Traffic

RainyDay

DublinWriter wrote:

I, for one, *would never* put any toddler of mine on the back of my bike. You could be the most competant and safest cyclist in the world, but God forbid, you and yours would be toast if anything happened.

You could say the same about a car, or a plane or a train or the LUAS or a bike. No form of transport is 100% safe. Have you any data that shows kids on backs of parents bikes are more at risk than those in a car?

I'd hazard a guess that the father/toddler on the bike (both wearing hi-vis clothing and cycle helmets) were a lot safer than many of those kids I frequently see bouncing round unrestrained in the backs of cars, or better still, standing up in what the paramedics call 'the launch position' [standing up in the back between the two front seats]. And don't even get me started on those parents who will smoke in the front seat while the car ventilation blows the smoke straight back into their kids lungs.

DublinWriter

RainyDay wrote:

You could say the same about a car, or a plane or a train or the LUAS or a bike.

Nope. You can't seriouslly suggest that a kid is equally at risk being on the back of a bike as he or she would be when properly restrained in the back of a car?

RainyDay wrote:

No form of transport is 100% safe. Have you any data that shows kids on backs of parents bikes are more at risk than those in a car?

All things being equal I think common sense would tell you that kid in a 4-wheeled metal box would stand a better chance in an accident situation than kid on a 2-wheeled metal frame

RainyDay wrote:

And don't even get me started on those parents who will smoke in the front seat while the car ventilation blows the smoke straight back into their kids lungs.

Why does smoking have to come into every thread? Yes, yes, yes, we're all worse than Hitler, etc....

RainyDay

RainyDay wrote:

And don't even get me started on those parents who will smoke in the front seat while the car ventilation blows the smoke straight back into their kids lungs.

Hey, it's the parents car. If the kid don't like it, take a hike sonny...

murphaph

DublinWriter wrote:

All things being equal I think common sense would tell you that kid in a 4-wheeled metal box would stand a better chance in an accident situation than kid on a 2-wheeled metal frame

But all things are not equal. The metal box is designed to travel at speeds of 120km/h or more and must be driven on the road with other metal boxes also travelling at those speeds-speeds that can often result in fatal injury even when cocooned in the box. The bike might do 20km/h and can be used on cycle lanes and indeed footpaths (I know I'd cycle on the path if I had my child on the bike and there was no cycle track). Even if the bike falls over, the child is unlikely to be seriously hurt-the only place a child on a bike is at more risk than a child in a car is when struck by a vehicle IMO, and that risk is present for children when they are pedestrians anyway!

DublinWriter

murphaph wrote:

The bike might do 20km/h and can be used on cycle lanes and indeed footpaths (I know I'd cycle on the path if I had my child on the bike and there was no cycle track).

Cycle lanes in Dublin are little more than coloured stripes painted on the side of the road. Are you seriously suggesting that they offer additional protection for cyclists?

...and cycling on the footpath is illegal!

murphaph

DublinWriter wrote:

Cycle lanes in Dublin are little more than coloured stripes painted on the side of the road. Are you seriously suggesting that they offer additional protection for cyclists?

A cycle lane does offer additional protection to a cyclist than just cycling on the unmarked road. I have both cycle lanes and tracks in my area and I feel quite safe on both, however tracks are obviously a safer bet, excepting dozy pedestrians who wander on to them which means I use the road/bus lane on those ones more often than not). Motorists are pretty observant of the cycle lanes in my area, I'm sure it's not universal though.

DublinWriter wrote:

...and cycling on the footpath is illegal!

Ah, so is doing 51km/h in a 50 zone but it happens and if I had a child on the back of the bike, I would use the footpath if I deemed it safer, illegal as it may be.

Nobody can prove how safe or unsafe it is because we won't be able to get accurate figure for it, I just think it's as safe as many other modes of transport and is incredibly common elsewhere. Certainly, particular parts of Dublin will not lend themselves to it-but it's not a black & white "car good-bike bad" type of scenario, that's all I'm saying.

RainyDay

Deleted User wrote:

Hey, it's the parents car. If the kid don't like it, take a hike sonny...

Let's hope you don't have any children. In fact, let's hope you never have any children.

DublinWriter wrote:

Nope. You can't seriouslly suggest that a kid is equally at risk being on the back of a bike as he or she would be when properly restrained in the back of a car?

All things being equal I think common sense would tell you that kid in a 4-wheeled metal box would stand a better chance in an accident situation than kid on a 2-wheeled metal frame

You're not looking at the big picture. Yes, of course it makes sense that a kid on a bike may well suffer worse injuries than in a car for the same kind of accident. But you need to also look at the probability of being in accident.

Calina

murphaph wrote:

if I had a child on the back of the bike, I would use the footpath if I deemed it safer, illegal as it may be.

just on that point - safer for whom? I walked to work a fair bit during the summer and was nearly run over by several cyclists cycling on the footpath.

BuffyBot

Let's hope you don't have any children. In fact, let's hope you never have any children.

You may want to switch the sarcasm detectors on.

murphaph

Culchie wrote:

it's hardly addressing the issues is it?

It's a start. I posted it as it might actually be faster than driving, just a suggestion. Sure, it would be nice if public transport was much better, but right now, today-it is how it is and it takes you up to 2 hrs to drive to work, so I was trying to help you out, today.

Culchie wrote:

Walk 30 mins (rather than 7 mins) to train station, as new housng estate blocked off old footpath to station and went to court to prevent throughfare their new estate.

I live in Cherryfield so I'm very familiar with what you're talking about, I'm guessing you are referring to Mount Symon or Portersgate estates who didn't want us riff-raff from the more established parts of Clonsilla to walk a footpath that we've used for years. You must live near Stonebridge/Willow Wood??? When the Ongar Distributor Road opens you'll be able to cross from Stonebridge & Willow Wood to the new link road that currently only serves Mount Symon from the Clonsilla Road. It will take me no more than 10 mins when this happens as opposed to the current 25mins round by St Joseph's Hospital to reach Clonsilla Station. I Can't wait-and good old Roadbridge are ahead of schedule again!

Culchie wrote:

Have you ever counted the amount of available seats on a carraige

I'm sorry-you can't expect a seat on a commuter train anywhere in the world. People stand everywhere, often for a lot longer than 30mins too.

Culchie wrote:

I want to go to work ffs, get out of bed, travel 15 or 16 miles down a motorway that has been 20 tears in construction, and we're supposed to be 1st or 2nd richest country in the world, and I don't want it to take me 2 hours each way to do so... is that unreasonable?

With all due respect, yes it is. If everyone who currently uses Dublin Bus (half a million journeys a day!) and DART (100,000 journeys a day) and Luas and walking etc. decided the same as you-to take to the car, the city would collapse completely.