Child carrying advice please

[JohnB]

Clive George wrote:
>
> "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.

I'd agree. We had a Burley and the hitch was excellent, especially the
ability to lay the bike/tandem down while still attached. It look a
matter of seconds to attach/detach. That said it wasn't quite as easy as
the Weber hitch I now use on my utlity trailer, but that really needs
the bike 'end' to be left permanently attached.

We also had the drum brake issue with the tandem and had to attach the
clamp slightly higher than usual which meant extending the arm of the
trailer - a feat ably carried out by the late George Longstaff.

John B

 

[Frank Krygowski]

Gawnsoft wrote:

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

It seems to me that John B (and others) are performing the usual "safety
enthusiast" trick: visualizing all possible scenarios, and fixating on
the worst case scenario.

Is pushing a bike with a baby seat more difficult than pushing an
unladen bike? Yes, by a small amount. Is it beyond the capability of
an ordinary human being? Hardly.

Can the rider take a fall when riding with the child in a seat? I
suppose so. Does it happen often? Very doubtful. (Of the hundreds of
cyclists I know, I've never heard of this happening.) Would the child
be seriously injured? Very, very doubtful.

In my view, these worries are part of the "Bicycling is extremely
dangerous" mindset, generated by an ultra-safe society where the minimum
daily requirements of fears have to be manufactured out of nothing.

Again, if someone is going to claim baby seats on bikes are so very
dangerous, I think they should present data showing it's true. As it
is, they are still selling at reasonable prices in the most litigious
country in the world. AFAIK, the CPSC, the NHTSA, Safe Kids Inc., and
the National Association of Worriers and Handwringers have not
campaigned against them at all. That puts their danger level below that
of (horrors!) playgrounds without rubber padding.


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

 

[Stephen Baker]

Frank K says:

<snip>

>Is pushing a bike with a baby seat more difficult than pushing an
>unladen bike? Yes, by a small amount. Is it beyond the capability of
>an ordinary human being? Hardly.

How easy is it for you to get off and on the bike (viz. swinging leg over the
rear to get on and off) with the kid in the back? Easier with the kid in
front? Thought so. Less chance of kicking the poor kid if it's in front of
you, and that's a risk you take twice every ride, at least.

If I had a child that small any more, I'd go for the trailer.

Steve

 

[Stephen Baker]

Frank K says:

<snip>

>Is pushing a bike with a baby seat more difficult than pushing an
>unladen bike? Yes, by a small amount. Is it beyond the capability of
>an ordinary human being? Hardly.

How easy is it for you to get off and on the bike (viz. swinging leg over the
rear to get on and off) with the kid in the back? Easier with the kid in
front? Thought so. Less chance of kicking the poor kid if it's in front of
you, and that's a risk you take twice every ride, at least.

If I had a child that small any more, I'd go for the trailer.

Steve

 

[Mike Kruger]

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

>... I've taken four children the tandem route
> (after trailers and seats) with occasional forays onto our Hannington
trailerbike.
> The latter has had them freewheeling at times.
> However, I do agree about the cost and it can be expensive, but luckily
> with four we were able to make teh most of the outlay.

There's a gap here; at least there was for my kids.

Even with the tandem seat at its lowest setting and with pedal blocks, they
were 8 or 9 before they could ride on the tandem.

They had given up the seat on the back of the bike long before, at maybe 3.

 

[Mike Kruger]

"Frank Krygowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> ...
> Is pushing a bike with a baby seat more difficult than pushing an
> unladen bike? Yes, by a small amount. Is it beyond the capability of
> an ordinary human being? Hardly.
> ...
> Again, if someone is going to claim baby seats on bikes are so very
> dangerous, I think they should present data showing it's true. As it
> is, they are still selling at reasonable prices in the most litigious
> country in the world. AFAIK, the CPSC, the NHTSA, Safe Kids Inc., and
> the National Association of Worriers and Handwringers have not
> campaigned against them at all. That puts their danger level below that
> of (horrors!) playgrounds without rubber padding.
>
Frank's in full rant mode, but I have to agree with him.

We're comparing the ability of different size pins to hold angels.

 

[JohnB]

Mike Kruger wrote:
>
> "JohnB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> >... I've taken four children the tandem route
> > (after trailers and seats) with occasional forays onto our Hannington
> trailerbike.
> > The latter has had them freewheeling at times.
> > However, I do agree about the cost and it can be expensive, but luckily
> > with four we were able to make teh most of the outlay.
>
> There's a gap here; at least there was for my kids.
>
> Even with the tandem seat at its lowest setting and with pedal blocks, they
> were 8 or 9 before they could ride on the tandem.
Mine went on between 3 1/2 and 4 yrs but the kiddiecrank attachments
was high on the frame. as they grew the saddle went up then teh
attachment was moved down the froame to its lowest. they came off at
between 7 and 8 and moved onto solo bikes.
I'm going to guess your kiddiecranks were set high, perhaps because of a
lateral tube (a common problem)?

> They had given up the seat on the back of the bike long before, at maybe 3.

Yes, three was the age for our first too, who used a seat. However a
trailer can easily be used for all ages up to solo use, so aother vote
for the trailer as it can fill the 'gap' - and more.

John B

 

[Rory]

"Sverre Amundsen" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<opsb9i17b0vapsmc@pr6370>...
> 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.

The main research was done by TÜV Rheinland and the Allianz-Zentrum
für Technik (AZT), there is an article about it here ("Des Zöglings
Sänfte" - "The Pulled/Pupil Gently??") with pictures of the
crashtests:
http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/1033/9602anhaenger.html

Loads of german sites quote it, so fire off a query with "kinder",
"fahrrad", "anhänger" plus "Allianz" should return plenty of hits.
As for the exhaust aspect, I haven't yet been able to refind the
website where I read this (still looking), but it had an interesting
graphic that showed the cross section of a city street with the toxic
gas concentrations: it looked something like (excuse the bad ascii
art):

-
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
====================|=====================
centre line

With the highest concentration between the two lanes. There was a
note that said that even higher concentrations were measured inside
cars themselves.

 

[Rory]

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

My brother had the clamp-on on his Trek trailer: we couldn't get it to
not interfer with the spokes (no enough clearance between chainstay &
wheel with his 7 speed hub), plus it was very hard to get the QR tight
enough so that it wouldn't move. We went around to his local trailer
expert (this is in Munich, Germany) who took one look at it, sucked in
his breath and said the Barvarian equivalent of "they all do that".
He sold us the ball and socket one, which has been fine.

I have a Becco which consists of a pair of ally triangles that clamp
between seat & chain stays, which works well - I have to hitch/unhitch
twice a day five days a week, so ease of use is important. The
Elastomer link seemed like a bad idea, but it has worked well, the
bike's been laid down a few times too many without damaging it. The
Weber would have been my first choice, though.

 

[Shaun Rimmer]

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

By the ears mate.







Shaun aRe

 

[Pistof]

Get a trailer. You can also load 'em up with water, food, diapers,
baby-butt wipes, and so on... They can keep the kids dry if you get caught
in a shower, too.

Dave


"doctormick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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
>
> email [email protected] removing the words "no chopped
> ham" from the address. Keep Britain Spam Free!

 

[Sverre Amundsen]

On 6 Aug 2004 02:41:05 -0700, Rory <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Sverre Amundsen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<opsb9i17b0vapsmc@pr6370>...
>> 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.
>
> The main research was done by TÜV Rheinland and the Allianz-Zentrum
> für Technik (AZT), there is an article about it here ("Des Zöglings
> Sänfte" - "The Pulled/Pupil Gently??") with pictures of the
> crashtests:
> http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/1033/9602anhaenger.html
>

Thanks! I don't understand a word of German, but my brother lives in
Germany. I sent it to him for translation and further research.

Sverre

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

 

[Gawnsoft]

On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 17:57:23 -0500, "Sverre Amundsen"
<[email protected]> wrote (more or less):

>On 6 Aug 2004 02:41:05 -0700, Rory <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "Sverre Amundsen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:<opsb9i17b0vapsmc@pr6370>...
>>> 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.
>>
>> The main research was done by TÜV Rheinland and the Allianz-Zentrum
>> für Technik (AZT), there is an article about it here ("Des Zöglings
>> Sänfte" - "The Pulled/Pupil Gently??") with pictures of the
>> crashtests:
>> http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/1033/9602anhaenger.html
>>
>
>Thanks! I don't understand a word of German, but my brother lives in
>Germany. I sent it to him for translation and further research.

If you could post what he sends you onto the group I, for one, would
be obliged.

--
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

 

[David Hansen]

On 6 Aug 2004 02:41:05 -0700 someone who may be [email protected]
(Rory) wrote this:-

>As for the exhaust aspect, I haven't yet been able to refind the
>website where I read this

It is a fairly well known figure. Perhaps Transport 2000 could point
to the source. I have references to it in a number of reports, but
do not have the time to look these up.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

 

[Rory]

"Sverre Amundsen" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<opscb11xqkvapsmc@pr6370>...
> On 6 Aug 2004 02:41:05 -0700, Rory <[email protected]> wrote:

> > The main research was done by TÜV Rheinland and the Allianz-Zentrum
> > für Technik (AZT), there is an article about it here ("Des Zöglings
> > Sänfte" - "The Pulled/Pupil Gently??") with pictures of the
> > crashtests:
> > http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/1033/9602anhaenger.html
> >
>
> Thanks! I don't understand a word of German, but my brother lives in
> Germany. I sent it to him for translation and further research.

I once did a translation for a guy in the Us but it never got posted
to the web. I'll try and dig it out, or do it again, as I keep having
to provide this information. And sure, there is always Babelfish....

 

[Roos Eisma]

[Steph Peters emailed me that for some reason she can't post in this
thread, so I'm posting this on her behalf - Roos]

[email protected] (Rory) of http://groups.google.com wrote:

>>"Sverre Amundsen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<opscb11xqkvapsmc@pr6370>...

>>>> On 6 Aug 2004 02:41:05 -0700, Rory <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>>> > The main research was done by TÜV Rheinland and the
Allianz-Zentrum
>>>>> > für Technik (AZT), there is an article about it here ("Des
Zöglings
>>>>> > Sänfte" - "The Pulled/Pupil Gently??") with pictures of the
>>>>> > crashtests:
>>>>> > http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/1033/9602anhaenger.html
>>>>
>>>> Thanks! I don't understand a word of German, but my brother lives in

>>>> Germany. I sent it to him for translation and further research.
>>
>>I once did a translation for a guy in the Us but it never got posted
>>to the web. I'll try and dig it out, or do it again, as I keep having
>>to provide this information. And sure, there is always Babelfish....

Or German speaking newsgroup posters. Rough quick translation coming up.
Apologies for the remaining Germanisms.

Sedan for the Orphan
Children in trailers are particularly safe

Institutions close to the car industry fulminate against bike trailers for
transport of people, since the bright light sedans are becoming ever more
loved and replacing some second if not first cars. Hard projectiles must
occasionally take the blame for bringing the environmentally friendly
variant of child transportation into disrepute. Dekra* and Bruderhilfe
let
it be reported that a car speeding into a trailer can be deadly. That
cars
are particularly dangerous for everyone without a crumple zone, is also
sufficiently well known to the car lobby without such self publicity.

There are underwriters who make objective assessments of risk. Last year
for the first time the AZT (technical alliance centre) took the trouble to
compare the danger potential of trailers and traditional child seats for
their little passengers. 27 crash tests give a clear message: children
sit
more safely in trailers than on the bike. When AZT chief Dr. Dieter
Anselm
gave the results on 21 March 1996 in Munich, he described them as
"surprisingly positive" - the AZT had approached the set of tests with a
certain amount of reservation.

Subjectively children in a trailer look especially vulnerable, situated at
the height of cars' bumpers. But precisely this can save life in the
event
of a collision: a car shoves the trailer wholly in front of it, while the
cyclist "high on a horse" is catapulted first onto the car and then onto
the
road. The transport of children in the area of the handlebars is
particularly dangerous; above all when they are behind the saddle they
come off lightly in head on collisions.

The trailer does not fall over as easily as a bike - and when it does,
then the height of the fall and the potential for injury are clearly
lower.
With child seats bad accidents can take place when the vehicle is being
loaded - a trailer with a coupling at axle height remains untouched, when
the
towing bike falls over.

The AZT stresses the importance of a stable trailer construction with
full belt harness and the use of helmets, so that the children do not come
into contact with the bumper bar. Unfortunately the correct line for
coupling
is missing; the models tested could all have been improved. The sellers
and providers of trailers are moving here in uncharted territory:
paragraph
21of the StVO* forbids carrying people on the "goods area" of a trailer.
This regulation does not directly apply to bike or special child trailers,
but there is room for doubt. In the view of the AZT this is a pity: "The
manufacturers of bike trailers must be given a clearer legislative
framework, so that they can further develop this - so far as we can
determine - currently safest transport mode for children and thereby can
contribute to better protection for children in traffic".

*Translator's notes:
Dekra is a German organisation that tests cars for safety, promoting
themselves as consumer champions, I think funded by the car industry
Bruderhilfe is an insurer with church connections
StVO is a German law or regulation
--
Life is not so bad if you have plenty of luck, a good physique
and not too much imagination. - Christopher Isherwood
Steph Peters, Manchester, England
[email protected]