Cycling UK Forum

Another big concern I have is the use of bike trailer buggies (adult bikes with an attached trailer where a child sits). While I accept they can be fun for a family day out in the right location, somewhere like a country park or round Arthur's Seat, I don't feel they can be entirely safe when used on a busy city street. It's not always the case, but often neither the child nor the adult is wearing a crash helmet, but what upsets me more is the height the child sits at. The height of these trailer buggies mean that the child is sitting at the same height as a car exhaust allowing the child to inhale toxic fumes. Whilst the adult may be an experienced bike rider you can never predict what other road users may do. My fear is that a driver may not see the bike and a child could be seriously or fatally injured. I'm sure you will agree that our city roads are in a terrible condition with large potholes, not to mention all the road works going on. This makes the roads more hazardous and a greater danger than ever to everyone who uses them. Please take care and think before using these bike trailer buggies on our busy dangerous roads.

reohn2 wrote:I once remember having a conversation with a feminist friend who said it she thought ,in the light of a recent murder and sexual assault of local 17year old girl,that any female should be able to walk the streets naked without risk of attack.
I argued that in a perfect world that should indeed be the case but in the world in which we live it wouldn't be possible and until the world was perfect I'd recomend any female to keep her clothes on.

downfader wrote:Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I thought those trailers (not the one that the kid pedals on but the passive yellow ones) had a full cage frame to protect the kid from most gentle knocks?

If a driver can spot a speed camera painted yellow at the last minutes notice and hammer on their brakes (causing concern to other road users behind), then they can spot a buggy! If they cant then they aint looking properly and should retire from road use.

Kirst wrote:
Of course, it's considered radical feminism to suggest that women should be able to go out in anything less than full burqa because those pesky men just can't help themselves.

Kirst wrote:Of course, it's considered radical feminism to suggest that women should be able to go out in anything less than full burqa because those pesky men just can't help themselves.

Kirst wrote:Of course, it's considered radical feminism to suggest that women should be able to go out in anything less than full burqa because those pesky men just can't help themselves.

Leaders of South Williamsburg's Hasidic community said yesterday that bike lanes that bring scantily clad cyclists - especially sexy women - peddling through their neighborhood are definitely not kosher.

The red-faced religious sect is calling on city officials to eliminate the car-free lanes on Wythe and Bedford avenues, and to delay construction of a new one planned for Kent Avenue.

"I have to admit, it's a major issue, women passing through here in that dress code," Simon Weisser, a member of Community Board 1 in Williamsburg-Greenpoint, told The Post.

"It bothers me, and it bothers a lot of people."

The existing, one-way lanes are popular with North Williamsburg hipsters - many who ride in shorts or skirts.

The temporary lane planned for Kent Avenue would be a precursor to a 14-mile greenway stretching from Newtown Creek in Greenpoint to Sunset Park.

Hasids are forbidden from looking at members of the opposite sex who aren't fully dressed, said local activist Isaac Abraham.

The UK casualty rates (per hour of travel) for cyclists and car occupants is about the same

There are, however, insurance underwriters who make objective assessments of risks. Last year, for the first time. the AZT (the technical research center for Allianz, a large German insurer) took the trouble to compare the potential danger of trailers and traditional child bicycle seats for their small passengers. The results of twenty seven crash tests give a clear message: children are safer in trailers than in the bike seat. When AZT chief Dr. Dieter Anselm gave the results on 21 March 1996 in Munich, he described them as "surprisingly positive" - the AZT had approached the set of tests with a certain amount of reservation.

Subjectively, children in a trailer look particularly vulnerable, placed at the height of cars' bumpers. But it is precisely this that can save life in the event of a collision: the car pushes the trailer completely out of its path, while the cyclist, "high on a horse", is catapulted first onto the car and then into the road. The transport of children near the handlebars is particularly dangerous; with those in rear-mounted child seats fairing better in head-on collisions. The trailer does not tip over as readily as the bike - and when it does, the height of the fall and the potential for injury are clearly lower. With child seats serious accidents can take place when the bike is being loaded - whereas a trailer with a axle coupling remains unaffected should the towing bike fall over.

The AZT stresses the importance of stable trailer construction with full seat belts and the use of helmets, to prevent the children coming into contact with the bumpers.

eltonioni wrote:A quick google doesn't come up with anything at all for trailer accidents but it did find a reference to a German study that apparently found that kiddies in trailers were safer than kiddies in kiddie seats. It doesn't feel right but it's hard to argue with an insurance company's crash test.