View Full Version : idiot biker
my mate took this piccy, its on a fairly busy roundabout (ceder tree roundabout in caerphilly)
what an idiot, should he be banned?
http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k295/hovi5/aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.jpg
as you can see the childs head is totaly blocking the riders veiw
Samnooshka
17-10-07, 02:27 PM
YES!! ****!!!
jans1971
17-10-07, 02:29 PM
is this for real , no one can be that much of a moron. give the photo to the police , he gives all bikers a bad name
YES!! ****!!!
Good grief, the language out of that girls mouth ;) totally agree though
WOW ...... that is fairly irresponsible.
Although probably no different to a tank bag for him, if he had to brake hard the kid would be dead.
I would be extremely tempted to hand the photo to the police and DSA/DVLA whoever has more powers to take action.
Infact I would go as far as to urge your mate to do so.
EDIT: Rubbish protective equipment on the kid, Stupid pornstar tash and chicken 2" chicken strips WTF. Shouts german tourer to me but its an english FZ600
Total muppet, banned and made to shave off that awful 'tache...
. give the photo to the police ,
I would be extremely tempted to hand the photo to the police and DSA/DVLA whoever has more powers to take action.
Infact I would go as far as to urge your mate to do so.
he has done
Samnooshka
17-10-07, 02:33 PM
Good grief, the language out of that girls mouth ;) totally agree though
:p i couldn't think of anything more appropriate to call him to be honest :p
STRAMASHER
17-10-07, 02:34 PM
Love it! =D>
:p i couldn't think of anything more appropriate to call him to be honest :p
I think you got it spot on =D>
he has done
Ahh good stuff, would be good to hear if it was followed up, but I guess they will never let your mate know.
ClemsonSV
17-10-07, 02:36 PM
WOW ...... that is fairly irresponsible.
Although probably no different to a tank bag for him, if he had to brake hard the kid would be dead.
I would be extremely tempted to hand the photo to the police and DSA/DVLA whoever has more powers to take action.
Infact I would go as far as to urge your mate to do so.
EDIT: Rubbish protective equipment on the kid, Stupid pornstar tash and chicken 2" chicken strips WTF. Shouts german tourer to me but its an english FZ600
Yeah...and how does he turn???
I don't think he should be banned, but he is a moron, and needs a good talking to. After all your only meant to take a pillion if they are able to hold themself on unaided and touch the foot pegs. Hows the nipper going to do that.
Has he been watchin' to much T2... with John Connor on the Harley with Arnie.
the white rabbit
17-10-07, 02:47 PM
and made to shave off that awful 'tache...
Or at least grow it into a Zapata.
PS- I think that warrants police action.
Warthog
17-10-07, 02:50 PM
Ridiculous, that kid is in severe danger, an kind of breaking or turning and he's toast. If it is MR Tache's own kid, then thats evolution about to be played out for you.
Pedrosa
17-10-07, 02:50 PM
Calm down boys and girls, they aint going too far as the kid has just turned the ignition off.:rolleyes:
Ceri JC
17-10-07, 03:36 PM
I would have followed him and given him a talking to at lights/when he stopped. If he lacked contrition/had a go at me, I'd notify the police.
gettin2dizzy
17-10-07, 03:40 PM
Is that the moral highground I can see? :-dd
Bluepete
17-10-07, 03:44 PM
Yes, without a shadow of a doubt, this imbecile should be dealt with at court for dangerous driving. I would in an instant and would ensure a disqualification.
Warthog
17-10-07, 03:46 PM
Maybe its just a fancy tank bag?
Flamin_Squirrel
17-10-07, 03:51 PM
He who is without sin, cast the first somethingorother...
the white rabbit
17-10-07, 03:54 PM
There's fairly stupid and very stupid.
DanAbnormal
17-10-07, 04:40 PM
Why doesn't someone send this into a Biking magazing?
Probably got more chance of him seeing his own foolishness that way and perhaps he might even think twice about doing it again.
the white rabbit
17-10-07, 04:41 PM
Why doesn't someone send this into a Biking magazing?
Probably got more chance of him seeing his own foolishness that way and perhaps he might even think twice about doing it again.
Thats a sensible idea. MCN would love it =D>
yorkie_chris
17-10-07, 04:46 PM
He who is without sin, cast the first somethingorother...
Quite different, I admit I do some fairly daft things and probably would have been repeatedly banned by now if it was all shown to a court.
But if I want to be an eejit and park my head through a wall then thats my right and my life.
This guy with the nipper on the front needs a smack, and a shave.
Alpinestarhero
17-10-07, 04:47 PM
Was it a gentle little bimble just down the road and back?
Anyway, it is really stupid IMO. I used to sit on the tank of my dads bike while he rode it into the garage, but that was less than 10 meters
Matt
I always used to sit up the front when riding around with my old man. Granted this was only around the farm - but it did feel a whole lot safer than holding on at the back. At least when the power was going on I wasnt bouncing off the back which did happen when my dad had both me and my brother on the bike - one up front and one at the back.
So although I dont agree with his decision to ride like that I reckon that young kid is probably safer on the front than on the back. Points for what looks like a proper size helmet, boots and jacket too.
-Ralph-
17-10-07, 05:34 PM
Maybe its just a fancy tank bag?
Well it's not long 'til Guy Fawkes night right enough!
The guys a:toss:.
It's a chat from social services that he needs, not just the police. Britney Spears drives a car with her kid on her knee and is deemed an unfit mother in court as a result.
Flamin_Squirrel
17-10-07, 05:59 PM
Quite different, I admit I do some fairly daft things and probably would have been repeatedly banned by now if it was all shown to a court.
But if I want to be an eejit and park my head through a wall then thats my right and my life.
This guy with the nipper on the front needs a smack, and a shave.
That's your view. Perhaps, seeing as noone here has any connection with the kid, that people should mind their own business?
Bluepete
17-10-07, 06:06 PM
That's your view. Perhaps, seeing as noone here has any connection with the kid, that people should mind their own business?
No, absoutley not. That is what society is for, to watch out for those who cannot do so themselves.
The man is putting a child who is not in any position to make informed choices about safety himself in a very dangerous position. Therefore it is up to us as reasonable members of society to comment and do whatever we see fit to protect that child.
I am happy to stick my neck out and do something about things like this. It kind of goes with the job.
If you are happy to "live and let live" then so be it. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but should expect it to be questioned and opposed.
That's your view. Perhaps, seeing as noone here has any connection with the kid, that people should mind their own business?
I personally believe that there is always a line beyond which I would take action. I'd like to believe that everyone has a certain point at which, when confonted with something blatantly out of order, they would do their best to stop it.
For me, this is one of those cases. What he is doing is putting his (hopefully his) child in needless danger, above and beyond the "normal" dangers of being out on a motorbike. He has limited his view of the road ahead, and put the child in an insecure location, that would limit the riders ability to deal with any danger/events.
F_S, I'm not sure what stage you'd step in, but I'm not sure that just because we have no connection with the kid, that should neccesarily mind our own business in all cases. That point of view could be taken to a logical extreme.
Nostrils
17-10-07, 07:14 PM
That bloke is a prize T W A T!
That's your view. Perhaps, seeing as noone here has any connection with the kid, that people should mind their own business?
SOD THAT, it's mob rule. Lets find him and stone him to death:rant:
Bluepete
17-10-07, 07:34 PM
'Cos he said "Jehovah"
21QUEST
17-10-07, 07:42 PM
He who is without sin, cast the first somethingorother...
+1
Too many people don't mind there own fecking business when they should and the times they shouldn't, they do .
Get off your high horses.
Ben
Was it a gentle little bimble just down the road and back?
That roundabout can never be bimbled, its a five ways job.
Bluepete
17-10-07, 07:50 PM
The parapet is notoriously difficult to stick your head above.
Welsh_Wizard
17-10-07, 07:54 PM
OH MY GOD !!!!!
I KNOW THIS GUY !!!
I absolutely promise you 110% I know this guy..
He was being trained by the same guys who were putting me through my test.
He failed his fourth attempt whilst I was sitting my 1st attempt.
He had a full Frank Thomas outfit on didn't he? With proper blue motorcycle boots, don't think they are Sidi, but they look similar!
That is the maddest thing I have ever seen, thought i was in flamin' parallel universe when the picture loaded. I'll be printing this off and showing the trainers tomorrow hahaha.. unbelievable !! :D
21QUEST
17-10-07, 08:06 PM
The parapet is notoriously difficult to stick your head above.
I agree......Even though I walk through the valley of death, with deaths shadow never far from me, I shall fear no evil.......... :rolleyes: ;)
Ben
Bluepete
17-10-07, 08:11 PM
Touche!
Pussycat
21QUEST
17-10-07, 08:14 PM
Touche!
Pussycat
Miaow!!!! ;)
Ben
Warthog
17-10-07, 08:28 PM
+1
Too many people don't mind there own fecking business when they should and the times they shouldn't, they do .
Get off your high horses.
Ben
Possibly an accurate statement if the issue was a man doing 40 in a 30 mph zone, but this is plain dangerous. Fair point, I don't know the kid, so I don't really care, but I do feel totally entitled to say that it is a frighteningly dangerous practice!
21QUEST
17-10-07, 08:57 PM
Possibly an accurate statement if the issue was a man doing 40 in a 30 mph zone, but this is plain dangerous. Fair point, I don't know the kid, so I don't really care, but I do feel totally entitled to say that it is a frighteningly dangerous practice!
I understand what you saying Warthog even though I do see my initial statement as universally true, within the society we live in.....too many Hi-Tech warriors with short memories.....and they make me laugh :smt091
Only an idiot will deny that the guy was a prize bellend so I'm not saying he wasn't.
Ben
ps: Perhaps the baying Mob, calling for a ban etc could enlighten me on exactly what good they hope to achieve with a ban ;)
therealvw
17-10-07, 09:01 PM
Bit bloomin' silly. Do you think the kids MUM knows he does that!?
dizzyblonde
17-10-07, 09:14 PM
being a biker and a mum I would say that this bloke is a complete and utter
t i t. i wouldn't even put my son that appears to be of same age anywhere near the pillion seat never mind on the tank.
Bluepete
17-10-07, 09:15 PM
ps: Perhaps the baying Mob, calling for a ban etc could enlighten me on exactly what good they hope to achieve with a ban ;)
Er, perhaps to stop him doing it again for at least 12 months?
Warthog
17-10-07, 09:22 PM
ps: Perhaps the baying Mob, calling for a ban etc could enlighten me on exactly what good they hope to achieve with a ban ;)
Perhaps its unfairness? Seeing as when I first got my license I could have lost it for the cheap price of two 36's in a 30 mph zone, yet complete lapses of sense like this go around unpunished. One kind of wants a punishment that measures up to the dangerousness. A ban would certainly stop him endangering his kid's life like that.
I think the other thing here is that you do hear too many "baying mobs" calling for bans. Ban guns, ban motorbikes, ban smoking etc, it has given banning a bad name. In this case it should be purely stopping him from carrying on like that: if you can't ride a motorbike properly, you shouldn't be allowed to ride one full stop.
But as an aside, it is only his own kid he is endangering, so I still don't mind, if he wants to take his genes out of the gene pool fine by me. I just hope other people don't have to watch the event.
Flamin_Squirrel
17-10-07, 09:52 PM
Lets put this into perspective. We're living in a society where people wont think for a second before thinking it's their damn right to impose their morality on others in order to 'save lives', but will think twice about helping someone lying in need in the street if it'll make them late for work.
Get on your soap box about having some git called Brown nicking your life savings. Get angry about thousands dying every year because despite a trebling of the NHS budget to a whopping £100bn, no-one seems to manage to find the money for disinfectant.
Don't get angry about this, it's pointless, none of your business and above all hypocritical.
Bluepete
17-10-07, 10:01 PM
Lets put this into perspective. We're living in a society where people wont think for a second before thinking it's their damn right to impose their morality on others in order to 'save lives', but will think twice about helping someone lying in need in the street if it'll make them late for work.
It's my damn right to impose the LAW.
This is a blatant case of dangerous driving. I CAN and WILL impose my morality on this man. I WILL and DO stop and assist people in need.
Now come back with a response that shows you have a spine.
Not sure he should be banned from driving. But he should be banned from being anywhere near children. If you know him contact social services and ask to speak to somebody from child protection. Just my opinion.
Flamin_Squirrel
18-10-07, 06:41 AM
It's my damn right to impose the LAW.
This is a blatant case of dangerous driving. I CAN and WILL impose my morality on this man. I WILL and DO stop and assist people in need.
Now come back with a response that shows you have a spine.
I'd be interested to hear you explain how not wanting to live in a police state patrolled by arrogant officers like you makes me spineless.
Ceri JC
18-10-07, 08:17 AM
He failed his fourth attempt whilst I was sitting my 1st attempt.
If this is the same chap as Welsh_Wizard says, he is:
a) A new rider, not particularly experienced. Almost certainly not used to taking pillions.
b) Not very good. Arguably, he "got lucky" and passed his test the 5th time. In certain countries you fail 3 times, there is the possibility of being deemed unfit to drive. Whilst I'd not say that's necessarily a perfect system, someone failing any sort of vehicle driving proficienty test three times (never mind 4 as in this guy's case) casts serious doubts on their abilities to ride a bike at all, never mind with a kid perched on the tank.
In light of this, does this change the mind of anyone who thinks it's fine for matey boy to endanger the kid?
My general view is that people stick their noses in where they shouldn't. I'm not some interfereing do-gooder. The thing that I don't like about this is the risk he's putting the kid at. If he was standing up on the tank himself and the kid wasn't on the bike, I couldn't give two hoots.
Its quite clear that what this guy has done is remarkably stupid, and perhaps he should be banned as if he is doing stuff like this then surely he'll be doing other stuff equally stupid, like that Police, Camera, Action episode with the scotter guy carrying a 10ft plank sideways on the back. If I had seen him then yes I would have shopped him immediately, just like I would (and have done) with other unsafe road users and drink-drivers.
And FS, surely you must appreciate that some people do help those lying on the side of the road. In fact I recall a thread sometime ago by Melody where her colleagues would actually avoid going near accidents incase they needed to help, and they were in the health industry:mad: In some parts FS you are totally right, there are lots of people that are too self involved in their little lives to give a monkeys for others, but equally there are others who will intervene even if it isn't there business - IMO thats what makes society a little brighter to live in. And as for Mr Brown, I'm sure I'll be letting him know how I feel when it comes to the next election.
gettin2dizzy
18-10-07, 08:55 AM
He's an idiot, that's clear. But taking pictures and reporting to the police?! Feeling like a royal **** on reflection sometimes is all we need. We all do things that can be frowned upon on the basis that 'I' will be extra careful, its only once, I'm a law obiding citizen...
-Ralph-
18-10-07, 09:48 AM
but will think twice about helping someone lying in need in the street if it'll make them late for work.
Quite true, I once watched a woman fall head over heels on a tube platform about 50 yards in front of me (can't remember which station but it was a curved platform where they shout about the gap between train and platform over the tannoy, this is how I could see something happen 50 yards in front of me). She had obviously hurt herself or was too shocked to get up. Contents of handbag everywhere and one shoe lost down the pit where the train tracks are. I then watched in disbelief as 50 yards worth of London commuters looked down and walked straight past her, must have been 100 folk. As I got within 15 yards I realised that I was going to be the first person to stop and pick her up.
But I did pick her up, and the contents of her handbag, nothing I could do about the shoe, so you can't make the above generalisation about everyone on this thread who has an opinion on this idiot and his kid, if these folk feel angered by it as upstanding members of the community, that is absolutely fine by me.
If more folk stood up and interfered against the wrongdoing of others, instead of turning a blind eye and walking past, less old grannies would be getting mugged in broad daylight, 'cos the thug who did it would be more worried about some fitter more able person trying to intervene.
my mate took this piccy, its on a fairly busy roundabout (ceder tree roundabout in caerphilly)
what an idiot, should he be banned?
http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k295/hovi5/aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.jpg
as you can see the childs head is totaly blocking the riders veiw
either the helmet is too big or the kid carnt even lift his head makes us all look like d!ckheads dont know if he should be banned but the kid should be given a new family, i dont know one intelligent person with a Boxer flip lid
muffles
18-10-07, 11:28 AM
I think there's a fine line between doing the right thing and poking your nose in other people's business, but I have to say I think (from the evidence) the guy has crossed it. This is purely because it is a child, i.e. someone who isn't able to (or the law deems not able to - let's assume that's reasonable for this discussion) decide for himself if it's safe, etc. If it was another guy on the front I wouldn't care.
the white rabbit
18-10-07, 12:10 PM
I think there's a fine line between doing the right thing and poking your nose in other people's business, but I have to say I think (from the evidence) the guy has crossed it. This is purely because it is a child, i.e. someone who isn't able to (or the law deems not able to - let's assume that's reasonable for this discussion) decide for himself if it's safe, etc. If it was another guy on the front I wouldn't care.
Well put.
Welsh_Wizard
18-10-07, 12:13 PM
everytime i look at this picture i just can't believe that i actually met this complete fool hahaha.
going to print it off and send it to the motorcycle school guys. probably not the best advert for them but it will be worth it just to see their face.
unbelievable
fizzwheel
18-10-07, 12:13 PM
I dont know if Id say anything, but BluePete being a traffic officer IMHO is well within his rights to pull that person over and have a word or take further action.
Surely common sense tells you that if the pilion seat is there then thats a more suitable place to sit your child rather than the fuel tank. Perhaps the child is sat on the tank because he's to short to reach the pillion pegs ? Or he wont sit still or do as he's told, which IMHO means he's to young to be out on that bike with his dad.
gettin2dizzy
18-10-07, 12:45 PM
Is it not just a novelty tankbag?
Definitely an idiot, just look as those chicken strips and as for that far out helmet...:rolleyes: And apart from that the kid will ruin the paint work
Flamin_Squirrel
18-10-07, 01:10 PM
I think there's a fine line between doing the right thing and poking your nose in other people's business, but I have to say I think (from the evidence) the guy has crossed it. This is purely because it is a child, i.e. someone who isn't able to (or the law deems not able to - let's assume that's reasonable for this discussion) decide for himself if it's safe, etc. If it was another guy on the front I wouldn't care.
The child already has someone to decide what's safe - his (I presume) father. Most people would argue that his father's seriously lacking common sense, and probably rightly so. But if anyone thinks that the government holds the monopoly on common sense then you're naive, and if you think that they know anything about caring for kids, given their record, then you're quite mad.
The child already has someone to decide what's safe - his (I presume) father. Most people would argue that his father's seriously lacking common sense, and probably rightly so. But if anyone thinks that the government holds the monopoly on common sense then you're naive, and if you think that they know anything about caring for kids, given their record, then you're quite mad.
Not sure where the Govt crops up here except that they are often instrumental in making law but I think the majority of level headed people would say that this action is both dangerous and stupid and has little regard for safety of the kid or other road users. After all Hovis's mate could have fallen off his bike taking this picture as he took the outside line to get a better shot ;)
After all Hovis's mate could have fallen off his bike taking this picture as he took the outside line to get a better shot ;)
I actually thought he was driving a bus full of school kids at the time;)
I actually thought he was driving a bus full of school kids at the time;)
And all the kids were taking there pet puppies and kittens to school for show and tell O:)
Sid Squid
18-10-07, 06:22 PM
FWIW: Chap in picture = knob.
But the reason this is now a narky thread is simply because there is a child involved, stop emoting people and start thinking instead.
However alighting on this is, for me, impossible without comment. Note this has nothing to do with anyone's opinion on the above matter.
It's my damn right to impose the LAW.
It most emphatically is not, it is your job as a functionary to ADMINISTER the law according to your legally granted powers, the decision as to whether you might have been right to do so or not is fortunately not yours, it's to be decided upon by a magistrate or court.
I CAN and WILL impose my morality on this man.
Which would be an horrific abuse of your position. You're employed to administer the law, not your feelings on the subject.
Now come back with a response that shows you have a spine.
Rude, no better no worse, no argument no excuse. Don't have a reasoned reply? - don't reply.
-Ralph-
18-10-07, 08:55 PM
But the reason this is now a narky thread is simply because there is a child involved, stop emoting people and start thinking instead.
Yes, it is a bit narky in places due to emotive posts and if it was the guys wife on the tank we'd probably all be falling about laughing, but be careful not to fall into the trap of assuming that because a post is emotive, it hasn't been thought about.
Especially in people that are quite emotional characters, they could step back and think about it for days, and still come up with the same conclusion as that first emotive response. It's not necessarily a blinkered response, it's just that sometimes the head and the heart agree.
Perhaps you are just the type of person who finds it easier to separate your emotions from your grey matter? I don't know you from Adam and its not my place to make any such assumption.
I would imagine however, a lot of folk could read back their posts on here, think about them in a considered manner, and come back saying "I still agree with what I wrote the first time".
Flamin_Squirrel
18-10-07, 09:14 PM
Yes, it is a bit narky in places due to emotive posts, but be careful not to fall into the trap of assuming that because a post is emotive, it hasn't been thought about.
Especially in people that are quite emotional characters, they could step back and think about it for days, and still come up with the same conclusion as that first emotive response. It's not necessarily a blinkered response, it's just that sometimes the head and the heart agree.
Perhaps you are just the type of person who finds it easier to separate your emotions from your grey matter?
I would imagine a lot of folk could read back their posts on here, think about them in a considered manner, and come back saying "I still agree with what I wrote the first time".
Just because someone spends time to think over something doesn't necessarily mean that spent that time reasoning over it.
-Ralph-
18-10-07, 09:37 PM
Just because someone spends time to think over something doesn't necessarily mean that spent that time reasoning over it.
True, but even if they have reasoned over it, doesn't mean they'd arrive at a different conclusion.
toonyank
18-10-07, 10:15 PM
Not just banned but that's child endangerment!
i see this in exactly the same light as kids in cars without seat belts on, the adult should be fined heavily or there vehical taken away
SoulKiss
19-10-07, 08:02 AM
i dont know one intelligent person with a Boxer flip lid
This is of course measured by their inability to work out how to put the chin piece in it proper - ie over the chin - place?
I thought those lids looked soo cool. but to wear one would be as bad as riding a scooter :P
and i was expecting grief over that comment
The thing I find interesting is If that kid was sitting on the back of the bike with his feet on the pegs would it still be seen in the same light and would everyone be upset? Probably not - because the law says and we would think its ok for that kid to sit behind his dad. It cant see it would get the same argument. But I cant see it as being any safer than where he is :confused:
cos.......... the riders vison is blocked, and the bike IMO will be unstable
Luckypants
19-10-07, 09:35 AM
The thing I find interesting is If that kid was sitting on the back of the bike with his feet on the pegs would it still be seen in the same light and would everyone be upset? Probably not - because the law says and we would think its ok for that kid to sit behind his dad. It cant see it would get the same argument. But I cant see it as being any safer than where he is :confused:
Because the riders vision is impaired.
Because the riders arms are unable to move freely onto the controls.
Because the child can interfere with the controls (accidentaly or deliberately).
Because there is no safe place for the child to hold on or place feet.
If this was an adult I would still think the guy a complete knob and in need of prosecution. IMHO that should result in a ban. This is a very stupid thing to be doing on the open road where there are plenty of other dangers to contend with, without adding to them. There is a perfectly good pillion seat on the bike in question, use it.
cos.......... the riders vison is blocked, and the bike IMO will be unstable
Sure I agree with the vision being impared but not blocked. My question was is the kid safer there or on the back? Dads arms are around him. He isnt as likely to fall off from that position (subject to dad not crashing). I just see a dad that made a decision to put his kid up the front rather than on the back because he thought that this position was safer for him. I dont think you can say he doesnt care about his kid.
ArtyLady
19-10-07, 11:09 AM
I dont think the kid should be be on the bike at all - his feet obviously wouldnt touch the pegs/not old enough to hold on properly - so presumably therefore the guy made the amazingly idiotic decision by putting on the tank!!
absolute :toss: IMO!
Sure I agree with the vision being impared but not blocked. My question was is the kid safer there or on the back? Dads arms are around him. He isnt as likely to fall off from that position (subject to dad not crashing). I just see a dad that made a decision to put his kid up the front rather than on the back because he thought that this position was safer for him. I dont think you can say he doesnt care about his kid.
i would recon theres a good chance the kid would be over the bars if he broke quickish, would make a nice soft airbag though
Warthog
19-10-07, 11:46 AM
It doesn't make the slightest bit of difference if he is between his Dad's arms!! Consider he has to brake suddenly, is the dad really going to be able to grab hold of the kid aswell?!
not a chance he'll be too busy pushing the bars otherwise the'l both be off
Warthog
19-10-07, 11:58 AM
not a chance he'll be too busy pushing the bars otherwise the'l both be off
Exactly. Unless he is a Hindu deity, they are f***ed :smt045
It doesn't make the slightest bit of difference if he is between his Dad's arms!! Consider he has to brake suddenly, is the dad really going to be able to grab hold of the kid aswell?!
Sure I understand about braking suddenly and I must point out I also think the guy is totally in the wrong as the kid is clearly to young. But is it safer to be on the front or back at that age - even if he could touch the pegs?
Consider you had to carry a young kid on the bike around a carpark for example - where would you put it? front or back? What is more likely the kid falling off going around a corner or from you braking suddenly?
Bluepete
19-10-07, 12:21 PM
See rule 85,
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_069854
ArtyLady
19-10-07, 12:45 PM
He's in the UK on notoriously busy roads, not a dirt track in some remote part of the world - Kiddy is even more at risk because the rider cannot possibly see where he is going!
Also I dont think it makes any difference whether the kiddy is in his arms or on on his bloomin head - he is too small to be on the bike - he cant see and has not got proper control -therefore putting his kid/himself/other road users at great risk...If he knocked me off and said "sorry I couldnt see cos I had my kid on the tank" I'd be extremely miffed (assuming I survived!)
I just hope for everybody's sake the police stop him and put him straight at the very least!
It's my damn right to impose the LAW.
This is a blatant case of dangerous driving. I CAN and WILL impose my morality on this man. I WILL and DO stop and assist people in need.
Now come back with a response that shows you have a spine.
Preach the word, brother! :rambo:
I say forward it to CPS; that guy's unfit to be a father.
muffles
19-10-07, 02:10 PM
The child already has someone to decide what's safe - his (I presume) father. Most people would argue that his father's seriously lacking common sense, and probably rightly so. But if anyone thinks that the government holds the monopoly on common sense then you're naive, and if you think that they know anything about caring for kids, given their record, then you're quite mad.
I see what you're saying about his father being the person of responsibility - and it's true, in law, too. The thing is - for me at least - that the responsibility the father has is not for him to decide whatever he wants (there do seem to be hints at that in this thread).
We all live in a society with other people, so we choose to follow the majority decisions regardless of what we believe individually. Although of course it's not been proven...I'd suggest that the majority view is that the father isn't acting responsibly (as you mention, most would argue he's lacking common sense).
I think that actually agrees with what you said! I just wanted to mention the bit about his father, although having responsibility, doesn't have the right to do whatever he wants...and that's why I think the guy's crossed the line - because the majority would say it's not responsible.
P.s. don't know anything about the government's common sense or policies caring for children :)
maybe he just doesn't like the boy?
I see what you're saying about his father being the person of responsibility - and it's true, in law, too. The thing is - for me at least - that the responsibility the father has is not for him to decide whatever he wants (there do seem to be hints at that in this thread).
We all live in a society with other people, so we choose to follow the majority decisions regardless of what we believe individually. Although of course it's not been proven...I'd suggest that the majority view is that the father isn't acting responsibly (as you mention, most would argue he's lacking common sense).
I think that actually agrees with what you said! I just wanted to mention the bit about his father, although having responsibility, doesn't have the right to do whatever he wants...and that's why I think the guy's crossed the line - because the majority would say it's not responsible.
P.s. don't know anything about the government's common sense or policies caring for children :)
It sounds like you're arguing the semantics of a situation that is not deep enough to require it. We assume that the man is the Guardian of the child until he reaches majority, as the child does not understand the concept of consequence at that age. To him, it is a fun ride with his daddy on his big fast motorcycle, not a life-endangering, wreckless display of idiocy on his father's part.
I say again, hand the photo to Child Protection Services. That child, at least at that time, was in mortal danger. Who's to say this isn't a regular occurance?
trickywoos
19-10-07, 02:45 PM
YES!! ****!!!
Ditto.
What an irresponsible ****.
Biker Biggles
19-10-07, 02:57 PM
I reckon you've all been had.Ten pages of indignation,but its not a real kid,its a dummy.Look at the cheezy expression on the rider's face,as he laughs at all the reaction he is about to get.When I was a kid we used to make more realistic dummies than that for Guy Fawkes night.;)
muffles
19-10-07, 03:00 PM
It sounds like you're arguing the semantics of a situation that is not deep enough to require it. We assume that the man is the Guardian of the child until he reaches majority, as the child does not understand the concept of consequence at that age. To him, it is a fun ride with his daddy on his big fast motorcycle, not a life-endangering, wreckless display of idiocy on his father's part.
I say again, hand the photo to Child Protection Services. That child, at least at that time, was in mortal danger. Who's to say this isn't a regular occurance?
Lol, I can't work out if you agree or not...maybe I'm going into it too much but I didn't think I was, because it involves the life of a child. I would say that that's the majority view, etc, etc, but I think you'd say I was going to much into it again ;)
P.s. Wasn't sure what you meant when you said the child didn't know any better (he thought it was a 'fun ride'). Surely that's the reason behind requiring his guardian to act responsibly?
Is it ok for me to carry my dog in the same way?He sure makes the car smell on the way back from the beach
Is it ok for me to carry my dog in the same way?He sure makes the car smell on the way back from the beach
depends? is it a st. bernad?
Warthog
20-10-07, 08:34 AM
maybe he just doesn't like the boy?
Is it a boy? You can't tell. Maybe it's Madeleine McCann :lol:
ASM-Forever
20-10-07, 12:02 PM
Is it a boy? You can't tell. Maybe it's Madeleine McCann :lol:
LMAO.
(Although i'm sure we'll be condemned)
Totally worth it.
Warthog
20-10-07, 12:35 PM
LMAO.
(Although i'm sure we'll be condemned)
Totally worth it.
I was debating for a couple of pages worth with it, but I thought to hell with it hehehe
Flamin_Squirrel
21-10-07, 03:52 PM
We all live in a society with other people, so we choose to follow the majority decisions regardless of what we believe individually. Although of course it's not been proven...I'd suggest that the majority view is that the father isn't acting responsibly (as you mention, most would argue he's lacking common sense).
Thankfully, we DON'T live in a society where legal decisions are made by the majority. If we did, we'd still have witch hunts.
vBulletin® , Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.