safety standards on kids bikes

[flyingdutch]

could probabaly look up the relevant info on this but thought i would share here as well...

Was thinking of this over the weekend as I was fiddling with my
youngest daughter's bike.

She rides the bog-standard singlespeed bmx style bike , 20" wheels
(i think?) with back-pedal brake and a front hand-actuated brake as well.

As she is no that far off graduating to a larger (and therefore more
than likely a mtb) bike I was placing both front and back brake on her
current steed to get her used to handbrake usage.

The problem is these seem to be more of a token gesture than a
viable/usable solution!

they are not designed for the handsizes most likely to be found on
such sized bikes and are therefore next to useless and dangerous.

I realise there are design standards for kids bikes needing at least a
brake, but these are not stopping anything.

What are the relevant standards are and consider it
something for the BFA to lobby for revision?
Particularly I'm thinking regarding the hand-lever being not only
moveable/operable by a small hand but placed so as within reach of the
bar, as a child's fingers cant reach the same distance to a lever as
ours can!

 

[Tamyka Bell]

flyingdutch wrote:
>
> could probabaly look up the relevant info on this but thought i would
> share here as well...
>
> Was thinking of this over the weekend as I was fiddling with my
> youngest daughter's bike.
>
> She rides the bog-standard singlespeed bmx style bike , 20" wheels
> (i think?) with back-pedal brake and a front hand-actuated brake as
> well.
>
> As she is no that far off graduating to a larger (and therefore more
> than likely a mtb) bike I was placing both front and back brake on her
> current steed to get her used to handbrake usage.
>
> The problem is these seem to be more of a token gesture than a
> viable/usable solution!
>
> they are not designed for the handsizes most likely to be found on
> such sized bikes and are therefore next to useless and dangerous.
>
> I realise there are design standards for kids bikes needing at least a
> brake, but these are not stopping anything.
>
> What are the relevant standards are and consider it
> something for the BFA to lobby for revision?
> Particularly I'm thinking regarding the hand-lever being not only
> moveable/operable by a small hand but placed so as within reach of the
> bar, as a child's fingers cant reach the same distance to a lever as
> ours can!

Um... a lot of kids seem to have more hand reach than I do (ref my
previous comment re having gloves so small everyone thought they were
for a 3.5 y.o.)

It's a really good point as most brakes can only be brought in a little
bit. I guess it's why the tiny bikes have the back-pedal brakes.

Tam

 

[Bleve]

flyingdutch wrote:
> could probabaly look up the relevant info on this but thought i would
> share here as well...
>
> Was thinking of this over the weekend as I was fiddling with my
> youngest daughter's bike.
>
> She rides the bog-standard singlespeed bmx style bike , 20" wheels
> (i think?) with back-pedal brake and a front hand-actuated brake as
> well.
>
> As she is no that far off graduating to a larger (and therefore more
> than likely a mtb) bike I was placing both front and back brake on her
> current steed to get her used to handbrake usage.
>
> The problem is these seem to be more of a token gesture than a
> viable/usable solution!

That may be because most small children don't have the hand strength to
use a handbrake. As such, the handbrake *is* a token gesture And
the coaster brake is what lets the kids have fun skidding around.


>
> they are not designed for the handsizes most likely to be found on
> such sized bikes and are therefore next to useless and dangerous.
>
> I realise there are design standards for kids bikes needing at least a
> brake, but these are not stopping anything.
>
> What are the relevant standards are and consider it
> something for the BFA to lobby for revision?
> Particularly I'm thinking regarding the hand-lever being not only
> moveable/operable by a small hand but placed so as within reach of the
> bar, as a child's fingers cant reach the same distance to a lever as
> ours can!

Most smaller bikes (the ones we sell anyway) have an adjuster screw to
bring the lever closer to the bar, but eventually you run into a
leverage problem - to get enough force to effectively brake, you need
either strong hands, or long throw levers. Or... hydraulic brakes
(hello Mr $, who's going to pay for that?!)

Kids have neither big enough hands, or sufficient hand strength.

 

[Donga]

I'm interested in this topic as I have a 9 y.o. who I can't get on a
bike. We're thinking this is a protest about being expected to ride his
older brothers' cast-offs and that a new bike might do the trick.

The older boys started on the cheapo BMX with coaster brake and a token
front brake and they got that figured out well enough - but out in a
country town with heaps of space, not the city. I share your concerns,
Dutchy.

Then I upgraded them to MTBs and it was some years before they started
using the gears. The idea that a kid is going to understand and operate
the number of gears on these kids' bikes is ridiculous. It's much
better to spend the money on a decent, simple bike. Perhaps the coaster
brake is good enough, until their little brains and synapses have
caught up with the size of their hands?

So should I get the young'un a nice BMX (with good brakes) or a ****
20" MTB? I know what I think, but can I persuade him? Methinks the
complexity is kiddy-bling.

Interesting thought, to get it controlled under safety standards. I
don't think it will take off. You might even get flamed for suggesting
cycling is dangerous!!

Donga

 

[Tamyka Bell]

Donga wrote:
>
<Snip>
> The older boys started on the cheapo BMX with coaster brake and a token
> front brake and they got that figured out well enough - but out in a
> country town with heaps of space, not the city. I share your concerns,
> Dutchy.
>
> Then I upgraded them to MTBs and it was some years before they started
> using the gears. The idea that a kid is going to understand and operate
> the number of gears on these kids' bikes is ridiculous. It's much
> better to spend the money on a decent, simple bike. Perhaps the coaster
> brake is good enough, until their little brains and synapses have
> caught up with the size of their hands?

I started on the BMX too. Coaster brakes when I was really little, then
a coaster and a hand brake. Then I got a girls MTB when I was about 8
or 9, with gears. THREE gears. The shifting was near the right hand
grip and were marked "H" | "L" i.e. high, the middle marker, and low.
This was a superb bike at the time. Three gears were plenty for me to
learn about how to shift for easier hill climbing, without me worrying
about shifting any other time. In fact, 2 gears would probably have done
the job - but 3 was nice.

<snip>
> Interesting thought, to get it controlled under safety standards. I
> don't think it will take off. You might even get flamed for suggesting
> cycling is dangerous!!

Well, cycling for kids is more dangerous than for adults, surely? I
mean, we can do things that make it more dangerous, and motorists are
less likely to feel protective of adults than children, and more likely
to get road rage at us... but kids have a harder time with judgement.
They're more likely to make invalid assumptions as to what a road user
will do.

We walked and Charlie rode to the shop on Sunday morning. He knows to
stop at all street corners and wait for us before crossing, and he knows
why he does this. (We stick to the footpaths on the busier streets and
use the road on quiet streets.) At one point we told him to stop near a
driveway, as we had to cross the road at a T-section to go up our
street.

Charlie turned his bike and braked, and then as we were about to cross,
a 4WD roared around a corner further up the street and flew down the
road, well over the speed limit. Charlie is very well behaved and if we
call out an authorative "STOP CHARLIE!" he will stop without question,
and figure it out later.

So we called out and he stopped just as he was pulling out, then looked
at us with wide eyes and said, "I thought there were no cars. I didn't
see any cars." This kid isn't yet 4 years old. Steven and I are both
regular cyclists and so are good at picking driver behaviour, etc.
Other parents/guardians/carers might not have been so ready - other kids
might not have been so obedient.

In other news, he's now happily riding along without his training wheels
touching the ground at all except when he stops, he's putting his feet
down anyway (as the bike gets an uncomfortable tilt), and he's showing
frustration as he tries to intuitively lean into a corner and the
training wheels get in the way. We're going to take them off this
weekend and see how he goes. In a park, of course! I'm such a proud
not-mum.

 

[Resound]

flyingdutch wrote:
> could probabaly look up the relevant info on this but thought i would
> share here as well...
>
> Was thinking of this over the weekend as I was fiddling with my
> youngest daughter's bike.
>
> She rides the bog-standard singlespeed bmx style bike , 20" wheels
> (i think?) with back-pedal brake and a front hand-actuated brake as
> well.
>
> As she is no that far off graduating to a larger (and therefore more
> than likely a mtb) bike I was placing both front and back brake on her
> current steed to get her used to handbrake usage.
>
> The problem is these seem to be more of a token gesture than a
> viable/usable solution!

That may be because most small children don't have the hand strength to
use a handbrake. As such, the handbrake *is* a token gesture And
the coaster brake is what lets the kids have fun skidding around.


>
> they are not designed for the handsizes most likely to be found on
> such sized bikes and are therefore next to useless and dangerous.
>
> I realise there are design standards for kids bikes needing at least a
> brake, but these are not stopping anything.
>
> What are the relevant standards are and consider it
> something for the BFA to lobby for revision?
> Particularly I'm thinking regarding the hand-lever being not only
> moveable/operable by a small hand but placed so as within reach of the
> bar, as a child's fingers cant reach the same distance to a lever as
> ours can!

Most smaller bikes (the ones we sell anyway) have an adjuster screw to
bring the lever closer to the bar, but eventually you run into a
leverage problem - to get enough force to effectively brake, you need
either strong hands, or long throw levers. Or... hydraulic brakes
(hello Mr $, who's going to pay for that?!)

Kids have neither big enough hands, or sufficient hand strength.

I got my first bike when I was 5 and it featured a single hand brake on the front wheel. Looking back, I'm amazed that that was how they set it up but they did and once I lost the training wheels, one of the first tricks I discovered was stoppies. I wasn't very good at them and I fell off quite a lot but I could just barely get the back wheel off the ground. I was definitely able to make good use of the brakes. This was in the mid-70s and a cheap bike, so it was hardly Chorus levels of hardware. So a well set up hand brake should be able to do the trick. Remember that it only had to slow a child and small bike's worth of weight.

 

[Gemma_k]

"flyingdutch" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
>
> could probabaly look up the relevant info on this but thought i would
> share here as well...
>
> Was thinking of this over the weekend as I was fiddling with my
> youngest daughter's bike.
>
> She rides the bog-standard singlespeed bmx style bike , 20" wheels
> (i think?) with back-pedal brake and a front hand-actuated brake as
> well.
>
> As she is no that far off graduating to a larger (and therefore more
> than likely a mtb) bike I was placing both front and back brake on her
> current steed to get her used to handbrake usage.
>
> The problem is these seem to be more of a token gesture than a
> viable/usable solution!
>
> they are not designed for the handsizes most likely to be found on
> such sized bikes and are therefore next to useless and dangerous.
>
> I realise there are design standards for kids bikes needing at least a
> brake, but these are not stopping anything.
>
> What are the relevant standards are and consider it
> something for the BFA to lobby for revision?
> Particularly I'm thinking regarding the hand-lever being not only
> moveable/operable by a small hand but placed so as within reach of the
> bar, as a child's fingers cant reach the same distance to a lever as
> ours can!
>
There is already a standard 'AS1927:1998 Pedal Bicycles- Safety
Requirements'
In section 2.14 "Braking System"
it says "All bicycles shall be equipped with not less than two brakes, one
acting on the front wheel and one acting on the rear wheel. On a children's
bicycle one brake shall be a back-pedal brake". Further on in 2.14.2.3 it
says 'childrens bicycles - The maximum grip dimension ... shall not exceed
60mm' (this is the distance from the lever mid point to the back of
handlebar grip for the hand brake)
It defines a 'Children's Bicycle' as a bicycle having a wheelbase of between
640mm and 765mm
it also refers to AS1647 "children's toys' (for really little bikes I guess)
Up to you I suppose if you consider that your child is ready for an adult's
bicycle!
It also gives performance requirements for braking on adult bicycle brakes,
but for children's bicycle brakes only the rear brake has a performance
standard.

The reasons for this are evident in that children do not have the grip
strength to adequatly stop with a hand brake, (nor the congative ability to
brake and steer at the same time)
So the standard really has got it all covered (although is out of date IMHO
in some other aspects)...
Gemm

 

[Terry Collins]

Donga wrote:

> So should I get the young'un a nice BMX (with good brakes) or a ****
> 20" MTB? I know what I think, but can I persuade him? Methinks the
> complexity is kiddy-bling.

If he hasn't ridden before, then a bmx with coaster seems the way to go.
and when they use it, indexed 5 speed maybe next.

My 2c says that spending the money on a properly sized frame is a far
better bet than mega gears. Proper frame means easier riding and they
enjoy it more (less chance of being the slow one)

OTOH, if he takes to BMX and jumping and stuff, then a simple single
speed is probably sufficent.

If you've got the space and don't mind street collections, you could
build up quite a stable of simple bikes of various sizes for different
activities.

Perhaps "new" might mean a strip down, repaint and new lot of stickers.

 

[sinus]

Then I upgraded them to MTBs and it was some years before they started using the gears. The idea that a kid is going to understand and operate the number of gears on these kids' bikes is ridiculous. It's much better to spend the money on a decent, simple bike. Perhaps the coaster brake is good enough, until their little brains and synapses have caught up with the size of their hands?

So should I get the young'un a nice BMX (with good brakes) or a **** 20" MTB? I know what I think, but can I persuade him? Methinks the complexity is kiddy-bling.

Nothing wrong with bling when it comes to bikes , even if it's kids bikes.

We live on a hill and my 7 yr old has a 6 speed MTB. This allows him to ride up the hill, as opposed to walking. He copes quite well with the hand brakes, but does need to be told/reminded which gear to put it in.

And he seems to have developed a fondness for spinning as opposed to grinding - which is not a bad thing.

He much prefers this bike to the 2nd hand bmx, even though that can skid. Probably because it is more like Dad's. It's a Giant, so it did cost more than a Huffy, but, hey, it's a bike. N+1 etc.

 

[Tamyka Bell]

sinus wrote:
<snip>
> He much prefers this bike to the 2nd hand bmx, even though that can
> skid. Probably because it is more like Dad's. It's a Giant, so it did
> cost more than a Huffy, but, hey, it's a bike. N+1 etc.

I was talking about bike storage issues to a colleague today. He asked
how many bikes Steven and I have. Well it's currently six but on is in a
workshop in Toowoomba. Seven if you include Charlie's bike. Steven has a
steel roadie that will hopefully come back from England soon also, to
make eight. I was trying to explain the N+1 rule but my colleague
thought that indicated obsession.

I think 3 is a common number of bikes to have - the nice/race/long ride
bike, the wet-weather/commuting bike, and the off-road bike. Yes? Not
obsession at all, is it?! One of my other colleages has these three, as
I do.

Now I need number 4, the shopping bike.

Tam

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Wed, 10 May 2006 16:00:44 +1000
Tamyka Bell <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I think 3 is a common number of bikes to have - the nice/race/long ride
> bike, the wet-weather/commuting bike, and the off-road bike. Yes? Not
> obsession at all, is it?! One of my other colleages has these three, as
> I do.

Hmm.. The heavy haulage bike, the sport bike, the vintage bike, the
cruiser bike, and the commuter bike.

And the pushbike

Face it, two wheelers have multiple bikes because we can! All that on
4 wheels would need a 2 acre block just for the garage.


Zebee
- who so far only wants one pushbike, although an electric assist
trike has its appeal....

 

[Mick]

"Donga" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> ...
> So should I get the young'un a nice BMX (with good brakes) or a ****
> 20" MTB?

I'm going through the same thing. Have a boy 7 and a girl 9 and we
ride a lot together. They have single speeds that they have outgrown,
plus it's hard for them to grind up some of the hills around here.

So the last few weekends I've been doing the rounds looking for
24" MTBs. 20" is too small, 26" too big. Problem is there is a lot of
**** in the 24" range - token headsets, forks, ... I'd rather pay a
little more and get something they can give a bit of a hard time.

LBS can do a good deal on a Jamis Fester. Seems a decent spec.
Any other suggestions?

Mick

 

[Donga]

Gemma_k wrote:
> "flyingdutch" <[email protected]> wrote in
> message news:[email protected]...
> There is already a standard 'AS1927:1998 Pedal Bicycles- Safety
> Requirements'
> In section 2.14 "Braking System"

Do bikes actually have to meet this standard? Refer to recent threads
on helmets. They can be sold without meeting the standard, and road
rules require the standards, but there seems to be no control on the
selling and no enforcement of the usage. Maybe someone will sue the
seller one day.

Donga

 

[Donga]

Tamyka Bell wrote:
> I think 3 is a common number of bikes to have - the nice/race/long ride
> bike, the wet-weather/commuting bike, and the off-road bike. Yes? Not
> obsession at all, is it?! One of my other colleages has these three, as
> I do.
>
> Now I need number 4, the shopping bike.

Wet weather bike? Get titanium, then you can rationalise some of the
others. Carbon doesn't rust either.

Donga

 

[Tamyka Bell]

Donga wrote:
>
> Tamyka Bell wrote:
> > I think 3 is a common number of bikes to have - the nice/race/long ride
> > bike, the wet-weather/commuting bike, and the off-road bike. Yes? Not
> > obsession at all, is it?! One of my other colleages has these three, as
> > I do.
> >
> > Now I need number 4, the shopping bike.
>
> Wet weather bike? Get titanium, then you can rationalise some of the
> others. Carbon doesn't rust either.
>
> Donga

I like your thinking. (I'd like more income too.)
T

 

[flyingdutch]

There is already a standard 'AS1927:1998 Pedal Bicycles- Safety
Requirements'
In section 2.14 "Braking System"
it says "All bicycles shall be equipped with not less than two brakes, one
acting on the front wheel and one acting on the rear wheel. On a children's
bicycle one brake shall be a back-pedal brake". Further on in 2.14.2.3 it
says 'childrens bicycles - The maximum grip dimension ... shall not exceed
60mm' (this is the distance from the lever mid point to the back of
handlebar grip for the hand brake)...

60mm!?!?!?!?!?!?

you seriously thinking this 'covers it' ???

 

[alison_b]

"Donga" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> ...
> So should I get the young'un a nice BMX (with good brakes) or a ****
> 20" MTB?

I'm going through the same thing. Have a boy 7 and a girl 9 and we
ride a lot together. They have single speeds that they have outgrown,
plus it's hard for them to grind up some of the hills around here.

So the last few weekends I've been doing the rounds looking for
24" MTBs. 20" is too small, 26" too big. Problem is there is a lot of
**** in the 24" range - token headsets, forks, ... I'd rather pay a
little more and get something they can give a bit of a hard time.

LBS can do a good deal on a Jamis Fester. Seems a decent spec.
Any other suggestions?

Mick

I know that my sweetie's two youngest do well up and down hills on paved surfaces and tracks on their kid-sized Giant mountain bikes. They have some gears, but not so many they are going to be overwhelming and also take some less than careful treatment from the kids themselves (just being kids, not actually taking a hammer to them or anything). They're 7 and 10 (I think!) and getting up the kms at the moment to convince Dad that they are up to the GVBR later in the year.

ali

 

[Donga]

Tamyka Bell wrote:
> Donga wrote:
> > Wet weather bike? Get titanium, then you can rationalise some of the
> > others. Carbon doesn't rust either.
>
> I like your thinking. (I'd like more income too.)


The downside is you don't get to go shopping so often. I'm wanting a
new toy (mmm, IF Crown Jewel custom) at the moment, but have decided to
wait another three years :-( That will make my frame 13 years old. So
it costs more upfront, then you owe it money for years.
Actually, the money people are spending on bling, I'm not sure Ti bikes
do cost more!

Donga

 

[Bleve]

Donga wrote:
> Tamyka Bell wrote:
> > I think 3 is a common number of bikes to have - the nice/race/long ride
> > bike, the wet-weather/commuting bike, and the off-road bike. Yes? Not
> > obsession at all, is it?! One of my other colleages has these three, as
> > I do.
> >
> > Now I need number 4, the shopping bike.
>
> Wet weather bike? Get titanium, then you can rationalise some of the
> others. Carbon doesn't rust either.

You got a CF chain? Titanium bearings?


>
> Donga

 

[TimC]

On 2006-05-10, Tamyka Bell (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> Charlie turned his bike and braked, and then as we were about to cross,
> a 4WD roared around a corner further up the street and flew down the
> road, well over the speed limit.

*******. A painful death is wished upon him too.

> In other news, he's now happily riding along without his training wheels
> touching the ground at all except when he stops, he's putting his feet
> down anyway (as the bike gets an uncomfortable tilt), and he's showing
> frustration as he tries to intuitively lean into a corner and the
> training wheels get in the way.

Yay!

Our Tam is making a cool (semi-)parent.

--
TimC
"Meddle not in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle, and will
**** on your computer." - Jeff Wilder