Cycling UK Forum

as you can see from the streetview shot below, there's a problem with lincoln vets hospital and also the old TA building that is soon to become 50 flats for the elderly.

imagine you're with your 5 year old son who's enjoying the freedom and speed of cycling along the footpath on his way to school, and consequently a few meters ahead. he doesn't think to stop at the vets (it's all footpath to him), out of which is coming a car. the arrogant motorist is wishing to turn left, so is looking right to see that they're not going to have their car hit, with no concern at all for the users of the footpath. one of which is my son who's coming from the motorist's right, along with hundreds of other children.

if you can choose to zoom out from the image, you'll see that there's a primary school on mount street (400m sw, around the corner) in addition to a comprehensive school 200m north.

so, after emailing my local councillors, my MP and urging the headteachers to do the same, is there more that i could do?

i don't wish to take up direct non violent action unless as a last resort.

are there any documents such as PPG, DFT, or similar that any of you could let me have links to that i may include bits of in my letters to MPs & so on?

im off now to take some photos to illustrate the point better.

thanks in anticipation of any help you may be able to give



http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=LN1+3DZ ... 8,,0,12.64

here we go, the first two pictures, a child's view of his cycle to school

and here we have the motorists view, first a quick glance left, if you're lucky, then check right, check right and floor it out of there.

I forget where, but basic design principles require that there be a proper, unobstructed visibility splay. Check the drawings for the site layout to ensure that they are appropriate.

Object if it is lacking. You can insist on a redesign.

In addition, you can make suggestions as to improvements, so you might request that a speed hump be put just inside the driveway. You might also request that the opening be restricted to discourage speeding across the path.

We've managed to see off a few developers round these parts by insisting that procedure be followed. Most people on the planning committee have no idea what is going on, and the planning departments seem to be too busy to do their job thoroughly, so sometimes you have to help them.

That's just plain ludicrous Someone thought that was a good idea?

Forgive me for being devils advocate (I do see your point) but shouldn't a 5 year old be supervised a little more closely by an adult, and surely riding along the footpath in any urban area will present situations where the footpath will be crossed by vehicles entering or exiting premises along the route.

As it happens there is a similar M and S development near me. The residents, including until her death, my late mother, are not your typical speed merchants!

However, it is the absolute responsibility of the motorist to yield on the footpath, although many do not think it necessary, or do not know.

On reflection, this concern must be true for all driveways to some extent, or is there something unique about this one?

This can be a problem for more than just the children on bikes. As it is a drive way with a wide pavement I am not sure what can be done.
Have you tried to contact the Practice Manager at the Vets. If done in a polite but concerned for not just the children but their reputation. They might not like the label of putting children after animals.

You might also like to have a word with the council about the size of the advertisement hoarding. You couldn't do that on your house without permission, and I bet they haven't got permission, either. Yet more proof of how developers and planners are in cahoots.

mw3230 wrote:Forgive me for being devils advocate (I do see your point) but shouldn't a 5 year old be driven to school in the safety of an X5

really, we're up against that sort of mentality. when i first approached the vets, the receptionist did helpfully suggest that one shouldn't ride on the path. he wasn't yet 4 at the time

when you've got one, obedient child, it's possible
but if they're riding along with their freinds, 3 x 5 year olds and you're walking along chatting with other parents and pushing a baby in a pram, then it's not so easy. boys take risks, they love speed, the freedom a bike offers, they like to race, they like to show off, they obey peer pressure much more than nagging parents and they have no sense at all.

perhaps he should have a helmet on to pretect him from being run over by a range rover too?

hubgearfreak wrote:

mw3230 wrote:Forgive me for being devils advocate (I do see your point) but shouldn't a 5 year old be driven to school in the safety of an X5

really, we're up against that sort of mentality. when i first approached the vets, the receptionist did helpfully suggest that one shouldn't ride on the path. he wasn't yet 4 at the time

when you've got one, obedient child, it's possible
but if they're riding along with their freinds, 3 x 5 year olds and you're walking along chatting with other parents and pushing a baby in a pram, then it's not so easy. boys take risks, they love speed, the freedom a bike offers, they like to race, they like to show off, they obey peer pressure much more than nagging parents and they have no sense at all.

perhaps he should have a helmet on to pretect him from being run over by a range rover too?

I thought the whole idea is that little'uns can ride on the path, and are expected to. Isn't it only kids over 12 that aren't allowed to ride on the path? I believe it's a law.

How does this differ from any of the other millions of pavements throughout the country? What's so special about this case, have I missed something in the scenario?

hubgearfreak wrote:

mw3230 wrote:Forgive me for being devils advocate (I do see your point) but shouldn't a 5 year old be driven to school in the safety of an X5

really, we're up against that sort of mentality. when i first approached the vets, the receptionist did helpfully suggest that one shouldn't ride on the path. he wasn't yet 4 at the time

when you've got one, obedient child, it's possible
but if they're riding along with their freinds, 3 x 5 year olds and you're walking along chatting with other parents and pushing a baby in a pram, then it's not so easy. boys take risks, they love speed, the freedom a bike offers, they like to race, they like to show off, they obey peer pressure much more than nagging parents and they have no sense at all.

perhaps he should have a helmet on to pretect him from being run over by a range rover too?

HGFreak I wonder why you felt the need to misrepresent my post using it to make a comment which was not relevant to the point I made. I was suggesting that 5 year olds should be supervised not driven to school. Speaking as a parent of three can I suggest more supervision and control and less chit chat.

mw3230 wrote: I wonder why you felt the need to misrepresent my post

i didn't mean to offend. i though you were joking, and so i joined in.

but if your serious suggestion is

1. that i remove the fun and freedom that cycling affords my child
2. that i not chat to other parents whilst walking home from school
3. let the might is right brigade win control of not only the roads but the footpaths too

then

a. i may as well drive him
b. i reckon that other forums might suit you better
c. i'm not sorry i've offended you

i should add, that my child does always stop, but there's a danger that one day he or another child may not.

rualexander wrote:How does this differ from any of the other millions of pavements throughout the country? What's so special about this case, have I missed something in the scenario?

Just because similar dangers exist to toddlers in other areas, doesn't detract from this one. The only difference is someone wants to put their foot down and say "enough!" and do something about it.