- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Kids on bikes (CC licensed image by Anne and Tim:Flickr)Newcastle campaigner says parents experience abuse while cycling with children to school
Parents in Newcastle are experiencing verbal and physical abuse from some drivers while cycling their children to school, the Newcastle Cycling Campaign says.
In an impassioned article the Campaign's chair, Katja Leyendecker, reports "constantly worsening traffic" outside schools where, she says, parents face dangerous road conditions and even abuse from drivers, simply for cycling to school with their children.
Leyendecker urges the council to prioritise walking and cycling, while one parent calls her commute with her kids "scary and dangerous".
"We are majorly concerned. For quite some time now have we been contacted by numerous concerned parents who are telling us that they want to cycle to school but firstly for them to do so the roads and crossings must be made safer," Layendecker says.
"We also have heard that people who do cycle to school with their kids get abuse and insult thrown at them, verbal and even physical, by drivers. These cycling accounts are clearly heart-breaking, as the parents – whilst doing the right thing – are harangued for it. It’s shocking, really. Some have even stopped cycling as the social pressure that’s put on them is too much to bear, we have heard."
Leyendecker wants to see the council design streets outside of the school gates so an eight year old could cycle on them "without harassment or danger levied on them or discomfort to them or their parents."
She said: “It can be done by design and ‘invisible infrastructure’ like car parking reduction strategy, bus-route consolidation, general pricing mechanism and applying Dutch principles of road safety like transport network planning and road classification."
The Dutch road classification system breaks down a street to a single purpose: places where people stay, such as residential and leisure areas, and those people travel through. Under this model those purposes aren't mixed, to avoid having large differences in speed on one street.
Leyendecker points out that in Newcastle, according to the 2011 census, two of five car commutes are less than three miles.
She says: "In the Northeast we are the fattest people in England and treating obesity costs many millions to the Northeast economy."
Chair of Newcycling's Jesmond branch, Sally Watson, wrote a blog recently on the Campaign's website about cycling with her children to school.
Having filmed the journey one day, she said: "When we watched the film at home I was quite shocked at how scary it all looks. It made me realise that I have become desensitised. Not to the worst of the speeding and close overtakes, but to having to be on the offensive at all times. You can’t hear everything that I say to my son but I am shouting instructions to him almost constantly."
"It is not great cycling across Jesmond as an adult on a bike but it is so many many times worse when you are accompanying a child on their own bike. This is why very few children cycle to school. It is hard work and at times it is scary and dangerous. We live about 3/4 mile from school and it would take very little to make this journey safe."
She said: "I feel strongly that we are failing our children by not making our streets safe for travel and for play."
Some cities, including Edinburgh, are trialling banning traffic directly outside school gates at peak times in a bid to improve safety.
Laura Laker is a freelance journalist with more than a decade’s experience covering cycling, walking and wheeling (and other means of transport). Beginning her career with road.cc, Laura has also written for national and specialist titles of all stripes. One part of the popular Streets Ahead podcast, she sometimes appears as a talking head on TV and radio, and in real life at conferences and festivals. She is also the author of Potholes and Pavements: a Bumpy Ride on Britain’s National Cycle Network.
Latest Comments
- E6toSE3 15 hours 46 min ago
I've posted before about being 69, lifelong cyclist as my main transport, much of it in, through, under, over London and how it's bicycles that...
- David9694 16 hours 48 min ago
I hope you're all checking your insurance policies, helmets, test certificates and road tax, it's the 2024 round-up...
- check12 18 hours 28 min ago
200 people out of a close by population of how many? Just build it and stop being a wuss
- Spangly Shiny 20 hours 1 min ago
To paraphrase Field of Dreams, "Build it right and they will come: and use it!"
- Rendel Harris 22 hours 22 min ago
And a Happy Christmas to you, road.cc staff!
- Rendel Harris 23 hours 10 min ago
The odds of not being able to find a single pedestrian - just one, note, "any pedestrian" - in an area containing more than about ten of them who...
- bikeman01 1 day 49 min ago
I love how wannabe racer reviewers talk about fork flex under braking like their tyres are made of glue. I find traction gives long before fork flex.
- hawkinspeter 1 day 1 hour ago
They don't make them like they used to
- LongitudeLatitude 1 day 2 hours ago
Thanks for using my picture of chocolate in your opening picture. The original can be found here, chocolate! | LongitudeLatitude | Flickr.
- lesterama 1 day 3 hours ago
Fair comments. I'll put my hands up and say I got the wrong end of the stick with this one. ¡Feliz navidad! Here's a pic for the season of goodwill.
Add new comment
73 comments
In Canada most schools have flashing lights on the road outside a few hundred meters each side of the entrance and at the beginning and end of each school day the school put them on. When they are flashing all traffic fines and penalty points are doubled and you are not allowed to overtake. Not many cyclists when I lived there but it does calm everything down outside schools. It would be great to see it tried here but one of the big problems is that most road safety budgets are allocated on the basis of accidents having occurred and there is no formal means of collecting near miss data to anticipate an increasing problem.
Children cycling is an interesting measure. When someone tells me that an existing cycle facility is "perfectly adequate" then I ask them if they’d let their children use it to cycle to school. This is usually met with spluttering, as if it’s a ridiculous question and such a thing is completely unthinkable.
Meanwhile, not so very far away, the average Dutch child cycles to school *independently* at age 8.
I’m lucky that I live in a small village where my five year old daughter can pedal to school (“illegally”) on foot paths and no one really minds.
I’ve started to encourage her to use the road at a couple of points where it is very quiet, and on the approach road to school where there is no room on the path due to cars half-parked on it.
I don't get abuse. It's too small a village for that. But I do detect horrified stares and quiet tutting from the other parents.
The road, even in the dead-end back streets of a quiet village with a 20mph limit, is an absolute No-Go area for their kids and encouraging my child to cycle on it is clearly reckless endangerment.
We have a very long way to go!
Also, Yehuda Moon:
2008-04-29.gif
One of the cartoons on this page is relevant.
http://www.brickbats.co.uk/cartoons/transport/
And of course that 4x4 is essential for all the weekly commutes off road and on snow?
Without picking on Hairy 70's man I remember a time when a Land Rover on the high street was a sign that the farmer was visiting the city.
The reason people that aren't farmers or living off road own 4x4 now is simply because they are fashionable. The reason they are fashionable is because they are butch and tough looking and allow the driver to feel safe and literally look down on others. It's the equivalent of a comfort blanket. When Mini are making bloated '4x4's' you can tell it's end game time for the era of rugged suburban motorists. It's so infantile it's almost beyond parody.
I really do believe that by 2060 our current children will be looking back at this point in time and shaking their heads with embarrassment at how deluded many of us were. The planet's on it's knees ecologically and people still think it's their right to cruise around in a brick on wheels at 25mpg.
I saw a pensioner in a brand new electric car in Sainsburys car park last week. She was the future. 4x4's are like Jeremy Clarkson - out dated old news. I remember the days before them and I hope to see the days when they are once again back where they belong - on the hills. With MTBs.
EVs also create a lot less noise pollution but this in itself opens another can of worms for cyclists and pedestrians because your aural senses are considerably less effective in being aware of the vehicles approaching.
The children may be less affected by air pollution but are they more likely to be involved in a collision with an EV..?
OldRidgeback i'm not disputing that the Leaf might be a good piece of work - i'm saying it was designed within the paradigm of an internal combustion engined vehicle. Shifting pollution out of urban centres (especially PM10s etc) is a good thing, but as far as the CO2 issue is concerned without renewably sourced electricity they aren't a winner. And there other concerns to do with the availability of certain rare metals etc needed in these systems which may well be a curb on widespread deployment, as well as the embodied energy in extraction of them.
I think you have to see the current EV model as a step towards a change rather than the end. If you get an EV and then buy your power from someone like Scottish Power or Eon with a big coal generating capacity then yes it's perhaps self defeating, there a few firms that use all or mostly renewables on for electricity so they would, in theory, be a better option. We had to replace a car recently and looked into the Leaf - I know a couple of people with them and they love them - but they are still an expensive option. In the end we got a small 1L car with a stop-start engine that was still in the low emissions, no tax band.
Always confused why it should be "roads around schools need to be made safer"? Why not the roads around where the kids live? Why not all roads, so that it safe for kids to roam independently, as they do on the mainland of Europe, and as they used to do here (within my lifetime).
It's time that adults started taking responsibility for their actions and understood that there is NO right to drive, it is a privilege granted under licence and one that comes with responsibilities. Anyone who feels that they can handle that level of responsibility should be required to hand their licence back. If it is proven that they are not able to drive with due care and attention, the privilege should be withdrawn permanently.
We also need to break the levels of car dependency so that those who are not able to handle the responsibility that comes with a driving licence are not penalised, although they may feel that they are being inconvenienced (which is not at all the same thing).
Sweden has a similar system, with posted hours and a 20mph limit. Fines are doubled then.
In fact, fines are higher in 20mph (30km/h) zones than on motorways.
The whole 4x4 thing is irrelevant - what you really should have a problem with is anyone driving any vehicle without care for other road users. It's crazy to pull out one type of big vehicle as inherently worse than others. Why is a 4x4 (which includes a fiat panda) worse than minivans, vans, large estates, and most high end sports cars (that although low are surprisingly wide and long)? I suspect most people who sneer at a luxury 4x4 don't have the same reaction to Ford galaxy minivan even though neither is full efficient or small and often contain small children.
Most of these are also what you want if you want to transport bikes easily.
Since I'm a closet green, I wanted a plug in hybrid or full EV, the only requirements were that it had to go at least 200miles and it had to fit a bike with rear wheel in place. Since I can't afford a tesla, it turns out that the best solution was a '4x4'. It swallows a bike without removing either wheel and over the last 8000miles has averaged 110mpg. But it seems that in your eyes because it has a 4x4 logo on the back that makes me the antichrist?
Agree that the whole 4x4 discussion is irrelevant, as all cars have to take extra care, as after all the cyclist will always be worse off if a car hits a cyclist or vice versa.
I m drive a 4x4 and live around London, and I find the car I chosen to be the most practical and comfortable as I have a wife, a dog and a kid and pram on the way. And I drive long distances aka 700miles plus on regularly basis, plus getting my bike or two into the car no problem for races is an incentive as well. I take extra care when I see a cyclist on the road, and wait until I can get past safely even if I m stuck behind him/her for 10mins and annoying all the cars behind me. Taking the risk is simply not worth it!
Additionally saying that electric cars are better for the environment is far fetched with the production and then disposal of the batteries outweighing the good environment effect. Plus I hate saying it, but most electric cars look design wise very strange and are quite impractical for a lot of people!
We need to get away from stereotyping 4x4, and start puting all cars in one boat! Simply put there is a chance that a cyclist could die if you hit it with a car, but vice versa the car driver will always be fine! Keep that mind....
Actually, the whole 4x4 thing isn't irrelevant. Data from the ABI shows 4x4s (and MPVs) to have a significantly higher than average incidence of insurance claims for crashes. The Volvo XC90 has the dubious distinction of having the second highest number of insurance claims for damage of any model in the UK, beating the average number of claims by a factor of two. It loses out in this respect only to an MPV, the Toyota Previa if I recall correctly.
I've two kids and though they're older now and we no longer need buggies for them, would never have bought a 4x4. The internal space in a 4x4 isn't that good because of the high floorpan, while the lack of crumple zones in many means that they're potentially lethal for the occupants in the event of an impact. The higher centre of gravity means they're less stable while this is exacerbated by the large off-road tyres, and particularly so if as so often is the case, they're under-inflated. Because the all wheel drive is engaged all the time in most models, they're also less mechanically efficient and use more fuel than vehicles of a similar weight with a two wheel drive. If you want a vehicle with decent inside space, get an estate car. We have a standard family saloon and had two others prior to that. I find it's plenty big enough to take me and my son and our bikes inside when we're racing in other parts of the country. I've even had four people plus three bikes inside the car on some occasions when we've been going to race a far distance away and I've taken other club riders.
A lot of people do have a problem with 4x4s being used in cities, me included. And I know from crash data there's a good reason for my dislike of them.
Are those insurance claims due to hitting cyclist of just general insurance claims? Plus what does the data reallyshow; such as what kind of damage was done and how, which might not have anything to do with cyclist! I think I agree that many who drive 4x4 might hit a bollard or two due to not knowing their size, I m not sure that 4x4 are more relevant when hitting cyclist or not! But I m unable to back that up with any quality data!
I find that my 4x4 has more space that my previous A4 and 5 series estate, and it feels pretty stable, more so than the A4 at the very least! And yes I agree my 4x4 is far less fuel efficient, but that was at the bottom of my list of requirements when I got it!
And sure I can understand people having a problem with big cars in the city, and with that I m not just saying 4x4, but vans, limousines, family cars, all that are similiar sized. But I think there are plenty responsible drivers who drive big cars and who take extra care when there is a cyclist around. And with myself being a cyclists I defintley take extra care when seeing a cylists, as I have been hit by a car myself a few years back and ended up in an Ambulance and a written off bike, the car that hit me was a small 2door car by the way!
Really!!!!! You drive a 4x4 and then claim electric cars are not better for the environment!!!!
Those batteries are recyclable and the carbon footprint of making an electric car is going to be similar to that of an Internal Combustion Engine car (ICE).
An electric car is obviously going to have a far better CO2 footprint than a non-electric car and for people that need to go long distance and are allergic to trains, there is hybrid cars which allow the use of electric for most journeys.
Because the ICE is so inefficient, electric cars that are powered by electricity produced at coal power stations still emit less CO2.
Whilst I want to agree with you, I'm not sure that these statements stand up. there is theoretical ability to recycle EV batteries, but the infrastructure is not really in place yet and it is currently economically uncertain at best.
http://www.waste-management-world.com/articles/print/volume-12/issue-4/f...
You've also noted the issue about how our electricity is produced : electrical production efficiency from coal is about 28% which means that you are producing something like 3.5 x the amount of CO2 at the production end. So if you use 20kWh / 100km (Nissan Leaf quoted values) , it's the equivalent CO2 of 70kWh at the power station. Our alternative mode using fossil fuels has one gallon of diesel containing about 38kWh ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_gallon_equivalent ). So, if your diesel car can do say 50mpg, you are going to use about 1.2 gallons for 100km, which is approx 46kWh. So thats a fair bit less than the 70 that you have chucked out at the power station. Now, I accept that our production mix is fortunately not all coal, but unless you truly factor in the thermodynamic inefficiencies of electricity production electric cars are not currently a panacea.
You might have noticed I'm not a fan of electric cars - I think they are largely a marketing hype with not much to back them up. The basic issue is that they try to be normal cars, which were designed around a different type of engine and infrastructure and it just doesn't fit. IMHO.
The Nissan Leaf was designed from the outset as an electric car. It's a very good example of automotive engineering. Regarding the actual CO2 emissions surrounding EVs once the emissions from power plants are factored in, I've not yet seen a study that covers the topic comprehensively and conclusively.
At their worst though, EVs transfer pollution away from urban areas. And that's still quite a good thing.
Why is it obvious? Think about the bigger picture, not just the car. Those batteries, where are he metals coming from, how are they extracted, what is involved in the processing of them, how easy to recycle, what is being used to generate the power, not what COULD BE but what IS!
I don't claim to know the answer, I do know that the answer is not clear cut.
What does work in EV's favour pollution is largely centralised, and hence easier to clean, it is largely produced away from population centres, which reduces but does not eliminate particulates. EV's still use tyres and brakes which are both an issue.
The best solution is simply not to use cars, a Porsche Cayenne being driven for a hundred miles a year is more environmentally friendly than a Nissan Leaf being driven 100k miles a year.
I think until they create an electric car that is actually practical for long distances, and with that I mean journeys of 1000km, then until then I stick to my 4x4.
Additionally, although the car lithium batteries are recyclable, they are not actually recycled as it isn't cost effective yet. Batterie recycling is cost driven, and currently recycling cost for electric/hybrid car batteries are exhorbit! Big difference between being able to recycle and actually doing so!
And sure the carbon footprint of producing an electric car and a normal car are the same. So I think overall they came out pretty equal in the damage they do to the environment overall.... and I m not talking on emission alone!
I m all for investing into making engines more efficient and environmentally friendly. And once they make a car that is practical size and distance wise, then I will defintley swap over. But I don't think this is going to happen for a few years sadly!
I think it is even more insidious than that.
The overall casualty figures have been steadily decreasing for decades, so legislators and road planners congratulate themselves that their policies are all working well.
What they don't see (or don't care to acknowledge) is that some of the drop in casualty numbers is from certain classes of road user being scared off the roads.
It's pretty easy to get a low number of injuries to child cyclists if you have a low number of child cyclists to start with!
I don't think it's true to say "in Canada". I think this is probably only in some very few restricted places and recalling having seen something like it once in Calgary, AB. I certainly have not seen it on business trips to the Maritimes, Ontario and Quebec.
I tried: "I've looked and looked and can't find a minimum age limit anywhere for using the public highways."
Aren't most of commentators rather missing the point?
The point being made in the article (as well as eloquently in the video) was surely that riding home from primary school on a bike should be a normal activity? Something that doesn't even need to be commented on.
yeah, so its a very low risk activity, but when its risky, its really risky. Whats the name for that kind of scenario?
Only real parallel would be a war zone. Most people never end up hurt by enemy action, but when the shooting starts next to you, it's lethal...
yeah, so its a very low risk activity, but when its risky, its really risky. Whats the name for that kind of scenario?
Low Probability, High Magnitude risk
"You can tell it's close by looking at where the wheels of the car are - the driver could of and should of driven fully on the other side of the road, why did they choose not to?"
Unfortunately in the UK this is all too common. It's either the driver has no idea how wide their car is (unlikely) or that they are far too impatient and just "had" to get past. Once people get behind the wheel of a car, a good chunk of the population behave like imbeciles. Years of development of the highway network has made us think "if I'm in a car I'm more important, out of my way" - many people don't even realise they're thinking like that. A person in a car, a person on a bike, a person on a horse - they should all be equal, they're a;; just going along to somewhere using a different vehicle...but its not the case.
In "less developed" countries, this might-is-right mindset is just everywhere (ever been to India, China, south-east Asia? The trucks push the buses who push the cars who push the bikes who push the pedestrians out of the way). Places like Holland, Germany, France are (in general) happier to share the road. It sadly shows that in the UK we're not quite as advanced a society as we like to think we are.
True. It's the deep down ingrained belief that since you are *only* on a bike, then of course you'd be able to move over because you're only *this* wide anyway, aren't you? Motorists approaching you on single lane roads, with parked cars both sides, seem to be particularly susceptible to this mindset. (Embarrassingly, so is my wife. Many a heated discussion about why cyclists might be on the road instead on the off-road cycle path, or why a cyclist might be so far out into the road.)
I just had my first proper ride this morning with my new camera, and when I got back and enjoyed the novelty of reliving the exciting bits whizzing down twisty descents, I also noticed how good most of the driving was. In general, all the cars and trucks gave me a reasonable amount of space, and on the descents kept well, well back - I really don't think that was due any Nibali-style descending skills on my part, but their desire not to run me over if I continued acting like an idiot
so well done drivers of East Berkshire and South Bucks ....
Yeah, it always surprises me a bit too. Reading this site its easy to fall into the trap of thinking all motorists are the enemy, but really most are actually pretty good - it's certainly a minority that are twattish drivers.
Pages