[Closed] Young babies on bikes

molgrips - your irrational* fear for your own children's safety is probably quite healthy.

Read the book though - it will explain far better than I can why extrapolating from experience is a bad idea.

I agree about the truck / bus factor (although if I thought the risk of that happening was significant I'd never ride the road myself - and if it did happen with my little one in tow - I'd probably be a gonner too so at least I wouldn't have to live with myself!). But that said I have always felt SAFER with the trailer than without because of different attitudes of road users. Even then I ride more defensively than normal (which is mostly to do with being bigger and slower - just as when towing a car trailer - rather than fear for the little person behind).

* My point is it is irrational because the risk is very small, but it also doesn't reduce significantly at whatever age you think taking them on the road, is OK. Meanwhile - whatever you do instead of going on the road has some intrinsic risk in it - which you have probably underestimated.

Last orders is 1am here Binners.

What's this all about this one, I've missed it?

I don't have a baby. Can I borry a baby?

I put me mate's one in a rucksack once, took her down the shops. She loved it. Another one hid in a big bayg and got put in a vayn.

In that case, keep on bickering. you Scots and your wacky ways. Just watching the last king of Scotland at the mo TJ. Thought of you fella 😉

You are confusing me with Elf.

Wasn't that Idi Amin?

TJ reminds me of Idi Amin.

I don't want to see in TJ's fridge. 😯

TJ:

[img] [/img]

Idi:

[img] [/img]

I know. I've never seen them in the same room either...

I'm gonna eat you elf.

Its uncanny!

Maybe he's a weird sort of amalgamation of the two of you. Have you watched The Fly? Have you two bwwn experimenting with pod type devices?

Read the book though - it will explain far better than I can why extrapolating from experience is a bad idea.

unless you are a Bayesian

but it also doesn't reduce significantly at whatever age you think taking them on the road

I do disagree. It's the low down bit that's the issue. If I modified my trailer to put it on stilts, like a monster trailer, I'd feel better about it.

Same reason I don't ride a low rider recumbent in traffic...

[i]No.. but I've hardly ever seen a trailer in the UK. Lots in Germany but mostly on cyclepaths.[/i]

To clarify: I've never heard of, or found reference to, any fatal child trailer accident anywhere in the UK, Europe or anywhere in the rest of the world.

My point was that that could be because a) in Europe they are on cycleways and b) in the UK they are very rare.

No molgrips - its because they are not dangerous. Cycling is safe, trailers are safe, accidents are rare. Serious accidents are very rare

Oh? Ok then, you're right. I'm just being irrational. Bit strange, since I've always prided myself on a rigorous thoughtful and rational approach, but Mr TJ online must be right. It's a pretty hard thing to swallow, the fact that I've been so misguided and deluded about myself and my analytic abilities all these years. Time to have a really long think about myself.

Right where's my trailer? Off to take my daughter on a ride through traffic. I'll be concerned about towing my most precious thing around the level of car and truck wheels, but every time a driver fails to see me I must have faith in TJ.

TJ is right. We are safe.

Oh yeah best not bother with a helmet either.

Molgrips - how about reading Polys posts? how about stopping to think a little?

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.

You are cleary making an emotive decision not one based on rational criteria.

Can you explain why you will put your daughter in a car but not in a trailer despite the risks being of a similar level?

tbh [ not having read any of this] I was amazed how car drivers were when you took a trailer out on the roads - only time I had issues was ironically doing the school run!!
Once folk relaise you are towing children it gives them an new found respect and concern for your safety and you are impossible to cut up really without them driving over th etop of you /trailer. Cars will trundle behind you for ages then smile as they passed. I was almost tempted to drag one eveywhere tbh. Even the little section of dual carriageway i did was excellent and again no problems [ this was with my shopping in not my kids showing my irrational fear].
TJ may be right but you cant understand what the dilemma /fear is for a parent when considering this. To think any decision you had made led to some permanent injury to your child makes the vast majority of people very conservative with risk assesment. Evolutionary speaking this vastly increases our childrens chances of reaching adult hood and spreadig our genes. It is inbuilt and wrapped up in love
I did not use it till they could support their own heads though.

Molgrips - how about reading Polys posts? how about stopping to think a little?

What I've been trying to hammer into your thick skull for MONTHS now is that I DO stop to think a great deal. It's what I do ALL THE TIME.

I have arrived at a different conclusion to you. Is that so impossible to understand? I don't understand why I you think I'm not thinking simply because our conclusions have differed.

Re traffic, yes, on the times I've been on roads drivers were tremendously considerate. But in order to do that they have to be watching where they are going. Drivers do not always do this, as we are all well aware.

In 2002, the rate of passenger (and that's all passengers, adults and kids) deaths per BILLION passenger kilometres for bicycles was 29.5. Whichever way you look at it, that's a vanishingly small number. If you rode 10 miles a day every day for your entire life, dying (of natural causes, naturally) at 80, you'd rack up less than half a million km. Or 1/2000 of a billion. The expected number of deaths per 500,000km is 0.01. Which looks like decent odds to me 🙂

(And yes, for cars it was 2.8 per billion, but when the numbers are this small the comparison seems almost irrelevant.)

Or put it another way. In 2002, 130 cyclists where killed in Britain (22 children, 108 adults). That's out of a population of about 60 million. Proportion of people in Britain killed while cycling in 2002 = 0.0002%.

As an interesting aside, the number of people who became millionaires thanks to the National Lottery in 2003 was 133 😉

i think you are missing an evolutionary argument here
A flas e negative such as molgrip snot exposinghis hchildren to something safe is absolutely fine no damage to the children in the sense they dont die
However if he does it the other way around and has a false positive - does something dangerous then potentially baby dies.
It seems fairly clear that the gene for "reckless" behaviour will decline in the genepool leaving us all to be more cautious than is necessarily supported by scientific methodological methods.
The other view that most parents will be happier to know timmy is cross you did not let him climb the tree that to know you let timmy climb the tree and now he has a broken arm after falling.
It is what it is and no Internet argument or faith in science will change this.
I dont do a scientific study every time I have to decide whteher an activity from my child is safe nor do I search google for peer review studies to help me form an opinion.

Proportion of people in Britain killed while cycling in 2002 = 0.0002%.

Junkyard is quite right, we are evolutionarily predisposed to protect our kids.

I mean I'd let my kids climb trees and all the rest of it. I just am somewhat concerned about the specific danger of being low down in certain kinds of traffic. Seems significant to me, thinking about the physics of it.

I promised myself I wouldn't get drawn back into this again but I have too much admiration of molgrips' tenacity (of TJ I expect nothing less).

See this pic? Statistically this is very safe, since there are no deaths or serious injuries from cyclists riding along 100m high cliff edges (please don't ask me to back that up - I'm making a point). Cycling is not dangerous as has been pointed out and this is no harder than riding along a plank of wood in my back garden. Would I do it? Absolutely not, because the consequences of it going wrong are way too high to justify the (rationally thought out) chances of me falling. Am I irrational for coming to that decision?

[img] [/img]

Even referring back to my Wouter Weylandts post, I wouldn't hoon down a road in a large peloton at 60mph because - no matter what the stats say - I would be too scared of the consequences of falling, however unlikely. I rarely solo climb even the very easiest climbs because although I'm confident in my ability, the consequences of falling are simply too great (in this case the stats may well be on my side since many competent climbers have fallen on climbs well within their ability).

My point? I'll let everyone draw their own conclusions.

[i]the eneitre population doe snot cycle so that is a poor waty of working it out.[/i]

It illustrates that fatal cycling accidents are extremely rare events, though.

based on a sample of people who dont cycle. i dont need stats to let me know that people who dont do something dont get hurt doing it!
Let me give an extreme example here [finest stw tradition]... russian roulette. If only 2 people EVER play it worldwide then the risk per the entire population is very low indeed. It does not make it safe for the participants though.
I am not denying your point that cycling is [relatively] safe just that that is a bad stat to use as hopefully my extreme example shows.

It also illustrates what a few people have said above, that you should be cautious of reading too much into stats on their own. Fatal cycling accidents might be rare, but maybe all of them are on a windy country road in the height of summer, or in the middle of a city centre at rush hour, or on a Saturday when sports fans are piling out drunk from pubs. Since few of us have the desire to wade through all these studies in that level of detail, we rely on our own judgement, common sense and experience to make decisions.

I do disagree. It's the low down bit that's the issue.

All I'm asking you here is to actually stop and think about it, maybe putting aside your current beliefs for a second - your very assertion that a trailer is more likely to get run over by something because they won't see it is fundamentally flawed. For a start, as already mentioned, the trailer doesn't go out on its own, so it's at least as visible as you on your own. You also appear to be worried about vehicles with high up drivers - the thing is, when they're more than a few yards away, a low down trailer is just as visible and in their sightline as anything else, and has the bonus of being unusual enough to catch their attention. They don't suddenly forget about it when they get a bit closer. You do of course also have a flag on a trailer which flutters about right in the driver's eyeline - movement being something which catches the attention of human vision far better than something static.

Last of all we have the anecdotal experience of those of us who've ridden on the road with a trailer lots - I can't think of a single incident where I've not been given lots of room and treated with courtesy (compared to the same experience of getting cut up etc. as all cyclists have when riding on their own). The trouble is, it's a vicious circle here, as those who think it's really dangerous never get to find out otherwise (though IIRC you mentioned you have briefly ridden on the road and had just this experience yourself).

So as I asked up there quite seriously, at what age will you let your child ride on the road?

Honestly, I don't know. I'll have to wait and see. I suspect there'll be a graduation from local side streets to agreed routes to full independence. Of course I'm not ignoring it, but it's not really useful to set an age now. She might hate cycling for all I know 🙂

your very assertion that a trailer is more likely to get run over by something because they won't see it is fundamentally flawed

Hmm.. it's more the consequences of a bump. Yes, the trailer's as visible as me, but that's not visible enough half the time, is it? I'm not seen on a frequent basis - in fact today I had a near miss because someone didn't see me.

I've also had people come rather close both behind me and to the side. If there's an extra thing there that's LESS visible than me but they aren't expecting, that's a bit more risk.

Plus evasive action is more difficult with a trailer.

You do make a good case in a reasonable and polite manner, which I appreciate, and it does make me feel that more roads would be acceptable than I had at first thought. However it still depends on the roads in question - and there are few near me that I would feel comfortable with the trailer on.

If I lived 2 miles from the shops along wide quiet roads, I'm sure I'd be doing it by bike all the time.

I agree with tortoise.

I will have to start thinking about all this come September. 😀 At the moment;

I wouldn't ride my bike with older baby strapped to my chest - too close to the bars, for starters.

I would ride on a suitable bridlway when older baby ok to ride in a suitable trailer or quiet lanes.

I wouldn't ride with older baby or small child in a trailer on a busy A road, even though my other friend says drivers seem to give a wide berth most of the time or all high up drivers seem to see the trailer flag. Too many assumptions about other road users, although i agree that could be an irrational fear. Or just common sense. Every parent does it differently.

molgrips - Member

Molgrips - how about reading Polys posts? how about stopping to think a little?

What I've been trying to hammer into your thick skull for MONTHS now is that I DO stop to think a great deal. It's what I do ALL THE TIME.

No need to get all shouty and obnoxious

We can all see that you have arrived at your position in an emotive assessment not a logical one.

No need to get all shouty and obnoxious
We can all see that you have arrived at your position in an emotive assessment not a logical one.

No need to push those buttons either. You really are a bit of a wind-up merchant, aren't you? Let's try playing nicely

even though my other friend says drivers seem to give a wide berth most of the time

That was [u]exactly[/u] my experience as well. Drivers who squash by me when on a bike but would give a trailer a wide berth or hang back. My guess is that was because although they knew the trailer was there they couldn't see all of it so they took more avoiding action that normal. I never felt unsafe with the trailer and used it almost daily on the roads for 4 years.

In 2002, the rate of passenger (and that's all passengers, adults and kids) deaths per BILLION passenger kilometres for bicycles was 29.5. Whichever way you look at it, that's a vanishingly small number. If you rode 10 miles a day every day for your entire life, dying (of natural causes, naturally) at 80, you'd rack up less than half a million km. Or 1/2000 of a billion

Where did you get this stat? Are you sure it refers to an American billion,not a British billion?

No need to get all shouty and obnoxious

We can all see that you have arrived at your position in an emotive assessment not a logical one.

Oh! interesting turn of events, sounds like TJ is on the back foot!

Your odds of dying on a bike are in the millions to one is my understanding

We can all see that you have arrived at your position in an emotive assessment not a logical one

I don't think you know what 'logical' actually means.

Molgrips - load of folk have pointed out where your"logic" has failed.

I ask you again. Why put a new born in a car but not on a bike - the odds of an accident causing death an injury are of a similar level - millions to one.

Back off TJ - see what trying to discuss this without the need for all the argumentative stuff gets:

You do make a good case in a reasonable and polite manner, which I appreciate, and it does make me feel that more roads would be acceptable than I had at first thought.

I understand your concerns about busy and "dangerous" roads - not where I'd choose to ride by myself. Clearly if you don't have the relatively quiet roads I have, our situations are different, though it may also be a question of perception - I imagine most people would think the [url= http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=powick&aq=&sll=53.800651,-4.064941&sspn=13.940309,43.286133&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Powick,+Worcester,+United+Kingdom&ll=52.167786,-2.24237&spn=0.001764,0.005284&t=k&z=18 ]roundabout [/url]I regularly ride across with kids is far too dangerous. You do keep talking about riding to the shops though - I take mine to Tumbletots and to the park by bike.

TJ in the following scenario who seems more likely to get hurt: A or B to answer (don't add anything)

Road, blind bend, car comes careening into the 'space' which is blind and into an object--

A. The object is a child on a bike
B. The object is a another car with a child secured inside

I ask you again. Why put a new born in a car but not on a bike - the odds of an accident causing death an injury are of a similar level - millions to one

Have we not been through this already? Every time the argument reaches a stalemate some largely irrelevant question is dragged back up again. Have you not learnt that many of us on here don't live our lives by stats and studies alone.

The clue to the answer, by the way, could well be in this bit:

the odds of an accident causing death an injury are of a similar level

...so the stats are deemed redundant and we use other criteria to make a decision. Experience, need, acceptable consequence and no doubt a bit of heart too.

What's your definition of logic TJ?

Thats my point. Its not a logical decision not to take a child on a bike - its an emotive one.

Mrs Grips - the only answer is mu. far too many variables.

Aracer - sorry squire. Ill shut up now.

Apologies for repeating myself - thought my edit might get missed:

Molgrips, I understand your concerns about busy and "dangerous" roads - not where I'd choose to ride by myself. Clearly if you don't have the relatively quiet roads I have, our situations are different, though it may also be a question of perception - I imagine most people would think the [url= http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=powick&aq=&sll=53.800651,-4.064941&sspn=13.940309,43.286133&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Powick,+Worcester,+United+Kingdom&ll=52.167786,-2.24237&spn=0.001764,0.005284&t=k&z=18 ]roundabout [/url]I regularly ride across with kids is far too dangerous. You do keep talking about riding to the shops though - I take mine to Tumbletots and to the park by bike.

TJ in the following scenario who seems more likely to get hurt: A or B to answer (don't add anything)

Yes but there are more scenarios to be had... this it how logic works is it not?
You break down a situation (one you set up in your head) and make decisions abt each scenario. From the decisions that you have made abt the scenario you then put value to certain outcomes because of greater or lesser (or positive and negative effects)
You look at the 'score sheet' you have created and form your final decision.

So A or B

Idiots driving on them

aye, one of my questions would be how much do I trust other people not to be idiots

Thats my point. Its not a logical decision not to take a child on a bike - its an emotive one.

<Looks for smiley for banging head against the keyboard>

You have made a huge leap from stats and studies not backing up the decision to it being purely emotive and despite many attempts by many people you're just not getting it (or ignoring it).

For argument's sake - since what is left on this thread? - I take my child out on my bike and keep my SPDs on. I get to a junction and can't unclip, topple over and me and my child end up a bit bruised and battered. I don't go home and try and find studies that show that cycling with kids (and SPDs) is safe and keep trying. No, I use my RATIONAL experience to put my flat pedals on next time I go out or learn to unclip 100% of the time.

Mu. unask the question.

The car might be able to avoid the bike because of its narrower width, the bike rider might be able to avoid the car because of the narrower width, the bike rider and child may go over the bonnet, the momentum involved with the bike is much lower 'cos of the lower speed so there is less energy to dissipate.

Just a few of the variables.

Its a nonsensical question . No answer is possible.

Still tortoise - a decision is either made on a logical basis or an emotive one.

Two activities similar very low levels of risk. One is considered acceptable the other is not. there is no logical reason for this.

Let's rephrase. If you had to be hit head on by a car coming around a blind bend at 30mph, would you rather be in a car or a bike?

Of course, being on a bike has allowed me to avoid many collisions which is a good thing. Ironically though towing a trailer would make me less able to avoid collisions!

there is no logical reason for this

Yeah there is. The safety systems of a car can dissipate much more energy than those of a cyclist. So even accounting for the fact that speeds are higher, if you are hit then you are much better off in a car.

I can make a decision based on logic, emotion or even - shock, horror - a bit of both, but I'll go with TJ's black or white reasoning for a moment. I can still make a logical, well reasoned and rational decision on ANYTHING even discounting a whole heap of stats. Did my example in my last post not demonstrate that?

If this is now just about getting the last word in, that was mine, because I've been dragged into somewhere that frankly makes me a bit miserable.

You are right, it's pretty pointless now. TJ cannot accept that any other view point than his can have any rational merit whatsoever. It's grim.

So those who agree with me are also stupid thick and wrong?

I can accept your viewpoint totally - you just need to accept it is not a rational one.

you just need to accept it is not a rational one

I don't accept that, nor do I need to. That is simply [b]your point of view[/b].

there is an answer A or B and you're avoiding answering it even tho further questions and scenarios would have been brought forward....

It's ok TJ. I do understand in many ways.
You are right in many cases and in many ways...the society we live in is full of imaginary risk which has little basis (perhaps) on truth. People do worry to much in many many cases...
but, *your* logic is not the logic of reason which some wish to follow because they have placed different (greater) value on the some of the evidence whether it be because of emotion or trial and error, or simply because they are dim (in your mind). I.E -Some people would rather err on the side of safe then deal with terrible consequences which might perhaps destroy them.
If I ever lost lilgrips because I was a little too blase about possible risk I would be devastated and never ever forgive myself.

That is all from me now; I have scarves to weave and a life to live.

Thank you for understanding Mrs Grips. I do not think any of the protagonists are dim on this thread

I am not avoidig answering your question - there is no answer possible or there are an infinite number of answers. too many variables.

So those who agree with me are also stupid thick and wrong?

I'm not saying you're thick and wrong because of your assessment of the risks of trailers.

I'm saying you're thick and wrong for not accepting that my viewpoint is rational but simply different.

I've got code to write and iDave diet threads to comment on.

That is all from me now

I can't beleive, in my lunch break, i've just spent 10 minutes looking at the last DFT report on accident statistics. My conclusion is who is qualified to sumarise all these stats when it appears you can interpret them in which ever way you wish, and frankly who cares.

For example, it would appear in distance travelled, the bike is in fact 8 times more dangerous than the car when it comes to serious or fatal accident rates, but of course more people are killed each year in the car.

I'll stick to emotive decision making 😀

This has been one of the best threads, ever!!

It does contain one of the best posts ever. Should be posted on any thread that goes over 30 posts probably.

we should all have listened, it would have saved a lot of effort.

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?

we should all have listened

I do also feel the need to smugly point out that I may have changed molgrips opinion just a little bit (though I'm not entirely sure how much weight his opinion has on this issue 😉 )

I will answer the question. A. I would rather my child was in a car rather than on a bike or in a trailer.

Would you consider answering mine?

Same scenario:

C: You and your child are in a car.
D: You and your child are at home, having chosen not to travel.

I feel a bit guilty having made the initial comment that kicked this all off. All I was trying to say was that the notion of avoiding car travel for the sake of risk was unheard of.

I liked damos stats. If the OP has to get to the lakes from somewhere like cornwall, I reckon he's got about 15 miles of guilt free trailer use in the bank 😉

Mrs Grips, will you feel terrible if your child is wiped out in an extremme weather event or dies in some kind of greenhoused post-oil anarchistic violence because that's where everybody carrying kids everywhere in cars will get us?

If only it was JUST taking kids places in cars that was the issue... But of course you know that you're just trying to wind us up.

We mostly walk to the shops btw.

If you think I'm trying to wind you up you've misjudged me, Molgrips. You're worried about something highly unlikely and yet accuse me of a wind up when I point out the inevitable consequence of living your car-bound, centrally-heated lifestyle.

FFS edukator. The thread had died a death. Think of moleys blood pressure will you?

In 2002, the rate of passenger (and that's all passengers, adults and kids) deaths per BILLION passenger kilometres for bicycles was 29.5. Whichever way you look at it, that's a vanishingly small number. If you rode 10 miles a day every day for your entire life, dying (of natural causes, naturally) at 80, you'd rack up less than half a million km. Or 1/2000 of a billion. The expected number of deaths per 500,000km is 0.01. Which looks like decent odds to me

(And yes, for cars it was 2.8 per billion, but when the numbers are this small the comparison seems almost irrelevant.)

Both are small chances yes, but isn't another way of interpreting that to say you are 10 times more likely to die on a bike than in a car for a journey of a set distance?

Perhaps that is why Molgrips chooses as he does? It really doesn't seem that odd a decision to me.

isn't another way of interpreting that to say you are 10 times more likely to die on a bike than in a car for a journey of a set distance

Yes, you really need to disaggregate the data before it makes any sense. Otherwise you're just counting the wrong stuff.

Incidentally, where is everyone getting all this data from? or is it just report summaries?

Its not a logical decision not to take a child on a bike - its an emotive one

For example, it would appear in distance travelled, the bike is in fact 8 times more dangerous than the car when it comes to serious or fatal accident rates, but of course more people are killed each year in the car.

but isn't another way of interpreting that to say you are 10 times more likely to die on a bike than in a car for a journey of a set distance?

Its not a logical decision not to take a child on a bike - its an emotive one.

If all data says death rates are higher on bikes per mile travelled than cars then I really don't follow how you can say it not a logical decision.

And if considering a single incident that has the same likelihood of happening, however small, whether you are travelling by bike or car, for instance being rear ended by a truck, it would seem logical (not to mention obvious) that your chances of survival are higher in a car than a bike.

Damo the point is that it is so unlikely that an accident will happen that the risk is insignificant. To avoid doing something because of an insignificant risk is not rational behaviour. Especially when the same person will do another activity that caries a similar insignificant risk without even questioning it.

The odds on being involved in a serious accident on a bike are millions to one per journey undertaken.

Ok so you agree cars a safer by some multiple (stats can argue about exactly how much), just think that the risk of dying on a bike is so small (albeit more likely than in a car) it is not worth worrying about.

I'd agree with that, but I don't think you can really take your position that everyone else should have the same attitude to risk as you and call them irrational and so on.

Damo's point about bikes being statistically more dangerous per km than cars is a fact. Why not just tell him he's right. The stats don't include people dying of car use related illnesses.

The risk of using a bicycle is still acceptable to most people and becomes even more acceptable when you look at the causes of death to bicycle users and realise that the most dangerous situations are easily avoided.

I can't be bothered to Google and link but stats for France showed that fatalities were mostly riders going down the inside/outside of turning trucks and jumping red lights. Stay sober, don't use naughty substances, don't do the thing you know are dangerous and you are only likely to find yourself in one of the very rare merde happens categories. In 80km on the road today I didn't feel threatened once and the bigggest risk I took was riding with my shirt off for an hour, skin cancer being another possible cause of my death. Now if only Mark Haines had ridden his bike to work. 🙁

car use related illnesses

LOL. Passive driving?

Damo - yes - and getting in a car carries a similarly very small risk. Teh lack of rationality is that a million to one chance is too risky ( a bike) but a ten million to one chance ( a car) is not too risky.

An insignificant risk is an insignificant risk. Considering you will do far more miles in a car the actual risk per journey is similar - so its not rational to say this journey on a bike is too risky but this journey in a car is not too risky - when the risk is similar and infinitiesimal

Higher incidences of heart problems, musculoskeletal and digestive system disorders, hemorrhoids, and abesity. (from the occupational hazards of taxi driving).

I point out the inevitable consequence of living your car-bound, centrally-heated lifestyle

CAR BOUND? WTF? I'M A DIE HARD FRIGGING CYCLIST!

Jesus H Christ on a mother **** tandem!

This is utterly futile. You are arguing with a figment of your own imagination created from half-comprehended snippets of my posts. So I'll leave you to it. Why not invent more ways you can slag off this imaginary person yourself, I'm not needed!

abesity? you mean abeastie?

Ok so you agree cars a safer by some multiple (stats can argue about exactly how much), just think that the risk of dying on a bike is so small (albeit more likely than in a car) it is not worth worrying about.

Meanwhile your chances of dying of other things than in an accident on the road are so much higher, you're surely better off working on minimising those risks than the risk of road transport. My personal anecdotal evidence is that being exposed to going cycling with me makes my kids far more keen on going cycling themselves, and hence far more likely to establish a lifestyle including exercise than those of my neighbours who don't go on similar bike trips.

Oh, and phwoar 'undred