Washington State bill to ban babies on bikes

[scarry]

http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2005-06/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/6142.pdf

1 AN ACT Relating to the use of bicycles with occupied baby carriers;
2 and adding a new section to chapter 46.61 RCW.
3 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
4 NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. A new section is added to chapter 46.61 RCW
5 to read as follows:
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.
--- END ---

[Blue Order]

I'm not a parent, but I don't understand how anybody can tow their children behind them in traffic like that. The last place I'd want to place my children would be between traffic and me.

Mind, I think those trailers are cool devices, I just also think they're foolhardy in the extreme.

[Redrom]

So, in a town where they have sidewalks, but not on every street, riders with trailers will have to thumb a ride inbetween sections where the sidewalk exists? Would walking the bike be considered operation?

Hmmm, sounds like it's good enough for government work. Maybe they should give that one a sanity check.

I ride with kids, though not a trailer, and still there's a difference between riding in roads and riding in traffic. I couldn't ride with the kids in traffic either, I did it once for a block or so and it freaked me out. I'll ride on the sidewalk and gladly accept the ticket if necessary; I'll chalk it up to the cost of biking.

[CommuterRun]

Glad I don't live in Washington. I'd be looking to get some anti-cycling elected officials replaced.

What kind of BS thinking allows local ordnance to take precedence over state law?

I have found that drivers give me a lot more room when I'm pulling a trailer.

[scarry]

I'm not a parent, but I don't understand how anybody can tow their children behind them in traffic like that. The last place I'd want to place my children would be between traffic and me.

Mind, I think those trailers are cool devices, I just also think they're foolhardy in the extreme.


Your choice, but do you really want the state involved? This is another attempt to harrass bicyclists.
The problem is speeding cars.

Suppose this is the only transportation a parent has. How about if the bicyclist is towing their child, but is riding in a large group of bikes, making it safe.

[Blue Order]

Your choice, but do you really want the state involved? This is another attempt to harrass bicyclists.
The problem is speeding cars.

Suppose this is the only transportation a parent has. How about if the bicyclist is towing their child, but is riding in a large group of bikes, making it safe.I agree the problem is speeding cars, often operated by inattentive and/or aggressive drivers. My only comment regarding the trailers is that I would not want to place my children between me and traffic. Perhaps the best place for the trailers is on segregated facilities (bikepaths) where there is no chance of a rear end collision from a motor vehicle. As I said, I think they're cool devices. I also think it's foolhardy in the extreme to use them in traffic.

Now, what about the person who has no other transportation? Should the state reglate them? When appropriate, sure they should be regulated. What about the guy who only has a pickup truck-- is that an excuse to have his children riding down the highway in the bed? Or should the state step in and regulate those people who don't have the common sense to protect their own children? From a humanitarian standpoint, the children should be protected. From an ecological standpoint, this planet is buckling under the weight of human overpopulation, so perhaps thinning the herd isn't a bad thing. But then we get back to the humanitarian question...

As far as riding in a large group of bikes, I can recall at least two accounts of large groups of cyclists being mowed down. The first was when a teenage girl was adjusting her stereo, and drifted into a group of cyclists, killig several of them. The second was when a drunk drifted into a group of cyclists, again killing several of them. It's clear from experience that other cyclists are not a buffer when a multi-ton vehicle is plowing through them.

[Dchiefransom]

Doesn't the intorduction of pollution to the air by motor vehicles result in more health problems for kids than any resulting from riding with them in a trailer on a road?

[Treespeed]

This is a ridiculous argument, children die in motor vehicle accidents every day. Maybe in your view it is foolhardy in the extreme, but the last I checked this wasn't a facist state.

And in Washington state your more likely to die as a pedestrian than as a cyclist

Pedestrians and bicyclists. Pedestrian fatalities accounted for 67 traffic deaths in 2000. An additional 12 deaths occurred to bicyclists hit by motor vehicles. Pedestrian fatalities are highest among people age 55 or older.

So I guess we should see legislation outlawing strollers soon too. Especially if they are being pushed by grandparents.

Sheesh.

[Keith99]

OK there is a good reason to try to protect children from irresponsible parents. There are some adults who show horrible judgement. There are some streets where it would be foolish to take a child in a carrier behind a bike. But there are also several times as many streets where it is safe. Who should decide?

Step back a bit and look at the the social class of those who have such baby carriers. They are not cheap. Also I do not recall ever seeing one on a busy street, unless you count Washington Blvd as part of the beach bike path system. How many babies have been hurt or killed in such trailers? It seems to me this is a non-problem, unless of course the agenda is really something entirely different from what it seems on the surface.

Today babies, tomorrow teens, the day after tomorrow???

[cosmo starr]

my first memory of being on a bike was being a little kid in a rear mounted child seat.....my dad put me in and ran back into the house and the bike fell over w/ me strapped in.....i guess i thought it was fun :D

[Keith99]

my first memory of being on a bike was being a little kid in a rear mounted child seat.....my dad put me in and ran back into the house and the bike fell over w/ me strapped in.....i guess i thought it was fun :D

I missed something before, but this brings it out. This kind of baby transport is LEGAL under the bill. Yup baby carriers that are part of the bike and in general provide little or no protection to the child are OK. But carriers behind, some of which are half way to tanks are not. Hmmm. Just what is the motive? Surely not protection of children.

[Paul L.]

I'm not a parent, but I don't understand how anybody can tow their children behind them in traffic like that. The last place I'd want to place my children would be between traffic and me.

Mind, I think those trailers are cool devices, I just also think they're foolhardy in the extreme.


Hmmm, I don't follow the logic. So we are not in danger of rear collisions without the trailer but with a child back there suddenly we have a problem? Or is it just the fact that perhaps it is easier to quench the fear of a rear collision when it is us and not someone we care about?

I take my children all over the place with a trailer. I tend to stick to areas with a bike lane admittedly biut I have been known to take one of the kids who woke up when I was heading out for my hilly 27 miles Saturday ride out in the hills with me so he wouldn't wake up Mom too early. The route had wide shoulders and bike lanes all the way. With the trailer I am even more visible than I otherwise am. So, the real question is, are we as cyclists in danger of getting killed by riding on the road or not. I mean why should we advocate adults being put in jeopardy of losing their life if it is so dangerous? Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. My point being that if it is safe for an adult to ride a bike without getting hit a trailer will not add to that risk. I think it is the emotional impact of adding a child to the equation but statistically I don't see a basis. I can't see how a trailer would add to the chances of a rear collision.

Incidentally I use a rearview mirror religiously when the kids are in back.

[Blue Order]

Hmmm, I don't follow the logic. So we are not in danger of rear collisions without the trailer but with a child back there suddenly we have a problem? Or is it just the fact that perhaps it is easier to quench the fear of a rear collision when it is us and not someone we care about.We're always in danger of a rear collision. That's why I would not want my children trailing behind me. I'd feel safer with a seat on the rear of the bike-- probably because I feel I can take better evasive action than I could with a trailer. I think it boils down to being able to justify taking a risk with my own life (albeit a risk mitigated with a helmet, lighting, etc.), but not being even willing to consider taking a risk with my child's life.

Now, I was just thinking, last year I spent a lot of time in NY state, and there are a lot of small villages where it would make perfect sense to tow a trailer, because there's not much in the way of traffic to deal with.

[scarry]

As I said, I think they're cool devices. I also think it's foolhardy in the extreme to use them in traffic.

You sound like one of those liberal nanny state people, insisting that the govmnt protect everyone.

If a motor vehicle plows into a cyclist towing a child, it is the motor vehicle operator that is guilty, don't mess with the victim. If you want to protect the child, then lets make it a serious crime to run down a bike with child.

Those who give up freedom for security deserve neither.

[joejack951]

With a trailer, you go slower and thus steal more precious seconds from the drivers waiting to pass you.

[Blue Order]

I take my children all over the place with a trailer. I tend to stick to areas with a bike lane admittedly biut I have been known to take one of the kids who woke up when I was heading out for my hilly 27 miles Saturday ride out in the hills with me so he wouldn't wake up Mom too early. The route had wide shoulders and bike lanes all the way. With the trailer I am even more visible than I otherwise am. So, the real question is, are we as cyclists in danger of getting killed by riding on the road or not.Yes, we are in danger. I agree that the trailer makes a cyclist more visible, but that doesn;'t necessarily prevent a collision.

I mean why should we advocate adults being put in jeopardy of losing their life if it is so dangerous? Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.[QUOTE]Adults have the ability to make informed choices. Children don't. That's why adults are responsible for contracts they sign, and children aren't. If adults choose to engage in risky, but legal, behavior, that's their choice, but it's not a strong argument for saying that children should be placed in danger.

[QUOTE]My point being that if it is safe for an adult to ride a bike without getting hit a trailer will not add to that risk. I think it is the emotional impact of adding a child to the equation but statistically I don't see a basis. I can't see how a trailer would add to the chances of a rear collision.Using a trailer shouldn't add to the risk of a collision. It might even reduce the risk in instances where an accident is caused by lack of visibility. However, while riding with a trailer doesn't add to the risk of a rear collision, the risk is still there, and in the case of a trailer, the most likely victim is the child, rather than the adult. Not a risk I'm willing to take. And it's kind of ironic, don't you think, for an adult to say "I'll take that risk," when it's the child's life, and not heir own, that they're taking a risk on?

[Blue Order]

You sound like one of those liberal nanny state people, insisting that the govmnt protect everyone.

If a motor vehicle plows into a cyclist towing a child, it is the motor vehicle operator that is guilty, don't mess with the victim. If you want to protect the child, then lets make it a serious crime to run down a bike with child.

Those who give up freedom for security deserve neither.Yes, let's deal with the problem after it occurs, rather than preventing the problem from occurring in the first place, because the freedom to be a self-centered idiot is far more important than a child's life. And if we blame the motorist, then we won't have to take any responsibility ourselves, and that is the true essence of American freedom.

[Portis]

With a kid's bicycle seat you have the risk of traffic + the bike wreck. With the trailer, you just have the risk of traffic. It's a no brainer.

[Treespeed]

You sound like one of those liberal nanny state people, insisting that the govmnt protect everyone.

If a motor vehicle plows into a cyclist towing a child, it is the motor vehicle operator that is guilty, don't mess with the victim. If you want to protect the child, then lets make it a serious crime to run down a bike with child.

Those who give up freedom for security deserve neither.

Scarry I agree with you except that it's not only liberals who have a monopoly on the nanny state issue. A few examples of conservative nannyism would include censorship, obscenity prosecutions, squashing FDA approval of plan B contraception, prosecution of medical marijuana users, and most importantly the bill that we are discussing was put forth by a Republican Conservative. I think a better usage would be busy body politicians.

-Marcus

[scarry]

Not a risk I'm willing to take. And it's kind of ironic, don't you think, for an adult to say "I'll take that risk," when it's the child's life, and not heir own, that they're taking a risk on?

And guess your opinion should govern everybody. If you wouldn't take the risk, then that's your choice.
Fine, stop trying to stuff your fear down everybody's throat.

But some Americans value their freedom. Should the state step in when parents feed their kids lousy food, fail to teach them good exercise habits, and many other risky behaviours.

You are failing to see that the motorist who plows into the cyclist is guilty, not the cyclist.

[scarry]

Yes, let's deal with the problem after it occurs, rather than preventing the problem from occurring in the first place, because the freedom to be a self-centered idiot is far more important than a child's life. And if we blame the motorist, then we won't have to take any responsibility ourselves, and that is the true essence of American freedom.

If the motorist ran down a bicycle with child, then who else would you blame. We have a right to travel on the roads.

[Blue Order]

But some Americans value their freedom.Americans don't have the foggiest clue what freedom is.

[Blue Order]

Should the state step in when parents feed their kids lousy food, fail to teach them good exercise habits, and many other risky behaviours.You tell me-- should the state step in when parents give their kids crack? Or should the state let people decide for themselves what risks they'll take with their children's lives?

[Blue Order]

If the motorist ran down a bicycle with child, then who else would you blame. We have a right to travel on the roads.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.

[scarry]

Scarry I agree with you except that it's not only liberals who have a monopoly on the nanny state issue. A few examples of conservative nannyism would include censorship, obscenity prosecutions, squashing FDA approval of plan B contraception, prosecution of medical marijuana users, and most importantly the bill that we are discussing was put forth by a Republican Conservative. I think a better usage would be busy body politicians.

-Marcus

I totally 100% agree, I was just being inflammatory.

[scarry]

You tell me-- should the state step in when parents give their kids crack? Or should the state let people decide for themselves what risks they'll take with their children's lives?

You sound like a real [Moderator removed: Personal Attack]. Why don't you just mind your own business.

http://www.theage.com.au/ffxImage/urlpicture_id_1072908952103_2004/01/03/steve_irwin,0.jpg

[Blue Order]

You sound like a real [Moderator removed: Personal Attack]. Why don't you just mind your own business.

http://www.theage.com.au/ffxImage/urlpicture_id_1072908952103_2004/01/03/steve_irwin,0.jpgAs long as you're willing to thin your end of the herd you'll get no busybodiness from me.

[Paul L.]

Using a trailer shouldn't add to the risk of a collision. It might even reduce the risk in instances where an accident is caused by lack of visibility. However, while riding with a trailer doesn't add to the risk of a rear collision, the risk is still there, and in the case of a trailer, the most likely victim is the child, rather than the adult. Not a risk I'm willing to take. And it's kind of ironic, don't you think, for an adult to say "I'll take that risk," when it's the child's life, and not heir own, that they're taking a risk on?

My real point was that fact that there is not a lot of proven risk to having a trailer behind a bike. Statistically it is more dangerous to drive a motorcycle or a car. Children get injured all the time in automobile accidents yet we have not banned transporting a child in a geo metro. Children in trailers will suffer little or no harm in a single bike collision but if a sleeping driver goes off the road with a child in back it is highly likely both will be killed. I think we need to evaluate "real and proven" risk as opposed to unbiased emotional fears. Rear collisions are extremely rare (but highly publicised unfortunately) in terms of bicycle accidents. Car accidents don't even make news anymore.

Incidentally I would suspect that the amount of children who suffer injury or disability from getting crack from Mom and Dad is much higher than the amount of children who have been killed, maimed, or injured riding in a trailer behind a bike.

I know several people who do or have done long rides in trailers (burley) and in cases of accidents the kids faired better than the parents having no injuries.

[Blue Order]

My real point was that fact that there is not a lot of proven risk to having a trailer behind a bike. Statistically it is more dangerous to drive a motorcycle or a car. Children get injured all the time in automobile accidents yet we have not banned transporting a child in a geo metro. Children in trailers will suffer little or no harm in a single bike collision but if a sleeping driver goes off the road with a child in back it is highly likely both will be killed. I think we need to evaluate "real and proven" risk as opposed to unbiased emotional fears. Rear collisions are extremely rare (but highly publicised unfortunately) in terms of bicycle accidents. Car accidents don't even make news anymore.In a car accident, the child is (presumably) safely strapped into a carrier, which is strapped to the seat inside a steel cocoon with numerous legislated safety devices designed to prevent injury to the occupants. With a trailer, a child is the only barrier between several tons of fast-moving steel and the parent. Are children injured, and even killed, in car accidents? Sure. But we do everything we can to prevent that from happening. If we went with the "American freedom" argument, none of the safety devices that have been legislated into cars would exist, because the car manufacturers fought them all, tooth and nail. We didn't go with the "American freedom" argument, so while not completely safe, cars are relatively safe.

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

[joejack951]

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.

So is any parent who gets in an accident in any vehicle with kids inside that get injured/killed an arse?

[Blue Order]

So is any parent who gets in an accident in any vehicle with kids inside that get injured/killed an arse?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.

[Treespeed]

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.

So hauling your kid in a bike trailer is synonomous with giving your kid crack? Nice strawman argument. I would be willing to be that the same amount of kids die from their crack habit as die in bike trailers. And I would be even more willing to bet that more kids died in their strollers last year in crosswalks or in their car seats with the windows rolled up then died in bike trailers. You, nor the idiot advocating this bill has shown any statistics of this being a real issue. All this does is further marginalize cyclists and cycling as a safe transportation alternative. You want to really save some kids how about prosecuting parents who feed their kids a steady diet of Junk Food and Soda and give them Juvenille Diabetes. But that would be violating personal freedoms.

-Marcus

[scarry]

Look, it's not rocket science. A car is a relatively safe device for it's occupants.

40,000 dead Americans each year would disagree.


A trailer isn't.

It's safer that holding the child while riding a bike.

Look this bill is not about protecting anyone(exept motorists from liability), it is anti-bike legislation. It will discourage cycling by families.

[Blue Order]

So hauling your kid in a bike trailer is synonomous with giving your kid crack? Nice strawman argument.I didn't make that argument. I was responding to a post that implied the state should never step in to regulate parental behavior. The obvious response to that position is the crack argument.


All this does is further marginalize cyclists and cycling as a safe transportation alternative.Again: Cyclists have a right to use the roads; is placing your child between you and traffic a fundamental expression of that right?


You want to really save some kids how about prosecuting parents who feed their kids a steady diet of Junk Food and Soda and give them Juvenille Diabetes. But that would be violating personal freedoms.

-MarcusThat's the argument the poster was making to ridicule state intervention, to which I replied "What about crack"?

[Paul L.]

In a car accident, the child is (presumably) safely strapped into a carrier, which is strapped to the seat inside a steel cocoon with numerous legislated safety devices designed to prevent injury to the occupants. With a trailer, a child is the only barrier between several tons of fast-moving steel and the parent. Are children injured, and even killed, in car accidents? Sure. But we do everything we can to prevent that from happening. If we went with the "American freedom" argument, none of the safety devices that have been legislated into cars would exist, because the car manufacturers fought them all, tooth and nail. We didn't go with the "American freedom" argument, so while not completely safe, cars are relatively safe.

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


The trailer has 2 3 point harness in it with an Aluminum roll cage. I have heard of trailers rolling down hills with kids inside and having the kids laughing when the adults got to them. I seriously doubt they would be laughing if a car did that. My child car seats are made of plastic. Once you get a car going 60+ mph those safety devices may give you good piece of mind but there is really a point at which not even all those expensive safety devices is going to save your bacon. Not to mention if someone in an huge SUV hits your geo metro even at a modest speed it will still be ugly.

For the situation you describe the parent would also likely be killed, point being if the trailer won't protect the child it won't protect you either. Anyway, the point is that statistically it is more dangerous to get into your car and go to work than most other activities we would otherwise consider dangerous but turn out to be amazingly safe. If I thought road riding was dangerous I wouldn't do it, period, trailer or no. It would be pretty stupid of me to risk leaving my wife with 4 kids (3 of which are in diapers).

If it is safer for a cyclist to ride on the road and not the sidewalk, then it is safer for a bike and trailer too. I submit that it is not only safer but it is in itself safe. 16000 miles of riding in the last 3 years has proven to me that riding on the road is in fact safe. Because of that feeling I tow a trailer in areas that have traffic but also have room for a bicycle.

[Blue Order]

40,000 dead Americans each year would disagree.The casualty rate is a lot lower than it would be without state-mandated safety devices. The casualty rate would be even lower if people would just obey he traffic laws. The car is relatively safe. Relative to a trailer, relative to an unregulated car.

40,000 casualties every year? Out of how many man hourson the road? And how does that compare with the rate of cyclist fatalities? I suspect the automobile is relatively safe. The odds of injury to the occupants of an autombile in a car/bicycle collision are really quite low; the odds of injury to the cyclist are really quite high. A number like 40,000 dead Americans is utterly meaningless when not placed in context.

It's safer that holding the child while riding a bike.Holding the child would be illegal, but judging by human behavior, obeying the traffic laws seems to be violating some cherished American freedom. 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.

Look this bill is not about protecting anyone(exept motorists from liability),That would only be true if children would not be protected from rear-end collisions by this law. It's patently not true.

it is anti-bike legislation. It will discourage cycling by families. It does nothing to outlaw cycling by families. It will discourage risky cycling by families. Oh, the injustice of it all.

[Keith99]

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

Let's see. It outlaws trailers, at least the best of which are built more like race cars safety wise, and it allows seats mounted directly on the bike where the child is totally exposed. At the best this is about posturing. There is no way it is about real safety.

[Paul L.]

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


Aaah, yes, but now we get to the crux of the argument. Who says it is "risky"? Where are your statistics? There are many statistics which show that cyclists are in relatively small risk of getting struck from behind and John Forrester cites these I believe(YIKES! I'm agreeing with Helmet Head!). In terms of other cycling risks I have found it very hard to get much over 20mph with one of these things on the back due to wind drag so we can cut down high speed accidents (besides the roll cage takes care of that). So, this "risk" we are talking about. Is it merely an emotional "ghost" fear? or is it a bonafide proven problem?

[Paul L.]

Perhaps we should ask those bicycle tourists out there who tow trailers how many of them have had problems with getting struck from behind and had their trailers destroyed.

[scarry]

Aaah, yes, but now we get to the crux of the argument. Who says it is "risky"? Where are your statistics? There are many statistics which show that cyclists are in relatively small risk of getting struck from behind and John Forrester cites these I believe(YIKES! I'm agreeing with Helmet Head!). In terms of other cycling risks I have found it very hard to get much over 20mph with one of these things on the back due to wind drag so we can cut down high speed accidents (besides the roll cage takes care of that). So, this "risk" we are talking about. Is it merely an emotional "ghost" fear? or is it a bonafide proven problem?

Well, Blue thinks it's risky, therefore his risk assesment should extend to everyone. :rolleyes:

But I don't think that is the bill authors intent. I think his underlying intent is anti-bike.
And it would force cyclists towing their kid onto the sidewalk, and we all know how safe that is. :rolleyes:

[CommuterRun]

........The car is relatively safe. Relative to a trailer, relative to an unregulated car........

The car would be relatively safe if regulated to a speed of not more than 30 mph at all times. Unrealistic. As things currently stand, car drivers are the most dangerous things on the road.

Pulling a utility trailer nearly every day, I can state from first-hand experience that drivers give a bicycle w/trailer much more room than a bike w/o trailer.

At any rate it's a false arguement for two reasons. One, hit from behind collisions are very rare, with the most common being the side-swipe. Which is just what towing a trailer protects against. And two, it's plainly, merely "Feel Good" legislation with no regard to real safety.

[Blue Order]

Aaah, yes, but now we get to the crux of the argument. Who says it is "risky"? Where are your statistics? There are many statistics which show that cyclists are in relatively small risk of getting struck from behind and John Forrester cites these I believe(YIKES! I'm agreeing with Helmet Head!). In terms of other cycling risks I have found it very hard to get much over 20mph with one of these things on the back due to wind drag so we can cut down high speed accidents (besides the roll cage takes care of that). So, this "risk" we are talking about. Is it merely an emotional "ghost" fear? or is it a bonafide proven problem?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.

When I cycle, I take some measure of risk. I'm taking the risk that there won't be a drunk driver, or an inattentive driver, or that my wheel won't go out on me on a fast descent. I mitigate those risks with a helmet and other safety gear, so the risk is lessened, but it's still there. In the end, it's my life, and I'm choosing to take some small, calculated measure of risk with it. 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.

[Treespeed]

Perhaps we should ask those bicycle tourists out there who tow trailers how many of them have had problems with getting struck from behind and had their trailers destroyed.

I tow a BOB trailer and I would argue that I get even more room from passing motorists. It's all about visibility and a trailer makes you hyper visible.

The fundamental issue is risk and what risk is acceptable to the parent. I think that it's risky to let your kids eat junk food and rot their brain on video games and I know that there is a lot more research on the harm caused by those activities, but I won't support legislation to limit those activities either. I plan on skiing, swimming, and cycling with my children. We might die in anyone of those activities, but as I cited in another thread you are more likely in Washington State to die as a pedestrian than as a cyclist.

Blue 2 points, you still haven't cited evidence of a single infant death due to the rear ending of a bike trailer by a motor vehicle; and your crack argument was your basic istrawman fallacy. Since you don't seem to know what this I'll elaborate.

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

[Blue Order]

The trailer has 2 3 point harness in it with an Aluminum roll cage. I have heard of trailers rolling down hills with kids inside and having the kids laughing when the adults got to them. I seriously doubt they would be laughing if a car did that. My child car seats are made of plastic. Once you get a car going 60+ mph those safety devices may give you good piece of mind but there is really a point at which not even all those expensive safety devices is going to save your bacon. Not to mention if someone in an huge SUV hits your geo metro even at a modest speed it will still be ugly.The trailer construction, fronm the sound of it, is designed to prevent injury in a spill. A collision of even a few miles per hour (let's say a bike traveling at a leisurely 10 mph, and a car traveling behind it at 20 mph), on the other hand, would be fatal. There's no comparison between that and a car. A car is designed to protect its occupants in collisions of many times that speed. No guarantees about occupant safety in the car, but it's just no contest between the safety of a car and the safety of a trailer.

[Blue Order]

Blue 2 points, you still haven't cited evidence of a single infant death due to the rear ending of a bike trailer by a motor vehicle; and your crack argument was your basic istrawman fallacy. Since you don't seem to know what this I'll elaborate.

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.I know exactly what a strawman argument is. My argument was not a strawman argument. Go back and read what I was actually responding to, and what I actually wrote, and if you still believe it was a strawman argument, explain to me why you think it's a strawman argument.

I've been quite clear, by the way, that my argument is not statistic-based.

[GlowBoy]

Sheesh, motor vehicle accidents (in which the child is a passenger) are the number 1 cause of death for people aged 2 to 20 in this country, a fact that my medical-student wife relayed to me yesterday. And the state 10 miles from my doorstep is going to prohibit me from pulling a child in a trailer on any public roadway?

I have an infant at home. Next year he'll be in a Chariot SideCarrier (http://www.chariotcarriers.com/html_english/sidecarrier.htm) (which seems to me a bit safer than traditional trailers, themselves a whole lot safer than "baby-killer" child seats). I plan to tow him around in it as long as he'll let me. This will mostly be on dedicated off-street pathways, but I can envision there may be times I may pull him along very quiet side streets, or roadways with LOTS of shoulder/bike space. In some places that's actually necessary to connect gaps between pathway segments.

In any event, I'm certainly not willing to subject my child to the same risk that I take on while I'm commuting, and I'm going to be very circumspect about riding with my child on a public road. It's certainly not the equivalent of giving a child crack. That's a crackPOT argument.

And as a Liberal I can tell you this law has nothing to do with liberalism (we're generally ... ahem ... in favor of personal freedom).

But we do everything we can to prevent that from happening.
Like hell we do! If that were true, we'd have a reasonable level of law enforcement, to ensure that more people actually drive safely.
The only thing that prevents a child from being killed in a trailer is the absence of an accident.
The only thing that prevents thousands of children here from being killed by falling bookcases or sliding appliances is the absence of an earthquake.

The risk of a child being killed in an earthquake here in the Northwest is substantially greater than the risk of my child being killed while in a bike trailer for a few hours a year. I don't see the government knocking on my door to make sure my bookcases and appliances are strapped or bolted down. In fact, they have yet to knock on my door to make sure I have toilet-lid and cabinet locks, or outlet covers!

[Hawkear]

I know exactly what a strawman argument is. My argument was not a strawman argument. Go back and read what I was actually responding to, and what I actually wrote, and if you still believe it was a strawman argument, explain to me why you think it's a strawman argument.

I've been quite clear, by the way, that my argument is not statistic-based.
It was a strawman in reply to a strawman.

It's still a strawman, and really has no relevance.

[genec]

Side note... while the Chariot SideCarrier seems like a nice thing (wish they were around when my child was small) it doesn't convert into a buggy like the trailer version. That seems like something of a drawback.

[sbhikes]

Is that bill talking about trailers or those baby seats. I always thought those baby seats look pretty hazardous. How long until you noticed the baby wasn't in it anymore? Would you notice quick enough to catch the baby?

[randya]

From the above discussion, I'm gathering that the baby seats will remain legal as, I suppose, will trail-a-bikes, which are different from trailers.