Young cyclist killed

In article ,
says...
(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

5 yes, but I would never trust s 3yr old to check. 4 would depend on
the kid.

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.

.....

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

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

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

One would hope. At most they'll get a small fine.

Pete

In article ,
says...
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?

I would bet most anything on it that happening.

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

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

Zoot Katz

wrote:


The later article claims he was four and that his eight year old
brother was among those who witnessed his death.

The vehicle and its driver were both in violation of numerous
infractions as soon as that truck hit the road.
It shouldn't have been there and wouldn't have been there if said laws
were enforced.

I don't disagree that if the driver and vehicle hadn't been there the child
would not have been killed. I still say a three year old, four year old, or
even an ancient five year old should not be outside the home without
supervision and an eight year old sibling busy playing himself
(from the linked article..."She [the deceased child's mother- ed.] said it has
been especially hard for her 8-year-old son, Tavaris, who was outside riding a
scooter Monday evening and saw his little brother's death.")
doesn't qualify.
Would you blame the vehicle operator and absolve the parents of all
responsibility if the child had been by struck by a cyclist riding without a
headlamp at dusk?

Regards,
Bob Hunt

"Just zis Guy, you know?"

wrote:

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.


Do you mean that where you live there are no dangers that a preschool child
can't recognize and avoid without the benefit of any adult supervision? I
thought you lived in England. When did England ban all modes of transportation
except walking at a sedate pace? Was that before or after you eliminated all
construction sites and high places? Darn, your kids can practically raise
themselves! g
Seriously though, it has nothing to do with what country you live in and
everything to do with exercising reasonable care for your children. I truly
doubt that you'd allow *your* preschool child to play outside of your yard at
dusk, particularly if the play consisted of riding a wheeled vehicle down your
driveway.
BTW, I'm curious. Why do you think he was "playing with other kids"? The
article quoted the deceased child's mother as describing the area as "a
residential street crowded with children at play". "Children at play" does not
necessarily mean "children playing together". She also said the eight year old
brother was outside riding his scooter at the time. I may be mistaken but a
four year old riding a toy bike- probably with training wheels- and an eight
year old riding a scooter don't strike me as "playing together" but more like
their solitary play just happened to be in proximity to each other.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

25 Jan 2004 08:31:17 GMT,
,
(Hunrobe) wrote:

Would you blame the vehicle operator and absolve the parents of all
responsibility if the child had been by struck by a cyclist riding without a
headlamp at dusk?

Had the child been hit by a bicycle he'd probably still be alive.
I can't imagine blaming anyone but myself if I'd run down a kid.
--
zk

"Just zis Guy, you know?"

wrote:


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.

---snip---

Alternatively, the mother could have not allowed her pre-schooler to ride out
into the street under the wheels of a passing truck.
BTW, the lack of a commercial driving license doesn't mean the driver was
unlicensed or unqualified. It's rather like having a USCF but not a UCI racing
license. Okay, you can't legally compete in UCI sanctioned events. Does it mean
you can't operate a bicycle though? No.

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.

Downhill bikes, huh? g

Regards,
Bob Hunt

"Just zis Guy, you know?"

wrote in part:

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.

I didn't "suggest" it. I said it, meant it, and still mean it. Protestations
that your neighborhood is safer than another aside, you have a seven year old.
Do you establish boundaries for his or her play? "Stay in front of the house...
don't play in the street... don't leave the block... be home before dark?". Are
those boundaries different now than they were 3 or 4 years ago? Is the level of
supervision different now than it was then and will it be different 3 or 4
years from now?

Regards,
Bob Hunt

(Brent Hugh)

wrote in part:

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 makes me think that you believe 3-4-5 yr old riders are always *in
control* of their bikes. Seeing 3-4-5 yr olds ride disabused me of that notion
many years ago.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

On 25 Jan 2004 09:26:41 GMT, (Hunrobe) wrote:

Bob originally
suggested that *no* three-year-old should be allowed out without adult
supervision.

I didn't "suggest" it. I said it, meant it, and still mean it. Protestations
that your neighborhood is safer than another aside, you have a seven year old.
Do you establish boundaries for his or her play?

Of course we have limits. And small children out playing with groups
including older children should not, do not, necessarily need adult
supervision.

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