[sustran] Re: [LotsLessCars] Will you let your children cycle to school ? I won't

[Chris Bradshaw]

Todd,

Sorry I didn't notice this as a personal message sooner.

> WALKING is better than cycling in general, no matter what the distance.

I agree, and I hope my response -- which was about cycling -- suggested 
anything else.  I have been a walking advocate for over 25 years, and even 
debated a cyclist on the relative merits of the two modes on a radio show 15 
years ago.

> I have some other comments on your response, starting in CAPS:
>
> Chris Bradshaw wrote:
>> First, cycling without an adult is not recommended by cyclist-trainers
>> before the age of 10, and then only on residential streets.
. . .
> IN a car city, arterials can have fully separated bike paths.
These I am not a fan of.  I favour segregating by speed, as in my CURBBBB 
proposal.

> IN a carfree city or quarter (i.e. an area encompassing both the home and 
> school of the child, a child could ride anywhere (though arterials might 
> haver surface public transport), and possibly even at a younger age, 
> especially if accompanies by older children or older children-at-heart 
> (i.e. adults), or there could even be a coloured line or signs with some 
> familiar animal to guide them.

Obviously, in a car-FREE city, cycling becomes less dangerous and simpler. 
My personal vision is for a PRIVATE-car-OWNERSHIP-free city, in which cars 
are available only via collective fleets, and individuals don't NEED or WANT 
to have their own, thus saving huge amounts of road and parking space, 
reducing vehicle size, and allowing for a new, more comprehensive regime of 
enforcing civil road behaviour by drivers.

>> Second, such children need a cycling course first.
>>
> I AGREE some kind of course is useful even in a carfree area, but not as 
> necessary. It is more about bike control, than defensive driving. There 
> are of course pedestrians, animals, people playing in the street, children 
> sitting on the street, children lying in the street for no reason at all, 
> cycle rickshaws as mobile sales points for ice cream causing riots, and so 
> on.

I would think that a city of bicycles would still require defensive driving 
(riding), as cyclists don't conform as much to the formalities that highway 
traffic legislation -- and the physics of car-driving -- impose.  I have not 
travelled to a more bike-dominant part of the world, but I have never seen 
children pictured with adults moving along in heavy city traffic.

>> Unfortunately, children are provided bikes long before their 10th 
>> birthdays.
>> During that time, they use it as a plaything, usually emulating their
>> parents' behaviour towards cars.  Also, they don't learn how to get 
>> places
>> on their own.  These are bad attitudes that must be changed before 
>> letting
>> them move about on their own.
>>
> I AM no expert on teaching children but I learned to ride through just 
> riding, in a relatively calm suburban setting. We did use it for fun, but 
> also for getting to close by places quickly. Most stores - but not 
> school - were only reachable by crossing big streets.

Crossing big streets is best done by walking, rather than cycling.

> But I don't see what is the problem with play, even now:

"Go play in traffic!" is a favour joke.  Play is fine, and child's play is 
even more natural (studies show children who cannot play enough suffer in 
the development process).  But I specfically refer to role playing, as if 
they are adults.  That too, is good and natural, but often means they 
emulate the ownership thing, and that they use their bikes to intimidate 
pedestrians and other cyclists.  Parents need to notice the kind of play 
children do with bikes, and both admonish where appropriate, and also to 
learn about their own bad behaviour that their child picks up on.

> During Critical Mass rides in Prague, a few times I have led the group, 
> and when I do things like leading other adults around (and around, and 
> around) a kind of circle-square near the traditional starting point of the 
> Mass, people get confused and ask me where we are going. I respond of 
> course that we are going in circles. And when after that I just ride 
> randomly (but not on big streets, or illegally) people still get confused 
> because I am not being linear. On the other hand the Mass here - as 
> opposed to most other places - usually starts with a man (male) telling us 
> where we are going. We are simultaneously told that (in general) driving 
> is unnecessary for many trips but that having a geographical goal is 
> necessary for a fun bike ride. I hate that. There is no reason to need a 
> reason, and while it is essential to know a bike can be used for transport 
> (and to enable that as much as possible), it can also be mixed with play 
> (on the same ride or just in general, but also on the same streets).

Whew!  I don't consider your circular mass rides to be play, but rather a 
political act to prove a point.  But the critics do have a point.  If you 
are taking precious road space (and motorists are in no position to 
criticize uneconomical use of it), you should have a reason.  Having a 
political reason is a reason, but it must compete with other road users' 
reasons, coupled with the amount of road space that they need.  For 
instance, how WIDE is your demonstration?

>> Since the use of a bike is only an advantage over walking when the trip 
>> is
>> in excess of about 2 kms, the child should not need using it until their
>> cognitive abilities allow them to grasp the specifics of the road-path
>> network over a 16-square-km area.  And that is about the time that they 
>> can
>> survive along the cruel, car-dominated streets they will encounter, and 
>> have
>> the strength for that length of trip.
>>
> WHERE do these 2km and 16km2 rules come from? What kind of density (in a 
> car city) are they based on? What about uncruel, fun-dominated streets? I 
> am sure there is something to do what you say about strength (and also 
> children have to be mature enough to keep their bike secure or in their 
> possession, unless of course there are free bikes).

I think you misread me.  I am not talking about rules, but about normal 
human sense of value.  Use of a vehicle imposes 'overhead' costs related to 
obtaining the mode of travel for each leg of the trip, and having to follow 
a longer route to comply with the demands of the mode.  In this way, walking 
is a faster mode of travel for trips up to 2 kms.  It's not based on any 
study, but on my own experience.

>> In any case, within the 2-km distance, I find that children quickly tire 
>> of
>> bike use for the trip to school, and switch back to walking.  It's far 
>> more
>> social,
> BACK to what I said at the top, walking IS generally better, but bikes can 
> open up other possibilities.
>>  and it avoids them having their favourite 'steed' stolen.
>>
> I THINK there are relatively very simple solutions for that, in a car- or 
> carfree city.
>
> IN any city, kids need to be within comfortable walking distance of 
> school, but bikes will extend their range, and in a carfree area or city 
> this can be done much more easily.

I believe that schools should be sized and located so that the children can 
navigate the trip on their own -- by whatever mode they choose.  That is at 
the heart of independence.  That means that elementary schools should be 
split between the Grade 3 and 4, with separate schools for the younger group 
being smaller and located in the 'quarter' of the neighbourhood where the 
children live, rather than the whole neighbourhood.

As to range, yes, the range is extended with a bike, but then the issue is 
whether the child can navigate the longer trip without adult assistance.  A 
longer trip by a group of young people might be OK, as ONE of them will 
probably have the navigation skills.

Another factor re: human economy, that comes in to the equation of picking 
mode is the length of the stay at the other end.  My mention of bikes being 
subject to being stolen at schools is partly a factor of the length of the 
child's stay.  For 6-7 hours, a walk will seem economical, whereas the same 
distance of travel for a shorter stay will make the bike seem more 
economical.  And the shorter stay will reduce the chance of theft of the 
bike (if you don't ever leave your bike, as with a tour, then theft is not a 
factor at all -- you don't even need to bring along a lock).

> To mention again what I said in an earlier reply, we need to build or 
> adapt cities to children, rather than adapt children to car-cities. It is 
> necessary of course for interim defensive measures, but if we place too 
> much emphasis on them (or only talk about them), we will ALWAYS be doing 
> that, for our grandchildren, and so on.

Agreed completely.  That is also why convenience shopping needs to be on a 
smaller scale and this closer to where people live.  It is also the kind of 
shopping that can be done by a child, relieving the parent of having to do 
it, leaving very young children in harm's way, either alone at home or alone 
in a car with a running engine (a 2-year-old in Calgary just suffocated when 
she out her head out of such a car, and her knee triggered the auto window 
to close.)  And, the child doing the buying is getting both good practice 
and feeling important to the functioning of the family.

> And please remember that I am in Prague, THE most automobilised city in 
> Europe, though not the most dangerous, but where I fear that new 
> initiatives like "Safe Routes to School" I mentioned in an earlier email 
> will limited effect if they focus too much on symptoms. It should also be 
> mentioned that the Safe Routes programme here is a project of an 
> organisation which takes money from the automobile industry...

That's not surprising.  Since SFTS is so popular, don't be surprised that 
car companies will want to get some of 'the glow' of being associated with 
it.

> T
>
> p.s. This reminds me: I am going to look at the schedule for VeloCity in 
> Munich this June (where I am also giving a presentation, as well as a few 
> others on this list) and see how many presentations, workshops etc. are 
> about defensive cycling, or are in general about cycling in cities where 
> cars are a given. VeloCity also has an automobile company as a main 
> sponsor.

Ditto.

Chris Bradshaw
Ottawa