Why are there no safety rules regarding children on bikes?

[Anonymous]

Saw a cyclist with small child in her lap while she rode on a busy street. Hard to believe the risks people are willing to take.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Amazing how I’ve survived 40 years of biking as a kid and adult biking… a lot… never once wearing a helmet with no injuries. Safety is more than regulations and rules. It’s being responsible and aware.

This reminds me of those movies where there's a guy who wrestles with bears or tigers or whatever and says he has a special connection with them and he's been doing it for decades and they would never hurt him so clearly it's safe. Then, one day, he gets disemboweled.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amazing how I’ve survived 40 years of biking as a kid and adult biking… a lot… never once wearing a helmet with no injuries. Safety is more than regulations and rules. It’s being responsible and aware.

This reminds me of those movies where there's a guy who wrestles with bears or tigers or whatever and says he has a special connection with them and he's been doing it for decades and they would never hurt him so clearly it's safe. Then, one day, he gets disemboweled.

Grizzly Man by Werner Herzog. Great documentary and yes, exactly the same thing! Hubris is crazy and people love to tempt fate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Amazing how I’ve survived 40 years of biking as a kid and adult biking… a lot… never once wearing a helmet with no injuries. Safety is more than regulations and rules. It’s being responsible and aware.

Sure, but have you ever hit your head in a fall? If not, obviously, the helmet is irrelevant. Safety is more than helmets, certainly, but that doesn't mean helmets don't also keep you safe in some instances.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amazing how I’ve survived 40 years of biking as a kid and adult biking… a lot… never once wearing a helmet with no injuries. Safety is more than regulations and rules. It’s being responsible and aware.

This reminds me of those movies where there's a guy who wrestles with bears or tigers or whatever and says he has a special connection with them and he's been doing it for decades and they would never hurt him so clearly it's safe. Then, one day, he gets disemboweled.

Why are there no safety regulations to prevent people from hiking in woods where there are bears??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amazing how I’ve survived 40 years of biking as a kid and adult biking… a lot… never once wearing a helmet with no injuries. Safety is more than regulations and rules. It’s being responsible and aware.

This reminds me of those movies where there's a guy who wrestles with bears or tigers or whatever and says he has a special connection with them and he's been doing it for decades and they would never hurt him so clearly it's safe. Then, one day, he gets disemboweled.

Why are there no safety regulations to prevent people from hiking in woods where there are bears??

You think you’re being clever but actually there are requirements to have bear canisters in order to camp in national parks with significant presence of bears.
https://www.nps.gov/olym/planyourvisit/wilderness-food-storage.htm

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amazing how I’ve survived 40 years of biking as a kid and adult biking… a lot… never once wearing a helmet with no injuries. Safety is more than regulations and rules. It’s being responsible and aware.

This reminds me of those movies where there's a guy who wrestles with bears or tigers or whatever and says he has a special connection with them and he's been doing it for decades and they would never hurt him so clearly it's safe. Then, one day, he gets disemboweled.

Why are there no safety regulations to prevent people from hiking in woods where there are bears??

You think you’re being clever but actually there are requirements to have bear canisters in order to camp in national parks with significant presence of bears.
https://www.nps.gov/olym/planyourvisit/wilderness-food-storage.htm

Oh that's great, but wouldn't it be safer for them to just not go out there at all?

It sounds like you're advocating for a reasonable balance of risk with freedom to enjoy the outdoors and all the benefits that come with that.

[Anonymous]

These days, I'd worry much more about my kid being shot up in the back seat by some road rager than anything that could possibly happen to her on a bike:

https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/13/us/florida-road-rage-shooting-charges/index.html

Two cars, two guns, two injured kids. Florida, of course, but the DMV is no stranger to this kind of nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amazing how I’ve survived 40 years of biking as a kid and adult biking… a lot… never once wearing a helmet with no injuries. Safety is more than regulations and rules. It’s being responsible and aware.

This reminds me of those movies where there's a guy who wrestles with bears or tigers or whatever and says he has a special connection with them and he's been doing it for decades and they would never hurt him so clearly it's safe. Then, one day, he gets disemboweled.

Why are there no safety regulations to prevent people from hiking in woods where there are bears??

You think you’re being clever but actually there are requirements to have bear canisters in order to camp in national parks with significant presence of bears.
https://www.nps.gov/olym/planyourvisit/wilderness-food-storage.htm

Oh that's great, but wouldn't it be safer for them to just not go out there at all?

It sounds like you're advocating for a reasonable balance of risk with freedom to enjoy the outdoors and all the benefits that come with that.

The “reason balance” is to require use of mitigation, e.g. use a bear canister or wear a helmet. Clearly you have not thought this through.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amazing how I’ve survived 40 years of biking as a kid and adult biking… a lot… never once wearing a helmet with no injuries. Safety is more than regulations and rules. It’s being responsible and aware.

This reminds me of those movies where there's a guy who wrestles with bears or tigers or whatever and says he has a special connection with them and he's been doing it for decades and they would never hurt him so clearly it's safe. Then, one day, he gets disemboweled.

Why are there no safety regulations to prevent people from hiking in woods where there are bears??

You think you’re being clever but actually there are requirements to have bear canisters in order to camp in national parks with significant presence of bears.
https://www.nps.gov/olym/planyourvisit/wilderness-food-storage.htm

Oh that's great, but wouldn't it be safer for them to just not go out there at all?

It sounds like you're advocating for a reasonable balance of risk with freedom to enjoy the outdoors and all the benefits that come with that.

The “reason balance” is to require use of mitigation, e.g. use a bear canister or wear a helmet. Clearly you have not thought this through.

Why does it have to be required? Why not just recommend? Who or what will enforce this requirement on top of every other petty rule and regulation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amazing how I’ve survived 40 years of biking as a kid and adult biking… a lot… never once wearing a helmet with no injuries. Safety is more than regulations and rules. It’s being responsible and aware.

This reminds me of those movies where there's a guy who wrestles with bears or tigers or whatever and says he has a special connection with them and he's been doing it for decades and they would never hurt him so clearly it's safe. Then, one day, he gets disemboweled.

Why are there no safety regulations to prevent people from hiking in woods where there are bears??

You think you’re being clever but actually there are requirements to have bear canisters in order to camp in national parks with significant presence of bears.
https://www.nps.gov/olym/planyourvisit/wilderness-food-storage.htm

Oh that's great, but wouldn't it be safer for them to just not go out there at all?

It sounds like you're advocating for a reasonable balance of risk with freedom to enjoy the outdoors and all the benefits that come with that.

The “reason balance” is to require use of mitigation, e.g. use a bear canister or wear a helmet. Clearly you have not thought this through.

The nice thing about drivers, unlike bears, is that you can make rules that govern their behavior and expect them to at least understand them, if not actually follow them. You can also change cars' habitats more readily than you can bears'. Which is all to say, unlike with bears, people who want protection from cars don't have to do all the work themselves.

[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: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.

It's extremely dangerous when cyclists want the city to worsen traffic congestion and shell out billions for bike lanes.

It's not dangerous at all when cyclists are pressed on why they don't want to wear helmets.

[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: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.

It's extremely dangerous when cyclists want the city to worsen traffic congestion and shell out billions for bike lanes.

It's not dangerous at all when cyclists are pressed on why they don't want to wear helmets.

It's more dangerous than it should be or has to be, but not too dangerous to do it. This is only a confusing concept if you don't believe in the concept of nuance.

[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: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.

It's extremely dangerous when cyclists want the city to worsen traffic congestion and shell out billions for bike lanes.

It's not dangerous at all when cyclists are pressed on why they don't want to wear helmets.

"billions"??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amazing how I’ve survived 40 years of biking as a kid and adult biking… a lot… never once wearing a helmet with no injuries. Safety is more than regulations and rules. It’s being responsible and aware.

This reminds me of those movies where there's a guy who wrestles with bears or tigers or whatever and says he has a special connection with them and he's been doing it for decades and they would never hurt him so clearly it's safe. Then, one day, he gets disemboweled.

Why are there no safety regulations to prevent people from hiking in woods where there are bears??

You think you’re being clever but actually there are requirements to have bear canisters in order to camp in national parks with significant presence of bears.
https://www.nps.gov/olym/planyourvisit/wilderness-food-storage.htm

Oh that's great, but wouldn't it be safer for them to just not go out there at all?

It sounds like you're advocating for a reasonable balance of risk with freedom to enjoy the outdoors and all the benefits that come with that.

The “reason balance” is to require use of mitigation, e.g. use a bear canister or wear a helmet. Clearly you have not thought this through.

The nice thing about drivers, unlike bears, is that you can make rules that govern their behavior and expect them to at least understand them, if not actually follow them. You can also change cars' habitats more readily than you can bears'. Which is all to say, unlike with bears, people who want protection from cars don't have to do all the work themselves.

First, the vast majority of bike accidents have nothing to do with vehicles. So you are focused on the wrong thing.

Second, it’s never either or. Safety always should be multi-faceted such that you are not solely reliant on one point of potential failure.

Wear a friggin’ helmet. And if you don’t have helmets on your kids you should be criminally prosecuted.