issue is that in this neighbourhood parents have delegated school transport to a volunteer community group. What keeps the volunteers motivated is their desire to spread the gospel of bicycling. Remove that and the programme falls apart.

Can you get any more anti-cycling of a post than this?

Cycle train

Comments