Friday, 31 August 2012

A Current Affair and cycling with kids


This Australian current affairs shown ran this piece recently. Some random came across a lady on a bike, towing a kid in a trailer. They were so horrified, so they said, that they filmed them and kept calling to them out the window about how dangerous it was. I've seen the footage. No doubt it's out there for anyone who cares to search for it.

This has got a bit of attention recently, at least in the cycling corners of teh internets. The general reaction is along the lines of, "What are these people on about?". My reaction is one of disappointment. I've seen this attitude to cycling with kids, contended with this attitude and I think it could do with some discussion. What ACA ran was sensationalist, one-sided and unhelpful.

Let me start with a disclaimer. I've done similar things. I've ridden with kids in a bike trailer, in traffic, for some value of "traffic". So, insofar as the lady in the clip is irresponsible or stupid or whatever, I guess I am too. As far as I know, no randoms in passing cars have been moved to film me and make it into some sort of cautionary tale, but I don't see any real distinction between what she does and what I do. I don't think what I do is irresponsible or stupid. I understand it might seem that way, but I contend that the risks are overstated and the rewards greater than you might at first imagine.

I'm happy to stipulate that a child is better off in a car than a bike trailer when a car collides. Hey, I'll go further and say *much* better off. That part is certainly true. So I'm exposing my kids to some degree of risk.

Here follows the bit where I justify my knowingly exposing my kids to risk. This argument has several strands.

One, I don't see it as my role as a parent to aggressively eliminate every last risk from my kids' lives. I'd go mad trying. I do not think it's a desirable end, either. Most anything worth bothering with has risks. You look at the risk and you look at the reward.

Two, I think ACA overstates the risk. What I saw actually looked like pretty switched-on cycling. She was positioning herself on the road in such a way that she was easy to spot. This is a big help when cycling in traffic. It's unintuitive, so people tend to get irate, or indignant or whatever. But old mate the "road-safety expert" is right on the money when he says you have to be seen. Cyclists riding down the middle of the road are, believe it or not, easy to spot. So what might look daft (you might get run over!) is actually quite sensible. The risks of riding in heavy traffic are overstated too. The speed difference is lower. That's a big help. I've ridden in Sydney traffic and I didn't find it particularly sinister. That traffic didn't look particularly scary to me.

Three, I think there are risks to not doing it. For one thing, there's an obesity epidemic on. I gather ACA has been most insistent on this point. So avoiding a sedentary lifestyle seems like a bright idea to me. Oh, they start out in a trailer, but shortly after they can walk they've graduated to pushbikes and before you know it they're on bikes and scooters and generally getting exercise. I think that the message that it's respectable and practicable to walk or ride rather than drive is an important one.

Four, they enjoy it, or so they say. Their actions kind of reinforce it too. I guess this comes back to that risk/reward thing. They interact with their environment - exchange greetings with passersby, point out this and that, whatever. That's a good thing, and harder to do in a car.

I also think that their concerns don't make we want to get kid trailers off the road. They make me want to lower speed limits in built-up areas and improve driving standards (including attitudes to cyclists). Better cycling infrastructure wouldn't go astray either.

But, yeah, there's a risk. I'd be a fool to say otherwise. I don't think taking it makes us bad people, though. For one thing, anyone who transports their kid in anything but the very safest car, in the very safest seat required by law, is also taking an unnecessary risk. Taking kids to the park is risky too, and completely unneccessary. I'm sure that ACA (and quite a few of their viewers) regard cycling with a child trailer in Sydney traffic as a risk they wouldn't take. I respect that. It's quite a jump, though, from "something I wouldn't personally do" to "something so pointlessly risky that no reasonable person would do it". I've got a hard time seeing how you can make that contention without a highly exaggerated idea of the risks and absolutely no understanding of the motivation.

Wednesday, 25 July 2012

Gearing

Gearing and kids' bikes has been on my mind lately. Our eldest has had a 16" for a while and I've noticed her struggling slightly on uphills. Lower gears are the way to go. It turns out that changing the sprocket on the coaster brake hubs that are on most kids' bikes is easy peasy. No special tools are needed, nor any particular skill (I'm living proof!), Sheldon Brown describes the process much better than me. The hardest part was finding a sprocket. I scavenged one, but they're cheap as chips on eBay or whatever. It works better, so she tells me, and she goes up hills a bit better, to my eye.

I put on a 19T sprocket, replacing an 18T. Not a massive difference, but I wasn't aiming for one. I'm debating doing the opposite for our son; he's undergeared, to my eye.

Rather predictably, bike racers get all bug-eyed about this stuff. The ones who race single-speed bikes (like trackies or BMX racers) do anyway. I reckon it's worth a look for casual cycling as well.


Monday, 25 June 2012

Pushbikes

We got the kids pushbikes. Somewhere around age 2 with the middle child, 3 with the eldest.
Oh, by "pushbike", I mean "bike with no pedals". Here in .au "pushbike" often means "pedal cycle" and has faintly condescending overtones. I'm not using it in that sense.

They work pretty well. They're a pretty popular toy (watching a 2yo grab a bike and shoulder it cyclocross-fashion is just priceless too) and really help with balance and steering. As advertised, the transition to pedals is fairly straighforward. Pedalling, you have to deal with that another way. We've gone for bike with training wheels. You prat around a bit with taking pedals off and lowering the saddle and whatnot when you ditch the trainers (which are only good for learning to pedal IMO), but it's doable.

One area where pushbikes win out over pedal cycles with training wheels is in riding over rough terrain, particularly if the pedal cycle has training wheels. Watching a 2yo head for the swampiest patch of ground in sight is also priceless. I think we've got us a cyclocross racer in the making.

The limiting factor, we've found, is saddle height. There's a big difference between different brands. Wierdly, it doesn't seem to be a selling point. Netti make pushbikes in two sizes (the pink one is smaller), but nobody seems to know about it, let alone make an issue of it to consumers.

We've got a Netti (the pink one), featuring wood frame and 12" (I think) pneumatic tyres, no brakes and plastic wheels. We've also got a WeeRide, with a front handbrake (unused, AFAIK), metal frame and 10" solid tyres. I haven't noticed any dramatic solid/pneumatic difference.

Wednesday, 22 February 2012

An adventure?

Where I live, taking your kids to school/kindergarten/daycare on a bike is somewhat unusual, so it invites a few comments. Nothing nasty, just ranging from positive to curious to uncomprehending (like people not realising that it's just like riding a bike. Really!). Anyway, one of the comments I heard, second-hand, was that it was like an adventure for the kids.

This was a really interesting comment, I thought. On one level, it doesn't make a lot of sense; it's no more adventurous than getting there in a car or on foot or whatever. You start at point A and get to point B in the exact same way. It's not adventurous in the same way that going somewhere new is - maybe you know where point B is, but you haven't necessarily been there. That kind of adventurous is something I'd like to try with kids one day. Probably not with a one-year-old, though.

On another level, this comment makes a lot of sense; you interact with your environment a lot more. The kids are forever creating wobbles as they point out this fascinating thing or that. It's even rained on us once or twice. Hey, we live in the subtropics; getting rained on in summer is no drama at all. There's a bit more scope for interesting stuff (particularly as toddlers view these things) on the back of a bike that in a car.

It was an interesting comment because, as I've pointed out before, cycling to wherever seems to get their day off to a better start than driving. I guess I never gave too much though to why. I filed it under "things both the kids and I like" and made a point of doing it when possible. Now that I think about it, it being an adventure is a fairly convincing explanation. A recurring theme in childrens' literature is how things that are mundane to adults absolutely fascinate children (one of the things that's great about having kids, for mine). Why should a short ride through suburban streets be any different?