Bike Forums

Bike Forums (http://www.bikeforums.net/forum.php)
-   Living Car Free (http://www.bikeforums.net/living-car-free/)
-   -   What Came First, Children or Cars? (http://www.bikeforums.net/living-car-free/934187-what-came-first-children-cars.html)

Rowan 02-17-14 04:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ekdog (Post 16501947)
Then I'll spell it out for you: Cars maim and kill children, lots of them. That causes stress for both them and their parents.

Cars are inanimate objects. Drivers, usually incompetent or impaired ones, are what cause the maiming and deaths of children. Often, it's the parents of those children who are behind the wheel.

Ekdog 02-17-14 05:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rowan (Post 16502009)
Cars are inanimate objects. Drivers, usually incompetent or impaired ones, are what cause the maiming and deaths of children.

So, cars don't kill children; people kill children. Is that your argument? At the end of the day, too many children are dead or incapacitated.

rockmom 02-17-14 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike (Post 16501796)
Nightmarish and stressful for who, you or the children, or all concerned?

What made traveling with your children by car so nightmarish and stressful?

Crying, screaming, whimpering. It both grates on the nerves and is a distraction to the driver. They were never in cars much, but a single 8 hour drive with my dad when the eldest was a year old taught us that they can actually cry that long with only a couple 20 minute naps. They youngest was no better and could shriek louder.

My mother has informed me that I had a similar response to car travel when little. We lived in the country and she restricted driving into town for errands to once a week because of it.

Roody 02-17-14 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockmom (Post 16502196)
Crying, screaming, whimpering. It both grates on the nerves and is a distraction to the driver. They were never in cars much, but a single 8 hour drive with my dad when the eldest was a year old taught us that they can actually cry that long with only a couple 20 minute naps. They youngest was no better and could shriek louder.

My mother has informed me that I had a similar response to car travel when little. We lived in the country and she restricted driving into town for errands to once a week because of it.

Sounds like a carfree gene! :D

Sometimes cars do calm kids down. Years ago, when I had a car, a friend had a baby who sometimes wouldn't sleep at all unless he could ride around in the car. Since my friend was carfree, he sometimes called me in the middle of the night to come drive the baby around until he fell asleep. Usually the baby's dad was so exhausted that he also fell asleep!

I-Like-To-Bike 02-17-14 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockmom (Post 16502196)
Crying, screaming, whimpering. It both grates on the nerves and is a distraction to the driver. They were never in cars much, but a single 8 hour drive with my dad when the eldest was a year old taught us that they can actually cry that long with only a couple 20 minute naps. They youngest was no better and could shriek louder.

My mother has informed me that I had a similar response to car travel when little. We lived in the country and she restricted driving into town for errands to once a week because of it.

Thanks for your answer, sounds like your children were a handful for long trips. I assume biking, walking and/or busing did not substitute for the 8 hour drives. The only solution for you was to somehow control their behavior, put up with it, or not make long trips at all. How did you solve the problem other than wait for them to outgrow such behavior?

The previous posts from the usual suspects provided once again their own agenda driven nightmares and were as expected totally irrelevant responses to the specific situation.

rockmom 02-17-14 01:43 PM

Roody,
My fil used to drive my husband around as a baby to get him to fall asleep. My children were very perplexing to them. It is likely a form of motion sickness. I still suffer from it at times.

ILB,

We actually made the 8 hour trip again a few months later, but took a bus instead. It added a couple of hours to the trip, but without the non stop crying. The kids tolerated car rides okay from about age 4 on, so we switched back to car rental for mid distance travel. Long distance travel gets taken by plane.

Dahon.Steve 02-17-14 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roody (Post 16495082)
Getting rid of car expenses would improve the lives of many families with children (including my own).

In order to get rid of car expenses they would require good transit or need to live in a community where living essentials, including job and school, were within walking distance.

I live in a city where there is anbundance of public transit options and schools that are within distance. Yet, the sidewalks are full of parked cars you would think there was only one bus line providing service once a day! Even in cities with all the options to become car free, thousands choose to own a vehicle when they don't have to! The television has programmed millions, even those living in transit rich communities to own a car.

I-Like-To-Bike 02-17-14 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockmom (Post 16503280)
ILB,

We actually made the 8 hour trip again a few months later, but took a bus instead. It added a couple of hours to the trip, but without the non stop crying. The kids tolerated car rides okay from about age 4 on, so we switched back to car rental for mid distance travel. Long distance travel gets taken by plane.

Glad to hear it eventually worked out for you and the children.

I didn't think that the children were reacting to fear mongering by adults, but others will believe anything that fits their agenda.

Roody 02-17-14 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dahon.Steve (Post 16503328)
I live in a city where there is anbundance of public transit options and schools that are within distance. Yet, the sidewalks are full of parked cars you would think there was only one bus line providing service once a day! Even in cities with all the options to become car free, thousands choose to own a vehicle when they don't have to! The television has programmed millions, even those living in transit rich communities to own a car.

True, but if the transit and/or walkability is lacking, there is no question of choice. Or rather, the only choice might be for the young family to move to a nicer community where they can be carfree.

Roody 02-18-14 03:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rowan (Post 16502009)
Cars are inanimate objects. Drivers, usually incompetent or impaired ones, are what cause the maiming and deaths of children. Often, it's the parents of those children who are behind the wheel.

Then it's a good idea to have transit and walkable/bikeable communities, to help keep those incompetent and impaired people from getting behind the wheel.

gerv 02-18-14 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roody (Post 16505011)
Then it's a good idea to have transit and walkable/bikeable communities, to help keep those incompetent and impaired people from getting behind the wheel.

Speed reduction would also be helpful. You'll feel a lot safer if the traffic is doing less than 30mph.

Rowan 02-20-14 01:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roody (Post 16505011)
Then it's a good idea to have transit and walkable/bikeable communities, to help keep those incompetent and impaired people from getting behind the wheel.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but there are other legal and cultural issues at play. Infrastructure is always going to be far more expensive than education and legal force.

From my understanding, the most significant safety issue for cyclists and presumably pedestrians in European countries is that the motor vehicle driver is held legally responsible for any collision that may occur with other non-motor vehicle road user.

The acceptance of much lower speed limits in residential areas -- between 30 and 40km/h -- seems to have been widespread in various parts of Europe we have visited, and to a certain extent here in Australia. Traffic "calming" measures, including the widerspread use of roundabouts, have been accepted once they have been installed, although have been resisted beforehand.

Much tighter laws and scrutiny covering drunk and drugged drivers does have an effect, although there are some who just think they won't be caught. Stiffer penalties obviously would be helpful. The same could be said of incompetent drivers, but then we return to the education side of things. And introduction of psyche tests for driver's licensing might not be a bad idea.

Roody 02-20-14 04:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rowan (Post 16511324)
I don't necessarily disagree with you, but there are other legal and cultural issues at play. Infrastructure is always going to be far more expensive than education and legal force.

From my understanding, the most significant safety issue for cyclists and presumably pedestrians in European countries is that the motor vehicle driver is held legally responsible for any collision that may occur with other non-motor vehicle road user.

The acceptance of much lower speed limits in residential areas -- between 30 and 40km/h -- seems to have been widespread in various parts of Europe we have visited, and to a certain extent here in Australia. Traffic "calming" measures, including the widerspread use of roundabouts, have been accepted once they have been installed, although have been resisted beforehand.

Much tighter laws and scrutiny covering drunk and drugged drivers does have an effect, although there are some who just think they won't be caught. Stiffer penalties obviously would be helpful. The same could be said of incompetent drivers, but then we return to the education side of things. And introduction of psyche tests for driver's licensing might not be a bad idea.

My state (Michigan) just passed a law protecting "vulnerable users" of streets and highways. Besides the penalties for drunk driving, reckless driving, or whatever, there is a heavy additional penalty for hitting a vulnerable user. Bicyclists count as vulnerable user. I think it's a good law. It was lobbied for by one of those bicycle advocacy groups that you don't like.

Ekdog 02-20-14 05:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rowan (Post 16511324)
Infrastructure is always going to be far more expensive than education and legal force.

Infrastructure for cyclists and pedestrians saves money. What's expensive is to keep pouring billions into car-centric infrastructure that keeps people in their cars and off of their bikes.

chewa 02-20-14 05:36 AM

Just to lighten the tone: A lot of children were conceived in cars :), so the car came first.

I'm not anti-car, but anti overuse of cars. I can't easily shift me, my wife, two dogs and belongings from Scotland to France without a car (though I could choose not to have a place in France)

In my village in the UK, parents drive their kids the 1/2 mile to the local school (and complain that traffic makes it dangerous for them to walk there - guess what the traffic consists of?)

The same folk will drive the half mile to the station to get a train into work, then spend 50 a month on gym membership.

We have a local delivery service which uses people using their own cars. One guy drives into our cul de sac in a Subaru WRX, and stops and starts it 5 times in 200 yards to move to each delivery address.

The car as we know it is going to die at some point. Even if we get emissions under control, limited road space and gridlock must spell a change in transport modalities.

By the way, the EU laws on liability are just a default provision. If it can be shown that the vulnerable user is the cause of the incident the default can be challenged.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:52 AM.