“I fight to survive” – Sagan says he swerved to avoid “square pole” in the barriers; Thomas admits “going through the motions a bit” during lockdown training; Boulting, Millar and Kennaugh go golfing; Van Aert fined for giving Sagan the finger + more
SUMMARY
Good morning, sports fans
It’s Liam kicking off the blog today, freshly returned from a few days ‘working’ in Italy.
Wout van Aert has got a fine of 200CHF for inappropriate behaviour. 🙈 #TDF2020 pic.twitter.com/TupV0sl9ez
— Cyclocross24.com (@cyclocross24) September 9, 2020
We’ll be looking at all of the talking points surrounding Sagan’s heavy use of his shoulder in yesterday’s sprint finish and then Van Aert making his feelings known. Today’s stage looks set to be a day for the break so who’s your money on?
Away from the Grand Boucle, we’ll have all of the cycling news from around the web. So, let’s dive into Thursday with some Sam Bennett energy.
Olé 😁#TDF2020 pic.twitter.com/nZAWqG3G7V
— Deceuninck-QuickStep (@deceuninck_qst) September 9, 2020
Backstage Pass Stage 11 - Mitchelton Scott
Ah that social distancing thing
So it seems that group rides are back down to a maximum of six people per ride.
Will people be sticking to this and have you just had to cancel some plans due to the new restrictions?
It also looks like racing at a local level is back off, just as it was getting started again. We’re still not sure about sportives, but we’ll be keeping an eye out for news from British Cycling
200CHF for flipping the bird
As the cameras focussed on Bennett and Ewan, they picked up Wout van Aert making his feelings known to Peter Sagan.
Jury report of stage 11: #TdF2020:
Van Aert has been fined 200CHF for inappropriate behaviour.
Sagan gets a 500CHF fine and – 13 points in points classification for deviation from the chosen line that obstructs or endangers another rider or irregular sprint
1/2
— La Flamme Rouge (@laflammerouge16) September 9, 2020
Sagan had taken a gap up the barriers, before making himself some more room with a shoulder to the ribs of Van Aert. The move earned Sagan more than just a hand gesture from Van Aert. The race officials deemed that his sprint was dangerous and Sagan was relegated to 85th place, losing his green jersey points from the stage as well as being docked a further 13 points in the sprinter’s classification.
Van Aert got told off too, getting an effective slap on the wrist in the form of a 200CHF fine. That’s Swiss Francs by the way.
If you haven’t seen what Van Aert was upset about, here’s the replay…
🦅 The aerial view from the finish in Poitiers, won by @CalebEwan in a tight contest!
🦅 Vue aérienne de ce sprint à @poitiersfr remporté d’un rien par @CalebEwan !#TDF2020 pic.twitter.com/UHs7ks324H
— Tour de France™ (@LeTour) September 9, 2020
Two former pro cyclists and a commentator go golfing...
Some questionable form and lost balls are the order of the day in ‘Golf Attack – The Movie’.
Maybe we need to send Ned, David and Pete a set of our custom road.cc golf balls…
What a photo
Cette photo de @bettiniphoto est juste fantastique pic.twitter.com/TR7zd5A7bP
— De Binkwaeys Officiel (@DeBinkwaeys) September 9, 2020
The best picture of the Tour de France so far and it’ll be hard to top it.
This spectacular image shows the closing meters of yesterday’s sprint stage with Sagan, Van Aert, Bennett and Ewan all eeking out their last ounces of energy in the race for the line. Take a bow BettiniPhoto.
Was Sagan swerving to avoid a selfie stick?
Timing of Sagan ‘leaning in’
vis-a-vis selfie/arm/camera sticking out #TDF2020 #Sagan pic.twitter.com/eOBAq9viWS— Lois Horwitz (@LoisHorwitz) September 9, 2020
You’d think he’d have mentioned it, if he was.
Organised sports events events excluded from social gathering size restrictions because organisers are trusted to make them covid secure
That’s because these sports and activities have stringent plans in place to reduce the risk of Covid-19, and these venues are classed as Covid secure given the measures they have introduced.
— Sport England (@Sport_England) September 9, 2020
We’ve still got a few questions.
What we’re really waiting for here is one of the cycling organisations to spell things out for us.
This one has it all...
FUMMIN shopkeeps, the face of 2020https://t.co/nWQJw6FiV0
— Angry People in Local Newspapers (@angrypiln) September 10, 2020
Dressed up for the big shoot, angry face, blame the cyclists etc…
The Lancashire Post writes that “Stephen lives at Walton Le Dale with wife Jacqueline and said the commute to work can now take up to half an hour for a journey of just two miles.”
If only there was another way to travel those two miles. Has anyone got any ideas?
The Tour de France heads through Cloud
A quick look at what awaits the riders in today’s stage of the Tour de France.
It’s an intriguing one and the longest of the race.
🚩 Chauvigny – Sarran 🏁
📏 218 km🎬 Check the 3D route of the longest stage of the #TDF2020.
🎬 Voici le parcours 3D de la plus longue étape du #TDF2020.#TDFunited pic.twitter.com/ffaw5iIn6k— Tour de France™ (@LeTour) September 10, 2020
Ironically, they pass through Cloud before they’ve hit the first climb of the day.
"I fight to survive" - Sagan says he swerved to avoid “square pole” in the barriers
Peter Sagan says he didn’t see the selfie stick which some have been suggesting was the cause of the manoeuvre that saw him relegated in yesterday’s sprint (see earlier).
He says he was actually trying to avoid a square pole that was lying in amongst the barriers.
“I fight to survive.”
Peter Sagan spoke to @AdamBlythe89 before the start of stage 12 about yesterday’s incident with Wout van Aert#TdF2020 pic.twitter.com/KEKcLnCQtf
— ITV Cycling (@itvcycling) September 10, 2020
Bit blurry, but we think he means this thing:
Here’s the footage:
🦅 The aerial view from the finish in Poitiers, won by @CalebEwan in a tight contest!
🦅 Vue aérienne de ce sprint à @poitiersfr remporté d’un rien par @CalebEwan !#TDF2020 pic.twitter.com/UHs7ks324H
— Tour de France™ (@LeTour) September 9, 2020
The poetically named final climb of the day
The final climb of the day is called Suc au May, which derives from “Lo Suc au Mais”, Limousin dialect for “Le sommet aux mâts” which in turn, rather disappointingly, means the summit with masts. pic.twitter.com/P0daYtfcRn
— Ned Boulting (@nedboulting) September 10, 2020
Geraint Thomas admits “going through the motions a bit” during lockdown training
Geraint Thomas, omitted from Ineos Grenadiers’ Tour de France team, has told the Guardian that he didn’t get into shape in time after, “going through the motions a bit,” during his lockdown training.
“I need to be super ‘on it’ to get to my Grand Tour competitive shape,” he said. “That takes a lot of work. It doesn’t come naturally, especially the whole weight thing. So, I was just running a little heavy and it was more a case of getting on top of that. Six weeks of racing has really helped.”
Thomas is currently sitting fourth in Tirreno-Adriatico.
“I’m feeling better than three weeks ago for sure,” he said. “It’s the first time I’ve been at the pointy end this year. This race will do me the world of good for the Giro. I’ve got some confidence again.”
Jens Voigt won last time a Tour stage finished in Sarran
⏪ Sarran last hosted a stage finish in 2001, when 🇩🇪 @thejensie claimed the win after a long breakaway.
🏮 Current race director @tgouvenou also rode, finishing last after a crash.⏪ Sur le Tour 2001, Jens Voigt s’était imposé à Sarran.#TDF2020 #TDFunited pic.twitter.com/9T79OlkZBT
— Tour de France™ (@LeTour) September 10, 2020
I interviewed Jens a few years back.
Funny guy – although not always deliberately.
Doesn’t look like it’s going to be a win for the break today though.
💨 It’s looking likely that the breakaway will be caught by the peloton, as the gap is reduced to only 30″!
💨 L’échappée risque d’être reprise prochainement puisque l’écart s’est considérablement réduit : 30″.#TDF2020 pic.twitter.com/Zc9cc3dRd7
— Tour de France™ (@LeTour) September 10, 2020
That time when Froome got Nibali by the scruff of the neck…
🔊 A fantastic 3 minutes you don’t want to miss…
What a story from @Petekennaugh on Chris Froome’s altercation on an Astana bus and a Mark Cavendish phone call with Peter Sagan 👀 #TDF2020 pic.twitter.com/dqboRYvLTH
— ITV Cycling (@itvcycling) September 10, 2020
Marc Hirschi's first pro victory was pretty good
If you’ve been following this year’s Tour, you’ll know this one was on the cards.
The Swiss 22-year-old had already finished second on Stage 2 and third on Stage 9.
“I think Alaphillipe has met his match.”
🎥 @Chris_Boardman, @Petekennaugh and Gary Imlach marvel at the brilliance of Marc Hirschi at stage 12 today#TDF2020 pic.twitter.com/K3ZbusGMsa
— ITV Cycling (@itvcycling) September 10, 2020
10 September 2020, 07:46
It's illegal for more than six people to gather from Monday. British Cycling and Cycling UK are still trying to work out what that will mean in practice
Nobody’s exactly sure what Government’s “super simple rule” about social gatherings means for cycling events
Illegal for more than six people to gather from Monday – British Cycling and Cycling UK still trying to work out what that will mean in practice
10 September 2020, 07:46
Family pay tribute to cyclist whose “last living action was pushing the pedals” - police appeal for witnesses.
86-year-old killed in road traffic collision while doing LEJOG
Family pay tribute to cyclist whose “last living action was pushing the pedals”
Help us to bring you the best cycling content
If you’ve enjoyed this article, then please consider subscribing to road.cc from as little as £1.99. Our mission is to bring you all the news that’s relevant to you as a cyclist, independent reviews, impartial buying advice and more. Your subscription will help us to do more.
49 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
I use this cycle path regularly. It is used by commuters during the week but it is used more and more by families with young children evenings and weekends when the weather is fine. The car boot takes place on a Sunday which conflicts with this leisure use. One problem is with cars stopping on the cycle path to wait for a gap in traffic (as in the picture). Even if the car is stopped and there is space behind it, as in the picture, you can't be sure that the driver won't reverse or the driver behind won't close the gap so you have to slow down to almost a stop to get through safely. You would have to dismount as well as you would be using the footway part of the path. This isn't a huge problem going up the hill into Cheltenham, (coming towards you in the picture) as it is relatively steep and usually against the prevailing wind if there is any, so you are going slowly anyway. Going down the hill however it is easy to reach 30mph and this is where cyclists are going to be seriously inconvenienced by having to slow down and dismount. I don't think it's a huge safety issue but it will be annoying. Obviously the driver should not be blocking the cycle path at all and should wait in the entrance, which has good visibility, until there is a gap in both the road and the cycle path traffic. This is obviously beyond the skill set of the majority of motorists who would not dream of blocking the road but can't see any problem with blocking the cycle path. The main problem, however, is with drivers from Cheltenham crossing the oncoming traffic to enter the car boot sale. There may be nothing blocking the cycle path and the drivers will be looking for gaps in the (usually continuous) oncoming traffic. When a gap appears they will go but will they have checked that there are no cyclists on the track who will expect the driver to give them priority as instructed in the highway code. A cyclist coming from Cheltenham down the hill will be travelling at speed from behind the driver and the driver will cut across them from their left if they are not seen. Experienced cyclists will be watching out for this but that is not who the cycle path is intended for, it is intended to encourage new cyclists to get on their bikes. Another concern is when a driver is turning into the site and does notice a cyclist and does give way. The driver behind may not be expecting the car in front to stop and there is potential for a rear ending incident. The speed limit is 40mph but it is only adhered to in heavy traffic. I rarely drive but I did drive the road recently and I was doing exactly 40mph when I was overtaken. None of these would be a problem if drivers could be relied upon to obey the highway code but it seems to me that it is asking too much in today's "drivers come first" and "must drive as fast as possible" mentality. Finally one time I cycled when the car boot was on there was a person in a hi vis jacket directing the traffic. If the individual has received training then it should be safer but it will still inconvenience cyclists unless we are given priority.
@KiwiMike Respectfully, I don't think "oh well people can afford it" is a valid excuse for blatantly overcharging for a product. Yes of course it's people's choice whether they want to pay for it or not, just as it's my choice to point out that in my opinion, as with so many cycling products, it's a rip-off.
I guess you’ve never been for a ride in the countryside, and wanted to stop somewhere there isn’t a perfectly-positioned tree, fence or wall? Or have always had the good fortune to have a bike rack or wall positioned perfectly where you need it, and been happy to balance your bike and trust no-one will nudge it. I accept that’s a valid use case.
If you can afford a £3000 ebike you can almost certainly afford this. Especially as it’s the last one you’ll ever need to buy. Of course people will value the utility in their own way, there’s no definitive right / wrong, there’s just choice.
@jackcycles "The idea that you need a dedicated cycleway in order to ride a bike is ludicrous and false" You might not need one because you're a brave cyclist. There are many people in this country who aren't brave, who don't like mixing with traffic, and who won't cycle if they have to. So they need a dedicated cycleway, despite your protestations. "Just be more assertive" will never, ever work as a tool to enable more cycling.
@neilmck Other studies have shown different results, however, e.g. a 2025 study in Barcelona showed injury rates on uni-directional cycle paths were slightly higher than on bi-directional ones - I'll post the link below as otherwise might end up in the black hole of link approval quarantine. The study you cite is from 1990 when in many areas cycle provision was very much in its infancy and drivers were much less accustomed to watching for cyclists in separate infrastructure than they are now. As ever, in my experience at least, the issue is not the cycle lane per se but junction design, with proper mitigating measures e.g. raised tables at junctions, different surface colours, warning signage, set back give ways etc there's no reason bidirectional lanes should be more dangerous.
Bi-directional cycle paths are very dangerous and councils should use extreme caution when deciding to install them. The problem is the complexity they provide motorists who have to cross them. There was a study made in Berlin that shows you are 12 times more likely to be killed at a crossing on a bi-directional cycle path than if you cycled on the road. https://www.bikexprt.com/bikepol/facil/sidepath/adfc173.htm
That - if it is like the photo - seems to be an inadequate and very poor entrance design. Where are the physical features to enforce behaviour? There will be a queue of cars sitting on the mobility track. The LHA could have CPOd a small slice of land to make it adequate and given a one or two car standing area by the carriageway with a bent-in mobility track. I'd say the designers have looked the other way.
I’m not sure this is a problem really. How often does the car boot sale take place?once a week at most, and not every week either? And not all day. I’m sure all users can manage and it would mean everyone taking car at the entrance / exit.
Many years since lived in Cheltenham but if the coach park is where I think it is there is another car park on the opposite side of Evesham rd also part of the race course and has an entrance off the main road and off a side road unlike the coach park it has no hard standing though ...
49 thoughts on ““I fight to survive” – Sagan says he swerved to avoid “square pole” in the barriers; Thomas admits “going through the motions a bit” during lockdown training; Boulting, Millar and Kennaugh go golfing; Van Aert fined for giving Sagan the finger + more”
The fine for the bird – I
The fine for the bird – I understand; but the points docking for Sagan is harsh!. A little argy-bargy is to be expected in a busy sprint, Sagan wasn’t pushing anyone towards a barrier, and they’ve now just ended the Green Jersey battle. Sagan’s only hope is if Sam doesn’t survive the alps!
It was a great finish, everyone stayed up-right, fastest guy won!
I think docking is the wrong
I think docking is the wrong phrase. He was disqualified from the stage, so lost all the points he gained, including those at the intermediate sprint. That’s my understanding, anyway.
No – it was coincidence that
No – it was coincidence that the points he was penalised happened to be the same as the number he won at the intermediate.
You’re right, though, that what has really holed his challenge is not the points he was docked, but the ones he would have won for coming second (or even 4th if he’d finished there due to not being able to pass WvA.
mdavidford wrote:
Apologies, you are right. In my defence, I was repeating what they said on ITV4 last night!
The points deduction wasn’t
The points deduction wasn’t an arbitrary thing, though – it’s required by the rules – if you’re relegated for illegal contact in a sprint you get docked a quarter of the winner’s points.
A few weeks after another
A few weeks after another sprinter was in intensive care because of ” a little argy bargy”
Better to show zero tolerance than risk another incident like that.
Sagan should have known better. He ended his own Green Jersey battle – there was no need for that barge – it was purely to gain advantage.
He used his head to shove van
He used his head to shove van Aert over to give him space !! its illegal contact in the sprint and is against the rules, we should be actually be applauding van Aerts skill at staying upright, because that could easily have caused him to lose control & crash, and at that speed a crash would have been a big one, plus it almost certainly impeded van Aerts sprint. Sagan can have no complaints about that relegation imo.
More furious motorists not
More furious motorists not able to make to shortest more direct (most likely) unnecessary journey possible.
https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/school-run-return-sparks-claims-18907014
usual mutliple think of the elderly and disabled comments, one person does point out that take away the cars that don’t really need to be there and its easier for those groups to drive.
Or this one:
Or this one:
Neighbours furious at huge detour to park outside homes after entire street transformed into ‘Covid-secure’ cycle path
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12617669/road-closed-poole-residents-active-travel-scheme/
Huge detour = 1 mile = 3
Huge detour = 1 mile = 3 minutes travel at 20mph.
Pretty harsh penalty I think.
Pretty harsh penalty I think. I’m rooting for Bennett to win the green jersey but would have preferred it to happen on the road and not in the stewards office. Sprints usually have a bit of contact, it’s like the dark arts of the rugby scrum. Are we saying zero contact is permitted? How far from the line are they able to change their sprint lane? How many moves are they allowed?
No, we’re saying you can’t
No, we’re saying you can’t deliberately barge and headbutt someone out of the way – it’s pretty obvious looked at objectively.
Luckily van Aert wasn’t injured. The Groenewegen/Jokobsen incident is quickly forgotten I see.
Interestingly on the French
Interestingly on the French TV discussion both Laurent Jalabert and Thomas Voeckler thought it was 50/50 in the sprint, tho’ Yohann Offredo didn’t agree…
Van Aert was moving off his
Van Aert was moving off his line to the right and risked pushing Sagan into the barriers where all hell would’ve broken loose. So Sagan gave him a nudge, Its racing!
Sagan should rightfully feel agrieved at that decision, it’s BS. Might as well stop all sprints and make every stage a mountain stage, but no going over 40km its too dangerous and no going anywhere near another rider in case you hurt their feelings.
WvA did move to the right,
WvA did move to the right, but that was well before Sagan tried to go through a gap that wasn’t there. Sagan chose a position on the barriers, and then found himself boxed in with no way to go around – that’s racing – sometimes you just have to accept that you’ve been outmanouevred, and not just try to barge through regardless.
I’ll be honest I thought Van
I’ll be honest I thought Van Aert moved off his line. Not necessarily to block anyone but he clearly did move over looking at the helicopter shot. Sagan over did the barging but it’s understandable considering he had probably already committed to the (admittedly small) but existing gap. Suprised no one else picked it up
There’s a lot of lateral
There’s a lot of lateral movement in most sprints just from the sheer amount of power they’re putting through the cranks. I’ve often wondered if the natural side-to-side movement that generates is perhaps reigned in slightly less as sprinters sense a rival coming up on their shoulder. It’s all part of the art I’d imagine? Certainly Bennett moved as everything closed together. Seeing as no-one crashed or was injured I’d much rather see a fine and let them sort it out on the next sprint stage.
Right decision by the
Right decision by the commisaires. Any move Van Aert made was fractional. He is a pretty clean sprinter. Sagan went the wrong way and decided to make the room himself.
As a sprinter myself, I have never seen the point in risking broken bones and bikes by changing my line, but then I have never sprinted at anything above national level.
That’s right. Sagan’s excuses
That’s right. Sagan’s excuses are pretty pathetic – he should have just fessed up to barging and headbutting, and accepted the penalty.
His argument was that in the Cav incident he was in front, and this time he was behind. However the common denominator both times is that the physical aggression came from Sagan.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/uknews/12631301/toddler-hit-dragged-cyclist-london-park/
Mum claims daughter, 1, was ‘hit and dragged by cyclist’ in park horror
They’ve illustrated it with a picture of a huge wide shared-use roadway…?
There’s so much rotten in
There’s so much rotten in that article. Its just one big click-bait hate piece.
>Cyclist was doing 10mph, but ‘came flying out of the gate’ ?
>Child was apparently hit head-on but caught her arm in the spokes?
Insofar as I can tell, it basically breaks down to a failure to Parent.
The cyclist fled the scene
The cyclist fled the scene whilst also speaking to an off duty police officer whilst still in the park.
“I ran over and pushed the
“I ran over and pushed the woman off the bike […] she kept shouting that I had assaulted her.”
The video of the cyclist
The video of the cyclist doing the rounds for the above. Lets just say she comes across as the person who would always blame someone else no matter whose fault it was for anything. Although still I see the Sun allows racist comments about her.
However 10mph, dragged along with arm in the spokes until screeched to a halt. Some embellishement from a distraught mother I suspect on the latter. And the speed is well within guidelines for shared paths although could have been higher or lower as I suspect I couldn’t guestimate well.
Edit, Forgot to mention I’m glad the child is ok and nothing serious occured.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
A bit harsh; all we see is a young lady who’s just been shoved off her bike by an irate mother and being harrassed by possibly the third most obnoxious person on Earth.
She also states she can’t
She also states she can’t report it because she doesn’t have a phone, then when she is offered the use of one she gets her out her bag. Simple lie exposed. As I said in this case, both sides don’t come out of it well and only real plus is the child has nothing more serious then some scratches.
Im very surprised no-one has
Im very surprised no-one has yet mentioned the moron who made the video who was doing his best to inflame the situation. He seems to be the biggest jerk in all of this.
No, I would still argue the
No, I would still argue the cyclist is although the videographer did need to brush up on his law.
Her “I don’t have a phone” to “ohh, it means i have to get it out of the bag which is the trouble” shows how much she cared a child was hurt in her vicinity.
brooksby wrote:
Reminds me of the very similar story in the Bristol Evening Post about twenty years ago, with a mother complaining about a cyclist mowing down her child on the Bristol/Bath path and how all cyclists should take more care. The paper of course, took the opportunity to slag off cyclists. I was concerned enough about the cyclist’s actions to get in touch with the reporter, and discovered that the facts were rather different to those as printed.
The woman and her small son were picking blackberries and he was on one side of the path and she on the other. When she saw the cyclist approaching, she called her son to her, who then ran out straight in front of the cyclist, who was unable to avoid him. The cyclist stopped, checked the little boy was ok and rode on. None of that was reported.
In this case, the parent was at least 50% to blame for allowing a small uncontrolled child loose on a shared use path.
she called her son to her,
she called her son to her, who then ran out straight in front of the cyclist, who was unable to avoid him.
This happened to me once on an ordinary quiet road on the outskirts of Garstang- the mother and little *** were on the left pavement, he was on a scooter- I’m assuming it was a ‘he’. For no reason I could detect the little *** shot straight across the road at right angles, on the scooter. I braked, went straight over the bars, and broke or cracked some ribs. As ill-luck would have it, I soon contracted a cough which the ribs made very painful.
TBH, I slow right down when
TBH, I slow right down when children are ahead of me on shared use paths and / or near the edge of the pavement and wait until the parent has them under some control. This is especially done if they are on scooters or bikes as they turn as they turn their head so can easily “move right angles” if they turn to look behind them at a noise.
Likewise. This is part of
Likewise. This is part of realistic hazard awareness.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
Which is fair enough, and what I do, but it doesn’t absolve the parent of blame, whatever the cyclist does.
I was replying to wtjs with
I was replying to wtjs with him calling a kid a *** for doing something which kids do. He was either going too fast or too close for those injuries.
I’m not absolving parents of any blame, just treat children as you would a dog or other animal, especially as we are essentially quiet compared to a car so no noise, no danger.
I did 50-50 on the parent when the child cycled into the adult pedestrian reported a few months ago, were you doing the same? It was pretty much the same thing as happened in the Scum story including a parent immediately agressive and blaming the adult involved. The difference is that the child was on a bike and hit the pedestrian.
Most parents have been there.
Most parents have been there. Anyone operating machinery (fuel or human powered) needs to be aware of this in the public space. We all know the HWC changes (proposed) regarding liability. Perhaps there is a further liability heirarchy regarding the age of those involved….
I would have thought that
I would have thought that blame rests between the two involved parties – eg the child and the rider.
It’s absurd to apportion blame to the child, therefore it sits with the rider
It’s always tempting to say that “parents should have control over their children” concerning collisions, but our motivation for that usually rests on “I don’t want to have to consider something unpredictable when driving/riding/scooting/skating/running that will make me go slower than I want.”
As a rider/driver, there is never a situation where I can assume that a child is under the parent’s “full control” (whatever that is – I don’t even know what that would look like). Therefore it is I that have to mitigate the risk. This is by slowing down, and being able to stop in a safe and controlled manner in the space I can see (and indeed in this case predict) to be clear.
Captain Badger wrote:
That doesn’t follow – you’re confusing fault with blame. The fault may split between the child and the rider, and it may be absurd to blame the child for their part of the fault, but the rider is still only to blame for their own part of the fault. The child’s part of the fault doesn’t transfer to the rider – it’s just blameless.
Interesting nuance, and
Interesting nuance, and certainly worth an exploration.
I would say that fault and blame are interchangeable here as both terms would suggest responsibility.
It was indeed the child’s act to walk (toddle, totter, etc) into the path of the rider, but I wouldn’t say that would be “fault”, as at that age they can’t be expected to recognise that path.
To take an example, some of
To take an example, some of the keys on my keyboard no longer respond reliably – I sometimes have to press 2 or 3 times for the character to appear. The keyboard definitely has a fault, but it’s absurd to say it’s blameworthy.
Ah I see, yes. The key is at
Ah I see, yes. The key is at fault as it is not doing what it should, or what it was designed or manufactured for. It is not fulfilling it’s “raison d’etre”. But it has no agency of it’s own, so it is blameless. Fault is used here in a functional perspective. This is how I would summarise the distinction you are making.
However there is no fault (functional error) with the child’s action. They are moving from A to B. Without the presence of the rider there is no issue
The same could be said obversely with the rider, however, (and this is where blame/responsibility comes in) the rider is in the position of responsibility on 2 counts
I do see your distinction, however I wouldn’t agree that it is an appropriate one in this context, and I would say that for the pruposes of this situation fault/blame/responsibility could all be used to express the same quality.
The distinction I would make
The distinction I would make is that fault is something you seek to correct; blame is something you judge and/or punish.
The child’s behaviour is at fault if they misjudged the situation and took action that was inappropriate to it. However, they can’t be blamed for that if they’re too young to understand, or haven’t been given the appropriate schooling. You can seek to correct the fault as they grow up by teaching them about road safety, risk, etc.
The rider is at fault if they haven’t taken reasonable measures to avoid putting others at risk, including allowing for the possibility that children might act unpredictably. They can also be blamed if they are at fault in this way, since they should know better.
Reducing it all to ‘blame’ tends to lead to the assumption that ‘someone must be to blame’. That then potentially leads to absurd situations where (to stick with the current protagonists) a rider has taken all reasonable measures to avoid risk, and a collision still occurs, and the inevitable conclusion is that the rider must be ‘to blame’.
I don’t see the childs
I don’t see the childs behaviour as being at fault. The child was doing what children do. There would be no reading of the situation from the child’s perspective greater than “I am here, I want to be there, I will now take action for that to happen” (I’m assuming a very young child – eg that in OP).
We expect more of the rider. The collision could be said to be caused by both paths crossing at the same point in time – both would be legitimate actions if at different points in time. The fault/blame/responsibility (and I know they can be emotive terms) would lie with the rider, as the ability to prevent a collision needs agency that the child just cannot be expected to exhibit, so the rider must act on behalf of the child.
This by the way is exactly the same (in my opinion) if the rider is replaced with a driver
I think we just have
I think we just have different definitions of ‘fault’ – to me it’s an explanatory factor that contributes to a situation, that you would look to correct – in this case, by educating the child. It doesn’t involve any moral or emotive judgement. That’s not really relevant to the point I was making, though.
The point was that it’s wrong (albeit it’s a common response) to say ‘we can’t blame the child, therefore we must blame the rider’. Any blame attached to the rider should be assessed on its own merits. Sometimes no-one is deserving of blame, or only a small amount of blame is merited, even when a serious situation occurs.
Yes, that’s why I’m at pains
Yes, that’s why I’m at pains (and I know it seems semantic) to define terms. Fault/blame etc are emotive words which is why I’m keen to avoid using them in relation to a child, particularly a young one. Again, they have done nothing wrong, they have simply wandered from A to B.
I think it’s absolutely correct to say ‘we can’t blame the child, therefore we must blame the rider’, (bearing in mind that “blame” is emotive – perhaps responsible is clearer here). The person with full agency here is the rider, riding in the public space where children are likely to be. The old mantra of being able to stop safely and under control in the space that you can see to be clear is key. The responsibility for any collision lies with the rider.
I remember distinctly doing
I remember distinctly doing this at the age of about 3, in front of a car. It’s one of my earliest memories. I might have been a little ****, I’ve certainly grown up since and am now quite a considerable ****. But that wasn’t the reason why.
Well done for avoiding him, and at least there’s no more lasting damage than a great story to tell. But kids do what kids do, they’re unpredictable.
Apparently one requires the
Apparently one requires the reading skills of a 9 year old to navigate an article from The Sun. Having just read the link I can see what they mean. It’s like writing for, well, children; simple statements, large pictures to create emotion and to illustrate statements i.e. ‘there was a big red house in the forest’ (show picture of big red house in a forest) Lots of obvious contradiction and a ‘good’ and ‘bad’ in the story without any nuance. And there is always a sympathetic hook (a child is great) to get the 9 year old reader’s attention. And then the baddie – preferably someone from an ‘out’ group so they can easily be stereotyped. Like a witch, or a cyclist.
I’m definitely slowing up; it
I’m definitely slowing up; it’s only just occurred to me that if this had been a car, the driver would have been absolved of all blame and the mother charged with neglect and recklessly endangering her child.
Today’s Private Eye (#1530),
Today’s Private Eye (#1530), page 34:
“we have all the equipment
“we have all the equipment needed to do a total transfusion of a cyclists’s nasal mucus”
Funny old world – might be just me, but almost everything about that seems slightly disturbing and just raises so many questions….