Bikes & kids on Tucker Carlson last night

Wayne Pein wrote:
The Wogster wrote:


You really need to define kids, are we talking about 7 year olds, or
17 year olds, in the case of a 7 year old, they probably don't know
all the rules of the road, so maybe sidewalk riding is viable.

This presupposes that ignorant sidewalk riding is less dangerous than
ignorant street riding.


A little kid, on a sidewalk bike, isn't going to be going at a speed,
where it makes much difference, probably around 10km/h. It also depends
on the road, if the road sees little traffic (like my street), and the
speed limits are low (40km/h), then there probably is little difference
in safety, for child or adult rider.



Cities and States/Provinces can do alot to resolve this too, laws on
sidewalk riding, typically a wheel less then 20" is suitable for
sidewalk riding, larger wheels are considered road wheels.

The hazard with sidewalk riding is due to conflicts at junctions which
may have sight restrictions, and unexpectedly fast bicycles that may
come from the "wrong way." 20 in wheels can certainly go fast, so a law
based on wheel size doesn't fully address the issue.

I said less then 20", take a kiddie bike, with 15" wheels and a bottom
bracket that is about 6" off the ground, and only one speed, and tiny
cranks, speed is not the issue.

Suppose you live at a major intersection, where there is 3 lanes of
traffic each way, a centre turn lane, and turn outs on both sides, a
little kid on a kiddie bike, isn't going to survive a crossing, without
supervision.

Bike lanes

are cheap to add as well.


They are only economically cheap if the wide space already exists such
that the only monetary cost is paint. However, this again presupposes
that the bike lane makes it safer for bicyclists, and I've never found
that to be true. Further, I think the less tangible "costs" to
bicyclists of bike lanes far outweigh any alleged advantages.


Bike lanes can go either way, depending on how wide they are, and what
street side parking, if any is in existance. It also depends on how
other traffic sees the bike lane. Cagers are not properly trained to
drive, let alone deal with bikes, in a bike lane or not.

Here is an example, I am driving, there is a truck in the right lane,
going about 40km/h. In the left lane, stuck right behind and to the
left of the trucks left rear wheel is a driver training car (DTC), going
40km/h. The speed limit in the area is 60km/h, and traffic is backing
up.... Fortunately the truck turned off, and DTC, stays going 40km/h,
and stays in the left lane doing so, forcing everyone to pass on the right!

Sad thing about all this, if the truck had been required to do an
emergency lane change, say to avoid a collision, DTC would have gone
right underneath. If new drivers are not taught to drive properly, with
big trucks, how can they be expected to deal with smaller road users.

W

Scott Johnson wrote:
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

Yep, that about sums it up. The helmet lobby have now succeeded in
portraying an activity which nobody thought was dangerous, as some
kind of extreme sport - while the source of danger, careless driving,
remains completely unchallenged. Welcome to the modern world,
critical faculties to be checked in at the door, please stand still
while we bubble-wrap you for your comfort and safety...

It's not just the drivers, I still have a huge
knot on the back of my head from doing something
stupid on my BMX when I was kid.......

I have no problem with people saying "Wear a helmet if you're going to
do stupid tricks on your BMX bike or mountain bike."

I have a serious problem with people saying "Never ride a bike without
wearing a helmet." Ordinary cycling and stunt riding are NOT the same!

And it's crazy to think that a helmet, certified for protecting a
decapitated head from a 14 mph impact, will offer meaningful protection
against the typical car impact bike fatality.

- Frank Krygowski

max wrote:

And, it is trivial to demonstrate that there exist neighborhoods --
"executive lifestyle" or other aspirationally neologisticly named
subdevelopments-- which can only be reached via high speed (45~60+) mph
multi-mile-long corridors. Expecting a child to ride his bike along one
of these road raging behemoth clogged speedways, especially during the
morning commute, is beyond ludicrous. Of course, we could make them
to the gravel-covered ,glass and steel littered banked "shoulders"...

I encourage you to come out to the land of subdevelopments and behold
the bike-hostile environments that have been built. They are outrageous.

One must question the widsom of suggesting we should encourage a 3rd
grade child to assume the same risks and responsibilities attendant to
road riding you and I bear. Children are not little adults, and they
can't think, focus or behave like adults.

I agree, the mushroom developments popping up on former country roads
are an abomination. Kids in those places are isolated unless they are
carried somewhere in motor vehicles.

IMO, zoning laws should be written to require reasonable non-motorized
access from those neighborhoods to adjoining ones, and to traffic
generators like schools and stores.

Also, I think it's good that we point out the detriments of those
designs. Perhaps, eventually, people will begin to realize there are
better places to live.



Expecting children to ride on streets may thus, depending on the
specific situation, be placing them in an environment where they cannot
possibly survive, and at the same time, yes some parents are just
fear-drenched weenies.

Too true. Yes, situations differ. But in general, we should be
promoting cycling wherever possible, first by combating the notion that
riding a bike is terribly dangerous. This notion (spread largely by
the helmet salespeople) is responsible for a lot of problems.

Cycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is.

See http://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetyS...SafetyQuiz.htm

- Frank Krygowski

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 05:09:05 -0700, Art Harris wrote:

Tucker Carlson

Giggle.

:P

wrote:

max wrote:

And, it is trivial to demonstrate that there exist neighborhoods --
"executive lifestyle" or other aspirationally neologisticly named
subdevelopments-- which can only be reached via high speed (45~60+) mph
multi-mile-long corridors. Expecting a child to ride his bike along one
of these road raging behemoth clogged speedways, especially during the
morning commute, is beyond ludicrous. Of course, we could make them
to the gravel-covered ,glass and steel littered banked "shoulders"...

I encourage you to come out to the land of subdevelopments and behold
the bike-hostile environments that have been built. They are outrageous.

One must question the widsom of suggesting we should encourage a 3rd
grade child to assume the same risks and responsibilities attendant to
road riding you and I bear. Children are not little adults, and they
can't think, focus or behave like adults.


I agree, the mushroom developments popping up on former country roads
are an abomination. Kids in those places are isolated unless they are
carried somewhere in motor vehicles.

IMO, zoning laws should be written to require reasonable non-motorized
access from those neighborhoods to adjoining ones, and to traffic
generators like schools and stores.

Also, I think it's good that we point out the detriments of those
designs. Perhaps, eventually, people will begin to realize there are
better places to live.

Gee, you think?

It used to be, that schools were built based on geographical zones, and
were built based on the population of school age and under students, in
that zone. Of course zones were sized so that a student walking or
biking could easily reach the school. Zones at one point were based on
age, K-3 zones were quite small - within walking distance, Grades 4-8 or
4-9 zones were larger to denote older students who could walk further or
bike, and high school zones were large, as those students could walk or
bike further, and some could drive.

Funny thing is, I lived on the border, between 4-8 zones, a buddy who
lived a block East, went to a different school. Before that, we went to
the same school, then went to the same high school.

What is also funny, is back before 1970, you need milk, you put a sign
on your window that read "milk", and the milkman would come by, take the
now empty bottles and leave full ones, along with a bill, they also
delivered eggs, and someone else delivered baked goods. Now you get in
the car, drive 20 miles, walk another 3 from the only parking spot at
the mall, buy your bottle of milk, along with $47.50 worth of stuff you
really didn't need. This is progress?????

Of course once a week, you might go to the farmers market, and buy
whatever was available....

W





















Expecting children to ride on streets may thus, depending on the
specific situation, be placing them in an environment where they cannot
possibly survive, and at the same time, yes some parents are just
fear-drenched weenies.


Too true. Yes, situations differ. But in general, we should be
promoting cycling wherever possible, first by combating the notion that
riding a bike is terribly dangerous. This notion (spread largely by
the helmet salespeople) is responsible for a lot of problems.

Cycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is.

See http://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetyS...SafetyQuiz.htm

- Frank Krygowski

In article ,
The Wogster wrote:


What is also funny, is back before 1970, you need milk, you put a sign
on your window that read "milk",

When i lived in Munich we had the same thing, except it read "Bier". We
teenagers were keenly aware of the delivery schedule.

..max

The Wogster wrote:
What is also funny, is back before 1970, you need milk, you put a sign
on your window that read "milk", and the milkman would come by, take the
now empty bottles and leave full ones, along with a bill, they also
delivered eggs, and someone else delivered baked goods. Now you get in
the car, drive 20 miles, walk another 3 from the only parking spot at
the mall, buy your bottle of milk, along with $47.50 worth of stuff you
really didn't need. This is progress?????

Is that what you do? We order our groceries on the net and a truck
delivers them -- now that's progress!


Of course once a week, you might go to the farmers market, and buy
whatever was available....

You don't have farmer's markets any more? We have several, on different
days of the week, one a short walk away, the others an easy bike ride.

The Wogster wrote:

Streets with no sidewalks, typically are from the 1950's and 1960's,
when it became common for your house to be in one place, and the nearest
other place to walk to would be at least 5 miles away.

I grew up in the 'burbs during that time. There was nothing to walk to.
From what I gather, there still isn't, unless you count malls (we had
those too back then).

We walked a lot. It was no big deal to walk to school 2-3 miles, the
route to my JHS was along a state highway, biking would have been
impossible -- besides, winters were long, and we had no studded tires.

Wed, 06 Jul 2005 13:24:45 -0400,
, The Wogster
wrote:

I said less then 20", take a kiddie bike, with 15" wheels and a bottom
bracket that is about 6" off the ground, and only one speed, and tiny
cranks, speed is not the issue.

You've never ZooBombed. 30MPH+ isn't uncommon, in fact, it's desired.
(provided your sphincter is strong enough to handle it)
--
zk

The Wogster wrote:


It used to be, that schools were built based on geographical zones, and
were built based on the population of school age and under students, in
that zone. Of course zones were sized so that a student walking or
biking could easily reach the school. Zones at one point were based on
age, K-3 zones were quite small - within walking distance, Grades 4-8 or
4-9 zones were larger to denote older students who could walk further or
bike, and high school zones were large, as those students could walk or
bike further, and some could drive.

Here's the modern version. Monday I visited a friend's house for the
first time. He has a daughter starting grade 3 next year. They live
in a typical semi-isolated suburban mushroom development - but there's
a large park at the end of their street.

Anyway, I asked where her school was. He said "You know, it's weird.
There's a school just three blocks from here. But when I tried to
register her for it, they said she can't come to school here; I had to
register her for the one about 3 miles away.

"There's some kind of law that says if the kids are closer than a mile,
they have to walk to school, but they don't want kids walking. So she
had to register for the school 3 miles away so the law would make her
take the bus to school. It's stupid."

It's a strange world we've built!

- Frank Krygowski