Child carrying advice please

[tcmedara]

doctormick <[email protected]> wrote:
> You've probably seen similar messages before but I can't find the
> advice I'm after in any archive.
>
> My wife wants to buy a bike to go cycling with my ten and seven year
> old daughters but also want to be able to take my 21 month old
> daughter with her. However we can't decide whether she should go for a
> seat on the back or a trailer.
>
> Can anyone tell me from experience which is the best/safest way to
> carry my 21 month old daughter. She weichs approx 28 - 30 lbs
>
> We live in a rural location between Brighton and London, therefore
> busy main roads and narrow country lanes. It's also pretty hilly
> immediately around us. Any ideas would be gratefully received.
>
> Regards
>
> Mike Turner
>
I'd go with the trailer at that age, but you should also keep your eye out
for a good deal on a trailer bike. Sheldon sells a few models:
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/harris/trailrcy.html

I started my son on one of these at about age 31/2 and enjoyed it up until
he was 7 or so for longer rides he couldn't make on his own. By then, my
daughter was ready.

Tom

 

[Gawnsoft]

On Wed, 4 Aug 2004 20:59:05 -0400, "tcmedara"
<[email protected]> wrote (more or less):

>doctormick <[email protected]> wrote:
>> You've probably seen similar messages before but I can't find the
>> advice I'm after in any archive.
>>
>> My wife wants to buy a bike to go cycling with my ten and seven year
>> old daughters but also want to be able to take my 21 month old
>> daughter with her. However we can't decide whether she should go for a
>> seat on the back or a trailer.
>>
>> Can anyone tell me from experience which is the best/safest way to
>> carry my 21 month old daughter. She weichs approx 28 - 30 lbs
>>
>> We live in a rural location between Brighton and London, therefore
>> busy main roads and narrow country lanes. It's also pretty hilly
>> immediately around us. Any ideas would be gratefully received.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Mike Turner
>>
>I'd go with the trailer at that age, but you should also keep your eye out
>for a good deal on a trailer bike. Sheldon sells a few models:
>http://www.sheldonbrown.com/harris/trailrcy.html
>
>I started my son on one of these at about age 31/2 and enjoyed it up until
>he was 7 or so for longer rides he couldn't make on his own. By then, my
>daughter was ready.

For trailer bikes, teh lower limit is inside leg length, rather than
age or weight.

The one I checked out had a min inside leg requirement of 20.5"


--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

 

[Gawnsoft]

On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 11:45:13 GMT, JohnB <[email protected]> wrote (more
or less):

>pas wrote:
....
>> If you are really worried about "risk of emergency stop"
>> or a kid being flung around, perhaps you should not take your baby out at
>> all... there's going to be risk no matter what.
>
>By definition an emergency stop cannot be planned for, and will be
>completely unexpected but the potential effects of one can be reduced.
>One of the most common reasons for a rapid or immediate stop is when a
>vehicle pulls out in front of a cyclist - a typical SMIDSY.
>
>Anything loose - will be flung forward - in this case a child. An
>unrestrained child on the front may be propelled at speed off the bike
>and into the vehicle or on to the road or into the handlebar clutter.
>Alternatively they may be crushed by the adult as they too move forward.
>In addition, with the weight on the front the chance of a
>head-over-the-handlebars situation increases.
>
>Worse still is if the rider hits the obstruction and doesn't even manage
>to stop. The immediate forces will propel the child and/or rider.
>
>Yes, there are also risks from having the child on the rear or in a
>trailer but they are lower. The child will still be propelled forward if
>in a rear seat, but at least they will have something soft in front of
>them and not have the weight of an adult (or bike) bearing on them from behind.
>
>One favourable aspect of having the child on the front is that the
>parent/rider can feel closer to the child and thus the 'bonding' and
>interaction is more pleasant. then again they are not protected from the
>elements and a young child feels cold to a much greater extent than adults.
>
>IMO this is a no-brainer.
>Carrying children on the front of bikes has far more risks than on the
>rear and is not something I would ever advise.

Hmmm - I'd say that the primary safety is higher with front seats,
even if I agree with you about secondary safety.

Mainly for when parking up, or pushing the bike, admnittedly. But
having the seat nearer the CoG means fewer bizarre torques tending to
make the bike fall over.




--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

 

[JohnB]

pas wrote:
>
> JohnB wrote:
> > pas wrote:
> >>
> >> http://www.specialtyoutdoors.com/misc/babyseat.jpg
> >>
> >> here's how they do it in some countries. We built one like this
> >> ourselves for around town, it's actually much more stable than over
> >> the back wheel as the CG doesn't change a whole lot and the kid is
> >> inside your arms.
> >
> > I've never liked this kind of arrangement as it places the child at
> > some risk in the case of an emergency or sudden stop. At least the
> > example you show has a rigid back that should help prevent the adult
> > crushing into the child. the worst are those clamp on saddles that go
> > on the top tube with two foot supports attached to the down tube.
> > However I don't like the idea of the child being flung forward onto
> > the handlebar clutter or worse, which even with strapping is possible
> > with some arrangements. At least if they are on the back they have a
> > soft back to knock into.
> >
> > John B
>
> trust me, it's much more stable than the baby on the back of the bike.

With respect, I'd prefer to trust my own experiences.

> After all, three million third world cyclists building them at home can't be
> wrong!!

They can, but they may have no choice.
In the developed world the advances in safety are higher, and the cost
of a tested properly constructed child seat is not the equivalent of an
annual salary.

> The one we built had a little seat on the top tube, foot rest and
> no back the kid just held onto the handlebars. I don't know about trails but
> it was great for the bike path
>
> The rear tyre thing is just - bad. You have to remember to compensate for
> the weight of the kid everytime you stop. The kids' weight, and you could be
> riding with an extra 30# back there, will really throw you off even if you
> have to swerve.

I fully agree - see my post advocating the use of a trailer.
Even wheeling a bike is difficult exercise with the raised CoG.
It is the same whether the weight is fore or aft.

> If you are really worried about "risk of emergency stop"
> or a kid being flung around, perhaps you should not take your baby out at
> all... there's going to be risk no matter what.

By definition an emergency stop cannot be planned for, and will be
completely unexpected but the potential effects of one can be reduced.
One of the most common reasons for a rapid or immediate stop is when a
vehicle pulls out in front of a cyclist - a typical SMIDSY.

Anything loose - will be flung forward - in this case a child. An
unrestrained child on the front may be propelled at speed off the bike
and into the vehicle or on to the road or into the handlebar clutter.
Alternatively they may be crushed by the adult as they too move forward.
In addition, with the weight on the front the chance of a
head-over-the-handlebars situation increases.

Worse still is if the rider hits the obstruction and doesn't even manage
to stop. The immediate forces will propel the child and/or rider.

Yes, there are also risks from having the child on the rear or in a
trailer but they are lower. The child will still be propelled forward if
in a rear seat, but at least they will have something soft in front of
them and not have the weight of an adult (or bike) bearing on them from behind.

One favourable aspect of having the child on the front is that the
parent/rider can feel closer to the child and thus the 'bonding' and
interaction is more pleasant. then again they are not protected from the
elements and a young child feels cold to a much greater extent than adults.

IMO this is a no-brainer.
Carrying children on the front of bikes has far more risks than on the
rear and is not something I would ever advise.

John B

 

[Rory]

Don't even think of a child seat. A trailer is far far safer, as well
as more practical. I switched when the second kid was due, who
started daily commutes at 3 months (in a Weber baby seat); they are
now 2 and 5, and are still happily commuting. With the seat, we had
a few falls, the worst shortly after I switched to SPDs (yeah
yeah...), which resulted in a bruised arm for my daughter.
It could have been worse, and I vowed then never to use one and to
shout abuse at others when I see them... DON'T EVEN THINK OF USING A
CHILD SEAT! Especially not the front-mounted or cross-bar mounted
ones.

Some trailer plus points:

* If you take a fall, the trailer remains upright and the fallen bike
acts as a brake. I've tested this theory a number of times, much
to the amusement of the passengers
* If you fall with the child seat, the child has a lot further to
fall and even a good child seat doesn't give much protection
* The trailer is very visible in traffic and motorists give it a
wide berth
* Exhaust fumes measured in a child trailer are lower than inside
a car
* Studies in Germany show that even in the case of impact with a car,
the trailer being light is shunted out of the way, rather than
crushed.
* Rain protection is easier as is schlepping gear around

I have a Leggero Classico, that has done over 8000km over the last two
years: if I had the money I'd have got the Richie with caravan type
run-out brakes and suspension, but its been great. There is lots of
good advice on the web, but most of it is in German - I've read it
all, and added my own extensive experience

Things to look for when buying:

* Ideally, get a solid based trailer, rather than a fabric one -
this makes a safer capsule and is better when the kids climb in
and out
* It should have a sturdy roll cage, and ideally, the Weber hard
roof
* Get a good coupling (Becco or Weber are my favourites) - don't
use the Trek / Burley clamp-on one, it is utter ****, and interferes
with the wheels when turning on many bikes.
* Ensure the coupling is firmly attached (I don't like the QR skewer
ones)
* Always use a secondary retainer strap in case the coupling breaks
* Make sure the bicycle brakes are excellant. I changed to Magura
HS33s with have been brilliant. Disks would be OK as well. You
need a good back brake to use as a drag brake on descents, and be
carefull to keep the trailer/bike in a line when braking hard.
The run-out brakes of the Richie might be good.
* Add a second flag to the supplied one (we have the Wexford GAA flag
- purple & gold - nicely visible!)
* Sort the lights. I have a hub dynamo and B&M make a "weicher" - a
junction box so you can plug the trailers lights in when you hitch
up. I also have recharagble lights as backup.
* Generally, choose good bright colours and stick on as many
relectors, dayglo strips and stickers as you can.
* A rear-view mirror is useful, both to check the kids and the trailer
and to get some warning if a car isn't leaving enough space.
* When the kid is small, run the tyres a bit soft, and perhaps use
extra padding between the seat and trailer (some foam rubber works
well). It's harder to pull with soft tyres, but when they grow,
you can pump them up, and you've already prepared yourself for the
heavier load

 

[R.White]

JohnB <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> pas wrote:
> >
> > http://www.specialtyoutdoors.com/misc/babyseat.jpg
> >
> > here's how they do it in some countries. We built one like this ourselves
> > for around town, it's actually much more stable than over the back wheel as
> > the CG doesn't change a whole lot and the kid is inside your arms.
>
> I've never liked this kind of arrangement as it places the child at some
> risk in the case of an emergency or sudden stop. At least the example
> you show has a rigid back that should help prevent the adult crushing
> into the child. the worst are those clamp on saddles that go on the top
> tube with two foot supports attached to the down tube.
> However I don't like the idea of the child being flung forward onto the
> handlebar clutter or worse, which even with strapping is possible with
> some arrangements. At least if they are on the back they have a soft
> back to knock into.

I'd be more concerned about the sky falling.

 

[Sverre Amundsen]

On 5 Aug 2004 05:26:11 -0700, Rory <[email protected]> wrote:

> Some trailer plus points:

[snip]

> * Exhaust fumes measured in a child trailer are lower than inside
> a car
> * Studies in Germany show that even in the case of impact with a car,
> the trailer being light is shunted out of the way, rather than
> crushed.

Can you document this? I'd like to read these studies myself. I'm not
trying to troll, I own a trailer, but I'm very concerned about using it
anywhere close to traffic.

Sverre


--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On 04 Aug 2004 14:46:13 GMT, [email protected]ospam (Stephen Baker) wrote:

..MV blurts:
..
..>You have no business subjecting a child to that danger and air pollution!
..
..No - get her a mountain bike instead and a small trailer and let her enjoy
..nature.. ;-P

All you can enjoy on a mountain bike, if at all, is the bike. There's no way to
experience nature from the top of a large, fast-moving piece of machinery. Tell
the truth.
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Paul Hamilton]

I've tried trailer, backpack, and child seat. I have found that the
trailer is by far the best option in terms of stability, comfort,
riding qualities, effeciency, safety, and payload. As you have
undoubtably noticed, any travel with a child requires a lot of stuff
-- at first a diaper bag, later the child's backpack. The trailer
hauls all this.

I've put about 600 miles/1000 km on my trailer this summer alone,
taking my daughter to day camp. If I didn't have the trailer, my car
would have been the sole practical alternative.

Paul

 

[Frank Krygowski]

Rory wrote:

> Don't even think of a child seat. ... DON'T EVEN THINK OF USING A
> CHILD SEAT! Especially not the front-mounted or cross-bar mounted
> ones.

Don't you think this is overly adamant? Given the fact that trailers
are much more expensive and inconvenient, and _so_ many child seats have
been used successfully for _so_ many years, and are still being used daily?

If you say "Don't even think of using a child seat" you're telling
millions of people "Don't ever take your child on a bike ride."

Such extreme advice had better be backed up with real data showing
children it's harmed - not "might have, could possibly" anecdotes.


--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

 

[pas]

Frank Krygowski wrote:
> Rory wrote:
>
>> Don't even think of a child seat. ... DON'T EVEN THINK OF USING A
>> CHILD SEAT! Especially not the front-mounted or cross-bar mounted
>> ones.
>
> Don't you think this is overly adamant? Given the fact that trailers
> are much more expensive and inconvenient, and _so_ many child seats
> have been used successfully for _so_ many years, and are still being
> used daily?
>
> If you say "Don't even think of using a child seat" you're telling
> millions of people "Don't ever take your child on a bike ride."
>

I've done all three, I'll take front mount for short toodles around the
'hood, trailer for anything more.

Penny

 

[JohnB]

"R.White" wrote:


> I'd be more concerned about the sky falling.

Did you fall out of a seat as a kid then ;-)

John B

 

[Jeff Strickland]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 04 Aug 2004 14:46:13 GMT, [email protected]ospam (Stephen Baker)
wrote:
>
> .MV blurts:
> .
> .>You have no business subjecting a child to that danger and air
pollution!
> .
> .No - get her a mountain bike instead and a small trailer and let her
enjoy
> .nature.. ;-P
>
> All you can enjoy on a mountain bike, if at all, is the bike. There's no
way to
> experience nature from the top of a large, fast-moving piece of machinery.
Tell
> the truth.


The truth? You can't handle the truth.

 

[R.White]

JohnB <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "R.White" wrote:
>
>
> > I'd be more concerned about the sky falling.
>
> Did you fall out of a seat as a kid then ;-)

Yes, but I was wearing a h*lmet.

 

[R.White]

JohnB <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "R.White" wrote:
>
>
> > I'd be more concerned about the sky falling.
>
> Did you fall out of a seat as a kid then ;-)

Yes, but I was wearing a h*lmet.

 

[MattB]

Rory wrote:
<snip>
> * Get a good coupling (Becco or Weber are my favourites) - don't
> use the Trek / Burley clamp-on one, it is utter ****, and interferes
> with the wheels when turning on many bikes.
> * Ensure the coupling is firmly attached (I don't like the QR skewer
> ones)
> * Always use a secondary retainer strap in case the coupling breaks

I have a Trek ball in socket coupling that goes on the rear axle that came
with my Rocket and it works very well. I wonder of your experience was on
older designs. It also has a built-in secondary strap in case of failure,
which has not been needed after daily use for the past couple of summers.

We keep one on each of our (my wife and my) town bikes for easy trailer
swapping. We just got the socket part since they don't have QRs and that
makes them pretty permanent and solid.

I agree the clamp-ons are a bad idea, even though I've never used one they
don't look as reliable as an axle mount.

Matt (haven't lost a kid yet...)

 

[scurry]

J G wrote:

>>we can't decide whether she should go for a seat on the back or a trailer.
>>
>>Can anyone tell me from experience which is the best/safest way to
>>carry my 21 month old daughter. She weichs approx 28 - 30 lbs
>
>
> With a seat, if rider goes down so does baby,
> With a trailer, if rider goes down baby laughs at rider

I used to take my son XC skiing with me when he was around three,
pulling him in a sled. Every fall on my part would be followed with
giggles and "Do it again daddy!".


Shawn

 

[scurry]

J G wrote:

>>we can't decide whether she should go for a seat on the back or a trailer.
>>
>>Can anyone tell me from experience which is the best/safest way to
>>carry my 21 month old daughter. She weichs approx 28 - 30 lbs
>
>
> With a seat, if rider goes down so does baby,
> With a trailer, if rider goes down baby laughs at rider

I used to take my son XC skiing with me when he was around three,
pulling him in a sled. Every fall on my part would be followed with
giggles and "Do it again daddy!".


Shawn

 

[Clive George]

"MattB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> I agree the clamp-ons are a bad idea, even though I've never used one they
> don't look as reliable as an axle mount.

You mean the burley ones? I've never heard of any failures. The only
problems I've heard of them having are with drum brakes on tandems (and
possibly discs?). Looking at one it seems to be a very well engineered piece
of kit.

cheers,
clive

 

[Mark Thompson]

>> > I'd be more concerned about the sky falling.
>>
>> Did you fall out of a seat as a kid then ;-)
>
> Yes, but I was wearing a h*lmet.

Ah, top heavy then. ;-)