asmac

Not really the same argument. Adults are entitled to make their own risk decisions and children should expect to be protected by the adults responsible for them. That's a big difference.


And, just to be clear, no one has suggested any rules against children on MUPs.

phoebeisis

asmac-thanks for the clarification

Must agree-the adult parent was at fault here-
not the less than ideal(but adequate) MUP
Heck no path next to a highway is "completely" safe
but a 5 year old-more or less "in a highway" with a curb/bump that would knock them off balance

It is nearly impossible to legislate common sense for parents
Some Idiots in CA just fed their toddler "toadstools" some "forager" assured them was safe
now poor infant is brain and liver damaged

asmac

Turns out it was the boy's grandfather who took him for the fateful ride. He was interviewed yesterday during a memorial 'ghost bike' ride. Very sad to watch and it's easy to see how a pleasant and apparently safe outing turned to tragedy very quickly when the path squeezed toward the road and started downhill.

OBoile

No, it really isn't. Cyclists are allowed to ride on the road.

However, that does not mean it's a good idea for a beginner to ride on a *busy* street. That's just common sense. The same applies to a *busy* MUP.

I'm not saying cyclists shouldn't be on the road or on a MUP. I'm simply saying that people just learning to ride, to the point where they can't maintain a straight line, should be using some discretion when choosing where they ride. Legal and safe are not the same thing. Or, with respect to children, their parents should use some discretion.

OBoile

That's not ridiculous, that's reality. Unless you can instantly change the behavior of the public at large, you would be wise to account for it in your decisions. Of course people shouldn't be racing through pathways. But the *reality* is that they are. There are also slower cyclists who aren't holding on to their handlebars, or are listening to music and won't hear a bell, or are taking up the whole path chatting with their girlfriend. And once again, it's not just racing cyclists that pose a threat. This is a busy trail with lots of users doing various activities.

You're N=1 survey of a different path in a different city is what is ridiculous.

New riders should avoid high traffic areas. That's just common sense. Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?

jefnvk

Because it literally is the exact same argument motorists make about cyclists on the road, which we routinely dismiss and tell them they need to pay attention and give us wide berth?

OBoile

New cyclists vs all cyclists.
Legal vs common sense.

Those are two pretty key differences right there. My commute is longer because I avoid roads I'm legally allowed to ride on. Just because I can, doesn't mean it's a good idea.

jefnvk

I'll point your words right back at you: "Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?"

If you don't want to ride your bike on a road, or don't want your kids to be out on a path, that is your decision. By all means, ride how YOU like. Dictating those terms to anyone else, or whatever you are trying to do by calling them selfish, stupid, and what not while saying you aren't telling them they CAN'T do something, is where you are wrong.

If it is legal, I am not going to say someone shouldn't do it, because others want to act illegally. I'm going to put that blame right where it belongs: on the person making the situation unsafe. I'm not going to say kids should stay off MUPs because some Strav******* may be blowing through traffic.

Thing about this world? We have codified laws, because everyone has a different sense of right and wrong and common sense. Arguing YOUR definition of them is the correct definition is ridiculous. We codify what is right and wrong, so we don't have these arguments.

asmac

You may not have noticed but this is a forum to discuss bicycle advocacy and safety and that is what we are doing.

You seem to think that it's only a discussion of what's legal and that any further discussion of safety is off limits. It's a very strange point of view.

Anyhow, I thought you said it was your "last bit on the matter" several posts ago.

jefnvk

And had I not been called out with a "Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?", it would have been. I hadn't returned to this thread until the little quote thingy popped up.

If it is a discussion about safety, then it is equally illogical to say children should not be on a MUP because other cyclists want to cycle in an unsafe manner. Especially so, when the alternatives presented are for them to ride in a STREET or to setup in a random parking lot. If it is a discussion about advocacy, it is rather counterproductive to lobby for keeping families away from the trails for the top riders to have unimpeded access.

Like your disdain for my position, I equally think telling people to stay off trails when discussing safety and advocacy is the utterly strange point of view.

OBoile

I'm not dictating anything to anyone. I'm simply offering a judgement on their decision to allow a non-proficient 5 year old to ride on this particular path at that time of day: it was a bad one.

In the real world, "blame" is far less important than not getting hurt or killed.

If this kid lost control and veered into the path of a speeding cyclist, it doesn't matter that it wasn't his fault, he still loses.

If this kid lost control and gets clotheslined by an extend-a-leash, it doesn't matter whose fault it was, he still loses.

If this kid loses control and hits a pedestrian walking by, it probably is his fault, but he still loses.

Furthermore, this kids parents (or more accurately grandparents) deserve blame for letting this kid ride in an area when he didn't have sufficient skill to do so safely. In this case, he wasn't hit by a racing rider. He lost control all on his own.

Trying to base you judgement entirely on what we have codified laws for is more than a little silly. Laws don't cover every situation. Your argument is akin to saying "I shouldn't have to look both ways before crossing the street when I have a walk signal". You're right, you shouldn't have to, but it would be really, really stupid not to and if you were to get hit, people would call you an idiot even though you aren't legally at fault.

Here's hoping you never have kids. I'd hate to see what happens when you let them ride on a busy street simply because its legal to do so.

jefnvk

Nah, after reading this I've seen the light, they'll probably grow up addicted to video games eschewing bikes, because riding a bike in circles in an empty parking lot is so entertaining, certainly more so than taking them out on a nice trail to enjoy the outdoors for the afternoon

FWIW, me and my brothers were out on 55MPH country roads when we were on 16" bikes. I'm sure my parents would have loved to have a nice MUP for us to learn on instead.

The world is a scary place. If you are that worried about children, that them being clotheslined by a pet leash on a MUP is a serious concern, I suggest a giant bubble for them.

harshbarj

Easy short answer, yes. Everything carries risk. Even driving you child somewhere is risky.

A bit longer answer is, maybe. It's going to come down to the child. Some children develop faster and are capable of safely engaging in activities at earlier ages than other children. If the child is not developing at a "normal" rate, then it may be best to wait a little longer, if not for the risk from cars, then the risk to other bicycle riders and pedestrians.

JoeyBike

My favorite "local" MUP is 30 miles long mostly out in the country with a few small towns along the way. Every 10 miles or so there is a trailhead with water features and other "kiddie" activities for families to enjoy without actually being ON the MUP itself.

Also, this MUP is a NO PETS ALLOWED path. This feature is huge IMO. No pets results in no families with pets to contend with. So parents only have to watch their kid(s) but so few use the path anyway it is a non issue. "If I can't bring my dog(s), then I ain't going!" Good riddance. Enjoy the trailheads and leave the rest of us to our peaceful walk/jog/ride/skate through the woods. I have skated/cycled this path a hundred times at least over the past 20 years and NEVER had an issue with anyone. Therefore, I give credit to the "No Pets" rule. Any MUP i use where pets are allowed is barely usable and never enjoyable on wheels for me.

Leave the dog at home, discipline your children, and create a better world (for me).

No drugs is kinda a bummer tho


Tammany Trace - Rules & Etiquette

CB HI

I just love how so many special bicycle facility advocates lobby for these facilities on the bases that they make everyone safer OR at least they make cyclist feel safer in the hopes more cyclist will make cycling safer. But when someone gets hurt, they blame the cyclist or the parent/grandparent that bought into their BS safety claims.

asmac

I agree with you (if I correctly understand you) about excessive safety claims in the interest of bicycle advocacy though I don't think it's about blaming anyone. Just a matter of resetting expectations so parents don't confuse an MUP with the ball room at IKEA. The excessive marketing of safety could be toned down a bit.

In retrospect (always easy), a grandfather out for a nice day with his grandson made a bad decision that he undoubtedly wishes he could get back and for which I'm sure he and his family will suffer for the rest of their lives. No need to pile on but it's not unreasonable to take lessons from the tragedy. The lesson I take is that MUPs are not the place for children (or anyone else) who can't control where they're going or use reasonable judgment when they encounter surprises.

Paul Barnard

Another argument I hear from people who think bicyclists shouldn't be on the road at all. "It's not me, it's all the other drivers out there."

Ryan12

No, I think risk of damaging at this time is really high