So I see the IEA have a new chart out that shows SUVs are the second worst polluting form in the Wor

SUVs are annoying, big, bulky and designed specifically to kill pedestrians, but that graph is complete bull - not one grain of truth in it.

Stop trolling.

Exactly. I'm sure I've read elsewhere that the much maligned emissions of SUVs are actually primarily due to American style enormous yokes. Most of what's termed SUVs here are actually crossovers - essentially somewhat taller standard cars, with emissions vastly lower than the US tanks the eco mentalist types bundle them in with.

Just call them jeeps.

Cargo bikes are very safe. It's cars and SUVs in particular that are dangerous.

Cargo bikes are very safe. They don't kill people, either people inside or outside the cargo bike.

They're not wearing PPE because they're not carrying out a hazardous activity. They're cycling with their family.

The only reason to wear ppe is to protect a cyclist from a car. If you take Holland as an example, a country that is serious about cycling infrastructure, the vast majority of cyclist deaths are caused by a collision with a car. I'd assume the same is true here.

Who's at a fault for the collision I'm not super interested in as I'm not looking to demonise drivers. The solution is to design cycling friendly infrastructure. Not just a bit of paint in a gutter.

To get back to sort of on-topic, I'd disagree with the methods of Tire Extinguishers for sure but I think it illustrates a wider push back against the place of the car in our cities. Younger generations want more liveable/walkable cities, and hate that the majority of a street is given over to a two ton metal box.

I dunno. Would be pain trying to commute any sort of decent distance of those bikes loaded up. Especially if windy or raining. 2-3km might be ok off main roads.

Id fear the thought of the whole family getting cleaned out of it if any accident with a vehicle did happen.

@AndrewJRenko By the same logic that the bikes in themselves are 'safe', so too are cars, motorbikes, aircraft and anything else. It's the operator and mode of operation that makes brings risk/danger. And, by cycling in an active traffic lane they are carrying out a - very- hazardous activity. Who they're cycling with, or why, is irrelevant.

@Hurrache There is a need to if you've an interest in self-preservation, and no requirement to is because of a lack of spine by the State. That the RSA constantly push for PPE in literature/media (e.g hi-viz & helmets be worn), yet the State sees no 'need' to make it mandatory is beyond contradictory.

@ordinaryfella the methodology of the 'tyre extinguishers' if you do that here is that doing that would be an offence under the Road Traffic Act 1961, S113, and you'd want to be an idiot to want a conviction on your record over that. It is not an act of no consequence.

Head injuries are common in vehicle accidents despite all the safety equipment and tech.

If a helmet can save just one life or keep someone from a wheelchair, we should make them mandatory. If the state don't have a spine, at least wear one for self preservation.

They come with hoods and with eBike versions that will allow you to do considerable distances with ease.

People are killed and injured in cars every day on the road.

Have you ever ridden an eBike?

We live in Ireland, they are f&cking TYRES.

What has an eBike got to do with battling a cross wind? Never had a problem cycling a normal bike, even those tanks of Dublin bikes, in any weather except maybe icy conditions but I wouldn't fancy trying to keep that yoke on the straight and narrow with a couple of kids on it in a cross wind gale.

Tricycles are inherently more stable so IMO much safer as a cargo bike, certainly safer than the yoke linked to earlier