Washington State: Ban Babies on Bicycles?

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 19:47:49 +0000 (UTC), [email protected]
said in <[email protected]>:

> Yeah, I know this is anecdotal, but just a few months ago, someone on
>this very group recounted a crash involving a child in a trailer. The
>bike went down and the trailer rolled. The kid thought it was great fun
>and said "do that again!" I'd be surprised to hear of the same outcome in
>a crash with a child in a bike-mounted seat.

Whereas when Carl Baxter reversed into Stephen Kirwen in a "traffic
tantrum", he crushed the trailer causing serious facial fractures to
4-year-old Emily and the loss of most of her teeth.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

 

[Fritz M]

SMS wrote:
> I
> always find it amusing that some people will claim that the absence of a
> test on a type of product somehow means that the product must be safe
> and that common sense can be safely ignored.

Is it as amusing as those who claim that the absense of a test on a
product somehow means the product must be dangerous, in spite of common
sense and common usage and experience with the product showing
otherwise?

RFM

 

[Charles]

"Claire" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Please see my response to this legislation, posted at:
> http://www.washingtonvotes.org/Legislation.aspx?ID=42267
>
> Warm Regards,
>
> Claire Petersky
> Personal page: http://www.geocities.com/cpetersky/
> See the books I've set free at:
> http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky
>

Well thought out, but sadly if the politicians in Washington State are
anything like the ones here in Illinois, they will ignore the facts, ignore
the polls and ignore the wishes of the American people. . . .

Charles of Kankakee

 

[Charles]

"Mitch Haley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> If they want to "save the babies" why don't they ban carrying them in
> passenger cars and SUVs? How many babies die on bicycles in WA, one
> every decade?

Hell, I RODE in a child carrier for half a decade. No helmet, either, they
hadn't even conceived of such a thing. And the car seats they had didn't
even have seatbelts. Seatbelts weren't even required in cars until I was 8
or so.

Charles of Kankakee

 

[Charles]

"Stephen Harding" <[email protected]> wrote in message
newspVmf.2566$Kk7.1495@trndny05...
> wafflycat wrote:
>
>> "Thomas Wentworth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>
>>> If they ban rack style carriers I am all for it. They are ridiculously
>>> dangerous.
>>>
>>> The trailers are safe as for as I am concerned.
>>
>> Well my offspring made it through babyhood sat in a rack-mounted
>> childseat on my bike. Indeed at the now tender age of 17, he loves
>> cycling, cycle commutes to college and takes part in time trials, so the
>> ordeal of being transported in such a 'ridiculously dangerous' mode of
>> transport in his babyhood appears to have no lasting adverse impacts on
>> him...
>
> Nor the entire country of the Netherlands it would seem.
>
> Seemed everyone there had a kid seat on the back of their
> bike during my visit a couple years ago.
>
> Must be related to the question of how any kids from
> pre-mandated helmet days could ever have survived their
> childhoods on such killer contraptions as bicycles without
> the things.
>
>
> SMH
>

I survived a back mounted child seat and no helmet. And we didn't have
padded child seats either, or seatbelts in the car. I seem to have
survived that, and the trauma of turning a little wheel to make phone calls
instead of pushing buttons <SEG>!

Charles of Kankakee

 

[SMS]

Brian Huntley wrote:
> SMS wrote:
>
>> The other problem with the seats mounted on the back of the bike, or the
>> middle for that matter, is that they affect the handling of the bike.
>>
>> I'm glad to see that some entity conducted a test on the this, but I
>> always find it amusing that some people will claim that the absence of a
>> test on a type of product somehow means that the product must be safe
>> and that common sense can be safely ignored.
>
> Properly installed, they don't affect handling as much as a trailer or
> a Trail-a-Bike. You have to get the weight over the rear axel or in
> front of it, if possible.

I've used all three. In terms of handling, the child seat on the back of
the bike was the worst. The Trail-a-Bike that attaches to the seat post
was second worst. The Burley Piccolo was second best, and the Burley
d'Lite was the best. However the Trail-a-Bike and the Piccolo are for
larger children than would be in a trailer or child seat, which is also
a consideration.

It's important to look at how well less experienced cyclists do with
each type of child carrier attachment.

I wonder if that German study distinguished between incidents that
involve another vehicle, versus incidents that resulted from the cyclist
losing control and falling.

 

[Colorado Bicycler]

Back in the "Dark Ages" (early 60's) when my kids were small, and there
were few if any choices about how to carry kids with you on a bike,
there I was, one son on my back in a Gerry rear-facing backpack baby
carrier, and the other son on the child seat on the same bike.

And, yes, amazingly, we made it through just fine.

I sometimes look at pictures of folks in some other countries who use
bikes for all sorts of transportation purposes, seemingly successfully,
and I wonder about all the fuss today.

But, we didn't have seat belts nor air bags nor crash crumpling car
bodies.

Amazing I am here today to tell the tale!

 

[Colorado Bicycler]

"Back in the "Dark Ages" (early 60's) when my kids were small, and
there
were few if any choices about how to carry kids with you on a bike,
there I was, one son on my back in a Gerry rear-facing backpack baby
carrier, and the other son on the child seat on the same bike."

Now, as I think about that just a bit more, it was a FRONT facing Gerry
Bacp Pack Child Carrier.

They were made in Boulder, and were quite the rage, as they were a
brand new item.

 

[Cathy Kearns]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In rec.bicycles.misc Just zis Guy, you know? <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Dangerous, eh? No doubt you can quote the injury figures. Here's a
> > space for you to add them:
>
> Yeah, I know this is anecdotal, but just a few months ago, someone on
> this very group recounted a crash involving a child in a trailer. The
> bike went down and the trailer rolled. The kid thought it was great fun
> and said "do that again!" I'd be surprised to hear of the same outcome in
> a crash with a child in a bike-mounted seat.

Well, if we are going anecdotal, my husband dropped his bike with my
daughter in the bike-mounted seat when she was little. She was fine. Now
she's a brilliant 16 year old dancer, so I don't think there were any long
term issues. She no longer rides a bike, but that has more to do with
helmet hair than anything else. I wouldn't be shocked if she started riding
again when she turned 18 and helmets aren't an issue.

 

[Bill Sornson]

Cathy Kearns wrote:
> Well, if we are going anecdotal, my husband dropped his bike with my
> daughter in the bike-mounted seat when she was little. She was fine.
> Now she's a brilliant 16 year old dancer, so I don't think there were
> any long term issues. She no longer rides a bike, but that has more
> to do with helmet hair than anything else. I wouldn't be shocked if
> she started riding again when she turned 18 and helmets aren't an
> issue.

Does that mean that all the helmet flame wars around here are with teenage
participants?

Explains a LOT!

BS

 

[Colorado Bicycler]

Bill Sornson wrote:
> Cathy Kearns wrote:
> > Well, if we are going anecdotal, my husband dropped his bike with my
> > daughter in the bike-mounted seat when she was little. She was fine.
> > Now she's a brilliant 16 year old dancer, so I don't think there were
> > any long term issues. She no longer rides a bike, but that has more
> > to do with helmet hair than anything else. I wouldn't be shocked if
> > she started riding again when she turned 18 and helmets aren't an
> > issue.
>
> Does that mean that all the helmet flame wars around here are with teenage
> participants?
>
> Explains a LOT!
>
> BS

Oh!

And I thought the thread topic was ban BABES on bicycles.

 

[Dane Buson]

Colorado Bicycler <[email protected]> wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>
>> Does that mean that all the helmet flame wars around here are with teenage
>> participants?
>>
>> Explains a LOT!
>
> Oh!
>
> And I thought the thread topic was ban BABES on bicycles.

Heresy!

I'm fairly sure that the bicycle is actually an attractiveness
magnification device. The female bicyclist's eyes sparkle,
their shapely ankles turn in sinuous sinusoids rendering them
more attractive. The homely become plain, the plain become
pretty, the pretty become gorgeous, and the gorgeous become
goddess-like.

Far more effective than cosmetics with greater health benefits,
the bicycle is a bane to the cosmetics industry. I could spin
a story of deceit that would make your eyes tear up about the
*fnord* of these insidious fiends!

Is that a knock at the door?

--NULL CARRIER --

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected] wrote:
> In rec.bicycles.misc Just zis Guy, you know? <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Dangerous, eh? No doubt you can quote the injury figures. Here's a
> > space for you to add them:
>
> Yeah, I know this is anecdotal, but just a few months ago, someone on
> this very group recounted a crash involving a child in a trailer. The
> bike went down and the trailer rolled. The kid thought it was great fun
> and said "do that again!" I'd be surprised to hear of the same outcome in
> a crash with a child in a bike-mounted seat.

And I've recounted a crash where a friend took a curbed street corner a
little too close with a kid in a trailer. The bike had no problem.
The trailer overturned. The little girl's upper body went out the side
opening of the trailer, and she scraped her face on the pavement.

We can trade anecdotes for anecdotes. It's better to get significant
statistical data, and the best kind (if you want to argue against kid
seats on bikes) would be data that shows such seats are more dangerous,
per hour, than activities we consider reasonably safe - like (say)
walking with a kid in a backpack.

I've not seen any such comparative data. Unless someone produces it,
the remarks are all conjecture.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Claire Petersky]

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

> --NULL CARRIER --

Ha ha ha! The young'uns at home have no idea what that means.

I wrote this 'way back when (OK, according to Google Groups, it was Nov 24
1994, 2:52 pm)

---
The dryer goes on NO CARRIER the dryer goes off NO CARRIER the furnace goes
on NO CARRIER the furnace goes off NO CARRIER, ad infinitum. Each time, log
back on, find where I was, re-write what I was writing, etc.
---

Can you imagine putting up with that today?

--
Warm Regards,


Claire Petersky
http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/
Personal page: http://www.geocities.com/cpetersky/
See the books I've set free at:
http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky

 

[Dennis P. Harris]

On 26 Dec 2005 20:13:13 -0800 in rec.bicycles.misc,
[email protected] wrote:

> The trailer overturned. The little girl's upper body went out the side
> opening of the trailer, and she scraped her face on the pavement.
>
Then she wasn't properly strapped in!

 

[[email protected]]

Dennis P. Harris wrote:
> On 26 Dec 2005 20:13:13 -0800 in rec.bicycles.misc,
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > The trailer overturned. The little girl's upper body went out the side
> > opening of the trailer, and she scraped her face on the pavement.
> >
> Then she wasn't properly strapped in!

One might say that. She _was_ strapped in with every strap the trailer
had, however.

I suppose the trailer should strap the child in place using the same
techniques used on an electric chair - head, chest, two arms and two
legs immobilized.

Hmm... and air bags all around!

- Frank Krygowski

 

[SMS]

Dennis P. Harris wrote:
> On 26 Dec 2005 20:13:13 -0800 in rec.bicycles.misc,
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>>The trailer overturned. The little girl's upper body went out the side
>>opening of the trailer, and she scraped her face on the pavement.
>>
>
> Then she wasn't properly strapped in!

There are some very poor trailers on the market as well. I wonder what
kind of trailer it was that it had a side opening for this to happen.
Clearly it wasn't a Burley d'Lite, the most popular trailer on the market.

 

[[email protected]]

SMS wrote:
> Dennis P. Harris wrote:
> > On 26 Dec 2005 20:13:13 -0800 in rec.bicycles.misc,
> > [email protected] wrote:
> >
> >
> >>The trailer overturned. The little girl's upper body went out the side
> >>opening of the trailer, and she scraped her face on the pavement.
> >>
> >
> > Then she wasn't properly strapped in!
>
> There are some very poor trailers on the market as well. I wonder what
> kind of trailer it was that it had a side opening for this to happen.
> Clearly it wasn't a Burley d'Lite, the most popular trailer on the market.

This was at least, oh, six or seven years ago, and since the couple in
question had biked and raised foster kids for a long time, the trailer
might have been older than that. IIRC it was yellow fabric, the kid
faced forward, there was a flexible clear plastic "windshield" and side
openings for ventilation. Pretty similar, if not identical, to at
least some models of the Burley.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

Claire Petersky <[email protected]> wrote:

> The dryer goes on NO CARRIER the dryer goes off NO CARRIER the furnace goes
> on NO CARRIER the furnace goes off NO CARRIER, ad infinitum. Each time, log
> back on, find where I was, re-write what I was writing, etc.
> ---
> Can you imagine putting up with that today?

Sounds like the BT broadband service

--
Guy

 

[Dane Buson]

Claire Petersky <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Dane Buson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> --NULL CARRIER --
>
> Ha ha ha! The young'uns at home have no idea what that means.
>
> I wrote this 'way back when (OK, according to Google Groups, it was Nov 24
> 1994, 2:52 pm)
>
> ---
> The dryer goes on NO CARRIER the dryer goes off NO CARRIER the furnace goes
> on NO CARRIER the furnace goes off NO CARRIER, ad infinitum. Each time, log
> back on, find where I was, re-write what I was writing, etc.
> ---
>
> Can you imagine putting up with that today?

I can't imagine putting up with it back then. Even in the heady days of
yore my 1200 baud connection was more stable than that. Mostly I had
problems with someone else in the house picking up the phone, hearing
static and going "Hello? Hello?"

That sounds like you had some fiercely substandard phone wiring.

--
Dane Buson - z u v e m b i @ u n i x b i g o t s . o r g
"France? I would have loved it without the French."
-D. H. Lawrence