How about all of the evidence about riding in traffic on this forum? Is that enough evidence?

What evidence would that be. Because some post their experiences with accidents and near misses? Last numbers I saw claimed upwards of 800,000 cyclists in the US alone. How many accident posts does it take to make a significant percentage of cyclists who have had accidents in traffic? What is your benchmark percentage for deciding if something is 'risky' or not?

How about all of the evidence about riding in traffic on this forum? Is that enough evidence?
Blue, go to Vegas for a weekend, you will surely become rich. Every day people win thousands of dollars!

Al

I'm just less willing to risk my child's life than I am to risk my own life.
This is your personal choice to make, no legislation required.

Here's a thought: what if they are trying to ban baby trailers to make it less of a scandal if someone hits a cyclist. With no kids on the road, drivers may feel less obligated to pay attention. The headline, "Driver kills baby in bike trailer," would look very bad. I'm only half-serious about this, but I just can't see why it is such a big deal, considering how infrequently children are towed by bikes. I don't live in Washington, so I don't know how often such carriages are used there. I've only see one in use here.

DCCommuter is right to point out the logical flaw--it's generally more dangerous to ride on the sidewalk. I won't argue that point here because there's a sticky thread (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=100823) devoted to it. I suggest that folks take their arguments on that point to the Sidewalk Bicycling thread (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=100823).

But more importantly, this bill may very well be just be a passing thought of one annoyed state legislator. Lots of bills like this get introduced, few get passed. Does anyone know if there is more than one person supporting it?

This is a curious situation. I have to wonder what the total number of children in Washington are killed or injured in a collision while riding in a bicycle child carrier. This has got to be a very small number as there are surely very few kids in a child carrier and most of them are probably on bike paths. I would expect that very few lives will be saved by this legislation regardless of the fatality rate of kids in child carriers.

On the other hand, I expect that many times more children die in automobiles each year as a result of a crash, despite being properly strapped into a certified child safety seat. If the idea is to save children's lives, it would make more sense to determine what kind of roads have the highest number of child fatalities and ban transporting children on those roads.

Has anyone considered that an aircraft provides almost no protection to anyone, including children in the event of a crash? Couple that with the fact that an aircraft crash has a high fatality rate and perhaps we should ban children from commercial aircraft.

I read today in New Jersey a couple were killed in their own bedroom by an SUV that veered out of control in the winter storm. A bed provides no protection in the event of a collision with an automoble. If a child had been in that bedroom, it might be dead as well. Perhaps New Jersey should ban children from beds.

Has anyone considered that an aircraft provides almost no protection to anyone, including children in the event of a crash? Couple that with the fact that an aircraft crash has a high fatality rate and perhaps we should ban children from commercial aircraft.


I'm safe, I always wear my bicycle helmet when flying. It has the added benefit of getting me discounted fares and lots of friendly attention from the flight attendants! "I'm on a plane, YEY!" :D

Glad I don't live in Washington. I'd be looking to get some anti-cycling elected officials replaced.
Yes, it is terrible here. Rains all the time! And it is never hot and muggy! No hurricanes! And all those hills!!! Sigh.

Sadly, it is not possible to get our anti-cycling elected officials replaced, though.

Butterfly ballots :)

My 2 year old loves riding in his Burley trailer; I tow him on pleasant roads to the park, restaurants, and ice cream shops whenever the weather is nice. I would hate to be forced to give up cycling with him. I did a lot of research before buying the trailer; trailers are the safest way to ride with young kids, and the roadway is the safest place to ride.

Remember, most car-bike collisions occur at intersections, where the automobile is coming from in front of or to the side of the cyclist. Having the child in the trailer behind the bike means that the adult is between the child and the most likely origin of a collision - namely, a left cross or a drive-out. Also note that according to one European study from a few years back, the source I cannot find right now, trailers protected children better in most car-bike collisions than child seats. The trailers tended to get pushed out of the way in typical collisions, having low inertia, and did not flip the child onto his head at high speed the way child seats did. And last but not least, the vast majority of injuries to cyclists result from falls. Child seats make bikes extremely top-heavy can create traumatic injuries to children from simple falls just in the process of mounting and dismounting the bike.

This bill isn't about child safety, it's about trying to free automobile drivers from the responsibility of driving safely, and allowing them to intimidate or endanger cyclists on the roadway without guilt or fear of endangering "innocent" children, as if adults exercising their legal right to bicycle on our public streets are not innocent. Do the police arrest parents for walking in a high-crime neighborhood with their child? Of course not; they focus on the criminals. Why treat cyclists who might be victimized by lawbreakers any differently? The answer is simple; those who support such a bill see cycling on roadways as a sinful activity to begin with, not deserving whatever law enforcement effort they think is required to make it acceptably safe for everyone.

I've used trailers but only on the rails to trails. I dont trust cagers with my kids. However my old burley can still haul a keg with no issues under the new proposal. I think that more cyclists should use trailers for the hell of it. They are great for training and every car slows down and gives you space. I should start commuting with mine.

I wonder what happened to start this legislation? I've seen no kid hit in trailer headlines.

I am certain that more kids die playing organized sports, than in bike trailers.

6 A person shall not operate a bicycle attached to an occupied baby
7 carrier

I wonder what happened to start this legislation? I've seen no kid hit in trailer headlines.


The Senator probably had to slow down and wait a moment before passing a wide child trailer on the road. Hence the ban on trailers and not child seats, and a ban on roadway use and not sidewalk use.

If cars wouldn't run over bikes/babies, this wouldn't even be an issue. Am I missing something here?

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.

Might as well ban bikes from the road if we follow your logic to its conclusion.

Why not do something serious about speeding and dangerous driving, first? Children are being mutilated in automobiles every day.

Why not do something serious about speeding and dangerous driving, first? Children are being mutilated in automobiles every day.
More acurately, children are being mutilated by automobiles every day.

My 2 year old loves riding in his Burley trailer; I tow him on pleasant roads to the park, restaurants, and ice cream shops whenever the weather is nice. I would hate to be forced to give up cycling with him. I did a lot of research before buying the trailer; trailers are the safest way to ride with young kids, and the roadway is the safest place to ride.

Remember, most car-bike collisions occur at intersections, where the automobile is coming from in front of or to the side of the cyclist. Having the child in the trailer behind the bike means that the adult is between the child and the most likely origin of a collision - namely, a left cross or a drive-out. Also note that according to one European study from a few years back, the source I cannot find right now, trailers protected children better in most car-bike collisions than child seats. The trailers tended to get pushed out of the way in typical collisions, having low inertia, and did not flip the child onto his head at high speed the way child seats did. And last but not least, the vast majority of injuries to cyclists result from falls. Child seats make bikes extremely top-heavy can create traumatic injuries to children from simple falls just in the process of mounting and dismounting the bike.

This bill isn't about child safety, it's about trying to free automobile drivers from the responsibility of driving safely, and allowing them to intimidate or endanger cyclists on the roadway without guilt or fear of endangering "innocent" children, as if adults exercising their legal right to bicycle on our public streets are not innocent. Do the police arrest parents for walking in a high-crime neighborhood with their child? Of course not; they focus on the criminals. Why treat cyclists who might be victimized by lawbreakers any differently? The answer is simple; those who support such a bill see cycling on roadways as a sinful activity to begin with, not deserving whatever law enforcement effort they think is required to make it acceptably safe for everyone.

What an incredibly well reasoned and written post.

This bill isn't about child safety, it's about trying to free automobile drivers from the responsibility of driving safely.

Doesn't that say it all! I see NO evidence that society any longer emphasizes driving safely in the first place. First we had better tires, airbags and ABS, then side curtain airbags, now stability control, all to make vehicles safer. All good things, and they have saved many lives ... but with no emphasis on education or enforcement to make drivers safe, the net effect has been to encourage people to just drive faster and more carelessly. Some of our politicians love to preach personal responsibility, but we seem to hate practicing it.

Remember when TV ads for high performance cars used to warn "Driver on closed course. Obey all traffic laws. Don't drive like this." (or, in the case of truck ads, "Tread Lightly!")? I haven't seen those disclaimers in a while. Now the message is that your car will protect you ... and hey, we'll pass this law to try to get the vulnerable children out of your way too (and even if "foolish" parents keep towing their kids in trailers, at least you'll win in court if you hit them because they were breaking the law). Ugh.

Here's a thought: what if they are trying to ban baby trailers to make it less of a scandal if someone hits a cyclist. With no kids on the road, drivers may feel less obligated to pay attention. The headline, "Driver kills baby in bike trailer," would look very bad. I'm only half-serious about this, but I just can't see why it is such a big deal, considering how infrequently children are towed by bikes. I don't live in Washington, so I don't know how often such carriages are used there. I've only see one in use here.


Carriages/trailers are used alot where I live, the state capitol, Olympia. Depending on how your cynicism turns you, you could either say that the "bigger message" could be "cars are more important that bikers", " bikers are responsible for cars hitting into the bikers", and/or indirectly, "it's only illegial for a biker to be hit if there's a baby involved,and, it's the biker's fault, not the car driver". Republicans listening to the insurance lobby? Republicans listening to the car-manufacturing lobby? But, factually, most WA republicans aren't considered all that intelligent (all the sponsors of the bill are republican).

Carriages/trailers are used alot where I live, the state capitol, Olympia. Depending on how your cynicism turns you, you could either say that the "bigger message" could be "cars are more important that bikers", " bikers are responsible for cars hitting into the bikers", and/or indirectly, "it's only illegial for a biker to be hit if there's a baby involved,and, it's the biker's fault, not the car driver". Republicans listening to the insurance lobby? Republicans listening to the car-manufacturing lobby? But, factually, most WA republicans aren't considered all that intelligent (all the sponsors of the bill are republican).

So the best way for Washington cyclists to spin this with an appeal to Republicans is to label the bill as family-unfriendly by discouraging families from cycling together, and for making children less safe (as I explained earlier). This big-government bill creates a new law that needlessly restricts basic travel freedoms for harmless, lawfully traveling citizens instead of just enforcing the traffic laws we already have. It blames the innocent victims instead of getting tough on the most flagrant lawbreakers who endanger all of us, regardless of our chosen travel mode.

The more I think about this the more I think this is either a very hastily drawn up bill or one designed not to pass. Look at this:

6 A person shall not operate a bicycle attached to an occupied baby
7 carrier on a street or other roadway, unless the bicycle is operated
8 within a city or town that prohibits the operation of bicycles on the
9 sidewalk adjacent to the street or other roadway.

Note it only talks about an 'occupied baby carrier'. But it fails to define the term. It would seem an occupied child carrier is fine. So if Burley calls it a child trailer it is OK. If it is a baby carrier it is not. Put wheels on a keg and a baby on top of it and it is clearly legal. You maight say that what it carries defines what it is (a reasonable argument). But it fails to define just what a baby is. Where is the cut off? 6 months, a year? two years?

Holes like this often point to a bill designed to fail. Perhaps a legislator was preasured and did this to get someone off his back. Or there is some dangerous jerk in the legislature. It would be nice to know which is the case.

Can anyone from Washington tell us if this bill has legs? Or is it just some legislator's temper tantrum that the the other legislators will ignore?

So the best way for Washington cyclists to spin this with an appeal to Republicans is to label the bill as family-unfriendly by discouraging families from cycling together, and for making children less safe (as I explained earlier). This big-government bill creates a new law that needlessly restricts basic travel freedoms for harmless, lawfully traveling citizens instead of just enforcing the traffic laws we already have. It blames the innocent victims instead of getting tough on the most flagrant lawbreakers who endanger all of us, regardless of our chosen travel mode.

Better yet, just get Michael Moore to appear in support of the bill. :D