Young babies on bikes

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 roundabout 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)

I’m not TJ, so not constrained by your rules 😀
C – don’t use roads with blind bends and idiots driving on them.

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 your point of view.

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

We did do a good job at sucking you in to our hilarious boys willy waving though 😈

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

Yeah, but even mrsgrips couldn’t take her own advice!

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

Given the car figure includes motorway travel (a quick wiki suggests 9.3 per billion for non motorway) and the cyclist figure includes children in charge of the vehicle, the actual difference is far, far less than that for any given journey.

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?

It is possible to weight these stats differently form you and decide n a different course of action without either course being emotive.
Imagineif I was to satr t saying you ar eonly saying as you do becaus eyou are callous and uncaring about children. i would watch my language if I were you – you dont mean the offence but it is often suggested in your posts.

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.

It’s not worth worrying about if you don’t worry about the risk of dying in a car (which with my fairly basic re-interpretation of the stats is no better than twice as safe per mile travelled). Of course if the only reason for deciding on a means of transport is your risk of being killed due to an accident on that journey you’d pick the car every time. The thing is that’s not the only reason we choose to do things (otherwise we’d never go mountain biking), and the actual difference in rate of risks is small enough that other factors (such as that my kids far prefer going on the bike to in the car) come into play.

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