3 ms·

Sorry, yes meant to say young kids. Though I suppose that doesn't matter, there are ways to carry, cart them around.

throwaway894345 3y ago
The fatality rate for cycling in an urban area is much higher than that of driving. I’m not sure I’d be comfortable with a young child on a bike.
- agentgumshoe 3y ago
  Not for the authors of the article, they have moral righteousness on their side!
- avianlyric 3y ago
  Perhaps in the US but London has increasingly fantastic dedicated cycle infrastructure. Removing the need for bike to ever directly interact with cars on many journeys. Also urban fatalities of people on bikes is driven almost entirely by people driving cars. In what world do we look at the problem of cars killing people on bikes and go “well obviously the bikes are the problem”. All the stats in this area clearly indicate that drivers are far more often at fault in these collisions than those on bikes. Same again goes for pedestrians, cars kill pedestrians regardless of how careful pedestrians are.
  - throwaway894345 3y ago
    In the UK, there were 1300% more cycling fatalities than car fatalities in 2021 per the UK government[0], and this isn't controlling for differences in the kinds of miles traveled--most car fatalities happen on highways outside of the city, but these aren't the kind of miles that cyclists are doing; cycling primarily happens on slower city streets; if we account for these differences, the safety gap (with respect to occupants) grows even more considerably in favor of car transit. > Also urban fatalities of people on bikes is driven almost entirely by people driving cars. In what world do we look at the problem of cars killing people on bikes and go “well obviously the bikes are the problem”. All the stats in this area clearly indicate that drivers are far more often at fault in these collisions than those on bikes. Same again goes for pedestrians, cars kill pedestrians regardless of how careful pedestrians are. No one is making this argument. We’re debating what mode of transit is safest for one’s children, not in what way we should remake society. [0]: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-road-user-risk-2021/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-road-user-risk-2021-data https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casua...
    - avianlyric 3y ago
      And yet despite that, if you live in any major city and cycle to work, your life expectancy is higher that if you drive, even if including the higher risk of a fatal collision on the road. Transit shouldn’t be an arms race, we should be working towards making transit safe regardless of the mode of transport, not putting everyone in armoured boxes. > No one is making this argument. We’re debating what mode of transit is safest for one’s children, not in what way we should remake society. No, we’re discussing the validity of car free living and its value. Bring the argument that riding a bike is dangerous for children means we should put every child in car is a silly and intellectually dishonest argument. Just like the argument that the solution to “bad guys with guns” is more “good guys with guns”, when the answer is clearly fewer guns. The same applies to cars, the answer to children being killed by drivers isn’t “more cars for kids” it’s fewer cars and safer roads.
      - throwaway894345 3y ago
        > And yet despite that, if you live in any major city and cycle to work, your life expectancy is higher that if you drive, even if including the higher risk of a fatal collision on the road. Probably not causal as you're suggesting. It's probably something like "if you have the money to live near your workplace, you can probably afford great healthcare, a gym membership, great healthy food options, and other things that cause one to live longer". > Transit shouldn’t be an arms race, we should be working towards making transit safe regardless of the mode of transport, not putting everyone in armoured boxes. This is a straw man. I'm not advocating an arms race or "putting everyone in armoured boxes", I'm saying that a rational decision for individuals who prize their children's safety is to not allow them to cycle as a primary form of transit. > No, we’re discussing the validity of car free living and its value. Bring the argument that riding a bike is dangerous for children means we should put every child in car is a silly and intellectually dishonest argument. Just like the argument that the solution to “bad guys with guns” is more “good guys with guns”, when the answer is clearly fewer guns. The same applies to cars, the answer to children being killed by drivers isn’t “more cars for kids” it’s fewer cars and safer roads. Respectfully, I think you're mistaken, the comment you responded to was "I’m not sure I’d be comfortable with a young child on a bike." This is clearly not a "how should we retailor society?" claim, it's a "in our existing society, what is safest for my kid?" claim. If you manifest a society in which cycling is comparably safe to driving, I'll send my kid to school by bike.
- zo1 3y ago
  I feel like we're over-optimizing in some way. Like we're set down this odd path that only leads to more "products" and more "safety" and more of our value as humans being captured by companies and people "other" than ourselves or families. To this example, we're talking about saving money by not having a car and then the consequences of having a young child, and the dangers thereof, etc. Before we started down this path, we had none of those things, and children were perfectly "safe" staying at home and being home-schooled by individuals in the house. What's next, weighing the cost of a private tutor coming to your house because school is too expensive, transportation to school is too expensive, and the whole thing is too dangerous for them? /rant

The fatality rate for cycling in an urban area is much higher than that of driving. I’m not sure I’d be comfortable with a young child on a bike.

agentgumshoe 3y ago
Not for the authors of the article, they have moral righteousness on their side!
avianlyric 3y ago
Perhaps in the US but London has increasingly fantastic dedicated cycle infrastructure. Removing the need for bike to ever directly interact with cars on many journeys. Also urban fatalities of people on bikes is driven almost entirely by people driving cars. In what world do we look at the problem of cars killing people on bikes and go “well obviously the bikes are the problem”. All the stats in this area clearly indicate that drivers are far more often at fault in these collisions than those on bikes. Same again goes for pedestrians, cars kill pedestrians regardless of how careful pedestrians are.
- throwaway894345 3y ago
  In the UK, there were 1300% more cycling fatalities than car fatalities in 2021 per the UK government[0], and this isn't controlling for differences in the kinds of miles traveled--most car fatalities happen on highways outside of the city, but these aren't the kind of miles that cyclists are doing; cycling primarily happens on slower city streets; if we account for these differences, the safety gap (with respect to occupants) grows even more considerably in favor of car transit. > Also urban fatalities of people on bikes is driven almost entirely by people driving cars. In what world do we look at the problem of cars killing people on bikes and go “well obviously the bikes are the problem”. All the stats in this area clearly indicate that drivers are far more often at fault in these collisions than those on bikes. Same again goes for pedestrians, cars kill pedestrians regardless of how careful pedestrians are. No one is making this argument. We’re debating what mode of transit is safest for one’s children, not in what way we should remake society. [0]: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-road-user-risk-2021/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-road-user-risk-2021-data https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casua...
  - avianlyric 3y ago
    And yet despite that, if you live in any major city and cycle to work, your life expectancy is higher that if you drive, even if including the higher risk of a fatal collision on the road. Transit shouldn’t be an arms race, we should be working towards making transit safe regardless of the mode of transport, not putting everyone in armoured boxes. > No one is making this argument. We’re debating what mode of transit is safest for one’s children, not in what way we should remake society. No, we’re discussing the validity of car free living and its value. Bring the argument that riding a bike is dangerous for children means we should put every child in car is a silly and intellectually dishonest argument. Just like the argument that the solution to “bad guys with guns” is more “good guys with guns”, when the answer is clearly fewer guns. The same applies to cars, the answer to children being killed by drivers isn’t “more cars for kids” it’s fewer cars and safer roads.
    - throwaway894345 3y ago
      > And yet despite that, if you live in any major city and cycle to work, your life expectancy is higher that if you drive, even if including the higher risk of a fatal collision on the road. Probably not causal as you're suggesting. It's probably something like "if you have the money to live near your workplace, you can probably afford great healthcare, a gym membership, great healthy food options, and other things that cause one to live longer". > Transit shouldn’t be an arms race, we should be working towards making transit safe regardless of the mode of transport, not putting everyone in armoured boxes. This is a straw man. I'm not advocating an arms race or "putting everyone in armoured boxes", I'm saying that a rational decision for individuals who prize their children's safety is to not allow them to cycle as a primary form of transit. > No, we’re discussing the validity of car free living and its value. Bring the argument that riding a bike is dangerous for children means we should put every child in car is a silly and intellectually dishonest argument. Just like the argument that the solution to “bad guys with guns” is more “good guys with guns”, when the answer is clearly fewer guns. The same applies to cars, the answer to children being killed by drivers isn’t “more cars for kids” it’s fewer cars and safer roads. Respectfully, I think you're mistaken, the comment you responded to was "I’m not sure I’d be comfortable with a young child on a bike." This is clearly not a "how should we retailor society?" claim, it's a "in our existing society, what is safest for my kid?" claim. If you manifest a society in which cycling is comparably safe to driving, I'll send my kid to school by bike.
zo1 3y ago
I feel like we're over-optimizing in some way. Like we're set down this odd path that only leads to more "products" and more "safety" and more of our value as humans being captured by companies and people "other" than ourselves or families. To this example, we're talking about saving money by not having a car and then the consequences of having a young child, and the dangers thereof, etc. Before we started down this path, we had none of those things, and children were perfectly "safe" staying at home and being home-schooled by individuals in the house. What's next, weighing the cost of a private tutor coming to your house because school is too expensive, transportation to school is too expensive, and the whole thing is too dangerous for them? /rant