to ask views on the 5-year-old cycling and Sajid Javid video?

[allswellthatends]

Maybe this has been debated to death already because the story came out Nov 11 but it's not showing up on search here. A dad's helmet camera catches a driver passing his 5yo by what he felt was too close, and Sajid Javid and Jeremy Vine got into a disagreement about what the driver should have done.

I live in London and I think (hope) I'm very good with cyclists if only because I'm not usually in a rush. Also I cycle, and my children cycle more. And I'm used to the countryside rule of not coming too close to horse riders . In this particular case, a small child, I would have stopped completely or slowed to a crawl.

Still, London roads are very narrow, traffic is generally quite slow-moving anyway, and so observing a 1.5m distance isn't always practical. It seemed to me that it also makes a difference if the driver is coming towards the cyclist (who can therefore see the car) or from behind (which as a cyclist I find much more unnerving). The type of cyclist in general: 20-35 year-old racing steadily, I'm less worried than with a shaky-ish person on a heavy rental bike; I'll stop for a cyclist panting uphill. I totally get why my fellow-cyclists don't always stop for red lights: sometimes it's safer to go first while the cars are forced to stop, and also it's bad to lose your momentum and your balance. Then again I LOATHE those cargo bikes where parents move very slowly in a vehicle that blocks the full road, with precious cargo, but commonly at school/work rush hour. And cyclists who don't wear reflective gear and lights at night are idiots IMHO. (Actually so are pedestrians. Don't you folks realise that even to the most careful driver you're basically invisible?)

I kind of want to hear some thoughtful real-world practices from my fellow drivers and cyclists and parents.

The poster implied some risks are unavoidable, ie travelling with kids in cars, that's simply not true

So your kids never travel in anybody's car? Fair enough!

The discussion I was linking figures for was for cyclists vs pedestrians.

I've obviously ended up cross arguments so no worries. Although comparing miles is a bit difficult and a can of worms really, given you can't cycle on motorways and most cyclists aren't riding on A roads but towns and cities.

It's too easy to skew results to suit an argument but would be interested to hear how you can meaningfully compare.

Comparing miles travelled or time spent doing the activity is the only meaningful comparison. Might be harder to quantify than base numbers but that is all.

Oh absolutely, the driver broke the law, therefore was at fault. Just wouldn't have told my kid to carry on in the father's situation.

Sorry but I don't agree.

Someone doing all their driving on a motorway can't even be compared to another driver doing all their miles on A roads or in cities.

Each scenario is more dangerous than the other and for different people inside or outside the vehicle.

It's a meaningless measure in the same way that a cyclist might only ever ride on the pavement or cycle paths. Another traveling the same distance could be on the road only.

Either way, do you have any numbers to compare distance vs accidents for any mode of transport?

Cecilyp, I think you misunderstood. Parents have rather ignorantly been criticised on this thread for taking what are deemed avoidable risks with their kids, whilst car travel has been deemed unavoidable, that's what I don't agree with. Its a car centric vew.

I have.

Nah when you're looking for an an overall view of each mode of transport then you need to reflect how they're actually used. Motorways adding on millions of accident free miles is factual.

I can't be bothered to find urban and suburban figures

@CreatingHavoc

Oh absolutely, the driver broke the law, therefore was at fault. Just wouldn't have told my kid to carry on in the father's situation.

IMO a problem with the driving tests at the moment is that there’s always a big deal made about drivers “making good/sufficient progress” on the road, doing exactly the speed limit etc . It’s a pretty dangerous mentality to feed young inexperienced drivers, particularly in light of the increasing number of cyclists on some roads.

Either way, do you have any numbers to compare distance vs accidents for any mode of transport?

Personally, no although I'm sure they are somewhere. And I am not going to wade through pages of statistics to find out. However, I am quite prepared to accept OneTC's assertion.

Cycling is genuinely 15x more likely to kill you than going in a car, per billion miles traveled. Both figures make the chance of it actually happening To You pretty favourable odds though

I have.

Certainly wasn't obvious from anything you have posted.

No I have a realistic view

Of course you don't have to take your kids in a car, however the majority do. That's reality not car centric
Putting vulnerable small children in trailers and having them cycle on dangerous roads is just idiotic and unnecessary.
Wait till they are older and physically more capable of being able to survive an accident

THIS!!!!!! Cyclists who go through red lights are absolute tools. It drives me insane and is definitely NOT safe. The rules of the road apply to all!!

Wait till they are older and physically more capable of being able to survive an accident.

It's not so much able to survive an accident but to have sufficient road sense that they don't have an accident in the first place. Although this DC seems to have more sense than his dad.

Wait till they are older and physically more capable of being able to survive an accident.

I don't think there's a cut of age for that unfortunately

Maybe not but 5 is ridiculous

Miss sunshine, plenty of folk think transporting kids everywhere in a car is 'idiotic and unnecessary', is it really necessary to throw around insults on anonymous forums?

In your opinion, and therefore you probably shouldn't do it. It's your choice.

Although I think the child is vulnerable I think he's going to be vulnerable for the next however many years he rides a bike for, that's not going to change, there won't come an acceptable point at which to encourage them to risk death BUT I think it's important to remember what the actual risk is. A billion miles is a whole lot and 26 people died on bikes PER BILLION miles, that's a vanishingly small chance of it being one of your miles. It's very unlucky for the 26 obviously, but it really doesn't mean it's likely to happen to you.

The motorcycle deaths are way more interesting I think but funny how we don't hear barely a peep of it in the press.

These figures a bit different from what I found earlier but this is the first link that came up, still gives bikes as being 10x more dangerous

?? Idiotic is hardly insulting when you are talking about risking the life of a 5 year old kid is it.
The majority of the Uk population transport their kids in cars that's a fact not an opinion.
My opinion is that someone who puts their child in more harms way than necessary is an idiot yes

Also worth noting that being a pedestrian is about 10x more dangerous than driving, which ties into the conversation we were having earlier, cycling and peds getting merked at the same rate

In people's minds I bet they think they being a pedestrian is safer than cycling, it seems completely logical that not riding a bike would be safer and whilst it's better in terms of injuries it's equally as dangerous in terms of fatalities.

Missunshine - Yes, the word idiot, is generally seen as an insult, and certainly not a great demonstration of your debating powers

We are talking about little children not the general public and pedestrians v cycling.

I think it's great that people are cycling more but little children and infants should not be on the roads on bikes. Even the cycling charities advise this.