Why are there no safety rules regarding children on bikes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The vast majority of bicycling injuries and deaths under the age of 20 could be prevented by wearing a helmet. Yet I routinely see children on bikes or, even worse, ebikes with no helmets.

"An average of 247 traumatic brain injury deaths and 140,000 head injuries among children and adolescents younger than 20 years were related to bicycle crashes each year in the United States. As many as 184 deaths and 116,000 head injuries might have been prevented annually if these riders had worn helmets. An additional 19,000 mouth and chin injuries were treated each year."

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8909479/

I wear a helmet and my kids wear helmets (so far). I also wonder how many of those injuries would be prevented if someone didn't drive into them.

100 percent of them would be avoided if parents didn't put their kids in harm's way.

Do you also not let your kids swim or bathe? Think of the drowning risk!

I'm confused.

I thought you said the roads of D.C. are incredibly dangerous because everyone is going 70 mph and no one obeys any traffic rules and drivers are complete sociopaths with no regard for human life and police don't enforce anything and it's all just a complete free for all.

Now, you're telling me that allowing children to venture into all of that is no more dangerous than taking a bath?

The answer is that when bicyclists want the city to radically increase congestion and spend a bajillion dollars on bike lanes, then the streets are extremely dangerous.

But when bicyclists want to take their three year old on their bike for whatever reason, then the streets are not dangerous at all.

Addendum: The streets are also not dangerous when cyclists are asked why they aren't required to wear helmets.

So basically the fact that some bicyclists don't want to wear helmets or don't want to be required to wear helmets means there can be no road safety improvements for any bicyclists, even those of us who always wear helmets and always make sure our kids are wearing helmets. Got it.

+1

I’m a cyclist who ALSO judges people who don’t make their kids wear helmets (if an adult doesn’t want to wear one, that is their bad choice to make fir themselves).

I worry about kids who aren’t being protected while biking but since my own child wears a helmet and is very closely supervised while biking, the danger of cars doing illegal things is a much bigger deal to me. I see cars doing things that would kill a child on a bike who is wearing a helmet, every day. Driving 10-20 mph over the speed limit through residential neighborhoods. Making illegal turns without signaling. Blowing through lights and stop signs. Veering into other lanes or even into oncoming traffic suddenly and aggressively. These are behaviors I see from drivers DAILY in my residential neighborhood in NE DC that is full of families with kids on foot, scooters, bikes, and in cars.

I think all kids should wear helmets but when it comes to keeping kids safe, it’s clear to me that poorly enforced traffic laws and roads that support or encourage dangerous driving pose a much bigger threat, so that’s my focus. People on this board who concern troll about kids wearing helmets but then throw a giant fit when we suggest reducing traffic lanes or or installing traffic calming measures, or cutting into available parking or traffic lanes to widen sidewalks for pedestrians or installing protected bike lanes are playing a little game and I’m not interested.

If you actually care about child safety, you’d support measures to protect kids from being hit by cars, full stop. Not selectively get upset about the things parents could do to protect their kids while blowing down Florida Avenue doing 55mph and changing lanes and getting mad about the suggestion that we widen the currently narrow sidewalk and improve the bike lanes that are *terrifying* to ride down because you want to treat an urban street like a highway and have an allergy to using public transportation for your commute.

If the streets are that dangerous, why on earth are you allowing a child on a bike to venture into that?

"If we can't solve the whole problem all at once, why on earth are you trying to make it even slightly better?"

Person 1 (hyperventilating): The streets are death traps! They're soaked in blood!

Person 2: Ok, then why do you let your kids ride bikes there?

Person 1 (still hyperventilating): We're trying to make them eventually less death trap-y! We're pushing for changes that over time we hope will reduce the blood soakedness!

Person 2: Ok, well, in the meantime, why do you let your kids ride bikes there?

Schrodinger's bike. Riding a bike in D.C. is simultaneously extremely dangerous and not dangerous at all.

I don't let my child ride a bike here. I'd like safer street improvements including separate bike lanes, WAY MORE enforcement of traffic violations for bad drivers, road adjustments to slow down cars and more.

So you support that, right?

Yes, we should enforce the rules regarding mopeds and speeding. I'm tired of all this enforce the rules against those other people but not my people mentality. All ebikes are required by law to be registered and titled under the law.

Cyclists want to do something that's inherently dangerous -- ride their bike in a big, densely populated city. But they only want other people to bear the burden of things that would make that safer. No rules for them, endless rules for everyone else. And of course it's always someone else's fault when they (inevitably) get hit by a car.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:funny how bikers skeptical of the overwhelming evidence in favor of wearing helmets are quick to embrace new rules on drivers that have little connection to safety. banning drivers from turning right on red at any intersection anywhere in the district, after they've already stopped? talk about a solution in search of a problem.

I don't bike and my kid doesn't bike except on trails because I don't feel it's safe in DC. I support safer street implementations in terms of bike lanes that keep bikers separate from drivers, ideally protected too, that slow cars down (currently advocating for speedbumps on my own street, happy about a traffic camera nearby, currently advocating for a red light camera at the end of my street where I drive every day).

The folks in this forum who complain about inadequate enforcement of bikers. To me, a driver, and parent, it only reinforces that some of you are jerks and probably the same jerks I'm cursing at every day when I drive. You literally only no how to deflect and every post just proves it. Safe streets is not just about bicyclists and you continuously, repeatedly, deflect and ignore that point.

There are basic driving laws that are simply not enforced in DC or are really inadequately enforced.

Willing to bet most of you all are those people who roll through stop signs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:funny how bikers skeptical of the overwhelming evidence in favor of wearing helmets are quick to embrace new rules on drivers that have little connection to safety. banning drivers from turning right on red at any intersection anywhere in the district, after they've already stopped? talk about a solution in search of a problem.

I don't bike and my kid doesn't bike except on trails because I don't feel it's safe in DC. I support safer street implementations in terms of bike lanes that keep bikers separate from drivers, ideally protected too, that slow cars down (currently advocating for speedbumps on my own street, happy about a traffic camera nearby, currently advocating for a red light camera at the end of my street where I drive every day).

The folks in this forum who complain about inadequate enforcement of bikers. To me, a driver, and parent, it only reinforces that some of you are jerks and probably the same jerks I'm cursing at every day when I drive. You literally only no how to deflect and every post just proves it. Safe streets is not just about bicyclists and you continuously, repeatedly, deflect and ignore that point.

There are basic driving laws that are simply not enforced in DC or are really inadequately enforced.

Willing to bet most of you all are those people who roll through stop signs.

People who complain about cyclists putting three year olds on the handle bars of their bikes with no helmet are jerks? Gotcha.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:funny how bikers skeptical of the overwhelming evidence in favor of wearing helmets are quick to embrace new rules on drivers that have little connection to safety. banning drivers from turning right on red at any intersection anywhere in the district, after they've already stopped? talk about a solution in search of a problem.

I don't bike and my kid doesn't bike except on trails because I don't feel it's safe in DC. I support safer street implementations in terms of bike lanes that keep bikers separate from drivers, ideally protected too, that slow cars down (currently advocating for speedbumps on my own street, happy about a traffic camera nearby, currently advocating for a red light camera at the end of my street where I drive every day).

The folks in this forum who complain about inadequate enforcement of bikers. To me, a driver, and parent, it only reinforces that some of you are jerks and probably the same jerks I'm cursing at every day when I drive. You literally only no how to deflect and every post just proves it. Safe streets is not just about bicyclists and you continuously, repeatedly, deflect and ignore that point.

There are basic driving laws that are simply not enforced in DC or are really inadequately enforced.

Willing to bet most of you all are those people who roll through stop signs.

People who complain about cyclists putting three year olds on the handle bars of their bikes with no helmet are jerks? Gotcha.

People who won't admit that street safety is not just about bicyclists and whine enforcement of bad drivers or improvements to slow down drivers, yes I find them jerk-ish. Because they literally want nothing done and are ok with the status quo which is NOT safe, not sufficiently for me/my kid which is why we don't bike. So I assume they are bad drivers who want to continue getting away with being bad drivers. In other words, yes, jerks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:funny how bikers skeptical of the overwhelming evidence in favor of wearing helmets are quick to embrace new rules on drivers that have little connection to safety. banning drivers from turning right on red at any intersection anywhere in the district, after they've already stopped? talk about a solution in search of a problem.

I don't bike and my kid doesn't bike except on trails because I don't feel it's safe in DC. I support safer street implementations in terms of bike lanes that keep bikers separate from drivers, ideally protected too, that slow cars down (currently advocating for speedbumps on my own street, happy about a traffic camera nearby, currently advocating for a red light camera at the end of my street where I drive every day).

The folks in this forum who complain about inadequate enforcement of bikers. To me, a driver, and parent, it only reinforces that some of you are jerks and probably the same jerks I'm cursing at every day when I drive. You literally only no how to deflect and every post just proves it. Safe streets is not just about bicyclists and you continuously, repeatedly, deflect and ignore that point.

There are basic driving laws that are simply not enforced in DC or are really inadequately enforced.

Willing to bet most of you all are those people who roll through stop signs.

People who complain about cyclists putting three year olds on the handle bars of their bikes with no helmet are jerks? Gotcha.

People who won't admit that street safety is not just about bicyclists and whine enforcement of bad drivers or improvements to slow down drivers, yes I find them jerk-ish. Because they literally want nothing done and are ok with the status quo which is NOT safe, not sufficiently for me/my kid which is why we don't bike. So I assume they are bad drivers who want to continue getting away with being bad drivers. In other words, yes, jerks.

DP, but in general, there's a priority of complaints. Sure, people should put helmets on their kids when biking. But will you also agree that there needs to be more improvement of enforcement of bad drivers that flagrantly disregard the law? That people who roll through stop signs, nudge into cross walks, in a city with many pedestrians, is a problem?

If you cannot admit any of that and just deflect again with your next comment, then yeah, you're a jerk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:funny how bikers skeptical of the overwhelming evidence in favor of wearing helmets are quick to embrace new rules on drivers that have little connection to safety. banning drivers from turning right on red at any intersection anywhere in the district, after they've already stopped? talk about a solution in search of a problem.

Drivers were allowed to make right on red legally in response to the 1970's energy crisis. We are just returning to the mean because we have learned that the sfety benefits outweigh the miniscule gas savings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:funny how bikers skeptical of the overwhelming evidence in favor of wearing helmets are quick to embrace new rules on drivers that have little connection to safety. banning drivers from turning right on red at any intersection anywhere in the district, after they've already stopped? talk about a solution in search of a problem.

Drivers were allowed to make right on red legally in response to the 1970's energy crisis. We are just returning to the mean because we have learned that the sfety benefits outweigh the miniscule gas savings.

the safety benefits will be even smaller than the miniscule gas savings. these kind of silly, press release laws just teach the public that laws in dc don't matter. no one is going to follow this, and there will be no consequences for that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:funny how bikers skeptical of the overwhelming evidence in favor of wearing helmets are quick to embrace new rules on drivers that have little connection to safety. banning drivers from turning right on red at any intersection anywhere in the district, after they've already stopped? talk about a solution in search of a problem.

Drivers were allowed to make right on red legally in response to the 1970's energy crisis. We are just returning to the mean because we have learned that the sfety benefits outweigh the miniscule gas savings.

the safety benefits will be even smaller than the miniscule gas savings. these kind of silly, press release laws just teach the public that laws in dc don't matter. no one is going to follow this, and there will be no consequences for that.

Oh sure, we can agree that drivers in DC don't follow the laws of the road and also drivers don't face consequences when they disobey the law.

Something I'd like to see changed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:funny how bikers skeptical of the overwhelming evidence in favor of wearing helmets are quick to embrace new rules on drivers that have little connection to safety. banning drivers from turning right on red at any intersection anywhere in the district, after they've already stopped? talk about a solution in search of a problem.

Drivers were allowed to make right on red legally in response to the 1970's energy crisis. We are just returning to the mean because we have learned that the sfety benefits outweigh the miniscule gas savings.

the safety benefits will be even smaller than the miniscule gas savings. these kind of silly, press release laws just teach the public that laws in dc don't matter. no one is going to follow this, and there will be no consequences for that.

Oh sure, we can agree that drivers in DC don't follow the laws of the road and also drivers don't face consequences when they disobey the law.

Something I'd like to see changed.

bicyclists make drivers look like pikers when it comes to ignoring traffic laws. i hate driving near them because you never know what they're going to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:funny how bikers skeptical of the overwhelming evidence in favor of wearing helmets are quick to embrace new rules on drivers that have little connection to safety. banning drivers from turning right on red at any intersection anywhere in the district, after they've already stopped? talk about a solution in search of a problem.

Drivers were allowed to make right on red legally in response to the 1970's energy crisis. We are just returning to the mean because we have learned that the sfety benefits outweigh the miniscule gas savings.

the safety benefits will be even smaller than the miniscule gas savings. these kind of silly, press release laws just teach the public that laws in dc don't matter. no one is going to follow this, and there will be no consequences for that.

Oh sure, we can agree that drivers in DC don't follow the laws of the road and also drivers don't face consequences when they disobey the law.

Something I'd like to see changed.

bicyclists make drivers look like pikers when it comes to ignoring traffic laws. i hate driving near them because you never know what they're going to do.

Then your anecdotal experience is not at all like my anecdotal experience as a driver every day in DC. I do encounter many drivers where I never know what they're going to do and am sadly dismayed to see how often people do not follow basic driving rules. It's an every day disappointment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:funny how bikers skeptical of the overwhelming evidence in favor of wearing helmets are quick to embrace new rules on drivers that have little connection to safety. banning drivers from turning right on red at any intersection anywhere in the district, after they've already stopped? talk about a solution in search of a problem.

Drivers were allowed to make right on red legally in response to the 1970's energy crisis. We are just returning to the mean because we have learned that the sfety benefits outweigh the miniscule gas savings.

the safety benefits will be even smaller than the miniscule gas savings. these kind of silly, press release laws just teach the public that laws in dc don't matter. no one is going to follow this, and there will be no consequences for that.

Oh sure, we can agree that drivers in DC don't follow the laws of the road and also drivers don't face consequences when they disobey the law.

Something I'd like to see changed.

bicyclists make drivers look like pikers when it comes to ignoring traffic laws. i hate driving near them because you never know what they're going to do.

A bicyclist ignoring the law poses the greatest threat to themself. A driver ignoring the law poses the greatest threat to others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These people from some outfit called the CDC seem to think helmets are pretty important.

"An average of 247 traumatic brain injury deaths and 140,000 head injuries among children and adolescents younger than 20 years were related to bicycle crashes each year in the United States. As many as 184 deaths and 116,000 head injuries might have been prevented annually if these riders had worn helmets. An additional 19,000 mouth and chin injuries were treated each year."

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8909479/

+1

Definitely important, but — as someone who rides a bike regularly, and always with a helmet, and also requires that my kids wear helmets — I was a little disappointed to see that a full 25 percent of brain injury deaths and 17 percent of head injuries that happened would NOT have been prevented by helmets. Don't know if that's because those people were already wearing helmets or because the accidents were so bad that a helmet didn't help, but still.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:funny how bikers skeptical of the overwhelming evidence in favor of wearing helmets are quick to embrace new rules on drivers that have little connection to safety. banning drivers from turning right on red at any intersection anywhere in the district, after they've already stopped? talk about a solution in search of a problem.

Drivers were allowed to make right on red legally in response to the 1970's energy crisis. We are just returning to the mean because we have learned that the sfety benefits outweigh the miniscule gas savings.

the safety benefits will be even smaller than the miniscule gas savings. these kind of silly, press release laws just teach the public that laws in dc don't matter. no one is going to follow this, and there will be no consequences for that.

Oh sure, we can agree that drivers in DC don't follow the laws of the road and also drivers don't face consequences when they disobey the law.

Something I'd like to see changed.

bicyclists make drivers look like pikers when it comes to ignoring traffic laws. i hate driving near them because you never know what they're going to do.

A bicyclist ignoring the law poses the greatest threat to themself. A driver ignoring the law poses the greatest threat to others.

pp here. im not worried about a bicyclist hurting me or my car. i'm worried about hitting a cyclist because they do such dumb things. they're so unpredictable. you just never know what they're going to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The vast majority of bicycling injuries and deaths under the age of 20 could be prevented by wearing a helmet. Yet I routinely see children on bikes or, even worse, ebikes with no helmets.

"An average of 247 traumatic brain injury deaths and 140,000 head injuries among children and adolescents younger than 20 years were related to bicycle crashes each year in the United States. As many as 184 deaths and 116,000 head injuries might have been prevented annually if these riders had worn helmets. An additional 19,000 mouth and chin injuries were treated each year."

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8909479/

I wear a helmet and my kids wear helmets (so far). I also wonder how many of those injuries would be prevented if someone didn't drive into them.

100 percent of them would be avoided if parents didn't put their kids in harm's way.

Do you also not let your kids swim or bathe? Think of the drowning risk!

I'm confused.

I thought you said the roads of D.C. are incredibly dangerous because everyone is going 70 mph and no one obeys any traffic rules and drivers are complete sociopaths with no regard for human life and police don't enforce anything and it's all just a complete free for all.

Now, you're telling me that allowing children to venture into all of that is no more dangerous than taking a bath?

The answer is that when bicyclists want the city to radically increase congestion and spend a bajillion dollars on bike lanes, then the streets are extremely dangerous.

But when bicyclists want to take their three year old on their bike for whatever reason, then the streets are not dangerous at all.

Addendum: The streets are also not dangerous when cyclists are asked why they aren't required to wear helmets.

So basically the fact that some bicyclists don't want to wear helmets or don't want to be required to wear helmets means there can be no road safety improvements for any bicyclists, even those of us who always wear helmets and always make sure our kids are wearing helmets. Got it.

+1

I’m a cyclist who ALSO judges people who don’t make their kids wear helmets (if an adult doesn’t want to wear one, that is their bad choice to make fir themselves).

I worry about kids who aren’t being protected while biking but since my own child wears a helmet and is very closely supervised while biking, the danger of cars doing illegal things is a much bigger deal to me. I see cars doing things that would kill a child on a bike who is wearing a helmet, every day. Driving 10-20 mph over the speed limit through residential neighborhoods. Making illegal turns without signaling. Blowing through lights and stop signs. Veering into other lanes or even into oncoming traffic suddenly and aggressively. These are behaviors I see from drivers DAILY in my residential neighborhood in NE DC that is full of families with kids on foot, scooters, bikes, and in cars.

I think all kids should wear helmets but when it comes to keeping kids safe, it’s clear to me that poorly enforced traffic laws and roads that support or encourage dangerous driving pose a much bigger threat, so that’s my focus. People on this board who concern troll about kids wearing helmets but then throw a giant fit when we suggest reducing traffic lanes or or installing traffic calming measures, or cutting into available parking or traffic lanes to widen sidewalks for pedestrians or installing protected bike lanes are playing a little game and I’m not interested.

If you actually care about child safety, you’d support measures to protect kids from being hit by cars, full stop. Not selectively get upset about the things parents could do to protect their kids while blowing down Florida Avenue doing 55mph and changing lanes and getting mad about the suggestion that we widen the currently narrow sidewalk and improve the bike lanes that are *terrifying* to ride down because you want to treat an urban street like a highway and have an allergy to using public transportation for your commute.

If the streets are that dangerous, why on earth are you allowing a child on a bike to venture into that?

"If we can't solve the whole problem all at once, why on earth are you trying to make it even slightly better?"

Person 1 (hyperventilating): The streets are death traps! They're soaked in blood!

Person 2: Ok, then why do you let your kids ride bikes there?

Person 1 (still hyperventilating): We're trying to make them eventually less death trap-y! We're pushing for changes that over time we hope will reduce the blood soakedness!

Person 2: Ok, well, in the meantime, why do you let your kids ride bikes there?

Schrodinger's bike. Riding a bike in D.C. is simultaneously extremely dangerous and not dangerous at all.

I don't let my child ride a bike here. I'd like safer street improvements including separate bike lanes, WAY MORE enforcement of traffic violations for bad drivers, road adjustments to slow down cars and more.

So you support that, right?

Yes, we should enforce the rules regarding mopeds and speeding. I'm tired of all this enforce the rules against those other people but not my people mentality. All ebikes are required by law to be registered and titled under the law.

No one is talking about mopeds except you! Most people who ride bikes in D.C. do not ride e-bikes. How about if we enforce the rules regarding cars and speeding, as well?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These people from some outfit called the CDC seem to think helmets are pretty important.

"An average of 247 traumatic brain injury deaths and 140,000 head injuries among children and adolescents younger than 20 years were related to bicycle crashes each year in the United States. As many as 184 deaths and 116,000 head injuries might have been prevented annually if these riders had worn helmets. An additional 19,000 mouth and chin injuries were treated each year."

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8909479/

+1

Definitely important, but — as someone who rides a bike regularly, and always with a helmet, and also requires that my kids wear helmets — I was a little disappointed to see that a full 25 percent of brain injury deaths and 17 percent of head injuries that happened would NOT have been prevented by helmets. Don't know if that's because those people were already wearing helmets or because the accidents were so bad that a helmet didn't help, but still.

Not really understanding why people are so eager to gainsay something that reduces head injuries by 83 percent.