# Close pass on an 8 year old...



## User (29 Oct 2016)




----------



## summerdays (29 Oct 2016)

Poor kid, I think they coped really well. But it would only have taken a nervous wobble for the car to have hit her!


----------



## S-Express (29 Oct 2016)

I doubt if anyone will *lose* their licence, unfortunately.

Helmet issue aside, I would question the wisdom of putting an 8yo on the road when she clearly has a distinct lack of riding skill.


----------



## steveindenmark (29 Oct 2016)

Lots of things going wrong here.

When Jannie is in front of me and we come to a pinch point like that in the clip, I move out and so that car would not have got past me at that point. The pratt of a driver may have gone over the top of me, but that's another matter.

Posted by Tim Lennon, the Secretary of the Cycling Embassy of Great Britain and the first thing he does is to make a hand gesture. However innocent it may look I don't think it is a good idea.

As for the helmet debate. I have not seen anyone make it clear that there is no legal requirement to wear a helmet but there is a legal requirement to leave a safe distance when passing.

What good would a plastic hat do against a range rover?


----------



## MontyVeda (29 Oct 2016)

I took my cycling proficiency test aged 8. I was riding on the roads before and after that... but definitely had more road sense afterwards. And we didn't need helmets in the 70s


----------



## alicat (29 Oct 2016)

Shocking! She was riding really well and the second driver was a numpty, playing follow my leader. I see it all too often and the driving gets worse the further the drivers are down the line.


----------



## Milkfloat (29 Oct 2016)

There are a large number of morons in the world and to be clear I do not count the little girl or her father as one of them. The majority of commentators on a supposed cycling website though............


----------



## subaqua (29 Oct 2016)

S-Express said:


> I doubt if anyone will *lose* their licence, unfortunately.
> 
> Helmet issue aside, I would question the wisdom of putting an 8yo on the road when she clearly has a distinct lack of riding skill.


And pray tell where she should obtain the skill of riding in traffic ? By magic? Osmosis? Or actually doing it and having the knowledge that drivers won't drive like nobbers because they will be prosecuted properly for offending. 

Because we know it is not possible to put segregated lanes everywhere .


----------



## S-Express (29 Oct 2016)

subaqua said:


> And pray tell where she should obtain the skill of riding in traffic ? By magic? Osmosis? Or actually doing it and having the knowledge that drivers won't drive like nobbers because they will be prosecuted properly for offending.
> 
> Because we know it is not possible to put segregated lanes everywhere .



When I say riding skill, I mean basic bike handling skills. Learn them first, then go ride in traffic after.


----------



## slowmotion (29 Oct 2016)

What is it about Richmond that makes some people drive so appallingly?


----------



## Pat "5mph" (29 Oct 2016)

This popped up earlier on my fb.
I think the wee one was riding well.
I take kids and beginner adults out for rides: we try not to go on the roads, but if it's inevitable I and my co-leaders will ride side by side, never mind the inevitable aggravation from some drivers.
I have to say most drivers are patient when they see kids riding, this driver is obviously an exception that should really not be allowed to drive like that.


----------



## subaqua (30 Oct 2016)

slowmotion said:


> What is it about Richmond that makes some people drive so appallingly?


Rich entitled nobbers


----------



## T4tomo (30 Oct 2016)

Pat "5mph" said:


> This popped up earlier on my fb.
> I think the wee one was riding well.
> I take kids and beginner adults out for rides: we try not to go on the roads, but if it's inevitable I and my co-leaders will ride side by side, never mind the inevitable aggravation from some drivers.
> I have to say most drivers are patient when they see kids riding, this driver is obviously an exception that should really not be allowed to drive like that.


Agree she was riding well and dad was doing sensible thing by riding in a decent position out from the kerb. You learn road sense by riding on roads. RR driver was a nobber.


----------



## TrishnBonnie (30 Oct 2016)

Selfish driver thinking only of himself and showing no respect for fellow human beings.....the comments after the article though, not much respect being shown to fellow human beings either with all the swearing and name calling.


----------



## S-Express (30 Oct 2016)

TrishnBonnie said:


> Selfish driver thinking only of himself .


So the driver was male?


----------



## ufkacbln (30 Oct 2016)

I am not sure of the road positioning. It is difficult without any greater knowledge thatn the video


If you look at the video, the Range Rover is well across to the other side of teh road and then cuts sharply in.

It would appear that the parent is at least mid lane and it is the drastic cut in that causes the issues

I am not sure with driving like that being any further out would have prevented this.


----------



## TrishnBonnie (30 Oct 2016)

S-Express said:


> So the driver was male?


Didn't notice that sorry


----------



## ufkacbln (30 Oct 2016)

S-Express said:


> So the driver was male?



The gender of the owners of these vehicles tends to male, (70:30) so more likely than not


----------



## S-Express (30 Oct 2016)

Cunobelin said:


> The gender of the owners of these vehicles tends to male, (70:30) so more likely than not


Assumption being the mother of all fark ups...


----------



## snorri (30 Oct 2016)

S-Express said:


> 8yo on the road when she clearly has a distinct lack of riding skill.


You'll need to clarify what you mean by lack of skill.


----------



## ufkacbln (30 Oct 2016)

S-Express said:


> Assumption being the mother of all fark ups...



Whereas an educated guess supported by evidence?


----------



## S-Express (30 Oct 2016)

Cunobelin said:


> Whereas an educated guess supported by evidence?


 You have evidence of the gender of the driver?


----------



## S-Express (30 Oct 2016)

snorri said:


> You'll need to clarify what you mean by lack of skill.



How about riding in a straight line, for starters? 'Day 1' basics at any go-ride club.


----------



## Phaeton (30 Oct 2016)

[QUOTE 4533411, member: 9609"]Round these parts it is definitely the other way round, may be as many as 80:20 in favour of women, [/QUOTE]I agree with that also around my parts
[QUOTE 4533411, member: 9609"]and a great deal of them are faffing about with a mobile phone. [/QUOTE]
nope don't agree with that though


----------



## snorri (30 Oct 2016)

S-Express said:


> How about riding in a straight line, for starters? 'Day 1' basics at any go-ride club.


You demand high standards of your fellow cyclists.
Any failings on the cyclists part were negated tenfold by the recklessness of the driver of the overtaking vehicle, did you not spot the oncoming vehicle in the video?


----------



## ufkacbln (30 Oct 2016)

S-Express said:


> You have evidence of the gender of the driver? No, I thought not.





The evidence supported by research from the vehicle sales is that the split between male and female is 70% male and 30% female
If this happened 10 times at random there would be 7 male offenders and 3 female offenders

Therefore an informed and educated guess would be male

Or....

I am going out on my bike this afternoon

Most times I will be OK, however a few times I will have issues with other drivers

There is no "evidence" that it is safe for me to go out on the bike but an informed and educated guess that it will be safe


----------



## ufkacbln (30 Oct 2016)

[QUOTE 4533729, member: 45"]The HC accepts that cyclists will not always ride in a straight line.

Children should be given wobble room on the roads.[/QUOTE]

Also there is insufficient detail in the video to see whether any of the "wobbliness" is a reaction to the road surface 
O at least two occasions she moves out to avoid obvious hazards, I cannot comment on any other "wobbles"


----------



## ufkacbln (30 Oct 2016)

..... and as no-one else has pointed it out yet:

The chain is a bit slack....


----------



## Phaeton (30 Oct 2016)

Cunobelin said:


> The evidence supported by research from the vehicle sales is that the split between male and female is 70% male and 30% female
> If this happened 10 times at random there would be 7 male offenders and 3 female offenders


My wife has never bought a car in over 30 years of driving yet has 'owned' at least 10 of them, so I suspect your figures have no relevance to the driver's gender.


----------



## S-Express (30 Oct 2016)

snorri said:


> You demand high standards of your fellow cyclists.


If the alternative is 'low standards', then I would go for high standards every time. In my opinion, the adult is reckless in allowing her to ride on the road with such a low skill level. Unless of course, he doesn't recognise the low skill level himself. He is still to blame, either way.



snorri said:


> Any failings on the cyclists part were negated tenfold by the recklessness of the driver of the overtaking vehicle, did you not spot the oncoming vehicle in the video?


Point is, had she not have been on the road (which should shouldn't have, IMO), then whatever else happens before/after is irrelevant. The pass was dangerous and possibly illegal, but we're beyond that now.



Cunobelin said:


> The evidence supported by research from the vehicle sales is that the split between male and female is 70% male and 30% female
> If this happened 10 times at random there would be 7 male offenders and 3 female offenders
> 
> Therefore an informed and educated guess would be male


Or female - because, as you say, it's a random sample. Either way, despite all the bluster, you still don't actually know. Like I said earlier, assumption is the mother of all cock ups. Why not wait until the offender is identified (if it ever comes to that).


----------



## S-Express (30 Oct 2016)

[QUOTE 4533803, member: 45"]Why shouldn't she be on the road?[/QUOTE]

Because - as I've said at least twice already on this thread - I don't feel her skill level is adequate. We only have this short clip to go on, to be fair, but that's my assertion from looking at it.


----------



## Phaeton (30 Oct 2016)

S-Express said:


> Because - as I've said at least twice already on this thread - I don't feel her skill level is adequate. We only have this short clip to go on, to be fair, but that's my assertion from looking at it.


I disagree with your assumption.


----------



## ufkacbln (30 Oct 2016)

S-Express said:


> Or female - because, as you say, it's a random sample. Either way, despite all the bluster, you still don't actually know. Like I said earlier, assumption is the mother of all cock ups. Why not wait until the offender is identified (if it ever comes to that).




The flaw of course being that you have assumed that it is an assumption, whereas each time I have made it clear that is an informed or educated guess


----------



## S-Express (30 Oct 2016)

Phaeton said:


> I disagree with your assumption.



That's fine. You are obviously seeing something in the clip that I'm not.

[QUOTE 4533824, member: 45"]Adequate for what?[/QUOTE]

Have a guess. I'll give you a clue - I don't mean skydiving.


----------



## Phaeton (30 Oct 2016)

S-Express said:


> That's fine. You are obviously seeing something in the clip that I'm not.


Actually I disagree with that as well, it is you that is obviously seeing something in the clip that I'm not.


----------



## ufkacbln (30 Oct 2016)

S-Express said:


> Because - as I've said at least twice already on this thread - I don't feel her skill level is adequate. We only have this short clip to go on, to be fair, but that's my assertion from looking at it.




Assertion.... 
a positive statement or declaration, oftenwithout support or reason

I can live with that as an assertion


----------



## S-Express (30 Oct 2016)

[QUOTE 4533841, member: 45"]I think I know what you're saying. You're saying that you don't think that her competence is adequate to deal with the risk presented by some other road users.[/QUOTE]

She appears to lack the basic bike handling skills and necessary road sense that one would expect of someone who is riding on a public road, regardless of whoever else is using it. She is not unique in that respect though.



Phaeton said:


> Actually I disagree with that as well, it is you that is obviously seeing something in the clip that I'm not.



There we go then - we are both seeing different things. I see somebody without the qualities mentioned above.


----------



## Phaeton (30 Oct 2016)

S-Express said:


> There we go then - we are both seeing different things. I see somebody without the qualities mentioned above.


But you haven't said what in a 36 second video clip how you came to that assumption, what is it that you are seeing in that clip that makes you make that assumption, or is it just that she is 8 years old & somewhere in the back of your mind you feel that an 8 year old should not be on the road?


----------



## S-Express (30 Oct 2016)

Phaeton said:


> But you haven't said what in a 36 second video clip how you came to that assumption, what is it that you are seeing in that clip that makes you make that assumption, or is it just that she is 8 years old & somewhere in the back of your mind you feel that an 8 year old should not be on the road?



Specifically, the way she veers right (into traffic) after looking over her left shoulder and the way she seems to lose control momentarily when riding over the drain cover. Those are two of the things that concern me. My son was riding on the road at 8 and in principle I have nothing against young riders on public roads, providing they are safe. Not sure those roads in the clip are safe for someone so young.


----------



## Andy_R (30 Oct 2016)

S-Express said:


> Specifically, the way she veers right (into traffic) after looking over her left shoulder and the way she seems to lose control momentarily when riding over the drain cover. Those are two of the things that concern me. My son was riding on the road at 8 and in principle I have nothing against young riders on public roads, providing they are safe. Not sure those roads in the clip are safe for someone so young.


I think you'll see she was over to the right, looked over her left shoulder then moved left. She certainly didn't lose control when avoiding the drain cover but had to move back in quite quickly when the first car overtook her. Driver obviously wasn't anticipating her moving out to avoid the drain, and the road surface immediately after it appears to be less than ideal. From what I saw in the video she appears to be demonstrating good road awareness.


----------



## ufkacbln (30 Oct 2016)

The question I find myself asking is whether I could have handled this better than the 8 year old?

I really don't know what I would have done that she did not

Possibly riding in primary, but with a following rider in that position I would have been further in to allow an overlap if I braked suddenly

Otherwise I think she did very well, and is more than competent for a quiet road like this


----------



## S-Express (30 Oct 2016)

[QUOTE 4533894, member: 45"]In that clip the only time that child was in an unsafe position was when the driver disobeyed the HC.[/QUOTE]

You obviously don't see any issue with the riding, which is fine. I used to coach riding skills at a go-ride club and I see a few things wrong. I think we've already accepted that the driving was at best CD30 and possibly DD40.


----------



## ufkacbln (30 Oct 2016)

Phaeton said:


> But you haven't said what in a 36 second video clip how you came to that assumption, what is it that you are seeing in that clip that makes you make that assumption, or is it just that she is 8 years old & somewhere in the back of your mind you feel that an 8 year old should not be on the road?



Assertion - not assumption!


----------



## dim (30 Oct 2016)

that happens daily in Cambridge .... that Range Rover passed pretty far compared to what happens here as some roads in my area are very narrow ....


----------



## ianrauk (30 Oct 2016)

How anyone can defend the driver or say the girl shouldn't be on the road is beyond comprehension. As for the helmet stuff...


----------



## S-Express (30 Oct 2016)

ianrauk said:


> How anyone can defend the driver or say the girl shouldn't be on the road is beyond comprehension.


I wouldn't say it's beyond comprehension - I've explained why I think she should not be on the road - or at least not that road.


----------



## ufkacbln (30 Oct 2016)

Andy_R said:


> I think you'll see she was over to the right, looked over her left shoulder then moved left. She certainly didn't lose control when avoiding the drain cover but had to move back in quite quickly when the first car overtook her. Driver obviously wasn't anticipating her moving out to avoid the drain, and the road surface immediately after it appears to be less than ideal. From what I saw in the video she appears to be demonstrating good road awareness.



As I posted before

There are a couple of "wobbles" that are quite obviously a reaction to road hazards

I still think that we need to answer the question ......

What would I have done differently?


----------



## S-Express (30 Oct 2016)

[QUOTE 4533998, member: 45"]I didn't say there isn't room for improvement. You don't think she's at a standard adequate for that road. I disagree, and argue that the poor driving brings the risk, not the road nor the child.[/QUOTE]

Poor driving is an issue here and now - therefore the argument that her skills are not up to scratch is still valid, given the prevailing driving standards. You may not like it, but that's how it is.

Complaining about driving standards on an internet forum is not nearly as effective as developing someone's riding skills.


----------



## S-Express (30 Oct 2016)

[QUOTE 4534016, member: 45"]So you think the girl shouldn't be on the road because of the risk from poor driving.[/QUOTE]

That's one way of looking at it, but it's not the whole story. If it was my daughter, I would probably look at improving her skill level before letting her out on roads like that. The risk from poor driving is there, regardless of whether we like it or not. The best we can do right now is give kids as much riding/handling skill as possible to make them as safe as possible.


----------



## S-Express (30 Oct 2016)

[QUOTE 4534016, member: 45"]What of the 80% of adult cyclists who ride like that? Shouldn't they be on the road either?[/QUOTE]

That 80% are responsible for assessing their own risk and making their own decisions. An 8yo isn't.


----------



## S-Express (30 Oct 2016)

[QUOTE 4534051, member: 45"]I asked whether you thought they should be riding on the road.[/QUOTE]

And I said it is their decision, because they are responsible adults. Not sure why this is relevant.


----------



## Sara_H (30 Oct 2016)

This is why I stopped riding with my son, I couldn't cope with him being close passed. When I got knocked over two years ago it was game over - I haven't ridden on the roads with him since.


----------



## S-Express (30 Oct 2016)

[QUOTE 4534071, member: 45"]Because you've said that a certain level of cycling competency is required for road use.[/QUOTE]

For an eight year old, who appears to be short of skills and confidence in the clip, yes. Not sure 'required' is a word I have used though, as that has legislative implications. 'Preferred' would be a better word in this context.

As far as I'm aware, this discussion relates to the young girl in the clip and is not a commentary on the level of cycling skill held by the population at large.


----------



## ufkacbln (30 Oct 2016)

I have an issue with "roads like that"

It is a residential road by a park

If that is not a safe environment for an 8 year old ..... then there is a major concern as to what is


----------



## ufkacbln (30 Oct 2016)

Sara_H said:


> This is why I stopped riding with my son, I couldn't cope with him being close passed. When I got knocked over two years ago it was game over - I haven't ridden on the roads with him since.



Please don't take this personally, I am not telling you what to do. ...... It does annoy me though when I feel that fellow cyclists have been "bullied" off the roads

I had a bad accident about 20 years ago (#pelvis, #hip, #clavicle, #ribs, #skull) and I would deliberately avoid the place where it happened - Despite a longer and less safe detour.


It took me about 6 months to bring myself to take myself back along that route and another 3 months before I felt "comfortable" using it on a daily basis 

It took me time, but I overcame that fear and it may be that after this time you can reassess the situation.. however you must feel comfortable with that decision


----------



## S-Express (30 Oct 2016)

Cunobelin said:


> I have an issue with "roads like that"
> 
> It is a residential road by a park
> 
> If that is not a safe environment for an 8 year old ..... then there is a major concern as to what is



Think about what you just said. Residential areas generally have lots of cars travelling to/fro. Public parks generally have lots of people driving in and out of them. Built up areas with a lot of traffic and a lot of roadside parking and side roads/junctions. What you are describing is the exact opposite of a safe environment for an 8yo to cycle in. Ironically, that seems to be self-evident from the clip.


----------



## Sara_H (30 Oct 2016)

S-Express said:


> Think about what you just said. Residential areas generally have lots of cars travelling to/fro. Public parks generally have lots of people driving in and out of them. Built up areas with a lot of traffic and a lot of roadside parking and side roads/junctions. What you are describing is the exact opposite of a safe environment for an 8yo to cycle in. Ironically, that seems to be self-evident from the clip.


Then where is? Where do people with children safely ride? In parks? What about if they're trying to actually get somewhere?


----------



## subaqua (30 Oct 2016)

ianrauk said:


> How anyone can defend the driver or say the girl shouldn't be on the road is beyond comprehension. As for the helmet stuff...


https://www.thediveforum.com/showthread.php?21606-Bloody-cyclists!!&p=343179#post343179

_ I am at point of giving up with internet_


----------



## Andy_R (30 Oct 2016)

S-Express said:


> Think about what you just said. Residential areas generally have lots of cars travelling to/fro. Public parks generally have lots of people driving in and out of them. Built up areas with a lot of traffic and a lot of roadside parking and side roads/junctions. What you are describing is the exact opposite of a safe environment for an 8yo to cycle in. Ironically, that seems to be self-evident from the clip.


Where, in the video, is this "a lot of traffic"? Yes, there is roadside parking, but the carriage way is wide enough to allow a cyclist and oncoming traffic to ride along it at the same time.Residential areas tend to have lots of traffic coming to and fro *at certain times of day. Mainly though, they are quiet. *The clip shows an area that is more than safe for an 8 year old accompanied by an adult - if It wasn't sae for her to ride there accompanied, then it wouldn't be safe for the accompanier. I would love to know what level of training you had to run Go - ride sessions, as you seem to be a tad shall we say, risk averse.


----------



## MontyVeda (30 Oct 2016)

Surely the only way to get road sense is to ride on roads. It doesn't matter if you're a beginner aged 8, 18 or 48... road sense comes with experience.


----------



## S-Express (30 Oct 2016)

Sara_H said:


> Then where is? Where do people with children safely ride? In parks? What about if they're trying to actually get somewhere?



No idea sorry, I don't live anywhere near Ham.


----------



## S-Express (30 Oct 2016)

Andy_R said:


> The clip shows an area that is more than safe for an 8 year old accompanied by an adult



Wait - you think the clip shows a safe riding environment? Quite clearly it isn't safe - as evidenced by the close pass in the face of oncoming traffic. 



Andy_R said:


> I would love to know what level of training you had to run Go - ride sessions, as you seem to be a tad shall we say, risk averse.



Go-ride coaches need to be at least BC level 1 (I am level 2). If by 'risk' you mean 'danger', then yes, of course I am risk averse where kids are concerned. Risks can sometimes be mitigated, and in my view the best way of mitigating the risk shown in that clip would be to not put a child with that level of skill into what I would regard as a busy urban environment.


----------



## Tim Hall (30 Oct 2016)

S-Express said:


> You obviously don't see any issue with the riding, which is fine. I used to coach riding skills at a go-ride club and I see a few things wrong. I think we've already accepted that the driving was at best CD30 and possibly DD40.


What do CD30 and DD40 mean?


----------



## S-Express (30 Oct 2016)

Tim Hall said:


> What do CD30 and DD40 mean?



https://www.gov.uk/penalty-points-endorsements/endorsement-codes-and-penalty-points


----------



## Andy_R (30 Oct 2016)

S-Express said:


> Wait - you think the clip shows a safe riding environment? Quite clearly it isn't safe - as evidenced by the close pass in the face of oncoming traffic.
> 
> 
> 
> Go-ride coaches need to be at least BC level 1 (I am level 2). If by 'risk' you mean 'danger', then yes, of course I am risk averse where kids are concerned. Risks can sometimes be mitigated, and in my view the best way of mitigating the risk shown in that clip would be to not put a child with that level of skill into what I would regard as a busy urban environment.


So no actual training in delivering the National Standard of on road cycle training? As endorsed by the DfT and just about every cycling training organisation in the country, including British Cycling? As for "Risks can sometimes be mitigated" - you are wrong. Risks can *always* be mitigated. And, by the way, where in the clip, is this busy urban environment? Would you rather the young lady cycled in a cul de sac with no traffic, gaining no experience, and no confidence? Or would it be better to allow her to grow in both?


----------



## S-Express (30 Oct 2016)

Andy_R said:


> So no actual training in delivering the National Standard of on road cycle training?



I've only ever said that her basic handling skills and general confidence (which is the focus of Go-Ride, if you actually look it up) seemed low. 



Andy_R said:


> As for "Risks can sometimes be mitigated" - you are wrong. Risks can *always* be mitigated



Not sure why you think that - it simply isn't true. If the risk is deemed as too great, it becomes unacceptable.



Andy_R said:


> And, by the way, where in the clip, is this busy urban environment?



The one where the road is effectively narrowed to a single lane by parked traffic on the opposite side of the road. It's just my opinion, it's ok to disagree.



Andy_R said:


> Would you rather the young lady cycled in a cul de sca with no traffic, gaining no experience, and no confidence? Or would it be better to allow her to grow in both?



As I've said a few times now - I'd rather see her handling skills improved first, before letting her out into that kind of environment.


----------



## Andy_R (30 Oct 2016)

S-Express said:


> I've only ever said that her basic handling skills and general confidence (which is the focus of Go-Ride, if you actually look it up) seemed low. Go back and have a read, maybe.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Oh dear....

So, to deliver on road training, you need to be able to assess a rider's ability and to develop it. In this case you would simply bin her and say no. She is capable of riding, is anticipating the road ahead, is able to look behind without wobbling (which you innaccurately described in your initial opinion) and is riding at a sensible cadence and is not panicing. All good so far.....

All risk can be mitigated. Simples. If an activity is too risky, then the mitigation is to not undertake it.

The carriageway whilst being narrowed to a single lane is still wide enough for a cycluist and oncoming traffic to pass with enough space. Even if this were not the case, would you then say that no one should cycle past a parked car? Or should one learn how to do so?


----------



## S-Express (30 Oct 2016)

Andy_R said:


> So, to deliver on road training...



Go-Ride activities do not take place on open roads. Other schemes do that, but as I've said several times now, go-ride focuses on handling and skills development in an 'off road' (ie not on the roads) environment. I didn't say she wobbled - I said she looked left and then veered right, which is typical of a rider who has not learned to compensate for body movement (something which is taught in go-ride sessions). I've seen plenty of newbie adults do it to, to be fair.



Andy_R said:


> All risk can be mitigated. Simples. If an activity is too risky, then the mitigation is to not undertake it.



Yep - that's what I said, but without your emphasis on semantics.



Andy_R said:


> The carriageway whilst being narrowed to a single lane is still wide enough for a cycluist and oncoming traffic to pass with enough space. Even if this were not the case, would you then say that no one should cycle past a parked car? Or should one learn how to do so?



Absolultely one should learn how to do so. Once one has acquired the necessary level of skill to be in that environment.


----------



## S-Express (30 Oct 2016)

She's about 3ft out from the kerb at around 9s when she looks back, before moving in again. We only have this short clip to go on (I presume this doesn't show the entirety of the journey), and my take on it is that she is not up to riding in that environment with her current handling skill level. I'm happy to accept that your view may be different.


----------



## ufkacbln (31 Oct 2016)

S-Express said:


> Think about what you just said.



I did


> Residential areas generally have lots of cars travelling to/fro.



But are not that busy as the use is infrequent, also because there will be children, dogs and driveways the drivers will be expecting "hazards" and driving accordingly - making it safe


> Public parks generally have lots of people driving in and out of them.


 Only at specific entrances and exits. Again at these they should be aware of dogs, cyclists, children and driving accordingly - making it safe



> Built up areas with a lot of traffic and a lot of roadside parking and side roads/junctions.



This is not a built up area it is a residential area with a park and restricted parking....Once again with a park and restricted parking drivers should be driving with due regard to possible hazards such as dogs, children, pedestrians and doors opening - this increased awareness making it safer

What I am describing is a safe environment for an 8yo to cycle in. Which ironically, seems to be self-evident from the clip

The only "unsafe" element was the Range Rover driver, and they would be a danger to any cyclist who got in their way on any road

I did love the concept that ANY road with parked cars, junctions, driveways residential or built up is by definition unsafe.

Applying these criteria no-one would ever ride a bike anywhere. My quiet cul-de sac where the kids play football in the street is a death-trap according to these definitions.Yet somehow none of us have killed or maimed the children because we drive with care and courtesy

One - despite the insurmountable odds has recently celebrated their tenth birthday, and there is even .... a surviving teenager


----------



## S-Express (31 Oct 2016)

Cunobelin said:


> But are not that busy as the use is infrequent, also because there will be children, dogs and driveways the *drivers will be expecting "hazards" and driving accordingly - making it safe*





Cunobelin said:


> Only at specific entrances and exits. *Again at these they should be aware of dogs, cyclists, children and driving accordingly - making it safe*





Cunobelin said:


> This is not a built up area it is a residential area with a park and restricted parking....Once again with a park and restricted parking drivers should be driving with due regard to possible hazards such as dogs, children, pedestrians and doors opening - *this increased awareness making it safer*



Except the Range Rover driver (male or female) didn't do any of that, which kind of negates everything you just said. I think I've said this to you before - assumption is the mother of all you-know-whats. 

It is hilarious that you are making the claim this is a safe environment, when we are discussing a video clip of someone making a dangerous close pass in that very same 'safe' environment.


----------



## Scoosh (31 Oct 2016)

*MOD NOTE*
Please stop the to-and-fro on whether the environment is safe, whether the child was riding with sufficient skills and concentrate on whether the pass by the RR driver was safe or not.

Thank you.


----------



## MontyVeda (31 Oct 2016)

I think we're all in agreement on the overtake by the Range Rover being unsafe.


----------



## S-Express (31 Oct 2016)

Scoosh said:


> Please stop the to-and-fro on whether the environment is safe, whether the child was riding with sufficient skills and *concentrate on whether the pass by the RR driver was safe or not.*



As MontyVeda says above, I don't think anyone here needs to dispute whether the pass is safe or not - there is nothing to dispute there anyway. The topic of safe environment and riding skills is much more relevant and has been generally good natured with no abuse that I'm aware of.


----------



## mjr (31 Oct 2016)

steveindenmark said:


> Posted by Tim Lennon, the Secretary of the Cycling Embassy of Great Britain and the first thing he does is to make a hand gesture. However innocent it may look I don't think it is a good idea.


Oh well that completely excuses the close-pass of his child, doesn't it?



Sara_H said:


> Then where is? Where do people with children safely ride? In parks? What about if they're trying to actually get somewhere?


Exactly - and how would they get to a park if they don't live right by one?



Andy_R said:


> I would love to know what level of training you had to run Go - ride sessions, as you seem to be a tad shall we say, risk averse.


"Go - ride sessions", also called "go away sessions" because they turn away the majority of riders who don't use crash helmets, which seems just bizarre because they're cycling around a flat bouncy-surfaced athletics track in lanes, which they'd be allowed to run around in much closer proximity to each other without helmets despite the far greater risk of tripping each other up. And most of the children who turn up and get turned away have cycled to the hosting sports centre anyway because it's not like teenagers/tweenies can drive their bikes there.

Those sessions are not about riding skills as much as getting youngsters ready to race within the strictures of the UCI/BC format.



Tim Hall said:


> What do CD30 and DD40 mean?


It means the person writing is far more familiar with driving offence codes than most people. 



Andy_R said:


> So, to deliver on road training, you need to be able to assess a rider's ability and to develop it. In this case you would simply bin her and say no.


Yes, I suspect it's part of why go-away sessions report such impressive results with the children that they do allow to keep riding with them.


----------



## mjr (31 Oct 2016)

Scoosh said:


> *MOD NOTE*
> Please stop the to-and-fro on whether the environment is safe, whether the child was riding with sufficient skills and concentrate on whether the pass by the RR driver was safe or not.
> 
> Thank you.


Apologies. I clicked Post Reply before that message appeared.



MontyVeda said:


> I think we're all in agreement on the overtake by the Range Rover being unsafe.


Some (steveindenmark, S-Express) seem to think it should be excused because of the parent's actions, though.

Does anyone know if the overtake is being prosecuted? I had a bit of a search around on Twitter and elsewhere and could only find the police time-wasting the parent.


----------



## MontyVeda (31 Oct 2016)

mjr said:


> ...
> 
> Some (steveindenmark, S-Express) seem to think it should be excused because of the parent's actions, though.
> 
> ...



I don't think S-Express is excusing the RR's behaviour... he/she seems to think the child shouldn't be on the road, which i personally disagree with.


----------



## Inertia (31 Oct 2016)

RR Driver is a nobber end of. I think that clip is too short to be passing judgement on the girls riding, on that evidence she is better than a lot of adults Ive seen riding. I think I will go with the assumption that the dad who has a deeper attachment to his daughter than anyone here doesnt put her at risk for kicks and is better placed to judge her skill.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (31 Oct 2016)

Drivers must be educated that such passes are not acceptable, a little one should be to ride safely on the road to her friend a few streets apart or to the local park, with or without parent.
I should be allowed to ride at 10mph (my max) through a pinch point without getting beeped.
Most of us don't indicate left anymore for fear of being side swept.
Drivers must be educated that cycling is not something all cyclist do for a bit of fresh air or for a race: we need to go places, active travel cannot become widespread if even cyclist on this forum think cycling should only happen when there are no cars around.


----------



## Inertia (31 Oct 2016)

S-Express said:


> You may be right. Another clip might show her doing stoppies, endos and Sagan-style one-handed wheelies. But we can only pass comment on what is available to comment on..


Yes, but it wasnt posted to display her riding skills, not for us to comment on her riding unless you feel it contributed to the incident. It was posted to display the RR nobbiness, and it did its job.


----------



## Origamist (31 Oct 2016)

Awful overtake - the first was dicey, the second was abysmal. Look how close the RR is to the Tesco van as he tries to cut back in. What's more, there was nothing coming behind the Tesco van either. Likely delay to the RR driver by acting responsibly and not taking a risk with a child's life - 5 secs, tops.


----------



## Phaeton (31 Oct 2016)

Is there a Magic Roundabout smiley I can use just before the Mods lock this thread


----------



## jefmcg (31 Oct 2016)

S-Express said:


> Point is, had she not have been on the road (which should shouldn't have, IMO), then whatever else happens before/after is irrelevant.


So it's the parents fault for letting her on the road ?

I don't know why you see obsessed with her skills . Nothing she does contributes to the dangerous situation , and there was nothing she could do to mitigate it. But keep her at home with her toys,and the RR would be blameless .


----------



## Andy_R (31 Oct 2016)

Mods can we lock this thread as it has turned into nothing more than a bun fight.


----------



## CanucksTraveller (31 Oct 2016)

Come on guys, enough about go ride, this is about the close pass, not individual egos. It's not like there hasn't already been an appeal to stick to the point already.


----------



## mjr (31 Oct 2016)

I've asked if the police are acting on it at https://mobile.twitter.com/mjray/status/793125094579171328


----------



## gavintc (31 Oct 2016)

CanucksTraveller said:


> Come on guys, enough about go ride, this is about the close pass, not individual egos. It's not like there hasn't already been an appeal to stick to the point already.


This thread has descended into a pointless argument and completely missing the point that a driver endangered a child. It is like watching a video of a burglary and everyone arguing about the fire alarms.


----------



## mjr (31 Oct 2016)

mjr said:


> I've asked if the police are acting on it at https://mobile.twitter.com/mjray/status/793125094579171328


Reply is "They've taken the report and promised to get back to me within a week."

The best way to avoid and/or mitigate this kind of thing is to punish dangerously incompetent motorists before they injure people. Far better than teaching them how to race or dress as a racer.


----------



## ufkacbln (31 Oct 2016)

S-Express said:


> Except the Range Rover driver (male or female) didn't do any of that, which kind of negates everything you just said. I think I've said this to you before - assumption is the mother of all you-know-whats.
> 
> It is hilarious that you are making the claim this is a safe environment, when we are discussing a video clip of someone making a dangerous close pass in that very same 'safe' environment.



So by this logic.......

If I show a driver driving badly and mounting a pavement, that driver's action makes the pavement unsafe?


----------



## jefmcg (31 Oct 2016)

S-Express said:


> Instead, I think *we* focused on something more useful, like how this kind of thing could be avoided and/or mitigated in the future.


"We"? You are too modest. The thread derail was solely your own work.

And what have we learnt to avoid this? Keeping 8 year olds off the road? Because even if she was a super competent rider and indeed an adult, I don't see what you have said that would change this, except never letting her on a road.


----------



## jefmcg (31 Oct 2016)

S-Express said:


> I think I may have mentioned improving her handling skills on a least seven occasions. Your continuing ability to misunderstand or just plan ignore what someone writes is impressive.


But her handling skills neither caused this incident nor made anything worse. How would improved handling helped in anyway in this incident?



S-Express said:


> No, the derail was in you


No, not me. The thread was thoroughly derailed before I joined in. You need to pay more attention


----------



## jefmcg (31 Oct 2016)

S-Express said:


> Nobody has ever said they would help.



so we haven't learnt ...


S-Express said:


> how this kind of thing could be avoided and/or mitigated in the future.


?


----------



## shouldbeinbed (31 Oct 2016)

*mod* I spotted that last unacceptable insult too and removed it. Seems to be the level that the thread has descended to so locked.


----------



## Scoosh (31 Oct 2016)

Most posts since the Mod Note I posted earlier have been Deleted for continuing the same arguments you had been instructed to stop.
Had it not already happened, the Thread would now be Locked.


----------

