MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
Yes - but all your argument is based around very unlikely scenarios.
You might get hit by a meteorite you know.
Not when it's below the windscreen of a truck or pickup though - this is my main concern.
But it isn't. The bright red flag is taller than you on the bike. And assuming your trailer doesn't tow itself, you are still there, so you are exactly as tall as you are on a bike.
And as an experienced cyclist you must be aware that some drivers do not see you. I suspect that this is SOMEWHAT more likely with a trailer,
You are just a way larger and more visible object which is wider, taller and brighter than a bike on its own, there is no way that this makes it less likely for you to be spotted by drivers. After a few hundred miles of trailer riding on the road I'm pretty certain I'm right too.
Damo - rates per mile is around 12 times higher.
that is not the same as
which is clearly nonsense. FAr more children die in cars than on bikes50 times more child cyclist deaths than there are deaths to child car occupants?
cycling is not a dangerous sport and the stats back that up.
Really? Try telling that to Wouter Weylandt's family, team-mates and friends.
Sorry TJ, I normally see sense in the majority of your posts, but I'm struggling with you on this one. Frankly I don't care what the stats say. Even if they said NO ONE has EVER hurt or killed themselves on a cycle, I would take one look at a busy main road with fools hammering along in their metal boxes at 80mph and decide not to take my kids on it on my bike.
I don't think the flag is enough, personally. Maybe I am being over cautious. But it's the low down position that is the real worry.
Far more kids are in cars than in trailers so the deaths are skewed by that.
If something is lower down it's less likely to be seen/noticed then something at eye level.
Whether scenarios are unlikely or not they can still be entered into risk assessments. For some people even a 1% chance of something happening is too high of a risk; but for others they do not see that as something to be considered.
Everyone's experiences are different; they have lived different lives thus come to different conclusions about what is important to them.
We are not all driving/riding the exact same roads as such we are all making judgements according to our individual circumstances.
We are not all driving/riding the exact same roads as such we are all making judgements according to our individual circumstances
+1
still tortoise - everything has risk. Hundreds of people a year die in cars, dozens on bikes. Bikes are not inherently unsafe. One of the ways of seeing this is that cyclists on average live longer than car divers because the health benefits of cycling increase average lifespans more than the risk decrese tham.
Of course people get killed doing allsorts of things but compared to say hillwalking or horse riding cycling is safer.
There are far fewer cycling casualties that you would think from the hysteria.
Some discussion here
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1026.html
Risk relative to cycling based on fatality rates per participant (UK)
Relative risk per participant
Less safe Airsports 450
Climbing 137
Motor sports 81
Fishing 41
Horse riding 29
Swimming 7.0
Athletics 5.7
Football 4.9
Tennis 4.2
Cycling 1.0
Safer Golf 0.83
Rambling 0.06
Figures relate to 1986 and are derived from OPAS Monitors from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, UK.
The number of fatalities are taken from Coroner's Court records and information on participation rates from the General Household Survey.
Thanks Mrsgrips, much more succinct than what I said 🙂
TJ - you are funny, I give you referenced information and you dismiss and quote something else without a reference.
Here is the abstract verbatim.
Results
Death rates per head of population have declined for
child pedestrians, cyclists and car occupants but pedestrian
death rates remain higher (0.55 deaths/100 000 children; 95%
con?dence interval [CI] 0.42 to 0.72 deaths) than those for car
occupants (0.34 deaths; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.48 deaths) and
cyclists (0.16 deaths; 95% CI 0.09 to 0.27 deaths). Since 1985,
the average distance children travelled as a car occupant has
increased by 70%; the average distance walked has declined by
19%; and the average distance cycled has declined by 58%.
Taking into account distance travelled, [b]there are about 50 times
more child cyclist deaths[/b] (0.55 deaths/10 million passenger
miles; 0.32 to 0.89) and nearly 30 times more child pedestrian
deaths (0.27 deaths; 0.20 to 0.35) [b]than there are deaths to child
car occupants[/b] (0.01 deaths; 0.007 to 0.014). In 2003, children
from families without access to a vehicle walked twice the
distance walked by children in families with access to two or
more vehicles.
Being a child on a bike is more dangerous than being a child in a car.
I'm not convinced that is right. Something wider is much easier to see than something narrow, something out of the ordinary (and bright green and covered in reflective gubbins) is much easier to see than something normal like a bike, plus the bright pink flag at higher than head level probably helps too.
In my experience (hundreds of miles now) of riding on the road with a bike trailer, it is absolutely completely blindingly obvious that you are much more likely to be seen and people will be much more careful around you if you are a bike + child trailer, than if you are just a person on a bike.
Joe
+1
My trailer is the same hight as my saddle. It's not that much wider then a bike taken as a whole it certainly fits through gaps that the bars on my mtb do.
If a driver can't spot the trailer they aren't going to see me that's for sure as my rear silhouette is pretty small.
I have managed to tip mine over once (forgot it was there as I went round a roundabout). The roll cage did it's job along with the seat belts/straps.
TJ, you must have mis-read my last post. The stats mean nothing to me. My judgement comes from my own experience and not a load of numbers cobbled together by a bunch of statisticians with an agenda.
My trailer is the same hight as my saddle.
Mine is much lower down than my brightly/lightly coloured torso. Around car bumper/lorry wheel height.
TJ, you must have mis-read my last post. The stats mean nothing to me. My judgement comes from my own experience and not a load of numbers cobbled together by a bunch of statisticians with an agenda
🙂
It's turtles all the way down!!
Damo - however that is not what you claimed. You claimed
? Clealry that is not true50 times more child cyclist deaths than there are deaths to child car occupants
Several points to consider. That is about child cyclists not experienced adults taking children on bikes. adults are 12 times the risk of death[i] per mile travelled[/i] similar risk per comparable journey per hour
Secondly you have to compare journeys and amount of distance and so on. On comparable journeys the risk differential is les
TJ - hands up, when writing that I should have qualified it was per mile travelled as I'd mentioned in the previous para.
Having said that you really cannot argue now that a mile on a bike is as safe as a mile in a car.
No I wouldn't. However per hour per comparable journey its a very similar level of risk and is a very low level.
IE if you remove motorway journeys the car gets comparatively more risky and in an hour you travel less distance on a bike.
Not much point comparing the two is there? Kids make totally different use of bikes and cars. Apples and Oranges.
If you want to be given a wide berth, trundle around on this:
[url= http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5270/5628986268_62993ee28e.jp g" target="_blank">
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/mike-davis/5628986268/ ]Long vehicle Mk II[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/mike-davis/ ]MikeDavis[/url], on Flickr
Adding the trailer makes cars sufficiently reluctant to pass that a queue sometimes forms.
As for the rest of it, everyone chooses what they're happy with. I think some people are excessively paranoid and some are ludicrously laissez-faire, and I doubt my definitions correspond with everyone else's. A blanket "not on any roads ever" choice seems weird to me, as frankly does having "car" as the default transport option. But again, that's me 🙂
Mike_D - what the hell are you wearing helmets for, do you not know the stats, H&S gone mad.
molgrips - Member
My trailer is the same hight as my saddle.
Mine is much lower down than my brightly/lightly coloured torso. Around car bumper/lorry wheel height.
But you are still there. Is not like you are hiding behind the trailer. You are more visible with it.
Car bumpers are a lot lower then lorry wheel hight.
By the time you can't be seen as it's to low then it's to late any way.
Does this mean that cars like a lotus is dangerous to be in as it's lower than the bottom of the windows on my car.
Love it Mike 🙂
What age did you get the little uns on there?
Does this mean that cars like a lotus is dangerous to be in as it's lower than the bottom of the windows on my car.
They are certainly [i]more[/i] dangerous to be in than a car that sits higher in the road, but now I'm as guilty of going off-topic as some others 😆
[i]Mike_D - what the hell are you wearing helmets for, do you not know the stats, H&S gone mad.[/i]
🙂
[i]What age did you get the little uns on there?[/i]
We've only had it a few months. Stoker's five, front passenger was not quite two but he'd been using that seat for a little while already. And a Hamax seat or trailer before that. We took him out once in his car seat in the trailer at what must have been about four months but it all seemed a bit joggly. He stayed asleep the whole time so it presumably wasn't uncomfortable, but we weren't wildly keen and it was a faff to secure the seat.
The tandem's actually proving rather brilliant for getting them (well, her mainly) used to riding on roads - positioning, looking, signalling and all that. Generally we get three arms going out before a turn 🙂 Also she took to the gears on her new bike immediately, having got the idea from riding the tandem.
[b]We[/b] were fortunately in Canada whilst pregnant
The tandem's actually proving rather brilliant for getting them (well, her mainly) used to riding on roads
Brilliant idea
We were fortunately in Canada whilst pregnant
You know pregnant is a euphemism anyway? So don't get snippy about its usage 🙂
Lethal
[img] 
[/img]
Irresponsible
[img] 
[/img]
certain death
[img] 
[/img]
Call social services
[img] 
[/img]
The child WILL die
[img] 
[/img]
Ok I was bored
deliberate trolling? from uncle teej? i notice you didnt include a picture of my gaffa tape idea.... is this cos you agree with me that statistics prove my idea to be the safest? 
We need some peer review to be sure phil.
Anyone got a child or two spare we can borrow?
Dr J
Given the [b]very[/b] [b]very[/b] long road that [b]we[/b] travelled to get pregnant I feel very strongly about it being [b]we[/b] and not just Mrs B herself that was pregnant.
But hey, thanks for your contribution.
Anyhow, back on track. Mike D, that tandem is outstanding I salute you. I have a vision of something like that coming into [b]our[/b] lives at some point in the future.
If you are really worried about your children dying prematurly get them on a bike ASAP. A doctor in the Irish medical times demonstrated that not cycling would kill you quicker than cycling (even if you cycle without a helmet). Your kids will die of heart disease, bowel cancer or some other disease caused by sitting on your butt all day if they don't get into the habit of riding a bike.
Edukator - indeed its true - cyclist live longer than non cyclists because the increased risk of death from cycling is less than the increased risk of death form inactivity
hah look at those selfish ****s, some people
[i]Brilliant idea[/i]
I wouldn't claim the "road sense" thing as any sort of an idea, it just occurred to me that they were learning something from it. Happy side effect 🙂
Beamers: Do it, they're ace 🙂
cyclist live longer than non cyclists because the increased risk of death from cycling is less than the increased risk of death form inactivity
I'm sure you've rolled this out before and I've resisted the temptation to bite, but I can't resist any more. This is meaningless. Have you paraphrased it and missed something out? What is suggests is that all non-cyclists are inactive, which even you must concede is a ridiculous assumption that makes a mockery of the "conclusion"...
...or is this just a long-standing troll of yours?
No - Its distilled from mortality stats. cyclists live longer than non cyclists. The inference is the protection that cycling gives you from diseases of inactivity is greater than the risks of cycling. Its very simple. It does not suggest what you say at all.
Al the data is out there if you want to see it.
for example
All-Cause Mortality Associated With Physical Activity During Leisure Time, Work, Sports, and Cycling to Work
http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/160/11/1621
Bicycling to work decreased risk of mortality in approximately 40% after multivariate adjustment, including leisure time physical activity.
Conclusions
Leisure time physical activity was inversely associated with all-cause mortality in both men and women in all age groups. Benefit was found from moderate leisure time physical activity, with further benefit from sports activity and bicycling as transportation.
Damo - however that is not what you claimed. You claimed50 times more child cyclist deaths than there are deaths to child car occupants
TJ, surely a bright fella like you would know that this only makes sense when you consider in the terms Damo damonstrated
Your kids will die of heart disease, bowel cancer or some other disease caused by sitting on your butt all day if they don't get into the habit of riding a bike
Jesus. Staying off busy roads when your kids are in a trailer is NOT going to lead to a life of inactivity and premature death.
For Christ's sake people LISTEN TO YOURSELVES! YOU'RE BEING UTTERLY IDIOTIC!
Given the very very long road that we travelled to get pregnant I feel very strongly about it being we and not just Mrs B herself that was pregnant.
Not wishing to belittle in any way your situation (about which I know nothing), but hard work does not change the laws of biology.
Very true. It did at times feel though that some of those laws were conspiring against us.
Whilst I can only guess what multivariate adjustments were used (maybe the study excluded cyclists knocked over in traffic accidents whilst cycling to work!) all that study says to me is that active people live longer than non-active people and active people who cycle to work live longer still. That's still not the same conclusion as this:
the increased risk of death from cycling is less than the increased risk of death form inactivity
If nothing else, this proves that these kind of studies can be ambigious and interpreted different ways depending on one's agenda.
Anyway, now I've been hooked into this tangled web I shall endeavour to extricate myself...
My kids. My choice.
Nice to see we disagree again Molgrips, I was feeling most uncomfortable after agreeing with you on the last thread. So you think I'm an idiot now, I feel much happier.
My son has gone everywhere with me on a bike from three months. He got on a kiddiback tandem at about three, Rode Paris to Berlin and beyond at seven, has ridden his own bike on and off-road supervised from four, an MTB off-road unsupervised from ten, and finally on his own on the road this year at thirteen. Fingers crossed, you can't keep them wrapped up in cotton wool forever.
Edukator do you really think that if you don't take your kids out on bikes when they are babies that will condemn them to a life of inactivity?
And I do not wrap my kid in cotton wool.
For Christ's sake people LISTEN TO YOURSELVES! YOU'RE BEING UTTERLY IDIOTIC!
Indeed. People on here have such a skewed idea of risk that they are denying themselves and their children a safe, pleasant and beneficial activity because of ridiculous fears.
*the sky is falling* Quick run inside!
Still tortoise - that is just one study - there are loads and its is clear that the health benefits of cycling out weight the risks as can be seen by the fact that cyclists live longer than non cyclists.
*the sky is falling* Quick run inside!
helmet or not though TJ? 😉
Indeed. People on here have such a skewed idea of risk that they are denying themselves and their children a safe, pleasant and beneficial activity because of ridiculous fears
No we're not. Exluding busy or dangerous roads doesn't stop us from going out in the trailer at all.
I think parents are an important role model. A child's personality is already forged by six if you believe the psychologists so getting used to and learning to enjoy cycling (or any other activity) should start young.
A kid that's out on skis at two finds being out in extreme conditions quite normal a revels in it. [i]insert stats for children dying in sledging or ski accident shere[/i]
A kid that's been taken swimming from six months takes easily to kayaking, surfing, sailing and was third out of the water in his last triathlon. [i]insert stats for children drowning here[/i]
A kid that's walked up Pyrenean peaks from the age of five considers the mountains his second back garden, and was recently seen climbing of the pebble finished wall of the swimming pool just for the fun of it. [i]insert stats for children killed in falls here[/i]
A kid that's ridden across a mountain range in the pouring rain doesn't think twice about going out and playing in the rain, walking to school in the rain or riding to the pool in the rain. [i]I think we've already done cycle acceident stats to death[/i]
You can bring your kids up operate confidently in a wide variety of conditions or you can transfer all your own fears and limits to them. We'll all be dead one day, better to live a bit even if it slightly increases the risk of dying youger as living a bit usually has the bonus of living healthier longer. I've raced in cars, on bikes, on MMTBs, on skis, done triathons, ski mountaineered, climbed, caved, wind surfed, kayaked ... and I'm still here. If one of those activities finishes me off next time out I'm onto a double win, I enjoyed all that and I won't die with dementure.
People on here have such a skewed idea of risk that they are denying themselves and their children a safe, pleasant and beneficial activity because of ridiculous fears.
Again, a totally different conclusion from what I get from this thread.
People on here have a very good idea of how they give their children access to a safe, pleasant and beneficial activity. Those that don't have that experience to draw on have asked quite reasonable questions to allow them to make those judgements themselves.
Thats not what you said earlier. 🙄
Isn't it? I take my kid out in the trailer - that's why I bought the bloody thing!
You can bring your kids up operate confidently in a wide variety of conditions or you can transfer all your own fears and limits to them
Are you forgetting this is an MTB forum, not a couch potato forum? Most of us have active lifestyles and want to include our kids in them. It's simply a case of risk assessment in one particular situation - that is, trailers on roads.
Thats not what you said earlier
Who, me or edukator?
I was brought up in an environment that gave me access to all manner of outdoor activities. From a young age I have skied, walked, climbed, cycled, canoed, caved (not too many times I might add) etc. I played on assaults courses years before H and S told me I needed to be roped on and wear a helmet. I'd like to give my kids the same opportunities from as young an age as possible. I am not risk-averse.
I'd happily have a trailer on the back of my bike with my kiddies on board and ride down easy trails and quiet roads. I wouldn't take them on a busy main road at rush hour.
Does that compute or is it simply not rational enough?
Molgrips.
Judging by the weights (and blood pressures) declared by contributors on various threads this is most definitely a coach potato forum. How tall are you and what do you weigh Molgrips? I'll then know whether to lump you in with the coach potato majority or add you to the svelt minority.
Ah sorry. Although to be fair to molgrips, at no point do I recall him saying he never took his kids in a bike trailer. I'm not going to re-read this all to find out tho' 😯
Haven't got time to discuss right now, so here's a piccy of me being completely irresponsible (OK so we're on a bike path here, but we used an A road to get there).
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
How tall are you and what do you weigh Molgrips? I'll then know whether to lump you in with the coach potato majority or add you to the svelt minority
How about asking me how much activity I actually do? Or are you joking...?
Shall I stop buy you in France on my way home and kick your arse on a bike? 🙂
Look at that poor mites expression! Call social services now!
Exluding busy or dangerous roads doesn't stop us from going out in the trailer at all.
It does appear to stop you going out on the road at all unless I've misinterpreted you (if so apologies) - I'm certainly getting the impression that you'd consider the riding I do on roads with kids (not on dangerous or busy roads) irresponsible.
Aerobars on a tandem with kiddicranks and a seat. Novel I'll agree, but irresponsible? surely not.
Righty - got a new baby who will be [b]12 weeks old[/b] when we pop off on holiday shortly in a campervan.Is there any safe way of moving around on a bike with a baby that young (thinking lanes etc)
I forgot what this was all about. Here's the OP. I'd post my own pics of my toddlers and small children on bikes if I thought it was relevant 😉
TJ
As usual, you have gone off at the deep end and had more arguements about statistics on here that bear no relation to parenting or the views of parents wishing to balance the protection of their children against the real world.
Your repeated use of the Netherlands as a like-for-like example against the UK for the basis of your point is so flawed as to be ridiculous. Their laws, culture and infrastructure are so different regarding cycling that we could only aspire to what they have to promote safer cycling.
Given the state of our roads and the general distain many motorists have for cyclists, it is not a risk most parents are prepared to take and just use a bike all the time. Your statistics mean nothing to a parent who wants to protect their dearest from the actions of others.
Kick my arse on a bike? You can try. Six people did a faster bike split than me in the triathon I did on Sunday so you might.
Edit: seven people
Tootall - and as usual you completely miss the point. Its about the ridiculous overestimation of risk. People in the UK think cycling is a dangerous activity when it is not.
Yes cycling in the netherlands is a bit safer than in the UK. However its not a huge difference. (IIRC around 60% of the death rate per mile) The main difference is that the parents there have a much more reasonable attitude to cycling and risk assessment.
No matter what the accident rate if it was unsafe to use a papoose in the UK on a bike it would also be unsafe in the Netherlands. Things such as that the people in the UK will tell you are totally dangerous and unsafe are routine in the netherlands. are you saying dutch kids have stronger necks? Stronger skulls? There is no epidemic of damaged children in the netherlands. My two nephews were not damaged by being on a bike daily froma few weeks old. In inner city Amsterdam which will be no safer than rural UK
People here are saying a child must never go anywhere near a bike until a year old as their little bodies cannot cope. Well the dutch expoerience shows that to be baloney.
I took dab_jnr around Tesco in a papoose at a few weeks old. Pushing a shopping trolley didn't feel entirely safe to me. It could have been the risk of a display of beans collapsing and hitting him on the head, and I was very aware that most people weren't looking where they were going and I was worried that they might crash into me. Young babies do enhance parents protective instincts, some more than others...
I'm certainly getting the impression that you'd consider the riding I do on roads with kids (not on dangerous or busy roads) irresponsible.
I dunno, I haven't seen the roads. I don't often go to the shops with the trailer, for a few reasons - our main shop is only a 10 minute walk so it's hardly worth it, and the other one has a great many steps and gates and is still only a couple of minutes further on foot. We do tend to go to a nice suburb for drinks and some shopping but the roads are pretty cramped and tight, and Mrs Grips hasn't really been up for it since we had the kid - some health issues. And there's no point going on my own 🙂
People here are saying a child must never go anywhere near a bike until a year old as their little bodies cannot cope.
Most of us aren't. Most are saying to take precautions.
The main difference is that the parents there have a much more reasonable attitude to cycling and risk assessment
Inflammatory language and generalisiation.
(I've resorted to pointing out where you're failing as a debater rather than getting involved 🙂 )
Six people did a faster bike split than me in the triathon I did on Sunday so you might
Yeah.. I might.. 😉
The London Olympics MTB course has been closed to the public for safety reasons. My local Olympic standard BMX track is open to all, obviously it's not in the UK.
TJ what people are saying is that they have made the risk assessments they have because of the roads they personally ride on. For some people riding with a carrier is acceptable because the roads they are on and their confidence in their bike handling skills are such that they feel safe. For other people they have determined that in their area it is far better to ride with a trailer. Either that trailer is with car seat or with a sling or some such seat for the child.
Some people have determined that having their child in a bike seat on the front or back of their bike is a safe position.
No one has said I will never take my child out on a bike. No one has said I discourage all bike riding by children and everyone should always go in cars.
What people have said (or implied) is that in the circumstances I am in, with my child, with my skills, with my social pressures to deal, with the money at my disposal to buy equipment, I have made the decision which I deem best for everyone involved.
It is lovely to bring up and point out that in other cultures they do things differently, however, other cultures have a number of factors which create the ideal 'grass is greener' situation. And not all those things are obvious to the naked eye. For instance, many of those bikes I've seen posted are not available as far as I'm aware in the UK. This could possibly? factor into things?
People in the UK think cycling is a dangerous activity when it is not
What people? Where are the stats? Etc. None of the parents on here think that.
Where are the stats to say that Dutch kids live as long as they would had they not been on a bike from a few weeks old? 🙄My two nephews were not damaged by being on a bike daily froma few weeks old.
You've touched a nerve and you know it. I have hopefully demonstrated that I am prepared to partake in what others might call risky activities with my kids, yet I find myself wanting to wrap them in cotton wool so I can be as far removed from your reasoning as possible.
What people?
Some bloke up there said:
"cycling is not a dangerous sport and the stats back that up."
Really? Try telling that to Wouter Weylandt's family, team-mates and friends.
HTH
All of those bikes can be ordered online and deliverd to the UK Mrs Grips.
MRS Grips - My point is that the view of risk exhibited on here is a long way from what the reality is. Things people claim are too risky ever to do in the UK are routine in other countries. The other countries do not have epidemics of damaged babies.
The papoose one is an excellent example. All those folk on here saying it stupid to ever do this in any circumstances when its routine in the Netherlands. Thats nothing to do with the accident rate - its to do with the peception of risk.
I know somebody who has a bakfiets (not what I'd choose, but it suits him).
The papoose one is an excellent example. All those folk on here saying it stupid to ever do this in any circumstances when its routine in the Netherlands. Thats nothing to do with the accident rate - its to do with the peception of risk.
Personally I'm suggesting it's stupid to do it in the circumstances people on here are considering doing it - which are considerably different to those in the NL. You'll note I'm otherwise in favour of kids on bikes 😉
aye Edukator but they're not readily available...people cannot go to the store and look at them and determine if 'that's the bike for me'
If something is not around the corner the average person is not going to search it out, it's too difficult and the decision to be made has too many uncertainties.
Open a shop and have them available and start a revolution.
Still going TJ?!
Didn't I show and we agree that there were more child deaths per mile travelled on bikes vs cars? I'm not sure how you then keep going on about peoples skewed views on risk?
Death rates per head of population have declined for
child pedestrians, cyclists and car occupants but pedestrian
death rates remain higher (0.55 deaths/100 000 children; 95%
con?dence interval [CI] 0.42 to 0.72 deaths) than those for car
occupants (0.34 deaths; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.48 deaths) and
cyclists (0.16 deaths; 95% CI 0.09 to 0.27 deaths). Since 1985,
the average distance children travelled as a car occupant has
increased by 70%; the average distance walked has declined by
19%; and the average distance cycled has declined by 58%.
Taking into account distance travelled, there are about 50 times
more child cyclist deaths (0.55 deaths/10 million passenger
miles; 0.32 to 0.89) and nearly 30 times more child pedestrian
deaths (0.27 deaths; 0.20 to 0.35) than there are deaths to child
car occupants (0.01 deaths; 0.007 to 0.014). In 2003, children
from families without access to a vehicle walked twice the
distance walked by children in families with access to two or
more vehicles.
This is a video I shot of my ride home with the trailer.
The camera is mounted just in front of and to the outside of the wheel at axel hight.
I've got a pic of me somewhere with a two-month-old baby in a papoose off-road on my MTB. I'd scan and post it but as I wasn't wearing a helmet at the time I'd be afraid of setting a bad example.