Boy, I can't believe that after almost 50 posts no one has latched onto the obvious logical flaw in this law -- the assertion that sidewalk cycling is safer than in the street! It's pretty well proven that the safest place to ride your bike is in the street, with traffic. It's safer than the sidewalk and it's safer than multi-use trails. Given the nature of most bike accidents -- collisions at intersections -- there's no reason to believe that having a trailer does anything to affect the relative safety.

I get the impression that most of the posters above have never actually used a trailer. The rhetoric reminds me of the way that people who have never biked in traffic feel about cyclists -- that it's "obviously" dangerous -- even though the statistical evidence is that cycling in traffic is about as dangerous as driving. A trailer may appear "obviously" dangerous too, but in fact, trailers have an excellent safety record.

I cycle in traffic every day, and I take my kids with me a lot -- in trailers when they were younger, and now in trail-a-bikes. I feel a lot safer with a trailer behind than I ever do by myself. The primary reason is that motorists are a whole lot more considerate when you've got the little one with you; they slow down more and give more room when passing.

As I said earlier, trailers have an excellent safety record. When I first started riding with a trailer, I tried to do some research, but I didn't find much. Finally I found one paper that said that accidents are so rare that there is essentially no statistical basis for calculating an injury rate; the accident rate is effectively zero. As a data point, Adams, the manufacturer of Trail-A-Bikes, recently recalled 80,000 units after a report of a single, minor injury.

By the way, I read this law to apply to both child seats and trailers. "Bicycle attached to occupied baby carrier" seems to apply to both.

Hey, quit messin' up the rhetoric with facts! :D ;)

Does Washington state have a history of children being kild while in bike trailers? If not, this legislation is a waste of time. I think it is probably due to the legislator having to wait a few seconds before he could pass one.

Does Washington state have a history of children being kild while in bike trailers? If not, this legislation is a waste of time. I think it is probably due to the legislator having to wait a few seconds before he could pass one.
Bingo!

All right I live in Washington State. I have searched far in wide to see if this
ever made it out of commitee. So far I don't see where it did.

the safest place to ride your bike is in the street, with traffic. It's safer than the sidewalk and it's safer than multi-use trails.


Uh, Ok, I'll bite...

I ride with my kids on the back, on greenway (multi-use) trails, and I've commuted to work. There's no comparison, the street feels miserably unsafe to me during rush hour, I wouldn't dream of taking them. Drivers are rude and inconsiderate, but mostly just unaware. Maybe they would give me greater berth with a child if they saw me, but they're not going to realize that I'm up around the next corner, or stop talking on the phone prior to being aware of me and the kids.

I understand the sidewalk argument, since people often don't look at who is coming down the sidewalk when they're pulling into or out of driveways or streets. Cyclists who ride on sidewalks need to be aware of the risks, take it slow and be defensive riders. I don't understand the multi-use trail argument, it's the *only* time I feel safe with the boys. Maybe you have some statistics. Maybe I just live in a very different part of the country, with different commuter motorists and different greenway trails.

The big irony to me is that of any state I would imagine Washington state motorists to be the most aware and sympathetic drivers, but frankly I've never been.

Hey, at least you are making a point rather than digressing deeper and deeper into "multiple strawman theory".

All right I live in Washington State. I have searched far in wide to see if this
ever made it out of commitee. So far I don't see where it did.


Marge and anyone else interested: the following link directs you to a page where you can check up on the progress of various bills. Just type in the bill number and you get a history. This bill has been prefiled for introduction, whatever that means.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/

My two cents: this is definitely someone's attempt to rid the world of bikes. If they were so interested in safety, they'd ban cars on streets where bikes are being ridden.

My two cents: this is definitely someone's attempt to rid the world of bikes. If they were so interested in safety, they'd ban cars on streets where bikes are being ridden.In other words, if they were interested in safety, they'd ban cars on all streets? Otherwise, they're just anti-bike?

In other words, if they were interested in safety, they'd ban cars on all streets? Otherwise, they're just anti-bike?
Empty rhetoric, and another strawman. Dude, you are so pwn3d. :)

There is no need for laws like this. Common sense tells you what the risks are...But why is the legislature trying to protect just the kids. If the would focus on how car drivers being inattentive and write laws restricting them; no talking on cell phones period, no video devices in the front seat, no screaming kids in the back seat, no pet free in the passenger area, etc it would go a lot further to protect everyone on the road and not just kids in trailer/ on bike.


Give Me A Break

If I thought that riding with a trailer would be too risky for my child, then I wouldn't even ride that same place without the trailer. Why would I accept a greater level of risk riding alone compared to pulling a trailer? After all, I wouldn't want to leave my son without a father.

.... I'm not saying that a trailer is the least safe method oif cyling with a child, I'm just saying that using a child as a crash barrier isn't a very good idea.

That would only be true if children would not be protected from rear-end collisions by this law. It's patently not true.

It does nothing to outlaw cycling by families. It will discourage risky cycling by families. Oh, the injustice of it all.



WHO THE HELL HAS SAID THEY USE THEY KIDS IN A TRAILER AS A CRASH BARRIER WTF!!!!!!!

If that is your argument is say all compact cars with kids in the rear are nothing but a crash barrier for the parents in the front seat from an SUV please.

Empty rhetoric, and another strawman. Dude, you are so pwn3d. :)The poster said (exact quote): "If they were so interested in safety, they'd ban cars on streets where bikes are being ridden." That means ban cars on literally all streets. That's not my rhetoric, it's the poster's rhetoric.

The poster prefaced that comment with this one (exact quote): "this is definitely someone's attempt to rid the world of bikes."

I paraphrased those comments to say (exact quote): ” In other words, if they were interested in safety, they'd ban cars on all streets? Otherwise, they're just anti-bike?”

So which part of that is my “empty rhetoric? And where in my comment did I slip in the strawman?



I’ve tried to let the strawman nonsense go so as not to hijack this thread with a “yes it is, no it isn’t” argument, but since everybody else keeps bringing it up, I’ll address it now. The original accusation of a strawman argument was directed at my comment about crack. Since nobody on this forum is apparently capable of explaining why it’s a strawman, beyond making the accusation, I’ll explain now why it isn’t a strawman.

The poster was making an argument against government regulation of parental behavior. As an example of why government regulation of parental behavior is a bad idea, the poster held up parents who give their children junk food to eat. While we might all agree that junk food is a bad idea, the poster was implying that we certainly don’t want the government stepping in to tell us what we can and can’t feed our children. My response to that was that government regulation of parental behavior is sometimes necessary, with the crackhead parent as an example of that. Neither I nor the original poster compared junk food or crack to trailers; they were just examples of why government regulation of parental behavior is or isn’t a good idea.

For the record, this statute isn’t my idea. I didn’t propose it, I never lobbied for it, I’ve never argued for it here. So it’s not based on “my risk assessment.” Am I opposed to the law? No.

I cycle in traffic every day, and I take my kids with me a lot -- in trailers when they were younger, and now in trail-a-bikes.
If I may ask, do you have any problems with family/friends/police/whoever feeling that this is child endangerment? That perception and the resulting fallout is really my biggest fear about taking to the roads with a trailer.

If I thought that riding with a trailer would be too risky for my child, then I wouldn't even ride that same place without the trailer. Why would I accept a greater level of risk riding alone compared to pulling a trailer? After all, I wouldn't want to leave my son without a father.Do you believe that cycling is risk-free?

Do you believe that cycling is risk-free?
Do you believe that life is risk-free?

WHO THE HELL HAS SAID THEY USE THEY KIDS IN A TRAILER AS A CRASH BARRIER WTF!!!!!!!

If that is your argument is say all compact cars with kids in the rear are nothing but a crash barrier for the parents in the front seat from an SUV please.Nobody has said they are using their kids as crash barriers. However, in a rear-end collision, the child is placed between the parent and the vehicle, becoming in effect, although not intent, a crash barrier. There's a world of difference between placing a child in the back seat of a car, where the child has the bumper and body of the car between them and other vehicles, and placing a child in a position where there is nothing between them and traffic.

Do you believe that life is risk-free?Do you really have no better response? Read my posts for your answer.

Do you really have no better response? Read my posts for your answer.
Then why did you originally ask me "do you think cycling is risk-free"? I discuss relative risk in my post #61, doesn't that answer the question for you?

Then why did you originally ask me "do you think cycling is risk-free"? I discuss relative risk in my post #61, doesn't that answer the question for you?I asked because you said, in post 61,


If I thought that riding with a trailer would be too risky for my child, then I wouldn't even ride that same place without the trailer. Why would I accept a greater level of risk riding alone compared to pulling a trailer? After all, I wouldn't want to leave my son without a father.

Cycling carries a certain risk. I’ll speak for myself instead of in generalities. I take risks with my own life that I would not take with my child’s life (and again, I’m childless). I might jaywalk, or walk alone late at night, or go for a ride in traffic. Those are risky activities, and I take a calculated risk that they’re not going to cost me my life today. The odds are nothing will go wrong, so I do the math and go on about my business. With my child, I do a different set of calculations, because I’m making a decision for my child, and what I’m willing to risk for myself, I’m not willing to risk for my child. So I jaywalk unsupervised across the street. I go for a walk alone late at night. I ride in traffic. And there’s no way I’m going to put my child in those situations. You say you wouldn’t want to leave your son without a father, but you take that chance every time you ride in traffic. That’s why I asked if you thought cycling is risk-free. I take the same chance—but not with my child’s life.

Cycling carries a certain risk. I’ll speak for myself instead of in generalities. I take risks with my own life that I would not take with my child’s life (and again, I’m childless). I might jaywalk, or walk alone late at night, or go for a ride in traffic. Those are risky activities, and I take a calculated risk that they’re not going to cost me my life today. The odds are nothing will go wrong, so I do the math and go on about my business. With my child, I do a different set of calculations, because I’m making a decision for my child, and what I’m willing to risk for myself, I’m not willing to risk for my child. So I jaywalk unsupervised across the street. I go for a walk alone late at night. I ride in traffic. And there’s no way I’m going to put my child in those situations. You say you wouldn’t want to leave your son without a father, but you take that chance every time you ride in traffic. That’s why I asked if you thought cycling is risk-free. I take the same chance—but not with my child’s life.
Other parents may calculate the risks differently. Who are you, or the Washington State legislature, to decide for them?

Other parents may calculate the risks differently. Who are you, or the Washington State legislature, to decide for them?Is anybody here actually responding to what I'm writing? Or are you people responding to your own emotions? Where have I said "Im deciding for them"? Show me one post where I've said that. I've said all along that it's not a risk I would take for my child. And I've said I'm not opposed to the law.

Now, who is the Washington legislature? They're the legislative body. Are you suggesting that the legislative body has no authority or business to regulate conduct?

Mods, please edit the thread's title, it's making me wince every time I see "babies" speeled that way. ;)

We've asked Blue Order to provide statistics that show using a bicycle trailer to carry a child is in fact dangerous. Until s/he provide those statistics, it's all rhetoric.

Cycling carries a certain risk. I’ll speak for myself instead of in generalities. I take risks with my own life that I would not take with my child’s life (and again, I’m childless). I might jaywalk, or walk alone late at night, or go for a ride in traffic. Those are risky activities, and I take a calculated risk that they’re not going to cost me my life today. The odds are nothing will go wrong, so I do the math and go on about my business. With my child, I do a different set of calculations, because I’m making a decision for my child, and what I’m willing to risk for myself, I’m not willing to risk for my child. So I jaywalk unsupervised across the street. I go for a walk alone late at night. I ride in traffic. And there’s no way I’m going to put my child in those situations. You say you wouldn’t want to leave your son without a father, but you take that chance every time you ride in traffic. That’s why I asked if you thought cycling is risk-free. I take the same chance—but not with my child’s life.
Thanks for the clarification. I agree that cycling has risk. But I think we would disagree as to the level of risk that cycling carries. I believe that the level of risk from cycling, even in traffic, is low enough to be considered relatively safe.

We've asked to provide statistics that show using a bicycle trailer to carry a child is in fact dangerous. Until you provide those statistics, it's all rhetoric.I've never said that my position is statistic based. I've explicitly said several times that it is not statistic-based. My position-- that it's dangerous to place children in traffic-- is based on the undisputed fact that there is nothing to protect the child in the event of a collision. I have not said I'm against family cycling. I've said that I'm for family cycling that is less risky than riding in traffic.

Thanks for the clarification. I agree that cycling has risk. But I think we would disagree as to the level of risk that cycling carries. I believe that the level of risk from cycling, even in traffic, is low enough to be considered relatively safe.Well, if I thought that there was a good chance of dieing every time I get on a bike, I'd probably find something else to do. I'm just less willing to risk my child's life than I am to risk my own life.

If I may ask, do you have any problems with family/friends/police/whoever feeling that this is child endangerment? That perception and the resulting fallout is really my biggest fear about taking to the roads with a trailer.

I did get a strange look and a cryptic comment from my dad the first time I showed up at his house with the twins in the trailer. Last summer on a country road a cop shot us with his radar gun as we went by his speed trap, and held it up for us to see -- 9mph!

But for the most part people are very supportive. As I said earlier, cars are noticeably more courteous. I've only had an impatient motorist honk at me once with the trailer, whereas it's practically a daily occurence when I'm by myself. I will say that I tend to avoid cyclist unfriendly roads with the trailer, mostly because I'm trying to have fun.

I'm still a little peeved about this piece that ran in the Washington Post a while ago. Dr. Gridlock is a column where people write in with questions about traffic; he's generally an idiot when it comes to anything having to do with bicycles.


A Couple, a Baby and Traffic

Dear Dr. Gridlock:
Recently, my husband and I were driving west along Sligo Creek Parkway,
between Wayne Avenue and Colesville Road in Silver Spring, when we beheld a
startling sight: Directly in front of us, in the MIDDLE of the highway, was
a couple riding tandem on a bicycle and towing a small child in a baby
coach.

Although the young child was wearing a helmet, I wondered what real
protection the child had in a flimsy baby coach surrounded by cars.

Remarkably, the bicyclists remained in the MIDDLE of the traffic lane,
despite the fact there was a bike trail along the side of the road.

If a motorist were driving along the same side of the road with a small
child not properly secured in a child's safety seat, they would be
disobeying the law.

Are there any laws protecting infants and small children from being exposed
to even greater risks?

Maureen Bowers
Silver Spring

In Maryland, it is against the law for a bicyclist to ride on the roadway
when a bike path or paved shoulder is available.

Towing a toddler in traffic gives me the creeps. I'd want to notify police
immediately. It sounds like an emergency to me.

It's up to us to try to protect that child, because the parents seem to lack
the brains.

In Virginia, the bicyclist is supposed to ride as close as practical to the
right curb or edge of the roadway.

In the District, bicyclists are to ride on a path, trail or at the far right
of a right-hand lane.

The baby-coach people would seem to be operating illegally in any of our
jurisdictions.

Is anyone else seeing this type of behavior


BTW, he's dead wrong about the law, the cyclist would be legal in all local jurisdictions.

I've never said that my position is statistic based. I've explicitly said several times that it is not statistic-based. My position-- that it's dangerous to place children in traffic-- is based on the undisputed fact that there is nothing to protect the child in the event of a collision. I have not said I'm against family cycling. I've said that I'm for family cycling that is less risky than riding in traffic.

And until you come with some evidence that riding in traffic is more risky than cycling elsewhere, you're just repeating your own prejudice.

As Einstein said, "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."

I've never said that my position is statistic based. I've explicitly said several times that it is not statistic-based. My position-- that it's dangerous to place children in traffic-- is based on the undisputed fact that there is nothing to protect the child in the event of a collision. I have not said I'm against family cycling. I've said that I'm for family cycling that is less risky than riding in traffic.
But this ignores the fact that in addition to the severity of the event, risk is also a function of the likelihood of an event occurring. If I were to be hit by a meteorite when I stepped out my front door, I would most likely be dead. Yet most people don't look up in the sky every time they walk out their front door. Why? Because the probability of being hit by a meteorite is extremely low, therefore making the level of risk extremely low. Obviously the probability of getting into a collision while cycling is greater than being hit by a meteorite, but I think it's still low enough for cycling (even in traffic) to be considered a relatively safe activity.

And until you come with some evidence that riding in traffic is more risky than cycling elsewhere, you're just repeating your own prejudice.

As Einstein said, "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."How about all of the evidence about riding in traffic on this forum? Is that enough evidence?

But this ignores the fact that in addition to the severity of the event, risk is also a function of the likelihood of an event occurring. If I were to be hit by a meteorite when I stepped out my front door, I would most likely be dead. Yet most people don't look up in the sky every time they walk out their front door. Why? Because the probability of being hit by a meteorite is extremely low, therefore making the level of risk extremely low. Obviously the probability of getting into a collision while cycling is greater than being hit by a meteorite, but I think it's still low enough for cycling to be considered a relatively safe activity.That's why I'm generally not in fear of my life when I ride. But the possibility of losing my life is why I ride safely. And the possibility of killing somebody is why I drive safely.

How about all of the evidence about riding in traffic on this forum? Is that enough evidence?
No, that's anecdotes.

No, that's anecdotes.The Vietnamese woman who was killed is not an anecdote. Sydney is not an anecdote. The guy who was killed by a truck was not an anecdote. The guy killed by the hit & run van in San Diego was not an anecdote. Etc.

The Vietnamese woman who was killed is not an anecdote. Sydney is not an anecdote. The guy who was killed by a truck was not an anecdote. The guy killed by the hit & run van in San Diego was not an anecdote. Etc.
It seems you have a problem understanding plain definitions.

anecdote: A short account of an interesting or humorous incident.
statistic: A numerical value, such as standard deviation or mean, that characterizes the sample or population from which it was derived.

If you were talking about the total number of cyclists killed this year, than that would be a statistic.

The Vietnamese woman who was killed is not an anecdote. Sydney is not an anecdote. The guy who was killed by a truck was not an anecdote. The guy killed by the hit & run van in San Diego was not an anecdote. Etc.
Now show some examples of cyclists that got hit while towing a trailer. Specifically cyclists that got hit from behind while towing.

This just follows what others and myself have stated about drivers not giving cyclists w/o a trailer enough space. Cycling is safer with a trailer.

I understand what you're saying about increased perceived risk to a child in a trailer, but the truth of the matter is, it doesn't work that way.

If I lived in Washington and if this passes, I would deliberately use my Burley Solo as a cargo trailer instead of my Burley Flatbed Utility Trailer. The appearance of "Civil Disobedience," but unless you look directly into the front of this trailer, you can't tell what's inside. With no kid with me, I'm not breaking the law.

ok...it's been a while but....

How many of you folks have actually ridden a bike with a child riding in a trailer or on a child seat bolted the the back of the bike?

I have done both. As far as bike handling is concerned, the trailer is way better than the child seat. With the child seat, the center of gravity is so high that just riding the bike in a strait line is hard, much less performing any evasive maneuvers. The only time you could have a problem with the trailer is under panic stop situations when the trailer would want to pass the bike.

Second, I am willing to bet that way more kids are injured by falls on bikes with child seats than from riding in trailers.

Third, folks are jumping to conclusions thinking that a child would be safer riding in a child seat as apposed to a trailer with regard to being rear-ended by an auto. There has been no evidence of any kind put forth to show that that is the case. Personally, if I was a kid, I would take my chances in a trailer surrounded by tubing rather than way up high on a child seat out in the open.

The legislation is typical knee-jerk ******-ism....

I'm not willing to make that choice for my child (and remember, I'm childless), so I would take more safety precautions with my child than I would take for myself. One of those precautions would be to not place my child in a dangerous position. When my child is older, he/she can make his/her own calculated risks, and hopefully, I will have passed on some knowledge about how to be safe.


Yes, we know you wouldn't, that's your choice. You keep repeating yourself. But that's just you.

Just don't lay your phobia's on the rest of the country. It's not just about you and your non-existent child. You are projecting your fears on the rest of us.

And once again, this bill is ANTI-CYCLING LEGISLATION. We should be making cycling safer and more accessible to all. Not restricting use.

No, that's anecdotes.
(oops, I quoted the wrong post, meant to quote the one that referenced the anecdotes on here)

Using anecdotes here to judge the safety of cycling is like talking to a police officer or ambulence driver about safety. They will tend to be a little overenthusiastic because they see the .001% worst case scenario everyday beause it is their job to see it.

The incidents talked about on here seem to be a concentration of what really happens. I don't think people should pass laws until they can prove that the law is necessary. I would never take my child onto a busy road at rush hour in a trailer, but why make it illegal to tow a trailer on that road when it is deserted? If there was a problem with Washington Parents taking their kids out on the turnpike in a trailer at rush hour then I could understand a law. As it is, the police can't even enforce the laws their are, do they really need another one they will not be familiar with?

If it was a given fact that a person towing a child in a trailer had a high risk of collision every time they put a child in a trailer I could understand this law, but there is no basis for that assertion. I would submit to you that the trailer is much better protection for the risks of cycling than a car is for the risks of driving freeway speeds. You have listed one very rare and improbable scenario (most bike collisions are single bike or bike on bike) the trailer covers 99.99% of what it sees incredibly well. How about a law for parents who walk with kids when lightining is striking while we are at it?

The Vietnamese woman who was killed is not an anecdote. Sydney is not an anecdote. The guy who was killed by a truck was not an anecdote. The guy killed by the hit & run van in San Diego was not an anecdote. Etc.

This is useless, Blue Order this is called counting the hits and ignoring the misses. It's funny that you want to say that children are statistically safer in cars than in bike trailers, but a lot of children still die in cars each year. Yet we are still waiting for any evidence of a single child dying in a bike trailer. I see in the LA times this morning that a 6 year old boy was killed in Chicago by a plane that slid off the runway. Should we ban planes now, they are obviously a menace. You went on and on in the inadvertant drift thread that HH's arguments were baseless and frivolous. Talk about the old pot calling the kettle black.

-Marcus

Years ago I saw a study. Yea statistics, measurement, numbers not feelings. It had one very interesting point, which is why I remember it. Bike trails were BOTH teh safeest and most dangerous place to ride. SINGLE USE trails/paths were the safest. MULTI USE trails/paths were the most dangerous. Over years of riding, most on the street (total milegage easily 20 times as much street). I can count only 3 accidents on the street where I have seen either the accident or results. But to do that I have to count the tile I spilled entering a driveway at an angle with no damage (oh wait, I did scratch the tape). Two riders on a recent club ride with skinned knees from a clip out incident (I think, I only saw the knees at teh end of the ride) and one guy going to the hospital on a back board, but I'll come back to this later.

On the bike path it is a different story. 5 accidents. 4 where people were not getting up for a while. The smallest one looked like a skinned knee, but then why the paramedics (well the station was just a 1/4 mile away).

Back to the one serious street accident. It was where the bike path merges with the street on Fiji going south (or west). I would count it as a path accident, but one could call it a street accident since the guy made it to the street before going down.

Uh, Ok, I'll bite...

I ride with my kids on the back, on greenway (multi-use) trails, and I've commuted to work. There's no comparison, the street feels miserably unsafe to me during rush hour, I wouldn't dream of taking them. Drivers are rude and inconsiderate, but mostly just unaware. Maybe they would give me greater berth with a child if they saw me, but they're not going to realize that I'm up around the next corner, or stop talking on the phone prior to being aware of me and the kids.

I understand the sidewalk argument, since people often don't look at who is coming down the sidewalk when they're pulling into or out of driveways or streets. Cyclists who ride on sidewalks need to be aware of the risks, take it slow and be defensive riders. I don't understand the multi-use trail argument, it's the *only* time I feel safe with the boys. Maybe you have some statistics. Maybe I just live in a very different part of the country, with different commuter motorists and different greenway trails.

The big irony to me is that of any state I would imagine Washington state motorists to be the most aware and sympathetic drivers, but frankly I've never been.

Hey, at least you are making a point rather than digressing deeper and deeper into "multiple strawman theory".

The Vietnamese woman who was killed is not an anecdote. Sydney is not an anecdote. The guy who was killed by a truck was not an anecdote. The guy killed by the hit & run van in San Diego was not an anecdote. Etc.


But if you wish to actually judge how dangerous cycling is (people die from eating bread it turns out, 99.9% f people who die have eaten bread, Probably a lot of anecdotes about children choking in plastic bags too but we haven't banned those) you need to establish how many people ride and how many people suffer death as a result. Bicycle deaths get a lot of reference here because it is an advocacy forum and we bring it up. I don't know about your town but in our town it is extremely rare to have a cyclist who is following the rules of the road killed, in fact we usually go years between incidents. On the other hand, people die on our freeways everyweek who obey the law. I would bet many of these people worried about kids in bike trailers wouldn't think twice about leaving a gun around the house (unsecured) with kids. I knew a child who died from that, no laws to stop that but something that is just not smart nonetheless that people do all the time.

I've never said that my position is statistic based. I've explicitly said several times that it is not statistic-based. My position-- that it's dangerous to place children in traffic-- is based on the undisputed fact that there is nothing to protect the child in the event of a collision. I have not said I'm against family cycling. I've said that I'm for family cycling that is less risky than riding in traffic.

I can understand your viewpoint.

BUT

This law applies to riding on ANY street so it includes the local residential area with little of no traffic. It also does NOT apply to having a child on the bike with the adult which is much more dangerous with or without traffic.

Americans don't have the foggiest clue what freedom is.

Xcuse me? Best slow down hoss, unless you are some kind of swami you have no frikin idea what I have a clue about and what I don't. Care to rephrase ?

Of course we have the right to use the roads; is placing a child between traffic and ourselves a fundamental expression of that right?

A motorist who is at fault in a collision (as opposed to the cyclist or pedetrian being at fault-- I know, that never happens) is responsible. If somebody places their child between themselves and traffic, and a motorist causes a collision that kills the child, the motorist is responsible. And the parent is an arse who gets no sympathy from me.


Uhh, the only way your statement is supportable is if you can provide some factual evidence that ALL bicycling accidents in traffic involve being struck from the rear. Since you won't be able to do that, your statement 'places their child between themselves and traffic' is pure rhetoric not based in fact.

Based on this and your 'freedom' statement, I am wondering if the only time you open your mouth is to change feet?

The only thing that prevents a child from being killed in a trailer is the absence of an accident.

Wow, did you think of that all by yourself? I never would have thunk it. Would any of you other folks have come up with this tidbit of rocket science.

Puzzle me this, does the absence of an accident have positive benefits for anyone besides children?

As it is, the police can't even enforce the laws their are, do they really need another one they will not be familiar with?


Even worse, it's a law that can be used to shift fault away from the driver when there is an accident.

Look, it's not rocket science. A car is a relatively safe device for it's occupants. A trailer isn't. Is a parent who takes appropriate safety precautions with their child in their automobile an arse? No. Is a parent who places that same child (and we're talking about babies here, aren't we) in the bed of a pickup truck an arse? Yes, absolutely.

Based on the already stated numbers of cyclist vs pedestrian fatalities, your logic dictates that a parent who takes his kid for a walk is an even bigger arse than the cyclist carting him in a trailer...or is a pedestrian somehow more magically protected from harm? Force fields maybe? Does Superman come to the rescue in the nick of time? Spiderman maybe?

I'm not even half way through plowing into this thread, but so far you seem to be presenting a case that is based on your own perceptions and biases rather than on facts or logic. Are you a politician yourself perhaps?

My feeling about it isn't statistic-based. There may have never been even one accident with a trailer. I don't know. But I am fairly certain that any collision accident that does occur will be a fatality. And the odds are that eventually, if it hasn't already happened, there will be a collision.

So because you think there is a risk, we should pass laws based on your 'fairly certain' speculation, although there is no factual evidence to support you. I am fairly certain that beautiful women walking down the street in skimpy clothes are a distraction that cause accidents...we had better pass a law banning such a thing!!! (crap, now I am gonna get flamed because someone will think I am serious!) :eek:

Even worse, it's a law that can be used to shift fault away from the driver when there is an accident.
And that is all it is going to be used for: After the fact (accident) fault placing. Or do folks expect that the police will be pulling over all cyclists with a trailer to check if a baby happens to be in it?

Al