Do you let your children cycle on the road?

craker

I think Mrs C is being overprotective of the 13yo daughter who is wanting to explore our locale by bike (great!).

The B road in front of our house is quite fast and the suggestion is that daughter is welcome to ride elsewhere but not on the fast road.

My view is that she can have hi-vis and a tail light and cycle where she likes. It's quite a popular route with local weekend groups and I'm not sure it's valid to suggest a minor road is safer than the b-road. I cycle 5000 miles + a year in all weathers, cycled on A roads when I was daughter's age so to consider road cycling risky is missing the point.

I just wish there were more children cycling out there, it would slow the roads down and empower other children to get out of their parents' cars.

lettingthedaysgoby

How competent on a bike is she? Has she had any road training etc?

Maybe you go for a few rides together first, then maybe Mrs C wouldn’t worry so much?

willnewtonclare

My 2 have ridden to school through our town via road, pavement, tracks since youngest was 5. It all depends on their confidence, ability + traffic. Don't forget they won't go from being our babies to adults in one go! Have fun

Mike11

It takes 10 or even 12 years to let your child ride alone. In fact, before the age of 12, budding cyclists struggle to cope with complex traffic and quickly make the decisions necessary to guarantee their safety. Without considering that children have a different perception of the danger because their angle of vision is reduced by 30% compared to that of adults.

craker

Mike11 wrote:

Without considering that children have a different perception of the danger because their angle of vision is reduced by 30% compared to that of adults.

Where does that 'fact' come from then?

cooldad

Must be true. I just read it on the internet.

viewtopic.php?f=40032&t=13100060&p=20451816#p20451816

figbat

craker wrote:

Mike11 wrote:

Without considering that children have a different perception of the danger because their angle of vision is reduced by 30% compared to that of adults.

Where does that 'fact' come from then?

According to this paper it is essentially a case of one bad source being propagated as fact.

The following report is a case study example of how problematic information can invade and percolate through the literature on forensic human factors and ergonomics. Initially, a highly doubtful assertion was used to bolster an argument made in a legal case of wrongful death. The assertion was supported through reference to a number of cited works. When the trail of evidence was pursued, however, it became clear that diverse citations had all branched from one, single, original and doubtful source. The fundamental issue, whether children have one third less peripheral vision than adults turns out to be much more complex than the original, simplistic spatial conception suggested. The case study illustrates the importance of ascertaining original citations and is yet another example of the frustration that often accompanies forensic activity where financial and legal concerns frequently over-ride the fundamental search for knowledge.