Forum menu
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.
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.