CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Cycling News
mad cyclist!
(25 posts)-
Posted 12 years ago #
-
Okay, for once I'm going to agree with the Daily Wail - that's just barmy!
(though to temper that, I wish the police would be so keen to act in cases of dangerous driving...)
Posted 12 years ago # -
Yes, it's silly thing to do, but... Have we had any reports of a small child falling off a bicycle and being injured? No? Obviously not that dangerous, then!
Not that I am condoning what the cyclist is doing, but just pointing out that perceptions of what is 'safe' or not can be skewed by sensationalist reporting. Also, as one commenter pointed out, who took the photo from the car? The driver? Holding a camera while driving?
Posted 12 years ago # -
having a kid on the crossbar or the like is one thing.
however up the shoulders is just madness to mePosted 12 years ago # -
"Not that I am condoning what the cyclist is doing, but just pointing out that perceptions of what is 'safe' or not can be skewed by sensationalist reporting"
I don't think this is a 'perception' of it being unsafe. A kid, on your shoulders, while cycling? Yeah there's not a report of the kid falling off an hurting themselves - if there was a film of a kid surfing on top of a moving van would it only actually be unsafe if the kid fell off?
", as one commenter pointed out, who took the photo from the car? The driver? Holding a camera while driving?"
Very true, two wrongs making a right?
Posted 12 years ago # -
given the perspective,it could easily have been the passenger or a rear view mirror mounted cam.
Still stunned somebody would put their child in that positionPosted 12 years ago # -
There are a few different points here.
First, regardless of whether I or anyone else thinks that sitting a kid on your shoulders while cycling (presumably quite slowly) is acceptable behaviour is not the same as determining whether that behaviour is safe. If the kid was unharmed, then objectively the behaviour was safe in that instance. Personally I wouldn't take the risk, as clearly it is potentially very unsafe.
Secondly, if the chap in the donkey jacket had been a pedestrian rather than a cyclist, would anyone have taken a blind bit of notice? Is walking with a kid on your shoulders unsafe? What about broken flag stones, banana skins, slippy manhole covers?
Finally, why did the Daily Wail decide to publish this story? Is it not another "Oh look, these bloody cyclists! You see, risking the lives of innocent children! What did I tell you? They're monsters! Damn cyclists, they're all dangerous idiots!" Well, isn't it?
Posted 12 years ago # -
"
Finally, why did the Daily Wail decide to publish this story? Is it not another "Oh look, these bloody cyclists! You see, risking the lives of innocent children! What did I tell you? They're monsters! Damn cyclists, they're all dangerous idiots!" Well, isn't it?
"Probably just because they saw it on the BBC News site.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Posted 12 years ago #
-
First, regardless of whether I or anyone else thinks that sitting a kid on your shoulders while cycling (presumably quite slowly) is acceptable behaviour is not the same as determining whether that behaviour is safe. If the kid was unharmed, then objectively the behaviour was safe in that instance. Personally I wouldn't take the risk, as clearly it is potentially very unsafe.
Surely under that argument using your mobile phone / fiddling with the stereo / turning round to tell the kids to settle down / all the other distractions that have been shown to increase the risk of a crash while driving are safe things to do most of the time?
Posted 12 years ago # -
Surely under that argument using your mobile phone / fiddling with the stereo / turning round to tell the kids to settle down / all the other distractions that have been shown to increase the risk of a crash while driving are safe things to do most of the time?
The point is that "everyone" does that, or at least so many people do that it has become commonplace. Like speeding. Which is why only very rarely does anyone, including the police, bother to exercise themselves about such transgressions.
Very few balance a child on their shoulders while cycling. Hence motorists send photos to the media of such a novel occurrence; the media then prepare reports and investigations, and show the police said photos; the police give stern warnings and ask for the culprit to come forward...
Imagine if photos of drivers blabbing on their phones were so newsworthy? But then it can't be news if "everyone" does it, eh?
Posted 12 years ago # -
Ah, understood.
Posted 12 years ago # -
I still think it's splitting hairs a tad to state that something was 'safe but potentially unsafe' rather than 'unsafe'.
That still puts everything from driving at 100mph in a 30 zone to running with scissors into that category. By the logic nothing at all is unsafe, but merely potentially unsafe but if no-one is harmed it's safe.
The point about media 'sensationalism' is right though. Of course this gets reported because it's unusual, that's virtually the very definition of 'news'.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Accepting what's already been said, a bicycle is like an upside down pendulum and like a pendulum, swings more slowly the longer it is. So this arrangement is inherently more stable, in a straight line, than if the rider did not have a child on his shoulders. Odd but true.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Learn something new every day - this is weird!
The farther forward (closer to front wheel) the center of mass of the combined bike and rider, the less the front wheel has to move laterally in order to maintain balance. Conversely, the further back (closer to the rear wheel) the center of mass is located, the more front wheel lateral movement or bike forward motion will be required to regain balance. This can be noticeable on long-wheelbase recumbents and choppers. It can also be an issue for touring bikes with a heavy load of gear over or even behind the rear wheel.[31] Mass over the rear wheel can be more easily controlled if it is lower than mass over the front wheel.[11]
A bike is also an example of an inverted pendulum. Just as a broomstick is easier to balance than a pencil, a tall bike (with a high center of mass) can be easier to balance when ridden than a low one because its lean rate will be slower.[32] However, a rider can have the opposite impression of a bike when it is stationary. A top-heavy bike can require more effort to keep upright, when stopped in traffic for example, than a bike which is just as tall but with a lower center of mass. This is an example of a vertical second-class lever. A small force at the end of the lever, the seat or handlebars at the top of the bike, more easily moves a large mass if the mass is closer to the fulcrum, where the tires touch the ground. This is why touring cyclists are advised to carry loads low on a bike, and panniers hang down on either side of front and rear racks
Posted 12 years ago # -
The steering on the Bullitt is made with this effect in mind, I think. I loaded it up in 25kg increments when I was practicing handling it round Harrison Park for the cargomoot.
When unladen, it oversteers pretty badly, but when the centre of mass is lowered a couple of feet by a load equal or greater than your mass, you actually need that because it became more fickle as each bag was added.
The Morpheus, which raises the load's centre of mass to within a few inches of the pilot's level, was markedly more stable in motion when laden with LaidBack.
Posted 12 years ago # -
I don't think I will ever understand bicycle geometry.
Posted 12 years ago # -
More people are killed by peanuts than ecstasy.
Posted 12 years ago # -
A strange facts thread! I got this today for 33p so if I find any I'll post them here.
Untitled by Cycling Mollie, on FlickrPosted 12 years ago # -
Great book, haven't read for ages.
One (or both) author was at Stirling University at the time.
Posted 12 years ago # -
More people are killed by peanuts than ecstasy.
But, but.....taking drugs for recreation is bad and immoral. Anything so naughty is newsworthy: "they wanted to get high, instead, they die!" goes the refrain.
Similarly, those weird deviant cyclists deserve everything they get. Because, you know, cycling on the road, well it's just not a proper and decent thing to do, is it? It's just wrong. And getting kids involved, well that's simply outrageous.
Posted 12 years ago # -
A couple of odd facts from the book:
In 1906 the CTC applied to the High Court to amend its constitution to allow all tourists to join, including motorists. The High Court rejected the application.
After the Second World War the CTC fought the introduction of compulsory rear lights for bicycles. The objection was that the onus of avoiding accidents ought always to rest with the overtaker, not the overtaken.
On this last point the book observes grimly: "Every defensive move towards safety accepts rather than prevents the evil which it recognises". Plus ca change...
Posted 12 years ago # -
Every defensive move towards safety accepts rather than prevents the evil which it recognises
Is a motto for all life not just cycling
Posted 12 years ago # -
I have the date of 1949 for the compulsory rear lights. Is that right? Having experienced artics with the 7-pin shorted out and trailer totally blacked out, the detail of a reflective marking on the back was rather useful in spotting it on the A1 (in a straight line the tractor lights were totally hidden).
We should return to having no rear lights on ALL vehicles and rely entirely on reflectors using the light from the following vehicle headlights. There might be 6-9 months of carnage but pretty soon drivers would learn to drive within the distance they can see in their headlight beam.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Yoinked that quote for twitter, sorry Tom but it was to long to put a 'via @'
Posted 12 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
