Near misses - mod warning 22/04 - see OP/post 822

The Kop · 13-07-2018 12:46PM

CramCycle wrote: »

They are really safe and have excellent protection. I'd have no issue using one and know several who do.

Good for you. I wouldn't.

Lemming · 13-07-2018 01:02PM

The Kop wrote: »

Good for you. I wouldn't.

I'm confused; could you possibly elaborate on the difference of outcome between having kids in one of those cargo attachment thingies vs. the family cycling train with kids following their parents on bikes? Both are on the road with their parents, behind their parents.

mr spuckler · 13-07-2018 01:09PM

The Kop wrote: »

What's that got to do with anything I said?
You have a habit of turning everything back to cars. You need to change the record mate.
I personally wouldn't put my kids in one of those contraptions. I think parents who do are irresponsible. It really has nothing to do with cars or the amount of kids who are killed in either.

doesn't it? you're calling trailers dangerous and parents who use them irresponsible but then ignoring people's comments about observable safety relative to other transport options. why start a debate and then refuse to engage with it?

I'm one of those parents that you think is irresponsible btw. I could go on all day about the benefits of using the trailer but I doubt you care - however I personally feel safer on the road with the trailer behind me than I do when cycling solo. my personal experience (as well as that of plenty of "irresponsible" parents posting on other threads on this forum) is that motorists give more space when overtaking the bike + trailer. that's a fairly shocking reflection on motorists who either consciously or subconsciously demonstrate their increased willingness to endanger me when I'm cycling on my own.

the below quote from here is really horrifying. this was only published this year so I can't see equivalent stats for years since 2013. don't for a second think that having children in your car is some sort of magically safe way to transport them.

Forty-three children were killed on the State’s roads in 2013, compared with 163 in 1996, the study published in the Irish Medical Journal says.

magicbastarder · 13-07-2018 01:21PM

Martin567 wrote: »

I think you need to clarify what this statistic actually means. Are you really saying that 37% of all children (U18?) who die in a given year are killed in a car accident? That seems unlikely.

http://www.rsa.ie/en/Utility/News/2015/TRAFFIC-COLLISIONS-LEADING-CAUSE-OF-CHILD-MORTALITY-IN-IRELAND/

amcalester · 13-07-2018 01:22PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

http://www.rsa.ie/en/Utility/News/2015/TRAFFIC-COLLISIONS-LEADING-CAUSE-OF-CHILD-MORTALITY-IN-IRELAND/

The solution is obvious, we need to either ban roads or children.

Or both.

Chiparus · 13-07-2018 01:33PM

The Kop wrote: »

What's that got to do with anything I said?
You have a habit of turning everything back to cars. You need to change the record mate.
I personally wouldn't put my kids in one of those contraptions. I think parents who do are irresponsible. It really has nothing to do with cars or the amount of kids who are killed in either.

I dont think they are any more dangerous than allowing your child to walk along a footpath.

mloc123 · 13-07-2018 01:41PM

Chiparus wrote: »

I dont think they are any more dangerous than allowing your child to walk along a footpath.

I am going to start tutting at parents I see pushing buggies just inches away from busy roads... very irresponsible. What would happen if a car or truck was to mount the kerb, why do parents choose to put their kids at such risk? I will never understand.

RebelButtMunch · 13-07-2018 01:41PM

benjamin d wrote: »

Ok then let's ignore the cargo bike (since it's so safe there are literally no death stats)

How about that 37% of childhood deaths figure? Is that a crap statistic? If cycling stats were within an ass's roar of that figure bikes would have been banned years ago. Will I expect to see you outside Leinster house calling for an end to motor vehicles? Because if you're concerned about child safety that's exactly what you should be doing.

In fact all the stats point towards banning cars - law breaking, pollution, cost to taxpayers, public safety... all vehicle and driver issues that are hugely detrimental to society.

So will I meet you at the Dail?

Janey mack. Play the ball man and stick with the program.

How about we consider that every cyclist killed or injured so far this year had a trailer on the back of their bike with 2 kids in it. Totally horrific even to contemplate one child dying never mind what that number would.

We are arguing hypothetically anyway. One thing I can say for sure is that every day I see drivers acting the arse and I would NEVER EVER consider towing kids behind me with those drivers on the road. I personally consider anyone that does so, to be taking a gigantic risk with their childrens lives and I thing they are wrong to do so.

mloc123 · 13-07-2018 01:43PM

RebelButtMunch wrote: »

Janey mack. Play the ball man and stick with the program.

How about we consider that every cyclist killed or injured so far this year had a trailer on the back of their bike with 2 kids in it. Totally horrific even to contemplate one child dying never mind what that number would.

We are arguing hypothetically anyway. One thing I can say for sure is that every day I see drivers acting the arse and I would NEVER EVER consider towing kids behind me with those drivers on the road. I personally consider anyone that does so, to be taking a gigantic risk with their childrens lives and I thing they are wrong to do so.

Imagine if every car crash that resulted in a death this year on the roads also had two kids in the back that were killed... if we are imagining stuff, lets make it equal right?

RebelButtMunch · 13-07-2018 01:45PM

mloc123 wrote: »

Imagine if every car crash that resulted in a death this year on the roads also had two kids in the back that were killed... if we are imagining stuff, lets make it equal right?

You're the one that started with the rubbish stats and comparing apples and oranges. But in this case I'll concede that we can't compare at all.

mloc123 · 13-07-2018 01:49PM

RebelButtMunch wrote: »

You're the one that started with the rubbish stats and comparing apples and oranges. But in this case I'll concede that we can't compare at all.

Did I?

RebelButtMunch · 13-07-2018 01:54PM

mloc123 wrote: »

Did I?

If you think I'm going to get into some kind of weird internet argument quote/bold argument with you you're off your rocker. #ignore

mloc123 · 13-07-2018 01:55PM

RebelButtMunch wrote: »

If you think I'm going to get into some kind of weird internet argument quote/bold argument with you you're off your rocker. #ignore

I am asking a genuine question, I haven't mentioned stats at all. I am assuming you are mixing me up with somebody else that posted.

CramCycle · 13-07-2018 02:06PM

The Kop wrote: »

What's that got to do with anything I said?
You have a habit of turning everything back to cars. You need to change the record mate.
I personally wouldn't put my kids in one of those contraptions. I think parents who do are irresponsible. It really has nothing to do with cars or the amount of kids who are killed in either.

Your choice, I don't really care. You can think all you want but in this case you are wrong. I am far from irresponsible. Teaching my kids that there are other ways to get around is very responsible.

Martin567 · 13-07-2018 02:07PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

http://www.rsa.ie/en/Utility/News/2015/TRAFFIC-COLLISIONS-LEADING-CAUSE-OF-CHILD-MORTALITY-IN-IRELAND/

Thanks for those.

The numbers still seem very odd though. Even taking U15 as the definition of a child, I'm very surprised that only 38 (14÷.367) children under the age of 15 died in all of Ireland over the course of a full year.

RebelButtMunch · 13-07-2018 02:07PM

Chiparus wrote: »

I dont think they are any more dangerous than allowing your child to walk along a footpath.

Can I just double check that you think that it's just as safe for a child to be on a footpath as a road?

CramCycle · 13-07-2018 02:08PM

RebelButtMunch wrote: »

If you think I'm going to get into some kind of weird internet argument quote/bold argument with you you're off your rocker. #ignore

There is a post only a few back which actually shows where the stats were gotten from. It is on the RSA website.

benjamin d · 13-07-2018 02:10PM

RebelButtMunch you came on here to defend someone who made a nonsense statement with no basis in fact whatsoever, and proceeded to dismiss actual statistical evidence against that statement as "crap" with no follow-up. Then you made up a story about if there were two kids attached to each bike involved in fatal accidents, and THEN you accuse the people who aren't taking this bull of making up hypothetical arguments?

You having no idea what you're talking about, and you're in a cycling forum giving out to cyclists about something for which there is not only no evidence, but in actual fact there is evidence to disprove, that being that cargo bikes are dangerous and irresponsible.

RebelButtMunch · 13-07-2018 02:13PM

benjamin d wrote: »

RebelButtMunch you came on here to defend someone who made a nonsense statement with no basis in fact whatsoever, and proceeded to dismiss actual statistical evidence against that statement as "crap" with no follow-up. Then you made up a story about if there were two kids attached to each bike involved in fatal accidents, and THEN you accuse the people who aren't taking this bull of making up hypothetical arguments?

You having no idea what you're talking about, and you're in a cycling forum giving out to cyclists about something for which there is not only no evidence, but in actual fact there is evidence to disprove, that being that cargo bikes are dangerous and irresponsible.

You're wrong. I know what I'm taking about. I cycle every day. I experience near misses and dangerous situations just like everyone here and I'm totally delighted that I didn't have my kids in tow when they happened.

I challange anyone on this forum to say that they would be comfortable having their kids with them when the had a near miss or accident

mloc123 · 13-07-2018 02:14PM

RebelButtMunch wrote: »

Can I just double check that you think that it's just as safe for a child to be on a footpath as a road?

In 2017 30 pedestrians were killed compared to 15 cyclists.. Maybe it is safer to cycle than it is to walk.

mr spuckler · 13-07-2018 02:19PM

RebelButtMunch wrote: »

I challange anyone on this forum to say that they would be comfortable having their kids with them when the had a near miss or accident

RebelButtMunch wrote: »

Talk about a straw-man

well, indeed.

CramCycle · 13-07-2018 02:19PM

RebelButtMunch wrote: »

You're wrong. I know what I'm taking about. I cycle every day. I experience near misses and dangerous situations just like everyone here and I'm totally delighted that I didn't have my kids in tow when they happened.

I challange anyone on this forum to say that they would be comfortable having their kids with them when the had a near miss or accident

That is a misleading question and you know it, no one is comfortable with a near miss, hence the answer will be no.

Am I comfortable having my kids with me on my daily commute, 100%, be they in a bike seat or a trailer, I am happy.

This said if your willing to equate your personal experiences as more reliable that more overarching stats, thats fine but I won't be listening.

Did you ever think if your having that many issues, maybe its your cycling that is the issue?

RebelButtMunch · 13-07-2018 02:21PM

mr spuckler wrote: »

well, indeed.

Thanks for you're contribution, but you know, you're right perhaps. I'll still throw out that challange. I'm sure everyone here has had near misses and I'm in utter disbelief that they would put children in that situation

benjamin d · 13-07-2018 02:21PM

RebelButtMunch wrote: »

You're wrong. I know what I'm taking about. I cycle every day. I experience near misses and dangerous situations just like everyone here and I'm totally delighted that I didn't have my kids in tow when they happened.

I challange anyone on this forum to say that they would be comfortable having their kids with them when the had a near miss or accident

99% of posters here cycle every day, me included - you're not special. Cycling is safe; safer than driving, and just as safe as being a pedestrian.

Obviously evidence isn't going to work on you, but just because your perception of cycling is that it's not safe doesn't mean that it's true. The evidence comprehensively trumps your opinion.

RebelButtMunch · 13-07-2018 02:23PM

benjamin d wrote: »

99% of posters here cycle every day, me included - you're not special. Cycling is safe; safer than driving, and just as safe as being a pedestrian.

Obviously evidence isn't going to work on you, but just because your perception of cycling is that it's not safe doesn't mean that it's true. The evidence comprehensively trumps your opinion.

I had to laugh that you'd post about safety in a near miss thread!

ewc78 · 13-07-2018 02:28PM

Have to say I wouldn't use one of those trailer things either. To me it's taking an unnecessary risk with your kids lives.
Each to their own though.

magicbastarder · 13-07-2018 02:37PM

Martin567 wrote: »

Thanks for those.

The numbers still seem very odd though. Even taking U15 as the definition of a child, I'm very surprised that only 38 (14÷.367) children under the age of 15 died in all of Ireland over the course of a full year.

this would seem to show different stats; about two thirds of the way down, 'Deaths by age group, 1916 and 2014'

https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-1916/1916irl/bmd/deaths/

in 2014, 38 children between 1 and 4 died; and 249 under 1 (i assume a significant number of these are pre- or post-natal deaths).
but there are another 56 in the 5-14 age bracket.

xckjoo · 13-07-2018 02:39PM

Personally, I like when my kids are in as close to mortal danger as possible. That's why I only let them cycle if they also carry a loaded gun with the safety off

In all seriousness though, that child mortality stat is eye-opening. It's funny how our perceptual biases can be so misleading.

magicbastarder · 13-07-2018 02:40PM

RebelButtMunch wrote: »

You're wrong. I know what I'm taking about. I cycle every day. I experience near misses and dangerous situations just like everyone here and I'm totally delighted that I didn't have my kids in tow when they happened.

there's another factor at play - the likelihood of a near miss based on whether you're towing kids or not. both in terms of the behaviour of the cyclist, but more crucially, in the behaviour of drivers.

i've seen it mentioned on several occasions that drivers in general are more courteous or respectful of cyclists pulling trailers or on cargo bikes - but i've not tried either myself, so woudl have to defer to the experience of others.

AndrewJRenko · 13-07-2018 02:41PM

The Kop wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

How many kids die in cars each year compared to how many kids die in cargo bikes each year?

What's that got to do with anything I said?
You have a habit of turning everything back to cars. You need to change the record mate.
I personally wouldn't put my kids in one of those contraptions. I think parents who do are irresponsible. It really has nothing to do with cars or the amount of kids who are killed in either.

It has everything to do with evidence, facts and data. You are of course welcome to your personal opinions and personal choices. You are not welcome to judge personal choices of others without some evidence.

Near misses - mod warning 22/04 - see OP/post 822

Comments