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

[Cyclist]

Today Townley road is horribly busy AGAIN. No car was travelling behind me this morning for the whole journey. Over the 3 days, the average traffic I have actually encountered is 0.5 car and 1/6 bike per journey per day.

Faced with this horrific traffic condition every morning and afternoon, let's critically reflect on how "nuttiness, selfishness idiocy and lunacy" it is, according to the quoted allegations below, to expose myself and other road users to "great risk" because I ride with child with dogs. No enquiry has ever been made as to the road condition specific to the time of the day and the actual route taken. But plenty of rash and unpleasant conclusions. To sum it up, these allegations are hysterical.

I take the time to publish these actual statistics in the last 3 days to illustrate a point. The point is that baseless, hysterical, sensational and general allegation can be made by any armchair commentator, perhaps while having coffee in a cafe in the space of a minute. On the other hand, actual informative data that shed light on the real and specific issue takes time to collect. That is the essence of "mind your own business". The left out part is "until you have actually made an effort to understand the specific issue you are talking about".

> QueenMab Wrote:

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

> -----

>

> > 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.

>

>

> > Pugwash Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > sounds a bit of nut case - have seen cyclist

> in

> > > the park with dogs on lead, but on the

> highway

> > > with a child is asking for trouble

> >

> >

> > oliviaandmilo Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > If its a usual time he passes with this

> selfish

> behaviour then get some police advice and see

> if

> >

> > > they can do something. Quite often people,

> > > although parents can be quite nasty when told

>

> > > about something their doing wrong. Better to

> do

> >

> > > something than nothing, else guilt is pretty

> > awful

> > > to live with.

>

> SLad Wrote:

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

> -----

> > 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.

> >

SLad Wrote:

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

> Arrogance compared with stubbornness is a ticking

> time bomb.

alice Wrote:

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

> pride before a fall

[robbin]

Cyclist Wrote:

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

> do you or would you leash your kids when out ?

>

> robbin Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Probably not worth shelling out for helmets for

> > the kids then.

Now that's just a really weird comment to make!! I think you may be losing the plot.

I was talking about helmets. Not sure where the leash thing came from (apart from in your head). A few posts ago you responded to mine about helmets, saying "the helmet is a fair point".

So why now get all defensive and daft? To answer your rather odd question, no - I wouldn't 'leash' my children (whatever that means) but as a decent caring father I would protect them with a helmet if they were out on a bike (being a keen cyclist I want them to ride bikes). But then I think a few quid is worth it to make them safer (notice I say 'safer' not 'safe' - cycling obviously carries some risk - which is why wearing a helmet is in my opinion only common sense).

Each to their own though. If you've changed your mind and now on reflection, having carried out a 'statistical' analysis of traffic flow on your route you don't think it's worth the expense, you don't. Your choice - your children realistically don't have any say in the matter.

[Cyclist]

It is not that weird really to ask you about your attitude to child leash. Children are unpredictable. They bounce and jump around, running here and there for interesting things while walking on the thin patch of pedestrian. When they are out with parents, they can walk behind, running in front, let go of the parents' hand all of a sudden. Particularly on Lordship Lane where there are streams of cars and buses passing through every minute, it can be really dangerous if, for example, a child suddenly decides to pick up something on the road, or worse still, cross the road without parent's control. These real possibilities must have been the on the mind of those responsible adults who decide that the best and safe policy with children is to leash them while walking on pedestrian. I have seen parents or carers leashing their children on Lordship Lane many times. In case you misunderstand what I am talking about, I have attached a photo from google to show you. These have many names: safety harness, child leash, toddler leash so on. Ebay has many of these "baby toddler safety leash" ranging from 4 pound to 10 pounds in various colours and design.

Personally, I have no desire to put on one for my child. But that is expected because I am not a "decent and caring father" as some other people are in the forum. But it is a little bit unexpected that you would find it so weird that I raise the issue of child leash. Based on your reasoning, the child will be definitely "safer" - to use your word, with a leash put on while walking on pedestrian, and the leash does only cost a few quids. I agree completely with you, that "safer" not "safe" is the right word because nothing is totally safe. Quoting your argument further (and quite a few other commentators here share this view), anyone "no matter how arrogant or stubborn - can ever sensibly argue" a leash "might not save your kid's life. Of course he or she may never need it and truly hope that's the case, but it's a gamble with odds - pure and simple." Realistically, the opportunity for most kids to have this safety equipment is quite slim if the parents don't put it on for them. Why would anyone gamble their own child's safety ? Why not put this child leash on to make the child on the pedestrian safer ?

robbin Wrote:

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

> Cyclist Wrote:

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

> -----

> > do you or would you leash your kids when out ?

> >

> > robbin Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > Probably not worth shelling out for helmets

> for

> > > the kids then.

>

> Now that's just a really weird comment to make!!

> I think you may be losing the plot.

>

> I was talking about helmets. Not sure where the

> leash thing came from (apart from in your head).

> A few posts ago you responded to mine about

> helmets, saying "the helmet is a fair point".

>

> So why now get all defensive and daft? To answer

> your rather odd question, no - I wouldn't 'leash'

> my children (whatever that means) but as a decent

> caring father I would protect them with a helmet

> if they were out on a bike (being a keen cyclist I

> want them to ride bikes). But then I think a few

> quid is worth it to make them safer (notice I say

> 'safer' not 'safe' - cycling obviously carries

> some risk - which is why wearing a helmet is in my

> opinion only common sense).

>

> Each to their own though. If you've changed your

> mind and now on reflection, having carried out a

> 'statistical' analysis of traffic flow on your

> route you don't think it's worth the expense, you

> don't. Your choice - your children realistically

> don't have any say in the matter.

[robbin]

Wow!

Plot, lost!

[robbin]

Cyclist - if you had handwritten those last posts, they would no doubt have been in green ink!

[Cyclist]

I don't know what you are on about green ink. I just thought to remind you on an aspect of risk in everyday life that you may have overlooked.

[robbin]

Google what it means. Or do you want me to post a picture, so you can see what it looks like?

(I found yours very helpful!)

[Cyclist]

I google, and it does not come up with anything horrific. One of the article is "Should I use a leash on my child?" on a parenting website: http://mom.me/parenting/2635-should-i-use-a-leash-on-my-child/

The question is simple really - why would anyone NOT use child leash given that they are concerned about helmet even though both equipments will make the child safer and only costs a few quid ? Why criticise me for not using helmet on child, but at the same time find it "weird" that I raise the issue of child leash with you ?

I will go direct to my point. Everyone has his or her perception of riskiness. What is risky to some is not risky to others. I make a point of not criticising others on the basis of what I think is right, because I recognise that there is no true "science" in any of these assertions. Likewise, I hope a lot of forum users can reflect on the quantity of personal bias that is contained in the allegations they make on others and refrain from doing so.

[robbin]

You really have lost the plot. I meant Google what a reference to writing in green ink means, but you are still wittering on about leashes!

BTW writing in green ink means the writer is a bit bonkers.

[Cyclist]

well, it doesn't matter whether I am bonkers or not in your opinion, particularly when you are really just saying the logic in your very own argument and your own words is bonkers. The question remains why would you NOT use child leash given that you are concerned about helmet even though both equipments will make the child safer and only costs a few quid ? Why criticise me for not using helmet on child, but at the same time find it "weird" that I raise the issue of child leash with you ?

[Otta]

This is painful.

[robbin]

Sorry Cyclist - reading your last post made my eyes start to bleed and caused a strange whistling sound in my head, so I'm going to have to draw this exchange to a close.

Until your next 'statistical' ranting update tomorrow morning - on yer bike!

[Cyclist]

Have a good day.

[Earl Aelfheah]

It's a shame that Cyclist is now coming off badly because of his/her doggedness, because taking the personalities out of this for a minute, I couldn't disagree more strongly with the general gist of this thread.

Firstly, I don't accept the widely held view of cycling as a particularly dangerous activity.

Secondly, just because you might feel someone is making 'bad choices', does not give you licence to stick your oar in.

Bear in mind that there are plenty of contact sports (football for example) which have roughly the same level of fatalities per participant (actually higher). One could use the argument often applied to cycling, namely "wearing a helmet isn't going to do any harm, so why not be safe' to football. Try going to a kids match and admonish the irresponsible parents who aren't making their children wear a helmet. Why not, as was suggested earlier, raise the issue with the police?

People are bad at judging risk and quick to jump in on a moral panic.

I worry much more about the inactive kid, sitting at home eating junk food than the one climbing up a tree without padding, cycling without a helmet, or playing contact sports without a mouth shield.

We are creating a culture of risk aversion and puritanism.

[Cyclist]

well, I have coped quite few unpleasant adjectives in the last weeks of so. So not too sure how taking time to publish some statistics and raising an equally valid and related point on child leash has made me "doggedness". But nevertheless, I am in agreement with what rahrahrah wrote.

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> It's a shame that Cyclist is now coming off badly

> because of his/her doggedness, because taking the

> personalities out of this for a minute, I couldn't

> disagree more strongly with the general gist of

> this thread.

>

> Firstly, I don't accept the widely held view of

> cycling a particularly dangerous activity.

>

> Secondly, just because you might feel someone is

> making 'bad choices', does not give you licence to

> stick your oar in.

>

> Bear in mind that there are plenty of contact

> sports (football for example) which have roughly

> the same level of fatalities per participant

> (actually higher). One could use the argument

> often applied to cycling, namely "wearing a helmet

> isn't going to do any harm, so why not be safe' to

> football. Try going to a kids match and admonish

> the irresponsible parents who aren't making their

> children wear a helmet. Why not, as was suggested

> earlier, raise the issue with the police?

>

> People are bad at judging risk and quick to jump

> in on a moral panic.

>

> I worry much more about the inactive kid, sitting

> at home eating junk food than the one climbing up

> a tree without padding, cycling without a helmet,

> or playing contact sports without a mouth shield.

>

> We are creating a culture of risk aversion and

> puritanism.

[Earl Aelfheah]

... compare it to this

 

[Otta]

You come over as someone that really does not like to be questioned, but hey ho.

I too agree with rahrahrah that we are creating a culture of risk aversion and wrapping kids in cotton wool too much. But equally there are just some things I personally wouldn't mess about with.

Couple of points.

Cycling isn't THAT dangerous if you know what you're doing, which I'm sure cyclist does. However, you're still using the roads and accidents can happen however experienced you are.

If a lorry hits your bike you're probably screwed, helmet or not.

It is possible that a person can come off their bike in a random and unexpected moment. If that happened a kid in a helmet stands less chance of cracking their head on the ground than a kid without a helmet.

Football isn't generally played on concrete.

When I first read this thread, it was the dogs which caught my attention. To each their own, I couldn't really give a toss what cyclist does and whether or not he does it safely, but to be honest it surprised me that it was even legal to ride in the road with a dog or two running along side you in the road (I am assuming it is legal?).

But anyway....

Cyclist Wrote: (5 days ago)

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

> The helmet is a fair point.

Couldn't we all have just rejoiced then and locked this stupid thread (which is like a car crash that I can't stop looking at)?

[Jeremy]

Life's just too short to worry about other people's kids - I spend enough time worrying about my own. Sometimes you see things which make you wince, but if no law's being broken, I ain't getting involved.

[robbin]

I agree Otta.

I wish I could stop tuning in, worse still responding to stuff. A car crash would be less painful!

But to answer your point about legality - it is quite likely to be illegal - this provides some clue to how the Police viewed one idiot cycling along with a single dog in tow.

Add a child without a helmet to this story and it could be Cyclist (in view of this guy's responses and 'don't tell me what to do' attitude)!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2865549/Grandfather-rode-road-dog-tethered-bicycle-guilty-DANGEROUS-CYCLING.html

[Cyclist]

I have been questioned and described as "lunatic", "idiot". I take an offence at these personal remarks. I then took the time to depict the actual risk on the roads with empirical observations. And then I illustrate the moral relativity hidden in these accusations by raising the issue of child leash. Nowhere have I employed words like "lunatic" "idiotic" unlike many people here. Now, to say that I am egotistical and someone will not be questioned is very unfair. I am egotistical in the sense that I defend my ego - defined as appropriate pride in oneself - with facts as established by empirical observations. This is a reasonable and sensible approach to criticism.

[Cyclist]

This is perfect example to illustrate how important it is to pay attention to specificity of the situation. Mr Frankland was riding on road bewteen 30mph to 50mph (Townley had 20mph speed limit), where there was a queue of cars behind him (compared to 0.5 car), had his dog near to the central white line (mine was on the left near the kerb).

"Mr Frankland was close to the kerb but his dog, Mali, was near to the central white line and there were a queue of cars behind him."

"on the road that varies in speed limit between 30mph and 50mph,

robbin Wrote:

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

> I agree Otta.

>

> I wish I could stop tuning in, worse still

> responding to stuff. A car crash would be less

> painful!

>

> But to answer your point about legality - it is

> quite likely to be illegal - this provides some

> clue to how the Police viewed one idiot cycling

> along with a single dog in tow.

>

> Add a child without a helmet to this story and it

> could be Cyclist (in view of this guy's responses

> and 'don't tell me what to do' attitude)!

>

> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2865549/Gr

> andfather-rode-road-dog-tethered-bicycle-guilty-DA

> NGEROUS-CYCLING.html

[robbin]

Yes, and he had only one dog and he had no small children without helmets.

[Earl Aelfheah]

But people are much more likely to get injured playing football and occasionally there are even serious injuries - people crack heads, run into goal posts etc. The fact that football isn't played on concrete missing the point. Contact sports almost invariably lead to some level of injury (there can't be many footballers who's never been injured), - where as cycling does not.

The issue is one of ?availability bias? - the phenomenon of judging risks based on how easily we can bring examples to mind. Unusual and arresting events ? such as a lorry running a cyclist over - are plastered all over the media. A kid breaking his leg playing football is more commonplace but doesn?t make the news. It?s not unusual, it?s not novel.

Cycling is not a particularly dangerous activity, but (as with anything) neither is it risk free.

[Otta]

I wish you'd stop calling iot a child leash, that's just language designed to wind people up (even if you did find a profuct with that title). And whilst I understand the point you are making, I don't think it's comparable (child walking / running on pavement compared to child passenger on bike).

I guess the most apt comparrison could be seat belts in cars. You may have never been involved in a crash. Every time you get in your car you PROBABLY won't have an accident, and yet you belt up. I know this is the law, but even bofore that, most people did it anyway, because despite the fact that it probably wouldn't be needed, people just felt it more sensible to play it safe.

But again for me it was the whole dog thing. I've never seen that on the roads, and if it is legal I'd be quite surprised.

[Otta]

I wasn't missing your point rahrahrah, I was just not really agreeing with it.

More people may die / get injured playing football than cycling, but why do they die / get injured? In a lot of cases it will be because of the unpredictable actions of another player.