Careless Cyclists Causing Park Strife
Posted 3 months ago 2 responses
We don’t wish to tar every pedal-pusher with the same garish shade of Lycra, but it can’t escape the more observant pedestrian that a small minority of cyclists take an approach to road safety and basic manners that can be best described as “indifferent”. Read More
2 responses
Ooooh, see this gets two of my goats in one go.
Cyclists: Two days after the July bombings, there were just three bikes left in our local bike shop.
Everybody, it seems, rode a bicycle as a child, and is hence entitled and fully qualified to ride a bicycle in Central London at commuting times.
I’ve ridden a bike every day for years, a car occasionally for a few years less, and a motorbike for slightly fewer than that. I’ve driven tractors, trucks, wheelie bins and trays, but I still take exceptional care. Of myself, and of other road users.
The highway code was originally based around etiquette. Etiquette evolved from safeguarding against conflict in social interactions, which in turn takes its roots from a certain respect for other individuals. In other words, road rules are about looking out for your fellow road user, and less about looking out for yourself. If everybody does the former, the latter is achieved by default.
I welcome the rise of the cycle in London. However, I think that individuals and Councils could be doing a lot more to make things safer – cycle lanes or not. Camden Council has a relatively regular Cycling training course, which is hardly promoted as far as I can tell. Why?!
And you know what? I could say similar things about a lot of dog owners in London.
Dog owners: If a dog is hit by a bicycle in a park, the owner bears the responsibility for their dog because the dog was not in the complete control of the owner.
Before any dog owners bemoan the fact that cyclists cycle where they shouldn’t and dogs shouldn’t have to be on leads, I agree. See point 1 above re cyclists. For dogs:
Good dog training and good dog management whilst an animal is the key to minimising a lot of the problems that dog owners and non-dog owners face, whether leads are involved or not. If people can’t be bothered to do invest this small thing for their canine companion, then frankly, they don’t deserve the honour of stewardship that dog ownership implies.
So, if Seagrove, Kendal, Lipman et al really want to back a worthy cause, they should equally be targeting dog owners. Particularly those which may have acquired a dog recently with no prior experience of ownership.
Posted 3 months ago by Jingle tipped with 1K
Well said, that man.
Posted 3 months ago by purpaboo
