You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Thoughts on this one? Regardless of who should have given way at the parked cars my 5 year old would hsve been on the empty pavement on the left.
Obviously the car driver seeing a tiny cyclist should have stopped. In the real world it won't always happen.
https://twitter.com/JeremyVineOn5/status/1589911373412446210?s=20&t=irbmVU4MDjRplfNSEejiog
Using your five-year-old's fleshbag to prove the well-established point that many drivers are ****s seems a little unwise.
Sounds like the kid has at least a little more sense of self-preservation - 'should I pull over to the side?'. Even as an adult, I would have gone into the gap on the left and not forced the issue, TBH.
That five year old is much better than mine at that age. Still nervous taking my eight year old on the road, but he can be easily distracted. I don't think the road is the place for five year old children to ride bikes. Five. Years. Old. That little life experience. Would have got my kid to pull into the space early, too.
Arguably that would have been the correct decision in terms of priority anyway, the driver was probably committed marginally earlier. In a car, I would have slowed and waited there, it's no different for bikes if there isn't enough room for both of us.
Obviously, seeing a nipper on a bike coming the other way means I give priority as a driver regardless, or at least expect the unexpected. But you can't rely on other drivers feeling protective towards your kids, that's your job.
I'd be fairly confident that the young lad had right of way as the driver could have pulled in behind the parked white car. As a cyclist I'd I've held my line and carried on. However (and I'm not a parent or, indeed, a driver) I'm somewhat conflicted as to whether the dad should have encouraged him to keep going considering the obvious risk if the car hadn't stopped.
As above though, common curtesy for the driver to stop to allow the child through.
I would also add there is some pretty poor urban planning there, tiny gap for cyclists between the "road narrowing islands" and the pavements, and some haphazard parking that could also probably be fixed with some thought and marked parking areas.
Neither the car driver or the dad come out of that well IMO, but such flashpoints can be minimised with better urban planning.
Christ this place sometimes...if you think anything other than the car should stop you need to give yourself a slap.
.if you think anything other than the car should stop you need to give yourself a slap.
Oh right you are then. No I just want my kid to be safe, that's infinitely more important than scoring points on the internet.
No I just want my kid to be safe, that's infinitely more important than scoring points on the internet.
I'd like to clarify further, it's not that I think cars shouldn't have to stop for children, it's just I would rather reduce risk while riding with my children on the road. We would have pulled in to let the car pass, it's safer for my child, who is still a little wobbly on his bike, but also means the whole passing each other thing is over a little quicker, we're happy, car driver happy.
What should happen in the world is very much out of alignment with reality right now, and as people have pointed out in numerous car/cyclist incident threads on here, it's better to be safe than correct.
right you are then. No I just want my kid to be safe,
By reinforcing your view even on here, you are part of the problem not the solution.
I might well have done things differently but the idiot in that video is certainly not the cyclist and that should be the view of everyone with a functioning brain cell and that should be reinforced to all who question it until roads are safe for humans.
By reinforcing your view even on here, you are part of the problem not the solution.
No, hardline binary attitudes and entrenched opinions are the problem.
No, hardline binary attitudes and entrenched opinions are the problem.
Maybe, maybe not but I am sure victim blaming and legitimising people acting without basic human decency make things worse
There’s no such thing as right of way - rather it is whether or not you should give way. The driver should definitely have given way but they rarely do for cyclists. Driver 100% in the wrong but I would have given way myself with a 5yr old riding with me.
Yes the car should have stopped, they could see the road is narrowed, and a small kid in front of them and should have stopped out of good sense in those circumstances
But it didn't, and in the real world they don't. So you need to have a very pragmatic view on riding on the road.
Do you have right of way ? A. Yes
leads to 'But is it safe'
A.No.
So therefore you give the other guy right of way.
So he should have followed the sensible one in the party, and pulled over for those 5 seconds it would take for the car to pass.
Some folk.
Someone lives near me, well i see them passing occasionally. Got two kids, he has a skateboard, kids are i think about 8/0 and about 7.
Skater is in the main road, which is averagely busy and he is doing his board thing, and the kids following on.
To his credit the kids were in lids, but he was out front, oldest kid in the middle, and the youngest bringing up the rear and peddling furiously trying to keep up, both kids are weaving about.
I can see theres little actual understanding of riding road conditions-side roads, junctions etc, but dad is so far ahead all they are doing is ignoring everything else to concentrate on him.
In the 30 seconds til they passed me skaterboy never once looked back towards his kids.
Clearly the car should have stopped. The only question is if the parent should have done something differently! Having ridden with young kids on the roads if you want to make sure the car stops you need to be willing to put yourself in harm's way. If you position yourself so a car can squeeze through - they often will. If you don't trust them to stop for your further 50 cm to the right then probably don't tell your kid not to pull in.
I don't think the Dad was trying to prove a point. You could see the car slowing, the Dad thought it fine and safe to carry on. And I think the car driver thought it fine to push through slowly, which it probably did feel fine when surrounded by a metal box and having no awareness of how dangerous their driving can be. In retrospect, carrying on was maybe the wrong choice as it worked out the more dangerous choice, but given he had right of way, and the fact the car seems to have seen them both and slowed, he thought it would stop and it be ok to carry on.
The young lad seems very competent, and thankfully able to ride in a straight line.
"Having ridden with young kids on the roads if you want to make sure the car stops you need to be willing to put yourself in harm's way"
Probably correct. Parent looks to be riding directly behind. He should be two or three feet further out showing the oncoming car how much space is needed. The oncoming car must have missed the mirrors of the parked car by mm. If the driver was happy to go that close to a parked car he probably thought he left acres of room for the 5 year old.
The kid called it right thinking he should have pulled in. The young kids cycling to my local primary school go up and down the seperated footpath. No problems.
The kid on the bike gets to the white van (last chance to yield) only a fraction before the driver gets to the white car (last chance to yield). The argument over right of way isn't that strong. What is strong however is the fact that its a little kid on a bike and on that basis alone the driver should have recognised that and stopped.
Very clearly the driver in the wrong, clearly cyclists have priority and car driver didn't think.
I have 3 kids and I dont like to subscribe to the let's permit crap driving behaviours by being deferential to the car driver. Equally I dont want my kids to be hit.
I had a worse one when out with my daughter and I ended up hitting her to avoid hitting car which should have given way
The kid on the bike gets to the white van (last chance to yield) only a fraction before the driver gets to the white car (last chance to yield). The argument over right of way isn't that strong.
I don't really think the most important question here is who actually had right of way but...
isn't it the road user who doesn't have to cross the centre line who has right of way? Or if there are cars parked on both sides does it not matter if one road user has to cross the centre line while the other doesn't?
I would have expected the driver to stop. The dad obviously did and was shocked the driver kept going. Right of way is with the kid as he started his overtake of the parked vehicle first but liability is always after the event. The Highway Code says prepare to stop if there is confusion about the right of way , yield to be safe. The behaviour of some drivers is so poor nowadays I would always advise yield to avoid a collision. For vulnerable road users I’d be extra cautious. The driver is obviously in the wrong but being right isn’t much use after you’ve been whacked at speed with 2 tonnes of metal travelling at speed.
Looked fine to me. Kid was in control and the dad made the decision to carry on before knowing that there was no pull in space behind the van. Car on balance should have stopped but it was a split second decision and the kid (if he could actually see him in front of the dad) looked very comfortable. Car did slow a lot.
A lot of hand wringing in this thread.
"What?"
Kid's reaction says it all