[Closed] Young babies on bikes

She'll have to be quite grown up to ride on roads I consider dangerous on her own.

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.

I'm pretty sure that all of this chariot activity hasn't affected the Beamlet. I came home from work yesterday to find her reciting the alphabet. She's just turned 2

Aww, never mind, there's still time to catch up.

Look, stop being silly. There's clearly a massive difference between putting your kid INSIDE a car where they're protected by lots of metal, and towing them behind a bike where they're not. CLEARLY.

Yes you are right - speeds are much higher so despite the extra protection the risks are high. its not a rational position molgrips

TJ - you really are out of your comfort zone with a discussion on cars and kids. As adults, most of us take responsibility for our own safety and are pretty good about it. If nobody else in the world was included in our personal risk assessments, the bike / car argument might be more balanced.

No I am just enjoying pointing out the lack of rationality of many peoples position as regards to the risks of bikes.

To take babies on bikes is the norm in the rest of Europe and its perfectly safe to do so. Risks are low due to the low risk of crashing and the low speeds involved.

its completely ridiculous to think a car at 80 mph is safe and a bike at 15 mph is not.

mrsgrips - Member

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?

Well said Mrs Grips

Oh and I'd also think twice about pushing a pushchair down a narrow road without pavements.

How do you ever get out of the house?

Does your car not have windows?

I don't know about your car seat, but in our maxi cosi baby seat, the poor thing can see next to nothing out of the window.

As for the risk of the bike trailer, my view is that

a)I'm convinced that the trailer isn't inherently unsafe (in terms of shaking, rattling of the baby etc.), as the people who build and sell it are happy to sell it as recommended for cycling from 12 weeks, and I'm pretty sure they've taken a lot of legal & medical advice on that.

b)I've done probably well over 30,000 road miles on bikes & unicycles and managed to avoid any accidents. I'm happy to cycle places and don't think it is particularly putting me at risk (and just as importantly my wife is happy that I'm safe on the roads).

c)Traffic is massively more careful and spots you way earlier (or at least responds to you way earlier) when you have a kiddy trailer. Even traffic on the other lane of the A6 slows down a little. This is just completely obvious to anyone who has ridden a trailer on the road much - at times it is almost annoying how polite people are to you, you find yourself having to hammer up hills to make way for people who have kindly stopped to let you pass.

The issue I have is that in a trailer they are very low down, which could make them hard to see,

I think that is not true at all - in practice they are a bit wider and bigger, and have the cheeky little flag on, all of which makes them much much easier to see than a bike. There is also the oddness factor - if you ride something unexpected, people see it much earlier and are much more careful overtaking you (I'm confident this is true, I've ridden several thousand miles on unicycles in London traffic, and you don't half get people overtaking nice and wide then!).

Joe

No I am just enjoying pointing out the lack of rationality of many peoples position as regards to the risks of bikes

You're trying to, but failing.

It's obviously more dangerous to be a baby towed in a trailer than to be riding a bike. Can't understand why you don't accept that. When the field of view is short, something low down is surely harder to see than something at eye level? Have you never heard the phrase 'sorry mate didn't see you'?

its completely ridiculous to think a car at 80 mph is safe and a bike at 15 mph is not

No it's not.

How do you ever get out of the house?

Why did you even type that? Come on now, be honest.

Molgrips -I think your attitude towards risk is ridiculous and summed up by this - and you won't even push a pushchair if there is no pavement.

It's obviously more dangerous to be a baby towed in a trailer than to be riding a bike.

Look, stop being silly. There's clearly a massive difference between putting your kid INSIDE a car where they're protected by lots of metal, and towing them behind a bike where they're not. CLEARLY.

Neither of those is a rational position at all.

I'm convinced that the trailer isn't inherently unsafe (in terms of shaking, rattling of the baby etc.), as the people who build and sell it are happy to sell it as recommended for cycling from 12 weeks

You can begin using the Croozer in Stroller or Jogger mode when your child is approximately 6 months old. Your child must be able to sit upright unassisted. To use your Croozer in cycling mode, your child must be approximately 12 months old

...and no, there is no contradiction between thinking it's perfectly safe taking your kids out on the roads in a trailer and thinking there's a reasonable minimum age for doing so.

and you won't even push a pushchair if there is no pavement.

That's not what I said.

I said I wouldn't push a pushchair on [b]a narrow dangerous road[/b] if there's no pavement.

Neither of those is a rational position at all.

Do you know what 'rational' means?

You may disagree with my risk assesment (which would be entirely reasonable), but stop calling me irrational, cos it's wrong.

It's obviously more dangerous to be a baby towed in a trailer than to be riding a bike. Can't understand why you don't accept that. When the field of view is short, something low down is surely harder to see than something at eye level?

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

TJ it really is ridiculous you take these positions then try to dismiss everything else as irrational.

If you had a rational brain it would be fairly clear to see that based on everyday common knowledge a bike is more dangerous than a car. Just by knowing motorways are the safest roads, by knowing cycling is one of the most dangerous sports etc. Being rational you would be able to deduce that taking into account journey hours and frequency cycling is pretty much going to be more dangerous.

Dismiss all that but how do you explain that there are about [b]50 times more child cyclist deaths than there are deaths to child car occupants[/b]?

something out of the ordinary (and bright green and covered in reflective gubbins) is much easier to see than something normal like a bike

Not when it's below the windscreen of a truck or pickup though - this is my main concern.

To be honest I don't have that much of a problem with wider straight well sighted roads. However that's not a dependable luxury where we live. I swear some people don't see me at all on my bike and the only thing that saves me is that I happen to fit in the gap that most drivers leave between the verge and their car.

If you think cars are no safer than bikes, try this on a bike:

It's obviously more dangerous to be a baby towed in a trailer than to be riding a bike.

The only way you could possibly hold this viewpoint is because you've never tried riding with a trailer on the road - if you do you'd discover what the rest of us know about drivers actually spotting trailers better than cyclists.

To take babies on bikes is the norm in the rest of Europe and its perfectly safe to do so.

SOME of the rest of Europe. Never seen it in Greece, Italy, Spain or Portugal. It is the norm in countries where cycling is an accepted form of transport and has the infrastructure, culture and laws to support it. You are comparing apples and oranges in an attempt to make your point - and failing.

As far as cars and trailers go: In a suitable car seat secured in a car, a child has far more chance of surviving ANY collision with another road user at any speed than in a bike trailer. As said many times - this isn't about 15mph or the parent - this is about the actions of OTHER road users that can't be controlled. I will manage the risk my child is exposed to - so the car it is for more road trips than in a trailer. That is a shame, but that is life and risk management.

Are you sure you're not confusing weeks and months, joe?

Nope, that's the trailer just as is, not with the special baby carrying bit (see the link below for that). The baby sling is only recommended up to 10 months (our smallish baby is in it at 1 still, but only just). Personally I'm not sure I'd have been happy at 6 months running with her in the standard seat, but the baby sling is super comfy, like being in a little hammock suspended in the trailer.

http://www.burls.co.uk/shop/croozer-trailers-integral-baby-sling-p-712.html

Is this still going on?

Frankly it baffles me why we're still bringing the cars are/aren't safer angle into this [s]discussion[/s] argument. I never understand why some of us [i]need [/i]evidence - anecdotal or not - to even understand let alone accept someone else's opinion.

I have a 2 year old and a 4 year old. I have walked with them in a Baby Bjorn since they were weeks if not days old. I wouldn't have dreamt of cycling with them at that age. My brother on the other hand - who lives in Sweden in case anyone wants to make a tenuous connection - quite happily skied with his daughter in a Baby Bjorn. Did I think any less of him? No, because he's an excellent skier and - being my brother - I know that he would not do it if he didn't think it was safe. "Yes, but what if someone had run into him?" I hear some of you cry. And so it goes on ad nauseum...

My wife and I happily take our kids on the bike to nursery or down the country lanes. They are quiet routes and the drivers on them are accustomed to walkers and pushchairs so drive accordingly. We have never felt unsafe or that we were taking unacceptable risks. We go through the same parental screening process as we go through with everything to do with our children; walking in the hills, scrambling over rocks, splashing in the pool. It is based on our experience and our knowledge of the world around us.

Frankly, the implication that cycling around the streets of central London with my kids in a bike trailer is safer than taking them to see Grandma in the car on the motorway just baffles me. Conversely, I'd feel safer taking them on the lane behind our house in a trailer than taking them out in the car late at night on snowy, slippy roads. You know how I do that? Good judgement. Why don't we try accepting that quite a few of us on here have exactly that.

Rant over

The only way you could possibly hold this viewpoint is because you've never tried riding with a trailer on the road - if you do you'd discover what the rest of us know about drivers actually spotting trailers better than cyclists

I have been on the road, and everyone gave me a wide berth. But in order to do that they have to see you. 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, and I also suspect that the consequences would be worse because a trailer is low down and more likely to go under a vehicle rather than bounce off a bonnet; and wider meaning that there is less room for a last minute swerve as someone looks up from their CD player.

Those are my feelings having been a cyclist, a trailer tower and a motorist in a variety of vehicles. Given the value of my cargo I choose not to take that particular risk. I don't consider this irrational. Over-cautious maybe depending on your own assessment, but not irrational.

Why don't we try accepting that quite a few of us on here have exactly that

+1

Damo - really - where did you get those stats?
Lots of data out there. None I have seen gives anything like that. There certainly is not 50 times as many child cyclist cyclist deaths as there are children in cars. Thats just simple nonsense.

There is a balance to be struck here. Each situation is different. Would I head out with the Beamlet in her Chariot, or trailer bike in the future, in the following environments:

Dual Carriage Way - No
A Road - No
Twisty back road with Chavs using it as a racetrack - No
Not so twisty back road early in the morning before (limited) traffic starts using it - Yes
Quiet back roads (which I have ridden on a lot sans Chariot) at any time of the day using it - Yes
Cyclepaths - Yes

The whole process of having kids is fraught with risk. The advantages of heading out an enjoying the fresh air and giving Mrs B a break from motherly duties, in my opinion, outweigh the risk.

If you had a rational brain it would be fairly clear to see that based on everyday common knowledge a bike is more dangerous than a car. Just by knowing motorways are the safest roads, by knowing cycling is one of the most dangerous sports etc

Rant over

S'not a proper rant, it's too well reasoned!

Cycling is not a dangerous sport and the stats back that up.

Molgrips what you confuse is two aspects of accidents -= frequency and severity.

They are both factors in risk evaluation, aren't they?

Damo - really - where did you get those stats?
Lots of data out there. None I have seen gives anything like that. There certainly is not 50 times as many child cyclist cyclist deaths as there are children in cars. Thats just simple nonsense.

Based on data from Office for National Statistics which is the place that records this kind of stuff in the UK. The study was done by London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine.

Both highly reputable establishments I'm sure you're aware.

The study then looks at accident rates per passenger mile, ended up with the statistic I high lighted.

I'm not sure I can put the study up on line since I got from academic database. Will see if its public anywhere.

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

50 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

50 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">http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5270/5628986268_62993ee28e.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[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.