Advocacy & Safety - 81% of parents ban children from cycling

from

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7380691.stm

Parents 'stop children cycling'

Parents' fears about road safety are turning children into a lost generation of cyclists, says a government-backed agency that promotes cycling.

Four out of five children are banned from cycling to school by their parents, a poll of 1,079 parents for Cycling England suggests.

This compares with the 35% of parents who were allowed to bike to school when they were children themselves.

Launching Bike to School Week the group said road accidents are declining.

The survey found 81% of parents ban children from cycling independently.

This was creating a new breed of "cul-de-sac kids" restricted to cycling only in their own road and neighbouring streets, Cycling England warned.

The biggest reason why parents did not let their child cycle on the road was concern about safety - but only 3% knew someone who had been in an accident.

In 2006 there were 10 times more accidents involving cars than there were accidents involving bicycles.
Most parents said cycle training would make them feel more reassured about their child cycling without any adult supervision.

And some two-thirds said they felt their child did not have the confidence and skills to ride on the road.
Although three-quarters of children are allowed to cycle for recreation at the weekend or after school, only one in five is allowed to use his bicycle as a way of getting from one place to another.

More than half of the same parents said they had regularly used cycling as a way of getting around as a child.

Cul-de-sac

Chairman of Cycling England Phillip Darnton said: "This research underlines the important role of cycling training in giving children the skills and confidence they need to cycle on the roads - and in giving parents the reassurance that their child is well equipped to do so.

"Concern about safety is understandable, but we need to remember that on-road accidents are in long term decline.

"Every parent will want to ensure their children are kept safe, but they can't live out their lives within the shadows of the cul-de-sac, never able to venture further away from home," he added.

Cycling to school or with friends could have a positive role in developing a child's independence, he said.

Cycling England runs bicycle training schemes and a new proficiency scheme known as Bikeability.

Mr Darnton is urging more schools to come forward and offer the training as part of the push to get more youngsters cycling.

Is the decline in on-road accidents due to the decline in cycling?

Is the decline in on-road accidents due to the decline in cycling?

Good question, but I think the percentage is the important number. How many people per 1,000 bike riders have been involved in accidents. Not necessarily a given number. If the percentage is going down, the decline doesn't matter unless it's a significant decline such as 10 million people nationwide down to, say, under 7 million. The percentage per 7 million people or 10 million, if it stays the same, is the important number.

I find it striking that while 81% of parents ban children from cycling due to "safety", only 3% knew someone who had been in an accident.

I think this has more than a bit due to the work of groups like The Bicycle Helmet Initiative Trust

http://www.bhit.org/

that use scare tactics to promote helmet use and end up discouraging people from riding altogether.

It's all too ironic if you look at the over all situation

http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/w/images/6/6c/Angie-and-Eric.jpg

and the head of the organization herself

http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/w/images/thumb/0/0e/Angie.jpg/180px-Angie.jpg

Hard issue. I am a cyclist and a parent. of 10 and 6 year old boys. Say all you want about the sickness of modern parenting, but also imagine watching your beloved little child wobble off inches away from rushing cars.

I am not arguing against letting kids ride (and in fact, both of my boys can ride alone under somewhat wide circumstances), but do not stand back and heave specious claims about how parents should analyze risks.

jim

I wouldn't say the point is to critisize parents but to understand how it is a parent finds cycling something so dangerous as to not let their children take part in.

The image of cycling as a dangerous pursuit as opposed to a positive pursuit seems to be widespread and one has to wonder why that is

My son will be cycling before he can walk. My wife approves. And no friggin' training wheels, either.

I've noticed the trend among my friends. I have a friend whose 10yo is only allowed to ride on the sidewalk and only on the sidewalk in front of his house. That's about 30 feet. His grandmother lives six blocks away, in a quiet residential neighborhood, and he is not allowed to bike there. I personally think it's silly and parents should be out teaching their children how to navigate traffic.

I used to ride my bike around town all day without a word of worry from my mom.

When I went to high school, there were so many bikes parked against the fence, you couldn't even see the fence.

The biggest reason why parents did not let their child cycle on the road was concern about safety - but only 3% knew someone who had been in an accident.

I wouldn't make much of this factoid; I doubt that even 3% of parents know someone who have set themselves on fire but probably 100% still won't let their children play with matches.


In 2006 there were 10 times more accidents involving cars than there were accidents involving bicycles.

What is the exposure time to car accidents vice bike accidents? Without that info this is only statistical gibberish.


Most parents said cycle training would make them feel more reassured about their child cycling without any adult supervision...
Chairman of Cycling England Phillip Darnton said: "This research underlines the important role of cycling training in giving children the skills and confidence they need to cycle on the roads - and in giving parents the reassurance that their child is well equipped to do so...
Cycling England runs bicycle training schemes and a new proficiency scheme known as Bikeability.

Mr Darnton is urging more schools to come forward and offer the training as part of the push to get more youngsters cycling.

Mr. Darnton sounds just like some of the U.S. proselytizers for Cyclist Training who just happen to have a specific propriatary Education Program/Scheme in their back pocket to promote. Amazing how such fellows always are spouting misleading safety stats as part of their shill.

Do you think it's fear of an accident or fear of strangers/abduction, etc.? I don't have any kids, but if I did, they would be on bikes and they would learn how to stand up for themselves. With traffic or with strangers.

I think there are a lot of perverts and molesters driving around in cars.

Motorists who get involved in any *near* accident with a bicycle should be investigated.

Motorists are using stupid excuses to justify stopping and bothering children.

And the Police do nothing?

Motorists shouldn't have anything to do with children on bikes. Anyone that does should be under suspicion.

There's no shortage of overprotective parents in the US today. The stuff I used to do as a kid would give most of these coddling moms & pops a heart attack. I can't speak for the UK though.

Good question, but I think the percentage is the important number. How many people per 1,000 bike riders have been involved in accidents. Not necessarily a given number. If the percentage is going down, the decline doesn't matter unless it's a significant decline such as 10 million people nationwide down to, say, under 7 million. The percentage per 7 million people or 10 million, if it stays the same, is the important number.

But how do they know the number of cyclists? A decline in percent per total population may just indicate a decline in the over all miles ridden. A decrease of accidents per miles ridden is a good indicator... but how do they know what the miles ridden are? In fact, how do they know people are even riding on the streets? In the US for instance, there has been a strong movement toward off road cycling... very difficult to be part of an on-road accident if all you do is ride off road.

So bottom line... I really question these stats.

My parents set limits, going to school was within them. That was in the early '60s.

But I wanted to go farther. So I did. It made me a very careful cyclist even as a child because I knew that if I got in trouble or hurt, that would be the end of things. :p


Child molesters? The only one I encountered as a boy worked at the photo shop where I took film to be developed. What other stranger had my phone number and knew I liked photography??? As far as bicycling my only worry was running into the school bullies. They were especially dangerous off campus.

I've noticed the trend among my friends. I have a friend whose 10yo is only allowed to ride on the sidewalk and only on the sidewalk in front of his house. That's about 30 feet. His grandmother lives six blocks away, in a quiet residential neighborhood, and he is not allowed to bike there. I personally think it's silly and parents should be out teaching their children how to navigate traffic.

At 10, that probably would have been within the limits my parents set. I was allowed on 25 mph streets. I was not allowed on the main road alone til I had a bike with hand brakes and had demonstrated that I knew the rules of the road. This was in the late 1980s.

I wouldn't make much of this factoid;...What is the exposure time to car accidents vice bike accidents? Without that info this is only statistical gibberish...Mr. Darnton sounds just like some of the U.S. proselytizers for Cyclist Training ... Amazing how such fellows always are spouting misleading safety stats as part of their shill.

Well, it does say this is only based on a survey. Hardly solid evidence, but it does speak to a trend of thought whereby the general public can be influenced by the media using scare stories to get sales up for them but reduce an as safe as any other mode of travel reduced to the detriment of the readers themselves.

As for a way to treat the problem (fear) I'd suggest a little critical thought when taking in new information to start with. People can be so gullible.

Motorists who get involved in any *near* accident with a bicycle should be investigated.


While I was walking around town the other day someone bumped into me. What's worse is they were fat, the human equivalent of an SUV. These irresponsible lard arses with the status flab wobbling over the pavement talking on phones is a disgrace, only trained atheletes should be allowed on the pavement and even then they must wear a helmet.

You're dead right, we should have highly trained inspectors constantly monitoring us in case of near accidents. I for one welcome your totalitarian health and safety state, it's clearly for the children.

And this is in the UK? I bet it's closer to 95% in the US.

http://www.yehudamoon.com/index.php?date=2008-04-29

Do you think it's fear of an accident or fear of strangers/abduction, etc.? I don't have any kids, but if I did, they would be on bikes and they would learn how to stand up for themselves. With traffic or with strangers.

Both are irrational. The fear of abduction much more so. The odds of your child being abducted are very very very low. The odds of them being hit by a car are low as well.

The odds of them being obese are much higher. The odds of them failing to become an independent adult are probably higher than getting hit by a car.

Either way: It's a backwards solution. If cars are getting people killed, cars should be banned. I know, I know, cars don't kill people, careless drivers do.


There's probably an age (depends on the kid) where they're ready to ride on busier streets. But, at least out here in the mid-west, elementary schools tend to be sectioned off by busy streets so that most kids don't need to cross one to get to school. I'd guess that age is around 10, but I don't have any kids.

I remember growing up being allowed to go pretty much anywhere. We would explore everywhere we could get to before we got tired. I think children would be fine with a little bit of practice on the road, if not they will figure it out themselves, I hope the next generation isn't losing its sense of adventure.

My son will be cycling before he can walk. My wife approves. And no friggin' training wheels, either.


Good luck with that. First time he bolts off the drive into traffic I bet your tunes changes.

Good luck with that. First time he bolts off the drive into traffic I bet your tunes changes.

I don't know too many toddlers that can't walk that could over power an adult. Unless you're assuming that the child was left unattended... In that case, you should probably be more aware of what your child is doing.

Hardly solid evidence, but it does speak to a trend of thought whereby the general public can be influenced by the media using scare stories to get sales up for them but reduce an as safe as any other mode of travel reduced to the detriment of the readers themselves.

As for a way to treat the problem (fear) I'd suggest a little critical thought when taking in new information to start with. People can be so gullible.

Oh I agree. Mr. Darnton is obviously trying to sell his education program to gullible people through scare stories and misleading "information."

My son will be cycling before he can walk. My wife approves. And no friggin' training wheels, either.

Good luck with that. First time he bolts off the drive into traffic I bet your tunes changes.

My grandchildren will be leaping tall buildings in a single bound and stop speeding speeding locomotives with one hand tied behind their back, and all without either fruity spandex or a cape. My wife approves too!

Mr. Darnton may be selling his program, but I think others have far more to do with the spreading of fear than him. After all, Cycling England has done it's fair share to show the health benefits of cycling outweigh the risks. Other groups just say to ride a bike is to risk death

The world has gone mad.

I can't even begin to fathom what it must be like to be a kid growing up in such a controlled (and micromanaged) environment.

I've got a niece and nephew that are more tightly scheduled than I ever was while schlepping for the 'Corporate Man'.

Is this progress?

Because from where I'm sitting, it ain't.

Oh I agree. Mr. Darnton is obviously trying to sell his education program to gullible people through scare stories and misleading "information."

Before making accusations that Mr. Darnton is selling "his education programme", perhaps you should go to the trouble of researching the Bikeability courses and how they are delivered by (mostly) local council road safety units. The courses are also, usually, delivered free of charge.

For the information of those of you who lack ILTB's instinctive knowledge of the motives of people based on the other side of the Atlantic, the Bikeability scheme was created to ensure that cycle training for schoolchildren was carried out to a common, nationally agreed standard. It was also designed to give children the opportunity to get on-road training by suitably qualified instructors.

The contents of the courses were arrived at after extensive consultation with those, such as York city Council and others who already did on-road training, the CTC (national cycle campaigning organisation) and others. The teaching is not carried out by Mr. Darnton's organisation, Cycling England, but by local instructors, many of whom get their training free.

Bikeability 1 is designed for years 5 and 6 but is open to year 4s. It develops and tests children's bike handling skills so that they will be competent to carry out the manoeuvres required for on-road riding. Pupils must pass it before being allowed to go on to the level 2 course which is carried out on-road. The level 2 course contains the generally accepted techniques for safe interaction with traffic, but does not declare that all children should then be let loose on the road in any circumstances, but it does ensure that they know how they should behave.

It is still the prerogative of the parents to decide how and where their kids should be allowed to ride.

Quite how this constitutes a "shill", or how it sells the courses to "gullible" people, I am not sure. perhaps ILTB would enlighten us, preferably after he has acquainted himself with the details of the scheme and is then able to demonstrate where it meets his definition of dishonesty and fraud.

Before making accusations that Mr. Darnton is selling "his education programme", perhaps you should go to the trouble of researching the Bikeability courses and how they are delivered by (mostly) local council road safety units. The courses are also, usually, delivered free of charge.
[SNIP]
Quite how this constitutes a "shill", or how it sells the courses to "gullible" people, I am not sure. perhaps ILTB would enlighten us, preferably after he has acquainted himself with the details of the scheme and is then able to demonstrate where it meets his definition of dishonesty and fraud.

"Chairman of Cycling England Phillip Darnton said: "This research underlines the important role of cycling training in giving children the skills and confidence they need to cycle on the roads - and in giving parents the reassurance that their child is well equipped to do so."

The research, as described in the OP, indicates nothing about the important role of cycling training offered by Mr. Darnton in meeting any worthwhile goal - be it reduction of parents' fears, improving children's cycling behavior, or increasing the percentage of children riding to school.

when I was growing up, the average city speed limit on most streets was 25 mph. Major streets were 35 mph. There were far more 25 mph streets than there were 35 mph streets. I rode my bike everywhere and didn't give cars a second thought.

Now days, it's reversed. 35 mph seems the norm, and the streets that used to be 35 mph are now 45 mph. Of course, the "over 5" rule always applies with drivers, so typical speeds on most streets are closer to 40-55 mph.........on residential streets.

It's almost impossible to get anywhere on just the slower 25 mph streets (where everyone goes 35mph).

The other huge difference is cell phones. Back in my day they didn't exist. Now probably 25% of drivers have a cell phone glued to their head 24/7. That's like putting 25% more drunk drivers on the road during the day.

Given those changes it's really not surprising that parents don't want to send their kids out on their bikes.

...the data and findings make sense to me.

My 6yo kindergartener rides two miles to school every day with me in tow on a multi use path and a few hundred yards of neighborhood streets.
If we had to ride on roads outside of neighborhoods...no way.

While the chances of an accident are small the repercussions are huge. I don't want my kid in a wheelchair or worse because I felt the need for him to ride a bike. There are plenty of other ways to foster independence, confidence and physical fitness in children without turning them into worryworts. As a parent of two adventuresome boys (4 & 6) who ski, rock climb, etc, there is only so much risk exposure to which I'm willing to subject them. ...and I don't like when the safety factors rely on other people's judgment or lack thereof. We've all seen how that ends up.

..and speed changes over the years make a huge difference. Look at the survival ratings for kids hit above and below 25 mph. It's striking, no pun intended.

"Chairman of Cycling England Phillip Darnton said: "This research underlines the important role of cycling training in giving children the skills and confidence they need to cycle on the roads - and in giving parents the reassurance that their child is well equipped to do so."

The research, as described in the OP, indicates nothing about the important role of cycling training offered by Mr. Darnton in meeting any worthwhile goal - be it reduction of parents' fears, improving children's cycling behavior, or increasing the percentage of children riding to school.

Mr Darnton did not say that the research itself indicated the important role of cycle training. He drew the conclusion that it underlined the important role of cycle training in giving children the skills and confidence etc....

Which it does. My own experience, which I agree is partial and involves a limited sample of coaching,somewhere in the region of 1000 kids over the last 10 years, is that there is a generation of parents who were the first one to be stopped from riding on the roads because of the perceived dangers involved. Their own perception of the actual level of danger is often widely at variance with the reality. This is similar in its way to the exagerated perception of the likelihood of a child being abducted and abused/murdered, even tho' the annual average figures haven't changed in 30+ years in the UK, at least.

I know no-one in the UK who is involved in training children, whether in bike handling skills, competition or road safety, who believes that cycle training, no matter how carefully designed and carried out, will overcome the fears that parents naturally have. I've attended umpteen meetings with local councils, been a cycling officer for my local city, coached and taught kids some of the basics of road riding and everyone that I've come in contact, with accepts that other changes, particularly cultural (always the most difficult), highway design, and so forth are required.

Road safety training is, therefore, simply one tool in the box. But it is necessary and the national Bikeability scheme is the best that I've seen so far. My own club has not yet developed a regular and frequent pattern of family runs and we should be doing more. I hold this opinion strongly, because we have been able to assure a number (too small, so far) of parents, that riding safely on the road is possible with proper experience and "training". And it is, largely, the experience of riding with veteran members of the club, which has convinced them.

None of them, however, would dream of letting their 8/9/10 year olds out on their own, but, from 11/12 and 13, they do so, but only after satisfying themselves of their children's ability and maturity.

It is a long haul, and, at going on 68, I don't expect to live to see a sea change in the UK, but it is beginning. The desire to get out on bikes has always been there, as is shown by the enormous increase in the number of Sportives all over the UK. Translating that into cycling being a natural and expected part of the culture for men, women, children, the elderly and families, will, alas, take years.

And it's hope, not cynicism, which will take us there, ILTB

I don't know too many toddlers that can't walk that could over power an adult. Unless you're assuming that the child was left unattended...

Little kids are unpredictable. Adults can become complacent.

when I was growing up, the average city speed limit on most streets was 25 mph. Major streets were 35 mph. There were far more 25 mph streets than there were 35 mph streets. I rode my bike everywhere and didn't give cars a second thought.

Now days, it's reversed. 35 mph seems the norm, and the streets that used to be 35 mph are now 45 mph. Of course, the "over 5" rule always applies with drivers, so typical speeds on most streets are closer to 40-55 mph.........on residential streets.

It's almost impossible to get anywhere on just the slower 25 mph streets (where everyone goes 35mph).

The other huge difference is cell phones. Back in my day they didn't exist. Now probably 25% of drivers have a cell phone glued to their head 24/7. That's like putting 25% more drunk drivers on the road during the day.

Given those changes it's really not surprising that parents don't want to send their kids out on their bikes.


Not to mention the sheer number of motorists that are now about, coupled with such attention distracting devices such as cell phones. :mad:

When people tell me how dangerous it is to ride my bicycle on the road with all the crazy drivers, I remind them that they drive on the same roads as those same crazy drivers who are still very much a danger to them. It's mystifying how so many drivers mistakenly think that the car = safety.

If you're not letting your kid bicycle to school because of dangerous drivers, I sure hope you're not allowing them to use any other form of transportation that would expose them to the same dangers, e.g., the school bus, or your car.

When people tell me how dangerous it is to ride my bicycle on the road with all the crazy drivers, I remind them that they drive on the same roads as those same crazy drivers who are still very much a danger to them. It's mystifying how so many drivers mistakenly think that the car = safety.

If you're not letting your kid bicycle to school because of dangerous drivers, I sure hope you're not allowing them to use any other form of transportation that would expose them to the same dangers, e.g., the school bus, or your car.

Not to be a Naysayer, but the last time I checked, my bike did not have a steel skin that could protect the rider, nor seatbelts to hold the rider in place in the event of collision, nor even airbags, again to protect the rider. Frankly, I would venture to say that under very similar collision circumstances, such as being T boned by a car at 25MPH... a passenger in an automobile would have a greater chance of surviving then a cyclist on a bike.

All the statistics related to auto crashes verses bike crashes do not compare mileage nor speed... so the data is somewhat skewed based on population, not a 1:1 relationship of statistics.

Not to be a Naysayer, but the last time I checked, my bike did not have a steel skin that could protect the rider, nor seatbelts to hold the rider in place in the event of collision, nor even airbags, again to protect the rider. Frankly, I would venture to say that under very similar collision circumstances, such as being T boned by a car at 25MPH... a passenger in an automobile would have a greater chance of surviving then a cyclist on a bike.

All the statistics related to auto crashes verses bike crashes do not compare mileage nor speed... so the data is somewhat skewed based on population, not a 1:1 relationship of statistics.

Of course, my comments are meant to be somewhat inflammatory. Obviously, if we compare the t-boning of a bicycle and the t-boning of a car, the results will be bad for the bicycle. Since this is so obvious, it can't possibly be what I mean to compare.

When I engage in discussions like this, I emphasize the maneuverability of the bicycle over the car. If I'm on a bicycle and see a car coming at me -- note the significance of the ifs here -- I can get the heck out of the way a whole lot faster than a car can. In fact, I have avoided many situations on the bicycle that, were I in a car, would have been far more likely to result in a collision. There are other considerations, including a cyclist's ability to perceive so much more than a driver about his or her environment, but this is a favorite of mine.

And if we want to look at statistics, over 40,000 people a year die in automobiles in the US alone. About 18-20 times as many suffer "serious injuries" (I can't find the stat offhand, but I remember it from somewhere). Worldwide, 1.2 million people a year die in automobiles, with 20 million suffering serious injuries. The automobile is responsible for more deaths than wars. But of course, marshaling statistics to defend our pet positions isn't all that interesting in the end.

One thing that interests me regarding those who profess that the roads are full of dangerous drivers is that they NEVER count themselves in that group. Chances are very strong that they should. I can't name anyone who describes him or herself as a "poor driver". Well, except me. Though I have a clean record, I fully recognize that I pretty much don't belong behind the wheel. I belong on top of two wheels, connected by a steel frame and driven by human power.

Of course, my comments are meant to be somewhat inflammatory. Obviously, if we compare the t-boning of a bicycle and the t-boning of a car, the results will be bad for the bicycle. Since this is so obvious, it can't possibly be what I mean to compare.

When I engage in discussions like this, I emphasize the maneuverability of the bicycle over the car. If I'm on a bicycle and see a car coming at me -- note the significance of the ifs here -- I can get the heck out of the way a whole lot faster than a car can. In fact, I have avoided many situations on the bicycle that, were I in a car, would have been far more likely to result in a collision. There are other considerations, including a cyclist's ability to perceive so much more than a driver about his or her environment, but this is a favorite of mine.

And if we want to look at statistics, over 40,000 people a year die in automobiles in the US alone. About 18-20 times as many suffer "serious injuries" (I can't find the stat offhand, but I remember it from somewhere). Worldwide, 1.2 million people a year die in automobiles, with 20 million suffering serious injuries. The automobile is responsible for more deaths than wars. But of course, marshaling statistics to defend our pet positions isn't all that interesting in the end.

One thing that interests me regarding those who profess that the roads are full of dangerous drivers is that they NEVER count themselves in that group. Chances are very strong that they should. I can't name anyone who describes him or herself as a "poor driver". Well, except me. Though I have a clean record, I fully recognize that I pretty much don't belong behind the wheel. I belong on top of two wheels, connected by a steel frame and driven by human power.

Yet, a less experienced cyclist may not be able to make that judgment, nor have those skills, so in essence, the fears of parents about their young ones may be quite valid.

And the 40,000 deaths you mention and the other worldwide deaths... note the mileage driven and the speeds those miles were covered and compare that to equal mileage on a bicycle and suddenly cycling doesn't look quite as safe.

Since nearly every adult drives (including ones that should not) the statistics about driving tend to look terrible, when compared to less then 2% of the population that cycles regularly. Apples to Oranges comparison.

Now before I get terribly flamed for this (and I know folks will jump all over this) there are other health benefits to cycling that can never be achieved by driving. And there are indeed countless other reasons why cycling may be a far better choice then driving. All I am trying to do here is play devils' advocate and show why parents may feel their little ones are far safer in a metal box on 4 wheels then on top of a metal frame with two wheels.

We tend to jump on those motorist death stats so quickly without really looking at what they represent. And the same issues that lead to the deaths of motorists can also easily lead to the deaths of cyclists... those errant motorists you mention.

But the bottom line is Are the Parents Correct? Are their little bundles of joy safer in a car than on a bike... Frankly, probably, yes... under the same situations (miles traveled and relatively low speeds) that get that kid to the local school... I venture that cycling is not as safe for an inexperienced cyclist as riding in an air bag and seat belt equipped car.

But the bottom line is Are the Parents Correct? Are their little bundles of joy safer in a car than on a bike... Frankly, probably, yes... under the same situations (miles traveled and relatively low speeds) that get that kid to the local school... I venture that cycling is not as safe for an inexperienced cyclist as riding in an air bag and seat belt equipped car.

Frankly, they're safer being home schooled. If that's really what's at issue.

Now before I get terribly flamed for this (and I know folks will jump all over this) there are other health benefits to cycling that can never be achieved by driving. And there are indeed countless other reasons why cycling may be a far better choice then driving. All I am trying to do here is play devils' advocate and show why parents may feel their little ones are far safer in a metal box on 4 wheels then on top of a metal frame with two wheels.

I agree with you: the health benefits are amazing.

OK, so my glib comment above was, well, glib. The point is that lots of activities are "safer" than lots of other activities and we make choices about which activities we want to risk engaging in. Fact is: driving is a dangerous activity. But lots of people decide that, in the balance, it's worth the risks. Woodworking is a dangerous activity, but I do it because, for me, it's worth the risks. It's all about mitigating risks, I say. What fires me up is when people act as though driving or being in a car means that they are "safe", which appears to connote that they cannot come to any harm. That's just plain wrong. Staying home, for example, is a whole lot safer, compared to driving -- as long as you don't spend all day using a table saw, wearing baggy shirts and no protective eyewear.

Frankly, they're safer being home schooled. If that's really what's at issue.

Probably get a better education too. :(

Probably get a better education too. :(

Sad but true my friend.

Do you think it's fear of an accident or fear of strangers/abduction, etc.? I don't have any kids, but if I did, they would be on bikes and they would learn how to stand up for themselves. With traffic or with strangers.


This is where the parental safety paranoia comes into play -- fear of abduction. I know, because I suffer from it, as well. My daughter is a beautiful, blond-haired sweetie...a prime target for predators. I'm very much afraid that ANYONE I caught talking to her better have a legit answer as to why if he/she wants to live to see another sunrise. The fear of traffic is also legit, anymore, because of careless/aggressive/cell-phone drivers, but is less pronounced.

My daughter rides plenty -- with me. My nephew is about to join us, to learn all the lessons she learned, and continues to learn. They get lots of ride time, lots of exposure to getting around on a bike, and they get to do it safely, under my supervison and protection.

If these 81% of parents would get up off of it and do something WITH their kids, a lot of this would just go away.

Both are irrational. The fear of abduction much more so. The odds of your child being abducted are very very very low. The odds of them being hit by a car are low as well.

The odds of them being obese are much higher. The odds of them failing to become an independent adult are probably higher than getting hit by a car.

Irrational? OK, ok...when you have a child, talk to me again. The FACT is, and I can't do anything about it, is that there are 11 registered sex offenders within 2 miles of my home. I'm not the only family man here, either. And, lastly, odds make no difference. The odds are 100% when it happens, and I don't care for those odds!

Maybe I can't protect her from everything, and I really don't want to; but to protect her from pain, degradation, and a life of hell, I'll accept being considered irrational by oddsmakers.

...the data and findings make sense to me.

My 6yo kindergartener rides two miles to school every day with me in tow on a multi use path and a few hundred yards of neighborhood streets.
If we had to ride on roads outside of neighborhoods...no way.

While the chances of an accident are small the repercussions are huge. I don't want my kid in a wheelchair or worse because I felt the need for him to ride a bike. There are plenty of other ways to foster independence, confidence and physical fitness in children without turning them into worryworts. As a parent of two adventuresome boys (4 & 6) who ski, rock climb, etc, there is only so much risk exposure to which I'm willing to subject them. ...and I don't like when the safety factors rely on other people's judgment or lack thereof. We've all seen how that ends up.

..and speed changes over the years make a huge difference. Look at the survival ratings for kids hit above and below 25 mph. It's striking, no pun intended.

Even on 25mph residential streets? Definitely not the 4 year old, maybe not at 6, but somewhere around 7 or 8 I'd think they should be fine on residential streets by themselves.

Irrational? OK, ok...when you have a child, talk to me again. The FACT is, and I can't do anything about it, is that there are 11 registered sex offenders within 2 miles of my home. I'm not the only family man here, either. And, lastly, odds make no difference. The odds are 100% when it happens, and I don't care for those odds!

Maybe I can't protect her from everything, and I really don't want to; but to protect her from pain, degradation, and a life of hell, I'll accept being considered irrational by oddsmakers.

Me having an emotional connection with a child doesn't offer greater rationality.

I'm sure some of those sex offenders are child offenders, do you know which? Those would be the ones to worry about most. You might want to teach your kids about all that wonderful stranger stuff, and if possible steer them away from the dangers which the Government has helped you map out through the sex offender registry.

Some sex offenders do so during a parent sanctioned activity (usually before they're caught for the first time). Again, it's unlikely. But you don't believe in odds. Keep your kids away from their piano teachers!

Me having an emotional connection with a child doesn't offer greater rationality.

I'm sure some of those sex offenders are child offenders, do you know which? Those would be the ones to worry about most. You might want to teach your kids about all that wonderful stranger stuff, and if possible steer them away from the dangers which the Government has helped you map out through the sex offender registry.

Some sex offenders do so during a parent sanctioned activity (usually before they're caught for the first time). Again, it's unlikely. But you don't believe in odds. Keep your kids away from their piano teachers!

Well...daggonit...wish I'D HAVE THOUGHT OF THAT -- TEACHING MY KID TO BE CAREFUL, WOW WHAT A CONCEPT! crh, don't be condescending...be as rational as you choose to, and don't judge me on my rationality because it's different than yours. It doesn't matter how many are child-offenders -- ONE is too many.

Play the odds if you choose to; I'll stack the deck in my child's favor as much as I can. (AND -- my girl wouldn't sit stil long enough for a piano lesson, so I don't sweat that, either.)

(EDIT: I just love it when a non-parent tries to school a long-time experienced parent...rotflmao!)

This is where the parental safety paranoia comes into play -- fear of abduction. I know, because I suffer from it, as well. My daughter is a beautiful, blond-haired sweetie...a prime target for predators. I'm very much afraid that ANYONE I caught talking to her better have a legit answer as to why if he/she wants to live to see another sunrise. The fear of traffic is also legit, anymore, because of careless/aggressive/cell-phone drivers, but is less pronounced.

My daughter rides plenty -- with me. My nephew is about to join us, to learn all the lessons she learned, and continues to learn. They get lots of ride time, lots of exposure to getting around on a bike, and they get to do it safely, under my supervison and protection.

If these 81% of parents would get up off of it and do something WITH their kids, a lot of this would just go away.

That's what I did. I rode with them. It was great. How often in life do you get to ride to school with a bunch of 5 to 11 year olds? I seized the chance. Many times I led a group of kids riding to school all from my town house complex because none of the other parents would get out with them. It was always amazing how some parents thought their kids were perfectly fine riding to school, felt better if I were to be there with them as I was riding with my kids, but their kids had no idea how to ride safely. I was an instructor for these kids that their never knew they needed.

closet, you got it!

It's JUST like the other day -- my 5-y-o nephew just came off of training wheels, and is jazzed about riding his bike with me, like my daughter does. So, two days ago, we put his helmet on him, I gave him some basics (mainly, 'do what I tell you to do'), and we went out.

A block of road, then nearly 1/2-mile of sidewalk along a major artery, then a 1/2-mile of side street; he wants to go further! So we go up the street to the local VFW, large parking lot, where my daughter learned a lot of her bike skills. He didn't have the patience to use the lot -- wanted to go further! He wanted to go with me to pick my daughter up from her karate class that afternoon, but the route is too much for him at this point.

The boy is FEARLESS on his bike, and the pure joy he experienced was something I wished his parents could have shared. I will treasure that ride, as I have done with many others with my daughter.

<snip>
When I engage in discussions like this, I emphasize the maneuverability of the bicycle over the car. If I'm on a bicycle and see a car coming at me -- note the significance of the ifs here -- I can get the heck out of the way a whole lot faster than a car can. In fact, I have avoided many situations on the bicycle that, were I in a car, would have been far more likely to result in a collision. There are other considerations, including a cyclist's ability to perceive so much more than a driver about his or her environment, but this is a favorite of mine.</snip>


OMG this is flawed on SOOO many levels.

What you are saying is that your cycling skills have not evolved or improved at all since you where 6.

Your knowledge of cars and less then perfect drivers has not changed since you where 6.
Following your thinking you statred out riding a disc braked multispeed with a messenger bag. Good for you.

park 2 people on bikes one adult and one child next to a car now walk around the other side and look at how many bicycles you see. thats not an awareness issue it is physics as the light reflected off the child in daylight will not penetrate thru the car nor warp around it to allow the observer on the other side to see the child.

A 18-24 yo experienced bicyclist riding to college does not = a 6 yo riding to kindergarten.