Young cyclist killed

Guy, read the article. The child was THREE years old. Three year
olds do not belong anywhere outside their home unsupervised, period.

I'm glad I live in a country where a three year old can play with
other kids without the need for constant parental supervision.

I'm in agreement with Bob, this could have been prevented. Based
on the article they run it fast and loose in "far south Fort Worth".

Wherever that may be. I'm reading into the article, but the LEO's
statements indicate that things are being taken care of in the
usual worldly manner.

The death of a child is a tragic thing, the maybes and ifs will
haunt the parent(s) forever. I can relate to this.

It's a drama in the passing parade, however, in the larger sense.

So, Guy, close your eyes and think of England, I'm sure American
toddlers will continue to cycle unsafely.

--

_______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________
------------------"Buddy Holly, the Texas Elvis"------------------
in.edu__________

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 06:32:26 -0500, "Eric S. Sande"
wrote:

Guy, read the article. The child was THREE years old. Three year
olds do not belong anywhere outside their home unsupervised, period.

I'm glad I live in a country where a three year old can play with
other kids without the need for constant parental supervision.

I'm in agreement with Bob, this could have been prevented.

Sure. By not letting the unlicensed driver get in the truck, for
example.

So, Guy, close your eyes and think of England, I'm sure American
toddlers will continue to cycle unsafely.

ANd this morning I'm trying to buy a new bike for my seven-year-old.
Hard work - they all seem to be made of an alloy of steel and depleted
uranium.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message . ..
On 24 Jan 2004 05:01:58 GMT, (Hunrobe) wrote:

Guy, read the article. The child was THREE years old. Three year olds do not
belong anywhere outside their home unsupervised, period.

I'm glad I live in a country where a three year old can play with
other kids without the need for constant parental supervision.


Cultural differences have nothing to do with a child darting into traffic.

I doubt english parents have more influence over their 3 y.o.'s ability
to recognise a hazardous situation.

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message . ..
On 22 Jan 2004 04:12:42 -0800, (R.White) wrote:

I want to know why a child that young was outside
unsupervised by an adult?

I want to know why it's no longer safe for a group of kids to be out
unsupervised. Would having a parent there have made the unlicensed
driver any safer?

Pretty simple. My 4 y.o isn't allowed to play near the street. He's
not outside unsupervised. That way I know he's nowhere near traffic.
My comment has absolutly nothing to do with the unlicensed driver. We
had a an unsupervised 5 y.o. killed here a few years back by a licensed
driver. The license or lack of it had nothing to do with a mother sleeping
on the couch (as in our local case) while her child played near the road.

It's not about drivers, it's about responsible parenting.

(Hunrobe) wrote in message ...
"Just zis Guy, you know?"

wrote:
I want to know why it's no longer safe for a group of kids to be out
unsupervised. Would having a parent there have made the unlicensed
driver any safer?


Guy, read the article. The child was THREE years old. Three year olds do not
belong anywhere outside their home unsupervised, period.

This incident makes me think of a lot of things--first and foremost,
that even 3-4-5 yr. olds can be taught to NEVER run out the end of a
driveway without stopping & looking first. This is the #1 way young
kids are killed on bikes. Speaking from experience, it is quite
possible to teach the average 3 or 4 yr old to stop and look EVERY
time. Just like it is possible to teach them to never play with
electrical plugs. Sure, there will never be 100% compliance at that
age. But there will be pretty darn good compliance. But most parents
don't know the importance of this, so they don't even try.

But even more than that, IMHO, we need to take back our neighborhood
streets. People, not cars, live in neighborhoods.

People do a number of things in their neighborhoods. One of those
things is driving automobiles to go somewhere. For the 1/4 mile or so
it takes to get out of a neighborhood and onto bigger/faster streets,
it is quite feasible for cars to drive at a speed that is
**completely** compatible with the other human activities that go on
where we live.

Some countries do this--design their neighborhoods and cities on a
human scale and with people, not automobiles, as the design
imperative--and the quality of life in such places is much higher, the
accident rates much lower.

There is no reason under the sun for a garbage truck to be going down
a residential street, where kids are known to play, at a speed higher
than about 8 MPH.

It's interesting that Guy mentioned the much better situation in the
UK than in the US. Transportation revoluationary Mayer Hillman, from
the UK, had these interesting and provocative thoughts:

--
Road intersections should be raised to pavement level to give priority
to pedestrians . . . in 1971, 80% of seven- and eight-year-old
children went to school on their own, by 1990 only 9% were making the
journey unaccompanied, with more than four times as many seven- to
11-year-olds being driven in 1990 compared with 20 years earlier . . .
[the] view that the roads are safer because the accident rate has gone
down is deeply flawed . . . Quite the opposite. Child road deaths have
fallen because there aren't many children near them any more. . .
..Children's lives have been evolving in a way that mirrors the
characteristics of the lives of criminals in prison. They, too, have a
roof over their heads, regular meals and entertainment provided for
them, but they are not free to go out. . . . Fifty years ago, cycle
mileage exceeded car mileage. Now it's the other way around. While
most children own a bicycle, few are allowed to use it as a means of
transport . . . Compared with walking, bicycling has the potential to
expand a person's geographical catchment area 10- to 15-fold . . . A
new Danish road traffic act in 1976 made it the police and traffic
authority's responsibility, in consultation with schools, to protect
children from traffic on their way to and from school. They created a
network of traffic-free foot and cycle paths, established low-speed
areas, narrowed roads and introduced traffic islands. Accidents fell
by 85%. In Denmark, more than 20% of all journeys are made by bicycle
.. . . for every life year lost through accidents [while bicycling], 20
are gained through improved health and fitness.

Excerpts from an article in The Guardian, Nov 2, 2002. See
http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/st...823111,00.html
--

--Brent
bhugh [at] mwsc.edu
www.MoBikeFed.org

On 24 Jan 2004 08:26:23 -0800, (R.White) wrote:

Cultural differences have nothing to do with a child darting into traffic.
I doubt english parents have more influence over their 3 y.o.'s ability
to recognise a hazardous situation.

Nope, but the roads are rather quieter and the chances of finding an
unlicensed truck operator in a residential neighbourhood are aboput
zero.

That wasn't really what I was getting at, though. Bob originally
suggested that *no* three-year-old should be allowed out without adult
supervision. That was the point at which I decided that perhaps my
neighbourhood is safer than his.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

On 24 Jan 2004 11:09:41 -0800, (Brent Hugh) wrote:

Transportation revoluationary Mayer Hillman, from
the UK, had these interesting and provocative thoughts:

If you think Mayer is provocative wait 'till you read Bob Davis ;-)

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message
news
On 24 Jan 2004 08:26:23 -0800, (R.White) wrote:

Cultural differences have nothing to do with a child darting into
traffic.
I doubt english parents have more influence over their 3 y.o.'s ability
to recognise a hazardous situation.

Nope, but the roads are rather quieter and the chances of finding an
unlicensed truck operator in a residential neighbourhood are aboput
zero.

That wasn't really what I was getting at, though. Bob originally
suggested that *no* three-year-old should be allowed out without adult
supervision. That was the point at which I decided that perhaps my
neighbourhood is safer than his.

There are many different levels of 'residential neighborhood'. Some, there'd
be no problem in letting a little kid walk across the cul-de-sac to a
friends house. Others, I would be loath to let a 12 year old out by himself.

And in no case should an unlicensed driver be out cruising around, much less
'on the job'.

Pete

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 20:30:51 GMT, "Pete" wrote:

in no case should an unlicensed driver be out cruising around, much less
'on the job'.

I wonder if the employer will end up in court?

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

In article ,
says...
On 22 Jan 2004 04:12:42 -0800, (R.White) wrote:

I want to know why a child that young was outside
unsupervised by an adult?

I want to know why it's no longer safe for a group of kids to be out
unsupervised. Would having a parent there have made the unlicensed
driver any safer?

No, but I'll bet the 3-year-old would not have been in the road on a
bike he couldn't ride.


--
Dave Kerber
Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.