Originally Posted by
chaadster
I don't have an objection to balance bikes, but they are definitely a fad despite protestations such as yours that training wheel equipped bikes are barely worth having.
That statement wasn't as clear as it should have been. I was referring to 12" bikes in general, which from what I've seen and read, don't fit kids of the intended age.
Originally Posted by
chaadster
I explained that position addressed the question of why I wouldn't necessarily want kids to learn to "ride for real quicker" in my previous post, but I'll repeat it for you and try to clarify.
Part of the fad quality surrounding balance bikes is the belief they're "better" and that learning to ride at a younger age is "better," neither of which I'm 100% on board with. Firstly, as I said before, people have been learning to ride on training wheels for decades, so we all learn. I also don't see any evidence to suggest that people who started on balance bikes are, or become, better bike riders than those who used training wheels; balancing is great, but that's just a small part of riding a bike. So in the end, I consider it a wash; either method works.
My son learned a lot more than simple straight-line balance on his balance bike and pedals-removed bike. That's all one can ever possibly learn on a training wheel-equipped bike, though, assuming the parent set the training wheels high enough. Until those training wheels come off, the child never learns how to take a sharp corner or turn at all for that matter. Thanks to the hand brake on the CNOC 14, my son knows quite well how to modulate a front brake even in a panic stop.
Originally Posted by
chaadster
It may be true that kids on balance bikes learn to ride earlier-- I really don't know, but will concede the possibility-- and I have no doubt that for some kids and their family, that's a good thing. However, as a parent of two children and someone who spends a fair amount of time with kids, I'm aware that they're typically capable of getting into enough trouble walking, for example out into streets and parking lots, or into people on sidewalks, because they're more capable of motion than rational thought.
From the perspective of protection, I'm not convinced that enabling a young kid to whisk away quickly out of reach is such a great thing...for me at least. I'm not into "helicopter" parenting, and think kids should play and learn without constant intervention, so I don't want them to be down the block/street/driveway/sidewalk in half the time they can be on their own two feet.
Granted, there is no epidemic of balance bike accidents, so I'm not saying that's the issue, merely that for those who parent as I do, or for some people in some situations, enabling the speed of child mobility could be problematic. Relatedly, I'm not particularly interested in getting a young kid into an activity which requires being helmeted any too soon; I have a good friend who uses a balance bike with one of their kids, and I've seen him crash, so a helmet is something I think is part-and-parcel here. The constant on and off, the kid's complaint they don't want a helmet...again, not universal issues for all kids and parents, but for me, I don't want or need the complexity, and if I can better explain to the kid the need for the helmet and they can better understand the relationship between riding with it and not riding if they don't wear it when they are 4 (on training wheels) compared to 2.5 (on the balance bike), I'm fine with that.
My son moved barely faster than his running speed on his balance bike. The only difference is that he was less likely to trip and fall on the bike, and could go considerably further without exhausting himself. I also never bothered with a helmet for him. Perched atop his balance bike, he was closer to the ground than standing and as noted, he could run about as fast. He got some big bumps and bruises on his head and face between the ages of 2 and 3 but none while riding his balance bike.
I don't helicopter parent either but I also wouldn't let my son play unattended next to a busy street or in an active parking lot regardless of being on a bike or not. It was easy enough for me to pick locations to play (some of which we traveled to with him on his bike) where he could go off on his own and I didn't have to constantly watch. He's now well versed in traffic signs and crossing busy streets on foot and on his bike, not that he's doing it alone any time soon. But I won't have to try and teach an older kid who 'knows it all' how to do those things. At the age of 4, he's much more likely to take my advice
Originally Posted by
chaadster
But these are all individual choices and issues that we each much address, and plenty of people are fine choosing differently than I did. That, let's say by 5yo, all the kids are in the same place, riding adeptly and having fun, validates the benefits of both ways to learn, and I don't see either as necessarily better.
And isn't the essence of a fad that it's popular without necessarily being better?
Now if that makes my perspective "odd sour grapes," color me purple!
I just attended a criterium this past weekend prior to which a kids' 'race' was held with three age groups, 3-4 (my son's group), 5-6, and 7-8. No doubt my kid could out-ride many of the 5-6 year olds some of which were still on training wheels. The only other boy his age riding as well as him 'raced' against my son a few months prior at another criterium while on a balance bike. It wasn't a small sample either with there being ~30 kids in his age group and even more in the 5-6 group.
I'm not saying my experience is universal, but I can undoubtedly say that balance bikes are better.