Conference noted::bicycle

    
    I find myself agreeing with Chip, so I'm away for a couple of asprin
    and a lie down... :*)
    
    The thought of a child on a bike scares the hell out of me. The problem
    with a bike is that anybody on the bike can affect it's handling so
    drastically and I have yet to see a 3 year old that can sit still for
    more than 5 minutes. You know the situation. You're riding along past a
    Rotweiller and the kid reaches out to pat it (all dogs are cute to
    kids). This pulls the bike over in the direction of the dog. The
    Rotweiller (a breed of dog who are famed for their love of children,
    usually at Gas Mark 5 for 30 minutes per pound) jumps at kid, barking
    and slavering (another Rotweiller characteristic, permanent slobbery
    chops). Kid jumps in fright and suddenly you have no control over the
    bike.
    
    	If a kid is not yet old enough to ride a bike itself, then it
    shouldn't be put in something that indirectly gives it control. By all
    means by a trailer, I don't have a problem with them since they don't
    affect the handling of the bike, but if the S H ONE Ts in the
    Government (bit of topical humour there. My name's Ben Elton, goodnight)
    want to make us wear helmets to make cycling safer, then they should
    also be taking away things that make it more dangerous...
    
    Like cars...  :*)
    
    Graham.

When I hear of "baby seats" for bicycles, the term that springs to
mind is Infanticide!

I'm surprised they are allowed to call them baby seats in the good ole
litigious(sp?) USA. In my part of the world, I've noticed that the so-called
"dolly seats" which sit over the rear wheel have disclaimers that say they should
not be used for carrying children, even though everyone
knows fine well what they actually get used for!

    Last year, or was it the year before?  (How time flies when you're
    having fun), the legislature of the PRM (people's Republic of
    Massachusetts) sought to outlaw baby seats, in fact they sought to
    outlaw all means of baby transportation other than back packs.
    
    After the were set right on this issue*, they dropped the matter.
    
    If you use a trailer for a baby, make sure there's adequate suspension
    so that the baby's brain doesn't get direct transmission of road shock.
    When I rode with Lon Haldeman on his tandem and Rebecca in a child's
    car seat in a Burley trailer, they had a nifty spring set up to
    suspend the car seat and absorb shock.
    
    ed
    ------------------------------------------------------
    *  Oh yes, the issue of the back pack.  When a baby is in a backpack
    and the rider takes a header the baby flies through the air with the
    greatest of ease.

     So Ed, I'm not sure I located your position...
    
        Chip

    O.K., I'll bite.

    I *hope* you aren't serious about this. What about the enjoyment both
    the kids and their parents get out of getting out on bicycles? What
    about the less privileged in society, for whom a bicycle with
    child-seat may be the only available form of transport.

    Seen from this side of the Atlantic, this looks like the typical
    American reaction: "Oh, that's too dangerous. Ban it." It's happened to
    off-piste skiing, it's happening to rock climbing in many areas, and
    now you are suggesting applying the same reasoning to cycling.

    The logical next step is for the motoring lobby to start saying
    "Cycling on the roads is dangerous. Ban it."

    No. Fix the problem, don't cover up the symptoms.

    -Les.

    
    But you can't fix the problem. It is the child that makes it dangerous
    so either you a) use it on a trike, with which I would have less
    concern, b) use the trailer method where the child is no longer a
    hazard to your balance or c) don't take the kid.
    
    If it was possible to fix the problem, then I would be only too happy
    to encourage it. It would bring kids up with a great love of cycling
    and help boost our sport, especially in countries where it is very
    second-rate. But all that it takes is 3 or 4 kids to become roadkill
    and the ensuing outrage would see cycling banned, not baby seats.
    
    Graham. 

    I have a feeling we will all be in agreement here. I have two kids and
    I would never, ever think of putting them in a bike seat. I think the
    more you know and ride bikes the more you realize that if something
    were to happen you would have little or no control over what would
    happen to the child. I just cringe inside whenever I picture a bike
    flying through the air after been hit by a car with a child strapped
    securely into a kid seat over the back wheel.
    
    I also hate when I see the Dad giving one of the kids a ride on the
    motorcycle where the kid sits in front of the Dad with his feet up on
    the gas tank. One fun ride is not worth the possible years of pain and
    suffering if something happens.
    
    Don't do it
    
    Alan 

    
    
    Im usually read-only in this file but felt I should put my .02 cents
    in.
    I agree with the base note.  I think they are dangerous and hate to
    even imagine what could happen.
    
    This weekend during one of my rides I saw at least 3 of these setups
    with the baby safely fastened and helmeted in the child seat.
    With the father or mother up front with no helmet on.  
    I guess it's a case of protecting the child but having enough sense
    to wear a helmet yourself.
    
    Just my views.
    
    
    MikeR

    But *are* they a problem? If there are unacceptably high numbers of
    kids being killed or seriously injured in these things, then they
    warrant investigation. But even then, such investigation should look at
    the causes of the accidents, and try to prevent them by the most
    acceptable means. "Most acceptable means" may or may not involve
    banning child seats. But too many people see banning something as the
    only way to prevent accidents, without looking at the alternatives, and
    without considering the benefits of what ever it is they are trying to
    ban.

    And banning something just because you "shudder when you see it" or
    because it "scares the hell out of you" is not rational behaviour.
    Sorry, Chip. Sorry, Graham.

    -Les.

    Five of my children have been carried around on my bike with the
    same yellow child seat. No problems.
    
    Ban them? You have *got* to be kidding!
    
    Marc H.

    I side with those who find them too dangerous to consider using
    them in our own families.  If they can be redesigned--substantially,
    I would consider it.
    
    The design of a bicycle is already top heavy enough.  You only have
    to look at the design of a common child seat to see that it makes 
    the problem worse.  It's almost like putting a child in a 
    high-chair, setting him/her in the bed of a pick-up truck and going 
    for a drive.
    
    Ban them?  In their current design, I'd say "Yes".  What, to me,
    would be a safer child seat wouldn't remotely resemble what we
    have now. 
    
    
    r�
    
    P.S.- ...not crazy about trailers either, unless they are in a
          residential area or park.  I've seen folks who use them
          in office parks on weekends.

    I have to agree with some of the responses that there is great
    potential for serious accident.  If you feel that way, don't use them. 
    
    I think the whole issue of banning them is absurd however.  There is
    also great potential for accident if you drive on the highways of Mass.
    :-) (little joke being a newcomer to the east coast)  
    
    But you can't expect every activity with potential danger to be banned.  I 
    don't have kids, so I can't say whether or not I would use them...
    
    	Mike
               

    Any ban ought to be applied to ignorant parents. You can kill your
    offspring in so many ways, banning would not address the possibilities.
    There's no substitute for education. And there is very little you can
    do with parents that have made a decision to involve their kids in some
    sort of risky adventure. I think of boating, motorsports, even hiking.
    This really leads to ban kids from the White mountains, etc.
    
    I agree with an earlier note that the US attitude of banning things
    does not address the symptom: the parental rights and ignorance. Like
    they say: "parenting doesn't come with a manual" 
    
    another .02
    Paul 

    
    I see the problem as most parents being ignorant to the risk. Yes
    legislation is a severe step to take, but legislation is there to
    protect innocent victims, of which there are two in this case:-
    
    	1. The parents and child. They don't realise the dangers involved
    and when/if something goes wrong, you can't blame them since they were
    told by an unscrupulous bike shop that they were OK to use.
    
    	2. Us. If anything goes wrong, then visibility will be high. I want
    my sport to be advertised positively (I live in the UK, where there
    isn't an already present acceptance of us 'weirdos'), but this high
    visibility will show a negative side of cycling which will turn people
    off from the activity.
    
    	I want to see kids enjoying cycling from an early age and agree
    that instead of banning the seats we should be finding safer ways of
    doing it. But what do we do in the meantime? Turn a blind eye and let
    this hazard on the road until we find a new, safe version? By that 
    time the deaths are already happening and no one will try the safe
    version anyway. Ban them and then find the new system, not the other
    way round.
    
    Graham. 

    I still prefer a ban, if you were to put an adult in one of those then
    that would be at there own risk, they would stand a better chance in a
    fall, but a child doesn't have a say in it, they just know it's fun. 
    
    I'm really suprised that you don't here about more accidents with these
    things, I'm sure that while riding the adult would be extra carful,
    BUT...
    
    This reminds me of a friend that wanted to give one of my kids a
    shoulder ride while walking around the rocks at the swift river in NH.
    It was one of the few times that I said NO WAY, he said, I would never
    drop one of your kids and I just said NO WAY, he put my kid down and I
    think learned something that day.
    
    Alan

    I'm really surprised to see so many people calling for a ban on
    this child seats.
    
    Sad...really sad.
    
    Marc H.

    re: .16
    
    Thanks for your input : )
    
    r^2

I think the reason we haven't seen any grim statistics about these seats is that
the people who do use them tend to be more of the casual cyclists and do 
fairly short rides on quiet roads. Their opportunity for disaster is greatly
reduced compared to the types of roads & distances that are ridden by most of 
the people reading this note.

As to a ban, I don't agree but I would like to see a big warning label on every
box and every seat telling Mom & Dad that these things will make the bike 
unstable and to BE CAREFUL and WEAR A HELMET.

my $.02

-tom

P.S. Has Consumer Reports (U.S. magazine) ever done an article or test of these
potential death traps ?

     I knew this note would get some response! Regulating people in this
    or similar situations is impossible and not even worth the debate.
    
     Fact, a lot of people don't become addicted to cocaine. You might
    argue that some people don't "abuse" it (enter your definition here).
    So, if you legalized the drug, could you regulate the people? I don't
    think so...
    
     And just because someone has played Russian Roulette a dozen times and
    has not blown his fool head off doesn't support the argument it's a
    safe thing to do (.10).
    
     Society, in many cases, must be regulated. If it wasn't, stupidity
    would be a prevailing factor and the major cause of death in the U.S..
    
     Society must be protected from itself too. 
    
     Things is 'a really heatin' up now!!!
    
    
        Chip
      

Just get a trailer and like others noted, ride is safe low traffic areas.

I have a trailer and ride on roads with marked bike lanes only.  I would
never consider any of my normal training loops with the trailer.

Besides the trailer gives you a great work out, its the never ending hill
climb.  If you don't get it, think of it this way, drag two fifty pound 
weights behind you and try to just ride a flat road.

As to the childs enjoyment.  Well he fuses at first but as long as I don't
stop he is fine.  He has even mastered drinking from my water bottle at
the tender age of 10 months.  It is really funny to see this too.

One other thing, if you have a trailer get a mirror that either connects
to bike or your helment.  I hate the thing but it really makes me feel 
safer, I even use it when riding to and from work.  Why I don't use it
all the time is that it connects to my brake hood and gets in the way
when I try to climb on the hoods.

Well my few cents (inflation and taxes have to be accounted for)
Tom

    
    re:-1
    " Society, in many cases, must be regulated. If it wasn't, stupidity
    would be a prevailing factor and the major cause of death in the U.S..
    
     Society must be protected from itself too. "
    
    Actually stupidity IS a major cause of death and injury in the U.S.
    Ever watch "RESCUE 911". They oughta rename it to "Stupid people who 
    shoulda died but didn't".  The point is that anything that can be done
    can be done stupidly. But it can also be done intelligently. You can
    have a nice slow easy ride with your kid on a bike/motorcycle/horse/
    whatever or you can tear around like hell and dump it.
     
    	Once you start banning things just because some idiot does it , 
    where do you stop? No hang-gliding, no-one over 70 drives, Definately
    no bikeriding for kids (leading cause of death and injury), no fishing
    (might slip on the rocks!), DEFINATELY no sex, no auto driving period,
    no cheerleading (you ever see how they throw those girls -yeow!), and
    skip almost all sports; then we can all live safe boring existances
    until there's too many of us for the planet's resources to support (or
    aren't we almost there yet?).
    
    	So it's either "Eat in moderation , exercise, and die anyway" or
    "Enjoy your life and die anyway". No one gets out of life alive.
    
    And NO- society CAN'T be protected from itself- so stop trying to
    control things you can't- like stupidity.
    
    

     Re; 21... I don't agree with banning things. I think you're missing
               a big point. We're not talking about adults (sometimes
               un-stupid ones) making a decision. We're talking about
               a decision that puts undue risk to someone who hasn't
               made the decision or can really comprehend the possible
               circumstances. That's my point.
    
               Also, being careful (while it will reduce the odds) does
               not reduce the potential significantly. It won't protect
               a sole from a charging dog, a swerving motorist or a blown
               out front tire...
    
    Chip
               

    re .21
    That Rescue 911 comment... well, you owe me a cup of coffee cuz
    the one I had is now soaking into the mouse pad.  ;-)  KB

    re.23
    	Yeah, I owe you one ;^) maybe that was a touch strong....But my
    point was that life has risks. You send your kid to school everyday in
    a big box that has no seatbelts but if you don't belt them in in your
    car, you're irresponsible. Go figure....everybody makes life or death
    decisions for their kids everyday, and some folks are not as well
    equipped to do this as some others, but it happens. You can't make the
    world a safe place to live all the time. 

    RE:24
    I tend to agree with you. Besides, when I go bike ridding, its to get
    away from the kids. I just leave them in the house where its
    safe....?;)

    Jim

    I agree with Chip, I don't like banning things, I used to ride my
    motorcycle without a helmet once in a while, I never used a helmet on
    my bike until a few years ago. I've done plenty of dump dangerous
    stuff and am still living to remember how dumb they were. The point is
    that it would be nice to allow your child to at least grow up enough to
    be able to do this dumb stuff too. Like Chip said and I said earlier,
    the kid never gets to make the choice.
    
    I live in NH. and don't like seat belt laws but I do seat belt my kids
    in and most of the time myself. I suppose I don't want the seats banned 
    so much as that they just stop making them.  
    
    Alan

    
    	Everyone against banning them is trying to compare it to dangerous
    sports. But there are two arguments against this comparison:-
    
    	1. Dangerous sports are not allowed to be done by 3 year olds, with
    or without parental supervision. Toddlers just don't get to bungee
    jump, parachute, have sex...  :*)
    
    	2. Bungee jumping and parachute jumping are dangerous activities
    which can be made safe. There are laws governing these activities to
    ensure that the correct safety procedures are put in place. If you own
    a bungee jump club and you are found to violate these safety procedures
    then you will be closed down and prosecuted. This is what I would like
    to see done to these child seats. The only problem with them, is that
    the only situation in which I can see them being safe is on a trike and
    how many of these baby seats have you seen sitting on them?
    
    	I don't like the word stupidity being used here. It's not stupidity
    but ignorance that we are combatting, and there is a world of
    difference between the two. Stupidity is knowing the dangers involved
    and ignoring them, ignorance is not knowing the dangers involved. I
    resent putting in laws to combat stupidity, because if they're stupid
    enough to ignore common sense, then they're stupid enough to ignore the
    laws placed to enforce common sense. However, we not prevent ignorance.
    There are two ways to do this. One is to make the manufacturers
    highlight the risks of their product. But we all know how they would do
    this. Someone goes out and spends $50 on a baby seat opens the box and
    finds a list of where and how not to use it. They discover that all their
    planned uses are mentioned, and have been conned out of $50. The other
    is to place a law to cover them. Laws are always much higher publicised
    than manufacturers guidelines and would prevent most of these being
    made in the first place.
    
    	Go for the latter I say...
    
    Graham.
           

     Re;27 Graham, you mean the men over there get started later than
           age 3??? Are you guys late bloomers (or just wearin' 'em)?
    
              ---->    :-)   :-)   :-)   :-)    <----
    
           Chip

    
    It's too cold over here at any age... :*)     Why do I see this going
    downhill rapidly? :*)
    
    Graham.

     Ahhh, yes... No light escapes from the "Black Rathole" phenomenon
     of NOTES! 
    
     Chip

I have mixed emotions about this one.   Personally I do not advocate child
seats at all and we currently have 2 trailers for our kids.  We started riding
with our oldest when she was 3 months old, specially adapting a Exquinox
trailer to old a car infant seat.  We have the fortunate ability to ride
on relatively quiet roads, with a shoulder (central MA).  I probably wouldn't
be riding with them if we lived closer to Boston.   Now my oldest, 4 years
old, is on stoking our tandem.  We generally do a 6 to 10 mile ride, averaging
13 miles an hour. She started when she was 3 years 9 months.  Rather than
leaving the kids at home for training rides, I feel, in the long run will
encourage our children to remain active, perhaps competitive.  Yes cycling is
dangerous for EVERYONE, however, this could a spark to keep them away from 
more dangerous things...drugs.  

Trailers, however, are expensive.  I hope market demand will encourage volume
production, thus lowering prices.  What to you say to cyclists who don't
have the financial means?  

The type of education being done in this notes file about helmets, use of
trailers, etc, is fantastic.  I bet there are more than a few people who
have changed their mind about using a child seat, once the alternatives were
presented to them.  This education should continue, preferrably focused at
non-cycling enthusiasts via child magazines and pediatric medicine.  
(our pediatrician constantly asks us if we use helmets..this is a good 
sign).

In addition, if efforts increased for naming bikeways, and bike lanes
it would increase overall safety.

Steve 

>> Trailers, however, are expensive.  I hope market demand will encourage volume
>> production, thus lowering prices.  What to you say to cyclists who don't
>> have the financial means?  

    The good thing about kids stuff is that it has a very limited time span
    for the person it was bought for. Bike trailers are very robust and
    should last years after your sprogs (quaint Scottish term for kids) are
    on their own bikes. This creates a permanent second hand market for
    bike trailers and means that everyone can afford them as more hit the
    market.
    
    In the meantime, to help create that market, some enterpriser can start
    off a hire scheme where you can hire one for a weekend (most folk will
    use them only on Saturdays and Sundays) and they can become the initial
    models available second hand.
    
    Graham.                      

    All those in favour of a ban so far have been justifying their opinion
    by claiming that child seats are *percieved* to be dangerous.

    I ask again: Where's the evidence?

    I don't know what the situation is in the US, but there are literally
    thousands of these things on bikes here in the UK, and I am certainly
    not aware of a high accident rate involving them.

    Yes, there is almost certainly some risk, as with everything in life.
    But let's balance the risk against the benefits before arguing for a
    ban.

    Consider this. Kids sometimes die as car passengers in road accidents.
    The kid didn't *choose* to be in the car. Most of the time the kid
    didn't *need* to be in the car. But do we ban kids from travelling in
    cars? Of course we don't, because in general the benefits outweigh the
    risks. Let's apply the same judgement to child seats.

    -Les.

    
    	Not to beat a dead horse, but something similar to a "child seat" 
    I saw last month at a Diamond Back dealer when I was getting my
    daughter a bike;
    	It looked like a regular gel-type bike saddle that had mounts to 
    attach it to the toptube IN FRONT OF the rider and it had little foot
    rests the attached to the downtube (and folded up when not in use). It
    looked like the child would hold onto the handlebars, sit on the seat
    and rest his/her feet on the downtube (I can see it now "C'mon honey-
    PLEASE don't play with the shifters while daddy's going uphill!").
    	Actually it looked o.k. to take toddlers for short easy pleasure
    rides - better on a MTB or Hybrid. Better center of gravity than rear
    mounted seats. But much the same safety issues (little kids on bikes)
    as already brought up in this note.

    re. .33
    
    When you say "evidence" I imagine you mean a formal _study_(?).  I 
    don't know of one, but I think most participants in this conference 
    have been cycling long enough to know when a certain modification will
    make a bike unstable.
    
    However, if we are going to reduce the argument to absurdity by
    comparing deaths in autos to deaths on bikes, lets make it a valid
    comparison.  Mile for mile and minute for minute (child seat miles 
    are very low) autos probably _do_ have a substantially lower injury 
    rate than child seats.
    
    I do grasp your argument.  In the U.S., more kids are killed by swimming
    pools than hand guns.  I don't have one of either, but which issue is
    a greater lightning rod for opinions, pools or guns?  This shows that
    even a _study_ does not always drive the right behavior...
    
    
    Agreeing to disagree,
    
    r�
    
    

    Formal evidence would be nice. But since I haven't heard of *any*
    accidents involving child seats, I can't agree to a ban. Just because
    you can conjure up horrific pictures of kids flying through the air
    strapped onto bikes doesn't mean that there is a real risk. So far, the
    pro-ban noters in this discussion seem to be talking-up the risk using
    emotive pictures such as this, without any data (formal or informal) to
    back their arguments.

    Yes, the auto simile is absurd. But i.m.h.o. the case for banning child
    seats, as presented here, is equally absurd.

    Present a rational argument, and you might change my mind. Present
    imagined risks and you won't convince me.

    -Les.

    OK.  Here's an simple empirical test for those doubters of
    bicycle seat instability:
    
    1. Take any variety of bicycle and attach a rear rack.
    2. Upon this rack, attach a large coiled spring, approx. 4"/10cm
       in diameter, 24"/60cm long. (imagine one of those little statues 
       with springs for necks, and the head bobs when the statue is 
       disturbed)
    3. Upon this spring, attach a large fixed weight on the order
       of 20 - 50 pounds.  
    4. Now take this bicycle for a ride and report back on the change
       in handling characteristics.

    Well, since we've opened it up to whether anyone has ever heard
    of anything "bad" coming from it...
    
    My college sweetheart's mother rented a bike with a child seat
    in the Bahamas and took her kid brother for a ride in the child 
    seat.  She and her dad rode ahead.
    
    When they hadn't seen mom and for awhile, they turned back.  They
    found her lying in the middle of the rode, pinned under the bike
    with the kid on top of her.  He has a nice scar on his forhead from 
    the experience.
    
    Then of course, maybe the child seat had nothing to do with the 
    incident(?)
    
    r�
    

     Les, excuse me, but the argument you present doesn't hold air.
    
     You can't, for moment, reason out the consequences. You're "prove
     it" attitude is the exact reason why the legislators (here) don't
     normally react until there is great tragedy.
    
     Until an epidemic of death or severe disability arises, it's not
     a risk great enough to act upon. Sorry, no sale. History is full
     of these example and cemetaries of full of children and adults
     to "prove" it.
    
     Techincally, your comment about all the "ban advocates" taking a 
     position that they are dangerous is incorrect. Any object, in and
     by itself, isn't. When you add the human component you have trouble.
     Personally, I think they're the safest things around... When strapped
     to the refrigerator... :-)
    
       Chip
    
     

RE .37

Yes, they affect the handling of a bike. Yes, they may even make it more
unstable. But the human brain has a wonderful mechanism for compensating for
instability. If it didn't, we wouldn't be able to ride bicycles in the first
place.

Instability is not the issue. What is at issue is whether they cause accidents.
I haven't seen the evidence yet.

The incident reported in .38 happened to an inexperienced user. Maybe there's
reason to persuade users to practice with sacks of potatoes before going out
with a child. But I still think banning them is overkill.

-Les.

     I will state, again that the seats "causing" accidents IS NOT
     really the issue. There is a great escalation of risk or death
     from those things. This is regardless of cause. The seat actually
     playing a role (actually the child) only adds to the odds.
    
     The human brain cannot "compensate" for instability the human body's
     ability cannot overcome (either through strength or reaction time).
     Sorry again, nonsequitor...
    
         Chip

    RE:41

    Chip,
         without the statistics to show that there are many deaths caused
    by parents riding their kids in these seats, your position is nothing 
    more than an opinion. 

    Common sense must be used here. If your riding a child in one of these
    seats, you shouldn't be going over 30 miles per hour down mountain 
    terrain.

    Seems to me that the billion or so Chinese that ride their children in
    seats more primitive ours and don't have a problem, is proof enough that
    we don't need to ban them.

    Jim

     I think the position transcends opinion... (IMO).
    
     I can't present the actual statistics on Russian Roulette either, but
    I know it's a bad idea, not just an opinion...
    
     Chip

�     I can't present the actual statistics on Russian Roulette either, but
�    I know it's a bad idea, not just an opinion...

That's an easy one, Chip.  In Russian Roulette, the odds are 1 in 6 on any
pull of the trigger that you'll blow your brains out.  =8^o (Sorry, I
couldn't resist!)

But, seriously, I don't know about banning these things, but I will relate
a personal observation.  I went on a ride once and a woman had her child in
one of those child seats.  We stopped for a rest. and while we were talking,
the kid made a move and brought both of them down.  Luckily, I was in a good
position to catch the carrier so that the kid didn't hit the ground.  BTW,
neither of them was wearing a helmet, but, then that's another rathole...

-Patrick

    Hello Everybody,
    I don't even know how to comment on this one.  Absurd Maybe.
    My boy fell off his teeter-totter type swing the other day and had to
    go to the hospital (multiple bruises and abrasions, kids stuff). 
    We have logged many, many miles on a Sears Freespirit 12 speed, NO
    mishaps.  He is three years old and we have been riding together for
    two+ years now.  Josh has fallen out of his swings numerous times.
    Ban the swing set.
    
    From experience, if one uses one's head and stays at a leisurely pace,
    out of traffic (ie the park), off the downhills, uses another person to
    place and remove child from the seat there are no problems.
    
    Chip you mentioned that kids like to squarm and fuss after 5
    (hopefully)still minutes, you are right,but every time I see a child in a
    bike seat they seem to be tranquil.  I have yet to see a fussy kid in a
    bike seat.  I am SURE it happens though.
    
    Know if we want to put a ban(?????) on something make it trailers.
    I have heard numerous stories (my mom is a pediatric/icn[intesive care
    nursery]nurse).  There are people (I use the term lightly) killing
    infants and toddlers with these things.  Yes, parents trying to hit mach
    1 and jarring the he!! out of their kids.  I forgot what it's called
    but it is the same thing as picking a child up and shaking them. She
    was the one that vetoed the trailer and bought the bike seat for us
    when Josh and I started riding.  She has seen very few and only minor
    injuries with bike seats, compared with trailers and death.   

         I agree with chip that baby seats should be outlawed.  I will go
    even further is saying that any type of baby transport that does not
    have the baby physically attached to a parent should be outlawed.  If I
    had a kid and was involved in a bike crash I would want the kid hard
    attached to me because then I would have a good chance of using my body
    to absorb the collision with the ground or interaction with autos.
         The problem with most child carriers is that the kid is attached
    to carrier and will stay attached to it in the case of a crash.  The 
    child ends up flying off in one direction while the parent is flying 
    off in another, in my mind the results of such an event would be tragic.
    
      

    Interesting angle in .46  .  If I can lighten things up a bit,
    I'm sure we all know some cyclists that we wouldn't stoke for
    on a tandem, particularly if they made me wear a seatbelt! 
    
    There is something to that feeling that if things get hairy, 
    you can always bail out.  
    
    r� 

re: .46

So, when the car makes a turn in front of  you and you hit it and go flying
over the hood and start rolling, you crush the kid that is firmly attached
to your body.

I hope you don't put a kid on your lap and then belt the two of you in...

re: .0

It's all a matter of risk.  I think a person could do just fine with a child
seat in a quiet residential neighborhood.  On the other hand, I think a parent
is incredibly ignorant if they try that on a main road.

Ban. No.  Educate.  Yes.  And if necessary, there are child endangerment
laws if the parents insist on riding a bike down the interstate with a kid in
a child seat or trailer.

Bob

       > have the baby physically attached to a parent should be outlawed. If I
       > had a kid and was involved in a bike crash I would want the kid hard
       > attached to me because then I would have a good chance of using my body
       > to absorb the collision with the ground or interaction with autos.
    
    
    This is the same argument erroneously used to justify not putting a
    child in a seatbelt in an automobile. I've used a baby seat and it
    is relatively safe for babies less than 30 lbs, and if it is used 
    with common sense (no traffic, no climbing out of the saddle, etc). 
    Now that my child is more than 30lbs., I think that her weight 
    and activity level make a babyseat too dangerous. Thus, a baby seat
    has limited use and a trailer is a better long term investment. 
    (BTW, I imagine more children get hurt by little league baseball
    pitches every year than by child seats. Ban baseball... ban 
    bicycles, skateboards, monkey bars, hockey, football, trampolines,
    ants, bees, home cleaning chemicals and electrical sockets.)
    
    
    doug
     

    to .48
    
    Bob,
    
         I have had a car turn in front of me before and I flew off my bike
    violently.  Knowing the results of that encounter I stick by my
    original position, such an event is what determine that view in the 
    first place.
    
    to .49
    
    Doug,
    
         I realize that this is an emotional issue.  People's inputs are
    driven by all sorts of things, logic, experience, unwarranted fear,
    emotion.  I don't think that anyone has suggested banning anything in
    a case where the main victim will be somewhat aware of the risks,
    little leaguers and pop warners usually are not allowed to play until
    they are of a certain age, in the case of the other activities that you
    mentioned again the people participating have some awareness of the
    risks involved.  No one is asking that life be banned.
         The problem that I see is that parents using baby seats do not
    stay on quiet residential streets ( is there such a thing? ), I
    routinely see them on roads where the view is obstructed and the
    traffic is heavy and fast.  I used to think that having a child with
    you in a child seat or trailer was cute ( I guess that was another
    example of yuppie nonsense ), but after experience and after considering
    all the risks I do not feel that way anymore.
         Lastly, maybe my use of the word ban was a little heavy, maybe as
    some people suggested, the best thing would be to look into better
    designs and as you said, to educate people on the potential risks
    involved in cycling with children and what can be done to minimize
    those risks - each functioning adult must make his or her own judgement
    about how to live life, if I had a child I would not put him or her
    into any existing child carrier.  

    Maybe the issue looks a little different on this side of the pond...
    
    In Germany, transporting any person in any kind of trailor is
    prohibited by law. This law is so general that it applies for kids in
    bicycle trailors, too. In fact, since some trailors have been showing
    up in recent years (although very few, they are nearly 100% more
    expensive than in the US), the law usually has not been enforced 'when
    the trailor was explicitly designed for children transportation with
    seats and belts'.
    
    In Germany, roughly 1800 kids get killed each year in traffic. 900 of
    them get killed while riding in a car. If you really intend to protect
    kids, ban cars. This April, they introduced a new law here that
    requires kids to be seated in a special child seat in a car. No
    excuses! You can't just simply pick up your neighbor's kids from school
    if you don't have enough kid's seats in your car.
    
    Our two kids were both transported in bike seats as soon as they were
    able to sit - since both my wife and I love riding. And they liked it,
    too. For many people here in Germany, there is no other way  of
    affordable transportation. Sometimes we even have 2 seats on one bike.
    Not recommended, but works okay if the bike is stable and you know what
    you are doing. My wife only once had a mishap where the bike fell -
    with our son in the seat. Since the seat is very high and protected the
    arms, legs and everything, he didn't even get any bruises. I'd
    recommend a _GOOD_QUALITY_AND_THOROUGHLY_TESTED_ bike seat any time.
    
    And yes, do something for education. From my experience of biking in
    the US, educate the car (and truck!) drivers first!

    And yes, wear your helmets. Parents, show your kids that you wear a
    helmet on any ride, no matter how short the trip is.
    
    Just mho,
    
    Hartmut

Interesting given the accidents that normally get reported in this notes 
file that no one has reported this type of accident.  

But at any rate, I've used bike seats and trailers with my last two 
children. Given reasonable cycling (i.e. low traffic roads and reasonable 
speeds) I have never found them dangerous.  In fact I believe the bike seat 
is actually safier.  It isn't any wider than the bike so it does not 
present a larger target for a passing car and the cyclist can ride normally 
as opposed to a trailer which steers like a truck.

    
    	    re: 50
    
        This is not an emotional issue. It is a legal political issue.
        I picked the things that I picked (little league baseball,
        bicycles, monkey bars, household chemicals and electric sockets)
        precisely BECAUSE children get injured by them on a regular basis,
        but have no way of judging for themselves the danger of these things.
        It is exactly the same arguement as saying that baby seats should be
        banned because children are not aware of the danger in them.  There
        are many such dangers to children in life that they are not aware 
        of...  should we ban them all? Sharp corners on the furniture and the
        boiling water on the stove are a more real threat to children than 
        injury in a baby seat.  Would we ban sharp funiture corners and 
        mandate cooking on the back burner only in addition to banning child
        carriers on bicycles?  Should we attempt to legislate common sense?
        This is a political/legal issue, much like helmet and seatbelt laws. 
        The difference in those cases is that there is REAL EVIDENCE that 
        helmet and seatbelt laws save lives, and the number of lives can be 
        somewhat quantified.   
    
        doug
    
        
    

    
    I agree with Les and the last two replies. It's all a question of
    degree of risk. You mean you're completely happy to strap your children
    into a tin cage, surrounded by glass and highly imflammable fuel, and
    drive around at high speeds only feet away from other similar tin
    boxes? Give me the (responsibly used) bike seat any time...
    
    Trevor

         It appears that everyone has devided into two camps pretty much. 
    The first camp would like to see bike seats and carriers either built
    safer or off the road.  The second camp, which seems to consist mostly
    of parents feels that riding with bike seats and/or trailers pose no
    unusual risk to a child's safety.  I still side with the first camp but
    realize that the riding parents more than likely put a lot of thought
    into the decisions that they have made.
         One a final note for me a saw two things this weekend that was
    encouraging.  The first involved parents riding with a child, all were
    helmeted.  The key thing that I noticed was that the parent ( the
    mother in this case ) without the child was riding a few feet behind 
    and slightly to the left, this created a perfect early warning signal
    to motorists approaching from behind and left the child in a rolling
    enclosure.  The father seem to have been riding a touring bike, I only
    wished that he had used a mountain bike with well tractioned but smooth
    tires.  The other thing that was pleasing to see this weekend was that
    police departments and state legislators are beginning to recognize the
    importance of bike helmets and the US Congress may soon mandate
    standards for bike helmets ( if this is done right it can only be a
    good thing ).  I read about the last item in this Sunday's Boston
    Globe, the article contained a couple of good testimonials form
    policemen who had responded to bike/car accidents.  No one in the
    article mentioned banning bikes from the road, they only talked about 
    making cycling safer ( and, I think as a result, more fun ).
        

>    importance of bike helmets and the US Congress may soon mandate
>    standards for bike helmets ( if this is done right it can only be a

No!  Keep the government out of it, unless you can show me where the Snell
standard has some gaping holes.

Bob

> I think the reason we haven't seen any grim statistics about these seats is that
> the people who do use them tend to be more of the casual cyclists and do 
> fairly short rides on quiet roads. Their opportunity for disaster is greatly
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> reduced compared to the types of roads & distances that are ridden by most of 
> the people reading this note.

   I don't think I'll bother wading thru the rest of this thread, but
   do want to mention that I saw someone with his child in a seat, cycling
   down the side of *Storrow Drive* a few years ago.

   Rather astonishing sight!

   - Jim

	"She was spiked in the head with a lawn dart
	 Now they're not on the shelves at the K-Mart"

	- heard on WFNX

     Okay, I give up. It was my original intention just to sit an dread the
    fireworks, but I had to stick my nose into the fray. Now I'm pulling it
    out, after...
    
     My support for legalizing the following:
    
                - bicycle child seats
                - drunk driving
                - all chemicals
                - muscle cars (unladen with anti-pollution junk)
                - no drinking age
                - everyone can carry a concealed firearm
                - no driver's license required
                - layoff all policemen and firemen 
                - school is voluntary
                - taxes are voluntary (payment of, naturally)
                - no speed limits
                - dissolve all insurance companies
     
     :-)       :-)      :-)      :-)     :-)     :-)     :-)     :-)
    
      Have fun kids...
    

    RE:58

    Did you in a crash without your helmet on this week-end ?

    Jim