MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
Damo - we are not discussing children RIDING bikes ( which is what your stats are about) - we are discussing adults carrying them on bikes and yes peoples understanding of risk is completely skewed. Risks are low. Very low.
aracer, thanks for that. I will remember the sarcasm smiley next time
I did open a shop Mrs Grips. I sold kiddicranks, kiddiback tandems, tag-alongs, Babysitter seats and kiddi accesories. It was part of another business and I closed the lot when we decided to play more and work less.
TJ it's what you personally believe is far from the reality. There are some when they conceive suddenly become aware of how precious life can be; they end up worrying over downs syndrome and all the diseases and deformities that a baby can get,and even tho the risk in their particular group is low, they still feel the need to get every test available and find out what the risks are to their particular child. Some people just smile and say I'm having a baby what what comes comes and if it has SMA, or polka dots I don't care...
It depends on how life has treated them what culture they are in and what their personal neurotic tendencies may be...
ditto the bike riding/ baby carrying etc...
TJ it's what you personally believe is far from the reality
You appear to be agreeing with us, mrs?
Edukator you didn't stay with it long enough to cause the revolution; what happens in the past can affect the future, or it can simply be a blip in the radar or time
Damo - we are not discussing children RIDING bikes ( which is what your stats are about) - we are discussing adults carrying them on bikes and yes peoples understanding of risk is completely skewed. Risks are low. Very low.
That is true, but it does illustrate how much more likely a child on a bike is to die vs a child in a car.
I'm not sure there is any data re children being carried on bikes, do you have any to support your view? Other than anecdotal etc or your own beliefs.
Thats my point MrsGrips - some peoples assessment of risk is grossly skewed.
Such as the slightly higher risk of an accident here compared to the netherlands makes the difference between something being commonplace there to being stupid if done here.
Its a cultural thing not a rational assessment of risk
it does illustrate how much more likely a child on a bike is to die vs a child in a car.
Do you have any stats for kids being killed whilst driving cars? Otherwise it doesn't illustrate what you think it does at all.
I will remember the sarcasm smiley next time
Which post did you want to add it to - I'm confused as both appear to be serious?
Mind you I don't know why any of us posted after this. All the points have been made by then
mrsgrips - MemberShe's old enough when her mother says she's old enough...and when she's been drilled to be a defensive user of the road like all cyclists should be...
You boys are hilarious. It always breaks down the same way.
Walk away.
It's obvious you're not going to change each others minds and y'all just getting worked up about it... is this some sort of way to replace the physical fighting/exercise to show 'machismo' which you cannot do any longer because you're not in a tribal society?
Now that looks risky! Is there anyone in it?
A lot of those paranoias are US/UK specific Mrs Grips. Hand wringing, collective displays of grief, and media scare mongers are more prevelent in anglo-saxon media than elsewhere. I've had some of my best flamings on the net with objective, pragmatic posts on UK forums.
Skewed is a negative word in the way that you're using it. It is different. It is different because we're not all the same and we see things differently.
The decisions we make as individuals are not necessarily wrong because they are different from the ones other people have made...
For instance I really like blue. If I could color and highlight and decorate all the things around me in blue I would because it would make me happy. Someone else might hate blue and want orange instead. If they decorate their house in orange they're not wrong. They have not made bad decisions; they have made different decisions from me because they have different criteria.
Such as the slightly higher risk of an accident here compared to the netherlands makes the difference between something being commonplace there to being stupid if done here
Lots of nice wide cycleways there though...?
This is the main road out of where we live:
Usually busy, and people force their way through those chicanes without giving way. The pavement is usually blocked with parked cars. This is the worst bit. Having said that I probably would negotiate it on the pavement if/when we find ourselves cycling as a family.
One of my suppliers was a UK company: sjscyles.com
The decisions we make as individuals are not necessarily wrong because they are different from the ones other people have made...
Nothing wrong with not being entirely rational I suppose.
Molgrips - yes it is as the actual level of risk is not much higher. Your perception is the risk is a lot lower in the netherlands, the reality is that its not that much different. the difference in attitudes is cultural not based on reality.
[i]That is true, but it does illustrate how much more likely a child on a bike is to die vs a child in a car. [/i]
It illustrates no such thing. Deaths per mile travelled gives readily comparable numbers, but if we're discussing probability it's wholly misleading given the huge difference in miles travelled by the two forms of transport -- in the real world, in a given year more children are killed in cars than on bikes. More are killed walking along than either.
Your perception is the risk is a lot lower in the netherlands, the reality is that its not that much different. the difference in attitudes is cultural not based on reality
How many times do you get aggro screamed at you for asserting your rights on the road in the Netherlands?
Edukator I would agree. However, you cannot expect people who live within the culture to fully understand what is outside their culture. People view things in relationship to what they know, like it or not. You cannot expect people to simply jump out of their culture and be comfortable and understand all...
Thats nothing to do with the accident rate - its to do with the peception of risk.
This is the closest you've come to my point exactly. As a parent I don't make judgements based on stats on their own. I use my own personal perception of risk based on judgement and experience. You know what, I may even throw some stats in their too if I'm feeling adventurous.
You don't ride your (motor) bike just based on stats and accident rates do you? you use your vast experience to build a picture of risk. Us parents are no different with our kids, but sometimes we're not sure so we ask others. Back to the OP again...
And even more are killed in accidents in the home IIRC.
It illustrates no such thing. Deaths per mile travelled gives readily comparable numbers, but if we're discussing probability it's wholly misleading given the huge difference in miles travelled by the two forms of transport -- in the real world, in a given year more children are killed in cars than on bikes. More are killed walking along than either.
That like saying Space Shuttles are safer because less children travel on them. You have to compare on the basis of some common denominator, distance, hours etc.
Stilltortoise - I just wish folk would be a bit more rational about risk. We would have a happier and healthier society if they were.
We are rational.
What we aren't is agreeing with you 100%.
You are arguing about how you imagine we think and not understanding (or wanting to listen to) our explanations and reasoning. For that reason I'm out.
TJ just to clarify - if there are two population samples and one spends 1000 hours riding a bike, the other 1000 hours driving, which is more likely to contain more deaths?
pretty similar if you look at in in terms of hours. If you look at it in terms of miles its cycles, if you look at in in terms of trips its cars. HTH
Molgrips - sorry its nothing to do with not agreeing with me but its the inconsistency and the way you ignore facts but place higher weighting on your instinct than on reality that shows your attitude towards risk is not rational. You will take some risks but not others and you vastlyu overestimate some risks.
There's not been a single relevant fact on this thread TJ you are talking rubbish.
Over-estimating risk isn't irratonal. It might be wrong, but it's not irrational.
so if I have to travel a set distance, say 10 miles, it is safer to do so in a car? for the general population of course.
Bye, Mrs Grips. I'm out too, I think I've run out of positive stuff to add.
Edit do your journey once and it's safer by car, damo. Do it over your lifetime and it's safer by bike - for the general population of course.
Damo read what I posted above.
Molgrips -
Riiiiight. 🙄Over-estimating risk isn't irratonal.
Bye, Mrs Grips. I'm out too, I think I've run out of positive stuff to add.
You could enquire about helmets?!
You said
If you look at it in terms of miles its cycles
Unless I misunderstood you mean there would be more deaths per mile for bikes vs cars?
I've looked at the situation, identified the factors and possible outcomes, and made a guess based on the evidence and hand. That's rational.
Dismissing something without knowing anything about it cos of say, something I'd read in the Daily Mail would be irrational.
I think there's a difference.
As a parent I don't make judgements based on stats on their own. I use my own personal perception of risk based on judgement and experience
If your personal perception of risk is vastly different to what the stats tell you, maybe you should be questioning your personal perception rather than the stats. The human brain is a notoriously bad measuring instrument after all.
And stats can be horribly misleading and misinterpreted...
The human brain is a notoriously bad measuring instrument after all.
This is your turn at sarcasm without the smiley, right?
Where are the stats on bike trailer collisions?
This is your turn at sarcasm without the smiley, right?
Not at all - see all the claims about alu MTB frames being really harsh and steel ones riding like magic carpets.
That is true, but it does illustrate how much more likely a child on a bike is to die vs a child in a car
Right, There has been far too much argument on this thread. They only way to settle this is by fair and reasonable testing. From each camp we need a volunteer, bike safer and car safer. We then get ech of you to load your child up (obviously you have a child or you don't have a leg to stand on). Each teaches their child to say "Hah, You're dead, we rock!". Then drive / ride at each other at a steady 20mph. The first child to repeat that phrase proves their parent right.
Simple
And stats can be horribly misleading and misinterpreted..
Oh dear! So can anything if you don't take the time to understand it!
Well exactly CM and the thing is with stats is you need to know where they came from, who commissioned them and what (if any) agenda they might have had, you need to know what they were looking for and what their terms were when looking.
Like any words from any book the same information can be interpreted a number of ways...just ask a room full of lit. students.
Well exactly CM and the thing is with stats is you need to know where they came from, who commissioned them and what (if any) agenda they might have had, you need to know what they were looking for and what their terms were when looking
No, you just need the numbers.
Lit. is different, it's not a science.
Where are the stats on bike trailer collisions?
As far as I can make out, the stats are that not a single child has ever been killed in one. I'd imagine such an incident would be pretty newsworthy.
Of course the sample size is pretty small, but that along with my personal experience of actually riding on the road with a kiddy trailer (as opposed to just imagining what it would be like) will do me.
No, you just need the numbers.Lit. is different, it's not a science.
She has a point CM - there is more to it than the numbers. But so do you - it's not anything like as subjective as lit.
A quick google (i know) indicates the UK cycling death rate is approx 3 times higher than in Holland with the injury rates differing even more. On that basis should we be 3 times more risk adverse? This is still only a difference between 1 and 3 deaths per x million km's cycled, so which is significant statistically? Differing transport infrastructure probebly also helps explain any cultural perception of risk.
Assessing one fits all stats would as a parent be the bottom of my list when assessing the risk of transporting my baby/toddler down a particular road or in a particular fashion.
She has a point CM - there is more to it than the numbers
Oh! Poppycock!
Poppcock indeed scientists can look at the same info and come to different conclusions...
Poppcock indeed scientists can look at the same info and come to different conclusions.
And only one of them can be right.
actually they both could be only partially right because they haven't actually got all the info...which is why you need to know what they were looking for...
With population data, numberz iz numberz
With population data, numberz iz numberz
Sorry, not. Models and interpretation play a massive part. That's why 'strengths and weaknesses' are such a big part of the discussion in academic papers.
molgrips - Member
Now that looks risky! Is there anyone in it?
Yes my daughter. Don't covet the camera was as far outboard as it could go. I got plenty of footage off cars closer than any on there when I didn't have the trailer on. Fortunatley I now ride some where different and the roads are so quite that in the morning I can often count the number that pass me on one hand.
But I do know I used to get less stressed by the traffic with the trailer than with out. In factthe hard part was when cars let you go up hill as it's hard to accelerate with it behind you.
Hate to say this - i agree with TJ
Ive just noticed how long this thread is.Why do the same folk keep wasting their time argueing about so much stuff on this forum? The stress/high blood pressure caused by non biking threads must be incredible on this forum!
Close the website,leave it for a few weeks and ...just,do something ffs!
I know, it's awful. I do try to avoid it, but I can't stand it when TJ accuses me of being unintelligent or not thinking things through properly just cos I disagree with him.
He'll never change his mind though so I might just have to accept that someone out there thinks I'm thick. Hard though 🙁
TJ accuses me of being unintelligent or not thinking things through properly just cos I disagree with him.
you've been here long enough to know the rules
Is this still going on? Are you lot aware that the suns out? I've just been sat outside the pub. Its lovely.
Just a thought....
😀
[i]That like saying Space Shuttles are safer because less children travel on them. You have to compare on the basis of some common denominator, distance, hours etc. [/i]
_Fewer_ children, dammit!
My point is that distance isn't an appropriate denominator in this instance if you're trying to compare the risk, because no-one does thousands of miles with a child in a trailer. Hours would be more useful, I think, not sure anyone's done the numbers on that though. I guess you could come up with an estimate based on the per-mile numbers and some assumptions for average speed.
I'm prepared to be corrected, but I've never heard of, or found reference to, a fatal cycle trailer accident. Anyone know of any?
My point is that distance isn't an appropriate denominator in this instance if you're trying to compare the risk, because no-one does thousands of miles with a child in a trailer. Hours would be more useful, I think, not sure anyone's done the numbers on that though. I guess you could come up with an estimate based on the per-mile numbers and some assumptions for average speed.
I think the studies use distance as the comparator since the whole point about risk is help assess choices between courses of action. In the case of a journey, using a bike or a car or plane or whatever, the logical comparator would be distance since journeys are by definition a movement from one point to another. i.e. if I want to go from A to B which is the least risky method.
I'm prepared to be corrected, but I've never heard of, or found reference to, a fatal cycle trailer accident. Anyone know of any?
No.. but I've hardly ever seen a trailer in the UK. Lots in Germany but mostly on cyclepaths.
Perhaps all our risk assessments are bang on.
Models and interpretation play a massive part
yup, agreed.
Molgrips - thats not what I said or think. I have several times tried to explain. Our outlooks on life are so different its hard to reconcile our different viewpoints.
Its not just because you disagree but that you cannot make a logical case for the position you adopt.
You do get very shouty when anyone disagrees with you.
i do think your attitude towards risk is irrational. You overstate some risks and understate others. I'm sure you think I am reckless. The truth probably lies somewhere inbetween.
I have several times tried to explain.
Deja vu... 😆
Its not just because you disagree but that you cannot make a logical case for the position you adopt
I have done.
Look, it's simple.
For the millionth time.
I've looked at all the risks, likelihoods and consequences, and made a decision. This is NOT irrational.
The fact that you weight some risks differently to me is perfectly valid and both our prerogatives.
IT DOES NOT MAKE ME IRRATIONAL OR ILLOGICAL <--- that is what I am pissed off about.
IT DOES NOT MAKE ME IRRATIONAL OR ILLOGICAL <--- that is what I am pissed off about.
Actually, following that line of reasoning, it does. However you lack the rationality and the skills in logical reasoning to see this.
Why?
The only thing I am irrational about is caring what TJ thinks of me 🙂
Why?
Ooooh no! I couldn't tell you that. Our backgrounds are so different that if i actually got you to understand, your mind would be so bent out of shape you'd never be the same person again.
Molgrips - when you state aomething is dangerous when it clearly is not as defined by stats that is not a logical or rational position.
Its not about how you weight risk. Its about how you perceive risk. You believe cycling to be a risky pastime. it is not
Has anyone suggested strapping the baby to the riders head as a makeshift helmet yet? 🙂
Molgrips - when you state aomething is dangerous when it clearly is not as defined by stats that is not a logical or rational position
There are no stats on trailer accidents though - we've established this. No point in trying to draw information from child cycling stats. That'd be.. well.. irrational 🙂
I obviously don't perceive cycling to be overly risky, since I do it almost every day.
This evidence suggests this is possibly not the case: http://www.talkingmonkey.co.uk/cyclecrazy/childtrailer/childtrailer.htmlmolgrips - We're all vulnerable to drivers not concentrating. However, those being towed at ground level further out than and behind a cyclist are MORE vulnerable, in my opinion.
actually its pretty much the defition of irrational - doing something without reason or sound judgement!molgrips - Over-estimating risk isn't irratonal. It might be wrong, but it's not irrational.
You should read Risk by Dan Gardner ( http://www.dangardner.ca/index.php/books) - you've almost certainly allowed intuition not rational analysis to assess the risk. We all do it. Rational analysis, does require you to be able to question your "gut" though which is quite difficult when it is about decisions affecting those closest to you.I've looked at the situation, identified the factors and possible outcomes, and made a guess based on the evidence and hand. That's rational.
I don't really think that stacks up at least until toddler age... ...but there is risk in everything you do - so even staying at home "doing nothing" has risks - indeed children choke, fall over (or down stairs), get strangled on blind cords, drown in the bath and die in house fires - all doing stuff that might be perceived as lower risk.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?
but at what age is going to be ok to pick your child our the wheel arch? that talkingmonkey link I have included actually suggests they may be LESS vulnerable in the trailer than a typical rear seat, or tag-a-long or on their own bike!I just imagine how I'd feel if I had to pick my toddler's remains out of the wheelarch of a bus and that stops me from doing this.And I'm not unreasonably risk averse because I cycle all over the place and my kid will too WHEN SHE'S OLD ENOUGH.
I don't think anyone is suggesting people should ride a trailer down dangerous or busy roads (the ones where you feel particularly vulnerable without a trailer) - but you seem to have shifted position slightly from:
to"If you take it on roads."
Which I don't, for the above reasons
.... Exluding busy or dangerous roads ....
And I suspect this is what is entrenching your position:
irrational perception of risk is not the same thing as saying someone is thick. Its totally natural (indeed you might argue TJ's approach to risk is 'unnatural') but flawed. You obviously are not thick since you manage to present an eloquent series of counter arguments. Indeed clearly you are passionate about your views - which is why I think you would enjoy reading Dan Gardner's book.He'll never change his mind though so I might just have to accept that someone out there thinks I'm thick. Hard though
actually its pretty much the defition of irrational - doing something without reason or sound judgement!
I have reasons though. As above in the absence of actual statistics I have to extrapolate from relevant experience. How can that be rational?
Look there are two sides here. One has assessed risk and decided it's okay, the other has done the same thing and come to a different conclusion. Neither is irrational - they are both entirely rational having gone through the SAME process, the only difference is they've weighted different aspects differently.
- you've almost certainly allowed intuition not rational analysis to assess the risk
How can intuition be avoided in this case? We have no stats and we cannot experiment.
but at what age is going to be ok to pick your child our the wheel arch?
My reasoning is based on the fact that low down things go under wheels, higher up things bounce off bonnets. This surely is a fair point?
but you seem to have shifted position slightly from:"If you take it on roads."
Which I don't, for the above reasons
to
.... Exluding busy or dangerous roads ....
I don't habitually take it on roads because there are few journeys round my way that do not include any busy or narrow roads. It has been on roads....
Risk isn't just about how likely an accident is to happen, it is also about the consequences of the accident. Hence for some parents the consequences of an accident are perceived as being so terrible that the risk isn't acceptable at all no matter how low the probability.
FWIW The oil and gas industry deem an acceptable risk of accidental death as the same as the risk of being killed by lightning (one person in 19 million)[url= http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0169-8095(00)00083-1 ]ref[/url]
+1 i did dab.
Btw poly those pics look scary. In their pictures there is nothing in front of the trailer for it to hit. It also only shows a car. I bet if they did that with a large truck or even a pickup or SUV it'd flatten the trailer and the baby. Plus they only did side impacts, what about being rear ended? What about a car passing at a distance that would clear a solo cyclist or one with a rear mounted seat, but not a trailer?
You just made me imagine seeing my fantastic daughter's life fade from her eyes as I stand in the road trying to comfort her. I don't care if it's one in a million. It's one risk I don't need to subject her to, with utterly horrible consequences and if it's all the same to you lot you can all F off please thx.
I'll take my daughter out in a trailer, we'll see the world and have a good time. I'll even go on roads if they are calm enough and preferably if there's someone behind to grab a bit of road space. And I will not listen to any of you lot telling me I'm irrational when it's all a matter of point of view and you have no more hard evidence than I do. In any case I am now feeling very irrational, and it feels good because it reminds me how much I love my daughter.
edited.
didnt think there legs could reach the pedals.
If you lot hurry up you'll just catch last orders. Again... just a thought