Safety Concern for a Child (on the back of a bike)

[edanna]

actuarygi - yes it's the dad's decision but hopefully if he reads this he will pause for thought because quite a few people are concerned about the safety of the situation. He may feel that he is in control of the balance of the bike and how much the dogs are pulling but it would only take one thing that suddenly stops one of the dogs or makes them pull in a different direction (spotting a cat or a squirrel, being shocked by a loud noise) to tip the bike over. Even if there are no cars around, a child without a helmet falling to the ground either on the pavement or the road could suffer a very serious head injury.

[Otta]

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> We have an obesity epidemic in thsi country - we

> should encourage children on bikes at all times.

I don't disagree for a second that kids should be encouraged to cycle, but the reason we're told we have an obesity problem is that obesity numbers are based on the hugely flawed BMI.

[actuarygi]

On the issue of bike helmet, there has been recent discussion about how useful they really are:

Quoting The Telegraph:

Henry Marsh, who works at St George?s Hospital in Tooting, London, said that many of his patients who have been involved in bike accidents have been wearing helmets that were ?too flimsy? to be beneficial......He said: ?......In the countries where bike helmets are compulsory there has been no reduction in bike injuries whatsoever.

[bawdy-nan]

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Bunch of busybodies!

>

> Should you "have a word with him"? No. Mind your

> own bloody business. He's not breaking any laws. I

> see a guy going up and down Crystal Palace Rd on a

> bike with his young son (aged 5 or 6) on a small

> bike in front of him. I think how wonderful that

> he's teaching his son road skills and drive

> appropriately in the circumstances.

>

> This is why the new 20mph limit is such a good

> idea. It will make the roads safer for cyclists

> and encourage more children onto the roads.

>

> We have an obesity epidemic in thsi country - we

> should encourage children on bikes at all times.

This. This. This.

There are all kinds of things that people do which we might think are "wrong" and / or "risky" for themselves or their families, or which we just don't like but are none of our business and we can't / shouldn't expect to do anything about.

Personally, I'm very concerned about the high rates of eating disorders and mental health disorders at high pressure private schools and feel very worried for the mental health and moral well being of these children should I be handing out leaflets at the school gates telling demanding parents that they should be doing things differently? Of course not

[Earl Aelfheah]

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> david_carnell Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > We have an obesity epidemic in thsi country -

> we

> > should encourage children on bikes at all

> times.

>

>

>

>

> I don't disagree for a second that kids should be

> encouraged to cycle, but the reason we're told we

> have an obesity problem is that obesity numbers

> are based on the hugely flawed BMI.

That, and the fact that kids are loads fatter than they used to be

[Otta]

Some kids are, but when I take my daughters to school / preschool every day I can only think of one little lad who is a bit of a chunk, but he's not huge. I just don't see all these fat kids, and I work in education visiting lots of schools.

[Earl Aelfheah]

.

[david_carnell]

Bmi isn't flawed unless you are at the extremes of the height range or are extremely muscly since that weighs more than fat. Otherwise it's a pretty decent way of measuring. It's the standard worldwide for a reason.

[Otta]

And yet plenty of doctors call it flawed. It assumes that everyone of a certain height is going to have the same build.

[aquarius moon]

I've only just seen this thread so this is my opinion:

When you are a cyclist (which I am), if you've been cycling for a while (which I have), you gain confidence and know your abilities. So if you didn't feel confident attaching children or dogs to your bike, you wouldn't do it.

But if you do, and know that nothing you do is going to harm them, you then take the risk that everyone else on the road is looking out for you.

Unfortunately, they might not.

[Otta]

All fair enough, but as you say, you can't predict what other road users will do, and more to the point, you can't necessarily predict what your dog will do.

[aquarius moon]

No, but nobody is going to take their dogs cycling with them unless they know how they'll react.

I know how mine would react so never going to happen. Shame though. If they'd been into cycling from a young age they wouldn't now be suffering from middle age spread.

[aquarius moon]

Are you still there Otta?

I know it's a change of subject but it's about a tv programme.

[Otta]

Sorry, wasn't ignoring you, I'd retired to the sofa and beer by then.

[aquarius moon]

It's ok. I'll PM you as it's nothing to do with cycling.

[QueenMab]

I'm a cyclist who takes a child on a bike but I've seen this chap and he is indeed a liability. I've seen him have a near accident once already after once of his dogs got frightened by traffic and nearly got entangled in the bike . Cycling along with two dogs on leads is idiotic at the best of times, with a child on the back, it's lunacy. Not sure there's anything anyone can do about it though I'm afraid.

[Cyclist]

I have been watching this thread and cannot failed to be amazed at the amount of assertion and prejudice that has been levied on the cyclist in question. And it also happens that I am the cyclist.

I won't be categorically answering each of the charge. But I will talk to QueenMab directly. I have always ridden very carefully and steadily, and stopping at the side of the road to let the cars pass when appropriate. Thank you for your keen observation (and also those who have discussed actively about me in this thread), but your memory serves you wrong. My dogs are not frightened by the cars, a large part because they are kept on the left side always. No accident has nearly happened as you claim to have seen. Lunacy or idiotic, that is my choice, based on the amount of control that I know, not you or the rest, I possess on the bike. If any of you are still concerned and want to be constructive, then think about this from the perspective of the cyclist, not the cars. Go and fight for a dedicated bicycle lane that everyone can use, one that is not reserved only for cyclists that like to speed past just as fast as cars, and who would scoff at anyone that happens to ride slower than himself or herself.

[SLad]

Dear Cyclist,

Bully for you that you feel sufficiently confident in your dogs' temperament and ability to avoid becoming distracted or embroiled with street furniture, the general public's ability to avoid any type of inadvertence which might impact on your unusual caravan, and your own control of that flimsy bicycle you cycle (which, by the way, is no match for any other vehicle on the road) to feel that you place your child in little danger by adopting this circus style means of transport without even bothering to protect part of your child's head with a helmet. As someone who sees the consequences of third party's inadvertence on our roads day in day out and the devastation the resultant accidents can cause, I'm afraid I think it's misplaced and a sign of a significant ego.

I wish that you and your child remain safe and well but do sincerely hope that you consider modifying your approach at least to leave the dogs at home and put a helmet on your child's head. You can be stupid enough not to bother wearing one but don't inflict that self same stupidity on your child for heaven's sake.

Yours,

S

[Cyclist]

Dear S,

Third party inadvertence can cause injury to anyone - cyclists, cyclists with child, cyclists with dogs, pedestrians. A simple count of accidents that has happened to cyclists without dogs and cyclists with dogs that has happened in the past will be sufficient to pacify your mind over the inevitability of disaster that is supposedly staring at me, who is, again based on your assertion, being masked by my own ego.

Since the attack is now shifted to the point of helmet. Do pay a bit of attention to the latest controversy over how useful they really are, and then subtract a small portion of your self-confidence and righteousness when asserting on my stupidity.

It would also be infinitely more constructive if you convert your wish for my safety and my child's safety in the forum to voicing the need for dedicated bicycle lane in London to the relevant authority.

Yours,

Cyclist

[SLad]

Dear Cyclist,

I have argued about the relevance of cycle helmets in a professional context on many occasions so I am au fait with the benefit/disadvantage arguments but you'd be hard pressed to find any medic who would suggest that they don't serve to protect some element of damage, even if only soft tissue injuries rather than the percussive brain injuries we are exposed to when our head is subjected to brunt trauma of impact on pavement/car/street furniture as a result of a collision.

If you've got an empirical data source for me to compare the statistics on accidents involving cyclists riding whilst not attempting to maintain control of dogs and cyclists riding whilst doing so then please point me in the right direction but I'm sure you're not suggesting that one should just compare the number of accidents themselves given i'm sure there are more of the former category of cyclists than the latter out on our streets.

However, I think you've misunderstood my point: I'm not focusing on helmets, I'm focused on this circus style means of transport (exacerbated by the failure even to accord your child the protection of a common and cheap piece of safety equipment) which jeopardises your safety but, more importantly, that of your child, your dogs and other road users.

And don't worry about my advocacy for cycle safety: I can reassure you that I am vocal and active campaigner for greater cycle safety but tend to find that the cycle safety message is often undermined with the general public by the unsafe practices commonly adopted by cyclists in London such as failing to observe traffic lights, and cycling in a demonstrably unsafe manner but hey ho.

[SLad]

Funnily enough, I just came across this in the context of a matter I've involved in at the moment: http://www.rospa.com/road-safety/advice/pedal-cyclists/carrying-children/

[Cyclist]

Dear Slad,

Your writing is appealing and certainly attention grabbing - eg. "circus style means of transport". But it is, to put it plainly, your imagination. What it comes down to, is that for all your flowery language, you simply have not presented any simple statistics to back up on what you are accusing me of - which is that my cycling practice increases the probability of accident for myself, my child, my dogs, and other road users. You are now asking me to supply you with statistics and, further, show to you the correct statistics methodology, so that I can prove to myself and those who are reading here something that you accuse me of ?

Short of any tangible evidence, there is no possibility to argue over this safety issue without downgrading into your opinion vs my opinion. But since you are accusing me, let me point out simply that you are really just imagining what it may be like to live someone's life. You don't like to hear about the actual stability and control from the very real person who is doing it because it doesn't fit into your perception ? Fine - but leave me alone. I don't have to justify to you why I need to do what I do.

For all your disinterest about helmet, your description is professional and thank you for your information coming from a medic point of view. But for your information, a neurosurgeon does not appear to agree with you. Who is more right, there is no way of knowing, and I reserve the judgement to myself. Not all cyclist rides at 40 miles per hour. The probability of an accident occurring and the severity of that accident given that it has occurred cannot be the same for all cyclists. I put it to you that you are basically imposing your image of what a "typical cyclist" is onto me, and then preach me on what is not relevant for me. Thank you, but please just mind your own business.

[Mustard]

...

[robbin]

Cyclist, so as I understand the gist of your viewpoint/arguments, they are along these lines...

You might have an accident that's not your fault, no matter how expert a cyclist you are - 'whatever!'

A crack on the head can cause life changing injuries or death, if not wearing a helmet - 'yes, but a helmet wouldn't be any help at all if a lorry ran over your head, so its not worth wearing one - anyway I once read that someone says they don't make you safer'

Better be safe than sorry and have the child's head protected in case of accident - 'no, my child doesn't need protection because there's probably not going to be an accident because I'm so good at cycling'

A dog being towed along next to you might not be quite as safe as not taking the dog - 'cyclists have accidents without dogs, so that's PROOF it makes no difference!'

'Don't tell me what to do - go and campaign for a cycle lane which would lessen my risk of an accident ('oh, there is a risk! - never mind - don't tell me what to do anyway...)'

[Cyclist]

Robbin, you have missed it. Not 'cyclists have accidents without dogs, so that's PROOF it makes no difference!', but "if you make an accusation on me, then present the hard statistical evidence that can conclude that cycling with dogs has actually led to a higher chance of accidents than cycling without dogs."

And the white elephant in the room : Apply your wise judgement to yourself and reserve that space for others for their own lives.