Kids playing in the streets

[Mandy Anderson]

I'm furious with my neighbors who seem to think the streets in our
subdivision are for playing. Several women who have nothing better to do
petitioned the county to put speed bumps in to slow cars down, yet the
speed limit of 25 mph is still fast enough to kill or injure a child. When
the sun is low on the horizon at evening rush hour, it often blinds cars,
reducing their visibility. Why is it that some parents feel it is fine to
impose inconveniences on the whole of society to make up for their laziness
in controlling their children? I teach my children to stay in the yard, and
would never trust thier lives to some speed limit sign or speed bump. We
teach them that the road is for cars and the yard where cars can't go is
for playing.

regards,
Mandy

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.
The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header
is unverified. You need a valid hashcash token to post to groups other
than alt.test and alt.anonymous.messages. Visit www.panta-rhei.dyndns.org
for abuse and hashcash info.


..

[Jeff]

"Mandy Anderson" > wrote in message
...
> I'm furious with my neighbors who seem to think the streets in our
> subdivision are for playing. Several women who have nothing better to do
> petitioned the county to put speed bumps in to slow cars down, yet the
> speed limit of 25 mph is still fast enough to kill or injure a child.

A speed of 0.001 mph is enough to kill a child.

>When
> the sun is low on the horizon at evening rush hour, it often blinds cars,
> reducing their visibility. Why is it that some parents feel it is fine to
> impose inconveniences on the whole of society to make up for their
> laziness
> in controlling their children?

So, children shouldn't be allowed in the streets at all? What if they want
to go visit their neighbors? Perhaps they should have their mommy drive them
two doors down?

I don't know if you noticed, but adults were kids once too.

There is no reason why kids whouldn't play on the streets, as long as they
get to the side of the road when cars come.

> I teach my children to stay in the yard, and
> would never trust thier lives to some speed limit sign or speed bump.

No one would. However, speed bumps do make it safer for kids. So I am in
favor.

> We
> teach them that the road is for cars and the yard where cars can't go is
> for playing.

No problem here.

On quiet residential streets, I see know reason why kids should not play
games on the street that they cannot play in their yard, like street hockey.
And I see no problem with kids taking a game of tag or whatever to the
street so they can go from one yard to another, as long as they stop when
cars come.

Jeff

> regards,
> Mandy
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.
> The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header
> is unverified. You need a valid hashcash token to post to groups other
> than alt.test and alt.anonymous.messages. Visit www.panta-rhei.dyndns.org
> for abuse and hashcash info.
>
>
> .
>

[Stephanie]

"Mandy Anderson" > wrote in message
...
> I'm furious with my neighbors who seem to think the streets in our
> subdivision are for playing. Several women who have nothing better to do
> petitioned the county to put speed bumps in to slow cars down, yet the
> speed limit of 25 mph is still fast enough to kill or injure a child. When
> the sun is low on the horizon at evening rush hour, it often blinds cars,
> reducing their visibility. Why is it that some parents feel it is fine to
> impose inconveniences on the whole of society to make up for their
laziness
> in controlling their children? I teach my children to stay in the yard,
and
> would never trust thier lives to some speed limit sign or speed bump. We
> teach them that the road is for cars and the yard where cars can't go is
> for playing.
>


You cannot ride a bicycle in the yard. My son is planning on riding his
bicycle with his Bubba (grandpa) in the street today. And I know that Bubba
will have his hawk eyes on to protect him from inattentive or speeding
drivers. It depends on the street and the neighborhood IMO.

> regards,
> Mandy
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.
> The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header
> is unverified. You need a valid hashcash token to post to groups other
> than alt.test and alt.anonymous.messages. Visit www.panta-rhei.dyndns.org
> for abuse and hashcash info.
>
>
> .
>

[Cathy Kearns]

"Jeff" > wrote in message
.net...
>
> "Mandy Anderson" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I'm furious with my neighbors who seem to think the streets in our
> > subdivision are for playing. Several women who have nothing better to do
> > petitioned the county to put speed bumps in to slow cars down, yet the
> > speed limit of 25 mph is still fast enough to kill or injure a child.
> > I teach my children to stay in the yard, and
> > would never trust thier lives to some speed limit sign or speed bump.

>
> No one would. However, speed bumps do make it safer for kids. So I am in
> favor.

The advantage of speed bumps is they tend to deter cut through traffic, so
not only will the traffic be slower, but there will be less of it. This
means less cars for the children to vacate the street for. Downside of speed
bumps is the noise cars make going over them. Neighbors of speed bumps
often are not happy with the increased noise levels, the bump of cars
carries late at night and might wake folks used to sleeping in very quiet
neighborhoods. Neighbors need to get together with the traffic engineer to
come up with solutions that make everyone happy. There are other traffic
calming measures that can slow and deter traffic without adding to the noise
level if that is the concern.

>
> > We
> > teach them that the road is for cars and the yard where cars can't go is
> > for playing.
>
> No problem here.
>
> On quiet residential streets, I see know reason why kids should not play
> games on the street that they cannot play in their yard, like street
hockey.
> And I see no problem with kids taking a game of tag or whatever to the
> street so they can go from one yard to another, as long as they stop when
> cars come.
>
There are many activities such as biking, scootering, skating that work well
on quiet streets. Encouraging unstructured activities such as these that
are also good exercise will increase the children's life span in the long
run. These are skills they can take into adulthood, and lead to healthy
lives.

[Banty]

In article >, Jeff says...
>
>
>"Mandy Anderson" > wrote in message
...
>> I'm furious with my neighbors who seem to think the streets in our
>> subdivision are for playing. Several women who have nothing better to do
>> petitioned the county to put speed bumps in to slow cars down, yet the
>> speed limit of 25 mph is still fast enough to kill or injure a child.
>
>A speed of 0.001 mph is enough to kill a child.
>
>>When
>> the sun is low on the horizon at evening rush hour, it often blinds cars,
>> reducing their visibility. Why is it that some parents feel it is fine to
>> impose inconveniences on the whole of society to make up for their
>> laziness
>> in controlling their children?
>
>So, children shouldn't be allowed in the streets at all? What if they want
>to go visit their neighbors? Perhaps they should have their mommy drive them
>two doors down?
>

I guess the bikes, skateboards, and scooters should be relegated to up and down
the driveway, up and down, up and down, up and down.....

??

>I don't know if you noticed, but adults were kids once too.
>
>There is no reason why kids whouldn't play on the streets, as long as they
>get to the side of the road when cars come.
>
>> I teach my children to stay in the yard, and
>> would never trust thier lives to some speed limit sign or speed bump.
>
>No one would. However, speed bumps do make it safer for kids. So I am in
>favor.

Right. What, aside from irritating the impatient, is the disadvantage to a
decently designed speedbump?

>
>> We
>> teach them that the road is for cars and the yard where cars can't go is
>> for playing.
>
>No problem here.
>
>On quiet residential streets, I see know reason why kids should not play
>games on the street that they cannot play in their yard, like street hockey.
>And I see no problem with kids taking a game of tag or whatever to the
>street so they can go from one yard to another, as long as they stop when
>cars come.

Street hockey, stickball, there are any number of kids' games which necessarily
happen in a street. And were developed on some of the busiest urban streets.

Banty

[Ruth Baltopoulos]

I haven't followed this thread since it's inception, but
will offer that playing in the streets, as with anything, is
fine in moderation and with caution. Most kids will use
their bikes, skateboards, inline skates, etc along the
roadways, but we do have the occasional group of ignorami
who use the yellow center line as their own personal brick
road.

As for the younger set, I have seen parents who allow
children to set up soccer nets and portable basketball hoops
*in* the road, necessitating a major production of removal
to the side of the road each time a car passes, which I
think is ludicrous. Using the street as an extension of a
play area, or in some cases as the only play area, can work
as long as their is sensitivity on both sides.

Personally, my residential street is like the Autobahn, and
therefore I never allowed my kids to play in the street. I
also have large front and back yards, as well as an ample
driveway, so it never was a big issue....
--
Ruth

[[email protected]]

Mandy Anderson wrote:
> I'm furious with my neighbors who seem to think the streets in our
> subdivision are for playing. Several women who have nothing better to
do
> petitioned the county to put speed bumps in to slow cars down, yet
the
> speed limit of 25 mph is still fast enough to kill or injure a child.
When
> the sun is low on the horizon at evening rush hour, it often blinds
cars,
> reducing their visibility. Why is it that some parents feel it is
fine to
> impose inconveniences on the whole of society to make up for their
laziness
> in controlling their children? I teach my children to stay in the
yard, and
> would never trust thier lives to some speed limit sign or speed bump.
We
> teach them that the road is for cars and the yard where cars can't go
is
> for playing.
>
> regards,
> Mandy
>

It depends, I think, on the street. If you live in a busy urban kind of
setting, playing on the streets is very risky. But the point of quiet
residential streets is that they are quiet and residential, and I think
it's a reasonable expectation that kids will play there.

I'd much rather have kids playing on my street than people taking short
cuts through at 40 mph. Which is what's happening where I live. I think
we'll be looking for a stop sign, rather than a speed bump.

Rupa

[Daniel Ganek]

Mandy Anderson wrote:
> I'm furious with my neighbors who seem to think the streets in our
> subdivision are for playing. Several women who have nothing better to do
> petitioned the county to put speed bumps in to slow cars down, yet the
> speed limit of 25 mph is still fast enough to kill or injure a child. When
> the sun is low on the horizon at evening rush hour, it often blinds cars,
> reducing their visibility. Why is it that some parents feel it is fine to
> impose inconveniences on the whole of society to make up for their laziness
> in controlling their children? I teach my children to stay in the yard, and
> would never trust thier lives to some speed limit sign or speed bump. We
> teach them that the road is for cars and the yard where cars can't go is
> for playing.
>
> regards,
> Mandy
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.
> The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header
> is unverified. You need a valid hashcash token to post to groups other
> than alt.test and alt.anonymous.messages. Visit www.panta-rhei.dyndns.org
> for abuse and hashcash info.
>
>
> .
>
So we're all on the same page - How do you define "playing in the street"?

1) Using a bike, skateboard or other means of locomotion, or
2) Playing football, baseball, hockey, etc.

Also, is this a though street or cul-de-sac?

/dan

[Irene]

Banty wrote:
> In article >, Jeff
says...
> >
> >
> >"Mandy Anderson" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> I'm furious with my neighbors who seem to think the streets in our
> >> subdivision are for playing. Several women who have nothing better
to do
> >> petitioned the county to put speed bumps in to slow cars down, yet
the
> >> speed limit of 25 mph is still fast enough to kill or injure a
child.
> >

>

> >> We
> >> teach them that the road is for cars and the yard where cars can't
go is
> >> for playing.
> >
> >
> >On quiet residential streets, I see know reason why kids should not
play
> >games on the street that they cannot play in their yard, like street
hockey.
> >And I see no problem with kids taking a game of tag or whatever to
the
> >street so they can go from one yard to another, as long as they
stop when
> >cars come.
>
> Street hockey, stickball, there are any number of kids' games which
necessarily
> happen in a street. And were developed on some of the busiest urban
streets.
>
> Banty

Semi-hijacking the thread:

I'm wrestling with this issue (minus the speed-bump issue) in my
cul-de-sac lately. It's pretty typical for kids to play in the street
(four-square type of ball games, skateboard tricks, once a huge frisbee
game with almost every kid on the block, etc.) So far, I've told ds
(age 3.75) that he's not allowed to play in the street - that's for big
kids. But, I think soon I'll need to start letting him do it. He
knows to watch for cars, and he's as tall as many 5 year-olds (as far
as visibility is concerned).

It's a pretty quiet street, since it's a cul-de-sac in a residential
subdivision, and people expect to see kids playing.

So, at what age do you let a kid join in these games in the street? Or
even retrieve an errant ball that goes across the street? (I prefer
ball games in the front yard, since errant balls in the back yard go
into the marsh...)

Irene

[Cathy Weeks]

Mandy Anderson wrote:

> reducing their visibility. Why is it that some parents feel it is
fine to
> impose inconveniences on the whole of society to make up for their
laziness
> in controlling their children? I teach my children to stay in the
yard, and
> would never trust thier lives to some speed limit sign or speed bump.
We
> teach them that the road is for cars and the yard where cars can't go
is
> for playing.

Whew... take a deep breath here. Life is full of inconveniences, and
part of living in a society is learning to deal with them. If you want
no inconvenience, then go live as a hermit far away from anyone.

There's nothing wrong with kids playing in the street if:

a) they are old enough and observant enough to watch for cars, and GET
OUT OF THE WAY if a car comes. This is for their safety, and as a
courtesy to the cars (though cars BY LAW owe right of way to
pedestrians).

b) it's not such a busy street that it's a danger no matter what.

As for speed bumps, the street I lived on was VERY narrow, with curves,
trees and low visibility. It had a section of gravel and even though
the speed limit was 25 miles per hour, people would come off the gravel
and accelerate to 45 or 50.

Now, the nature of the street was such that as long as a kid were
careful, and kept to the side, 25 mph was fine for traffic to see and
avoid a kid biking or walking along the side of the road (there was no
shoulder to speak of). But at 45 mph, it was a serious hazard.

Speedbumps would have made it from a serious hazard to one that was at
least reasonable for a kid to ride their bike to the neighbor's, or
walk along the side of the road (once they were old enough and savvy
enough to do it safely). So here's an example of speedbumps merely
enforcing the LEGAL speed limit.

This isn't a matter of me wanting to inconvenience the drivers - they
are already inconveniencing the neighborhood kids by going so fast.

Have you asked the locals who want speedbumps why they want them?
Could it be that the drivers in the area were speeding dangerously? If
so - they were inconveniencing the residents, and putting everyone at
risk.

Cathy Weeks
Mommy to Kivi Alexis 12/01

[Claire Petersky]

"Mandy Anderson" > wrote in message
...
> I'm furious with my neighbors who seem to think the streets in our
> subdivision are for playing.

We live in a little neighborhood, shaped sort of like the letter E, with the
upper and lower prongs of the E connecting to a tertiary arterial, and the
center prong and the serifs on the E's backbone being cul-de-sacs. The
center cul-de-sac and the backbone is basically one large play area. There
are kids of all ages who rove in pairs and small packs, playing ball, riding
scooters and bikes, and hanging out. When I rode my bike home this
afternoon, I saw a couple of scooters parked out front, and guessed
correctly that there were going to be a couple of kids over at the house
with my daughters.

If I had to move to a different area, this is the sort of neighborhood I
would seek again for my family: a place where kids rightly feel safe playing
unsupervised in the street, and where you can just come over without having
to have a play date arranged and mom transport you there.


--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
Personal page: http://www.geocities.com/cpetersky/
See the books I've set free at http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky

[Catherine Woodgold]

My attitude is that streets are for people.

I like seeing kids playing in the streets. It contributes
to a healthy society: the kind of neighbourhood where
neighbours are likely to know each other and to happen
to see each other and spontaneously start friendly
chats. It slows down cars, discouraging environmentally-
unfriendly transportation.

We live at the end of a dead end, so it's pretty easy
to play in the street here. We keep an eye out for
cars and call out "Car!" if we see one coming, and
get out of the way.

--
Cathy
A *much* better world is possible.

[Scott]

Catherine Woodgold wrote:
> My attitude is that streets are for people.
>
> I like seeing kids playing in the streets. It contributes
> to a healthy society: the kind of neighbourhood where
> neighbours are likely to know each other and to happen
> to see each other and spontaneously start friendly
> chats. It slows down cars, discouraging environmentally-
> unfriendly transportation.
>
> We live at the end of a dead end, so it's pretty easy
> to play in the street here. We keep an eye out for
> cars and call out "Car!" if we see one coming, and
> get out of the way.
>

My street ends in a dead-end, where kids do play,
but in my block, it's part of a short-cut, so there
are lots of cars. It's also on a slope -- playing
with a ball would quickly evolve into chasing
a ball downhill :)

Having said that, streets with lots of cars traversing
them are no place a kid, no matter how careful, to
play. It is unsafe and rude.

When my kids are tired of playing in our
little yard, they walk to the park that's a block
away. Perhaps the OP's neighbors should have been
petitioning the county -- or the developer -- to
put more parkland in near their house, along with
a safe way to get there.

Scott DD 11 and DS 9

[Sue]

"Mandy Anderson" > wrote in message
...
> I'm furious with my neighbors who seem to think the streets in our
> subdivision are for playing. Several women who have nothing better to do
> petitioned the county to put speed bumps in to slow cars down, yet the
> speed limit of 25 mph is still fast enough to kill or injure a child.

Our neighborhood has sidewalks that start and stop and most of the time, the
kids are forced into the street to ride their bike. One thing I have learned
in kindergarten that has stayed with me all my life, is that we must learn
to share and look out for one another. Too bad you haven't learned that.

--
Sue (mom to three girls)

[shinypenny]

Mandy Anderson wrote:
> Why is it that some parents feel it is fine to
> impose inconveniences on the whole of society to make up for their
laziness
> in controlling their children?

You've hit a hot button for me. My children don't play in our street,
because it's far too dangerous due to inconsiderate drivers.

Why is it that some people feel it is fine to drive an SUV down narrow
city streets designed for much smaller cars? If you live in the city,
and park in the city, does it make any sense at all to buy an SUV?

Why is it that so many people feel it's a requirement to have more than
one or even two cars? Especially if they choose to live in an area that
was never designed for parking more than one car, and has ample public
transportation?

And why do they feel entitled to park their darn extra car on the
sidewalk? Or blocking pedestrian crossways? Forcing pedestrians to walk
into the street to get around them?

Why is it that we have all these miles of sidewalks, intended to keep
pedestrians from walking in the street, but so many people don't bother
to keep them shoveled?

Why is it that I must feel like I take my life in my hands when
crossing a street, because so many people disobey the "stop for
pedestrians in crosswalk" signs?

Why is it that so many people talk on their cell phones while driving?
Don't they realize that research has proven that folks talking on a
cell phone wouldn't even notice a gorilla walking in front of their
car?

Why is it that so many people abuse the posted speed limits?

Why is it that we tell people they should walk and bike ride more, yet
we don't put any city money into better sidewalks, bike paths, or bike
lanes? And even those streets that do have bike lanes, the lanes are
not consistent and/or cars insist on driving in them because they are
in too much of a hurry and use the lane as a passing lane?

And while I'm at it, why is it that you get a tax break for commuting
by car or public transportation, but no tax break if you walk or bike
to work?

I pay my taxes too. If I want to walk, bike, rollerblade, run in the
street, I will. Please be considerate and drive more carefully while
you share the road with me.

jen

[Robyn Kozierok]

In article . com>,
shinypenny > wrote:
>
>Why is it that some people feel it is fine to drive an SUV down narrow
>city streets designed for much smaller cars? If you live in the city,
>and park in the city, does it make any sense at all to buy an SUV?

I guess it depends where else you drive. There are some places where
SUVs are the most appropriate vehicle choice. Cities certainly aren't
one of them, but most people drive in a variety of locations/conditions.

If you have three (or more!) children in carseats, a compact car isn't
going to work for you. Some people will simply need a larger vehicle
(not necessarily an SUV, but I imagine that full-sized cars and minivans
also don't fit well on those same city streets).

--Robyn (who drives a medium-sized SUV, but rarely ventures into the city)

[Nan]

Oooh, good post :-)

Nan


On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 10:45:07 EST, "shinypenny"
> wrote:

>
>Mandy Anderson wrote:
>> Why is it that some parents feel it is fine to
>> impose inconveniences on the whole of society to make up for their
>laziness
>> in controlling their children?
>
>You've hit a hot button for me. My children don't play in our street,
>because it's far too dangerous due to inconsiderate drivers.
>
>Why is it that some people feel it is fine to drive an SUV down narrow
>city streets designed for much smaller cars? If you live in the city,
>and park in the city, does it make any sense at all to buy an SUV?
>
>Why is it that so many people feel it's a requirement to have more than
>one or even two cars? Especially if they choose to live in an area that
>was never designed for parking more than one car, and has ample public
>transportation?
>
>And why do they feel entitled to park their darn extra car on the
>sidewalk? Or blocking pedestrian crossways? Forcing pedestrians to walk
>into the street to get around them?
>
>Why is it that we have all these miles of sidewalks, intended to keep
>pedestrians from walking in the street, but so many people don't bother
>to keep them shoveled?
>
>Why is it that I must feel like I take my life in my hands when
>crossing a street, because so many people disobey the "stop for
>pedestrians in crosswalk" signs?
>
>Why is it that so many people talk on their cell phones while driving?
>Don't they realize that research has proven that folks talking on a
>cell phone wouldn't even notice a gorilla walking in front of their
>car?
>
>Why is it that so many people abuse the posted speed limits?
>
>Why is it that we tell people they should walk and bike ride more, yet
>we don't put any city money into better sidewalks, bike paths, or bike
>lanes? And even those streets that do have bike lanes, the lanes are
>not consistent and/or cars insist on driving in them because they are
>in too much of a hurry and use the lane as a passing lane?
>
>And while I'm at it, why is it that you get a tax break for commuting
>by car or public transportation, but no tax break if you walk or bike
>to work?
>
>I pay my taxes too. If I want to walk, bike, rollerblade, run in the
>street, I will. Please be considerate and drive more carefully while
>you share the road with me.
>
>jen

[shinypenny]

Robyn Kozierok wrote:
> I guess it depends where else you drive. There are some places where
> SUVs are the most appropriate vehicle choice. Cities certainly
aren't
> one of them, but most people drive in a variety of
locations/conditions.
>
> If you have three (or more!) children in carseats, a compact car
isn't
> going to work for you. Some people will simply need a larger vehicle
> (not necessarily an SUV, but I imagine that full-sized cars and
minivans
> also don't fit well on those same city streets).
>
> --Robyn (who drives a medium-sized SUV, but rarely ventures into the
city)

I have no issue with those who have large families and need a larger
vehicle to fit all the car seats. I'm not begrudging your right or even
your need to have an SUV, just asking for some common sense and
consideration:

If you absolutely need two cars, make one an SUV and the other a
smaller car for those trips when you aren't carting around extra
people.

If you have an SUV for family trips, park that one in your driveway,
and the smaller one out on the street.

If you're driving down a two-way street that has SUVs parked on both
sides, making only enough room for a single car to drive, then be
polite every once in awhile and stop and let the other car go past
first. Don't barrel towards me figuring since you're SUV is bigger I
should make way for you. And if I do move over for you, be a peach and
give me a wave of thanks, instead of an annoyed grimace. You're the one
who chose to drive an SUV down a narrow city street; don't get annoyed
at me when it's a pain in your butt.

If you absolutely must own two or more SUVs, consider buying a house
that gives you ample driveway parking for them. Street parking in the
city is so scarce and getting scarcer by the day, because SUVs take up
more than their share of the curb.

If you absolutely must park your SUV on the street, don't park on the
sidewalk, don't park blocking pedestrian crosswalks, and don't park
where it clearly says "no parking."

If you are my neighbor (grrrrr) will you please stop parking with your
SUV's butt halfway blocking my driveway? Makes it hard for me to get
out. And if you are my other neighbor (grrrrr), consider parking
somewhere else, because every morning when I back out I come perilously
close to backing into your SUV, while trying to maneuver around my
other neighbor's ill-parked SUV. (what's even more annoying is that
this particular neighbor actually has a very long driveway that could
easily fit 4 or 5 cars... but despite being strapping college students,
they never shovel their driveway and instead park all three SUVs on the
street... I just don't *get* that!!).

Be thoughtful when parking on a narrow street - if there is another SUV
parked on the other side, ask yourself if you'll be leaving ample room
for emergency vehicles to squeeze down the road? (Recently we got stuck
for 30 minutes behind an ambulance, which got stuck because two SUVs
were parked on opposite sides of what was supposed to be a two-way
street, neither one parked very close to the curb. The ambulance people
were running around knocking on doors looking for the owners so they
could get one of the SUVs moved).

And if you're driving any car, don't use a cell phone and don't speed.

I'm sure you do none of these things yourself; please take my use of
"you" above as not meaning you personally! Just venting one of my big
pet peeves!

jen (currently driving a corolla but contemplating downsizing to a
minicooper, since they're so darn cute and very easy to park).

[Hillary Israeli]

In >,
Robyn Kozierok > wrote:

*If you have three (or more!) children in carseats, a compact car isn't
*going to work for you. Some people will simply need a larger vehicle

Yep. And if you have those carseat children AND you have extra adults in
the household, AND you have at least one parent who must commute to work
by car, you almost certainly must have more than one car.

--
Hillary Israeli, VMD
Lafayette Hill/PA/USA/Earth
"Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it is
too dark to read." --Groucho Marx

[Catherine Woodgold]

"Irene" ) writes:
> Banty wrote:
> So, at what age do you let a kid join in these games in the street? Or
> even retrieve an errant ball that goes across the street? (I prefer
> ball games in the front yard, since errant balls in the back yard go
> into the marsh...)

It's not a matter of age; it's a matter of when the
child has the required skill and habits to avoid
cars. At first, some teaching and supervision
is required. The teaching process has to be
extensive in time, I think, to be sure the
child is consistent enough and has the habits
well enough ingrained.
--
Cathy
A *much* better world is possible.

[Catherine Woodgold]

"shinypenny" ) writes:
> And while I'm at it, why is it that you get a tax break for commuting
> by car or public transportation, but no tax break if you walk or bike
> to work?

Excellent point. I hope this is going to change.

There are groups like Auto-Free Ottawa who push for
changes to make life easier for pedestrians and
to make it easier for people to avoid feeling
that they have to use cars.
--
Cathy
A *much* better world is possible.

[Catherine Woodgold]

Robyn Kozierok ) writes:
> If you have three (or more!) children in carseats, a compact car isn't
> going to work for you. Some people will simply need a larger vehicle
> (not necessarily an SUV, but I imagine that full-sized cars and minivans
> also don't fit well on those same city streets).

"need" is relative. What did people like that do before
cars were invented? There are always choices, such
as moving to a place where it's easier to commute
by bicycle.
--
Cathy
A *much* better world is possible.

[dragonlady]

In article >,
(Catherine Woodgold) wrote:

> Robyn Kozierok ) writes:
> > If you have three (or more!) children in carseats, a compact car isn't
> > going to work for you. Some people will simply need a larger vehicle
> > (not necessarily an SUV, but I imagine that full-sized cars and minivans
> > also don't fit well on those same city streets).
>
> "need" is relative. What did people like that do before
> cars were invented? There are always choices, such
> as moving to a place where it's easier to commute
> by bicycle.
> --
> Cathy

I can't speak to "before there were cars" from a personal point of view,
but when I was a kid, we could jam as many people into a car as we could
fit -- on laps, squished together, whatever. When my youngest brother
and sister were born, we had a Checker (yes, they did sell to the
public), and could easily fit us four teenagers on the back seat, and
put the babies to sleep on the floor in front of our feet.

And how would you take 3 kids somewhere by bike? Heck, even the bus or
train were very difficult with a 3 yo and infant twins! Now, we did
manage with a small car until the twins got older, and after that drove
a station wagon -- but full size station wagons are now more expensive
than mini-vans.
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

[Caledonia]

Catherine Woodgold wrote:
> Robyn Kozierok ) writes:
> > If you have three (or more!) children in carseats, a compact car
isn't
> > going to work for you. Some people will simply need a larger
vehicle
> > (not necessarily an SUV, but I imagine that full-sized cars and
minivans
> > also don't fit well on those same city streets).
>
> "need" is relative. What did people like that do before
> cars were invented? There are always choices, such
> as moving to a place where it's easier to commute
> by bicycle.
> --
> Cathy
> A *much* better world is possible.

Before cars were invented, in urban areas, groceries were delivered by
little boys with wagons, and milk was delivered by milkmen. In rural
areas, farmers would stop by farms to deliver fresh veggies. Small
rural towns had several one-room schoolhouses, each a relatively short
walk from a cluster of farms. In both urban and rural areas, the doctor
would come to your house. (No, I'm not *that* old, but my Dad was.)

In my childhood, prior to carseat use, you'd cram as many people as
possible into the front and back of a V-8 and rumble along, while the
children climbed around.

In both cases, if a parent needed to go somewhere, they'd ask their mom
(who lived upstairs/next door/down the street) to watch their children.


I agree that there are choices now, but there *were* options 'then'
that rarely exist now.

Caledonia

[Donna Metler]

"Hillary Israeli" > wrote in message
...
> In >,
> Robyn Kozierok > wrote:
>
> *If you have three (or more!) children in carseats, a compact car isn't
> *going to work for you. Some people will simply need a larger vehicle
>
> Yep. And if you have those carseat children AND you have extra adults in
> the household, AND you have at least one parent who must commute to work
> by car, you almost certainly must have more than one car.
>
And, if you only have one child with you, it is FAR too much of a pain to
move the carseat to the smaller car.

I didn't realize just how annoying that would be (since we have bases for
the infant seat in both cars) until we flew with Alli and had to install the
base on each plane and in the rental car. I'm thinking when she outgrows the
infant seat we buy 2 copies of the next carseat, too.

> --
> Hillary Israeli, VMD
> Lafayette Hill/PA/USA/Earth
> "Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it is
> too dark to read." --Groucho Marx
>
>
>

[Hillary Israeli]

In . com>,
shinypenny > wrote:

*Why is it that so many people talk on their cell phones while driving?
*Don't they realize that research has proven that folks talking on a
*cell phone wouldn't even notice a gorilla walking in front of their
*car?

I don't know about a gorilla, never having come across one in my travels,
but my cell phone did not prevent me from seeing (and stopping for) the 8
foot tall inflatable rat crossing the street illegally the other day. Go
figure.

--
Hillary Israeli, VMD
Lafayette Hill/PA/USA/Earth
"Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it is
too dark to read." --Groucho Marx

[dragonlady]

In article . com>,
"shinypenny" > wrote:

>
> I'm sure you do none of these things yourself; please take my use of
> "you" above as not meaning you personally! Just venting one of my big
> pet peeves!


I understand your frustration. We are a five car family (we've got five
drivers with a total of six jobs and somewhere between 2 and 3 in
college most of the time, and there just doesn't seem to be a practical
way to use mass transit for most of us.) One is a mini-van, and we try
to park that one in the driveway. Three are old wrecks, and one a
smaller car in decent shape. However, I think we generally avoid
creating the kinds of problems you have with your neighbors; at least,
I hope we do, and I hope they'd tell us if we ARE doing something
inadvertant that annoys them! (We do have one neighbor, several houses
down, who will come out to tell us that we're in "her" spot if we park
in front of her house. We know she's wrong -- street parking is all
first come-first served -- but it upsets her so that we don't argue.)
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

[[email protected]]

Caledonia wrote:
> Catherine Woodgold wrote:
> > Robyn Kozierok ) writes:
> > > If you have three (or more!) children in carseats, a compact car
> isn't
> > > going to work for you. Some people will simply need a larger
> vehicle
> > > (not necessarily an SUV, but I imagine that full-sized cars and
> minivans
> > > also don't fit well on those same city streets).
> >
> > "need" is relative. What did people like that do before
> > cars were invented? There are always choices, such
> > as moving to a place where it's easier to commute
> > by bicycle.
> > --
> > Cathy
> > A *much* better world is possible.
>
> Before cars were invented, in urban areas, groceries were delivered
by
> little boys with wagons, and milk was delivered by milkmen. In rural
> areas, farmers would stop by farms to deliver fresh veggies. Small
> rural towns had several one-room schoolhouses, each a relatively
short
> walk from a cluster of farms. In both urban and rural areas, the
doctor
> would come to your house. (No, I'm not *that* old, but my Dad was.)
>
> In my childhood, prior to carseat use, you'd cram as many people as
> possible into the front and back of a V-8 and rumble along, while the
> children climbed around.
>
> In both cases, if a parent needed to go somewhere, they'd ask their
mom
> (who lived upstairs/next door/down the street) to watch their
children.
>
>
> I agree that there are choices now, but there *were* options 'then'
> that rarely exist now.
>
> Caledonia

I grew up in India, a country where for various reasons, cars were in
very short supply until the 1980s. They were also so expensive that
only very well-off families had more than one car. Most women did not
know how to drive. SO how did it work?

As you say, vendors came round, house to house with milk, bread,
vegetables, meat, fabrics, and an assortment of other goods and
services. Mostly, they used bicycles; some used carts. This limited
selection, but everything was fresh because there was also very little
refrigeration.

The school bus picked up and dropped off schoolkids. There was a
similar arrangement for college kids (most people did not go away to
college, it was too expensive).

There were fleets of inexpensive but highly polluting 'autorickshaws'
made from adapted motorcycles. These could carry two adult passengers,
or an adult and two kids. A larger version could carry up to 6 adults,
and operated more like a bus.

There was household help, in fact, several different kinds -- a
cleaner, a cook, a nanny, a washer-woman. Each provided a specialized
service at an affordable price because he or she had a lower standard
of living. (The children of these workers accompanied the worker, or
were left with a member of the family - an older child, a grandparent -
or a neighbor.)

Doctors made house-calls. Routinely.

Rupa

[Nikki]

Donna Metler wrote:

I'm thinking
> when she outgrows the infant seat we buy 2 copies of the next
> carseat, too.

Yes do!! My dh and I each need our own car the way our lives are set up and
it is quite common that one will drop kids off and the other pick them up.
We did the carseat switch about three times, lol. Ever since we've had a
full set of carseats in each vehicle. It was money well spent.

--
Nikki

[Jeff]

"Sue" > wrote in message
...
> "Mandy Anderson" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I'm furious with my neighbors who seem to think the streets in our
>> subdivision are for playing. Several women who have nothing better to do
>> petitioned the county to put speed bumps in to slow cars down, yet the
>> speed limit of 25 mph is still fast enough to kill or injure a child.
>
> Our neighborhood has sidewalks that start and stop and most of the time,
> the
> kids are forced into the street to ride their bike. One thing I have
> learned
> in kindergarten that has stayed with me all my life, is that we must learn
> to share and look out for one another. Too bad you haven't learned that.

They may be better off riding on the road all the time. Drivers are able to
see kids better when they are in the street than when they are on the
sidewalks. And kids can often see drivers better, because they may have a
better view, esp. if there are bushes or trees in the way.

The were studies done that show that kids who ride in the street are injured
less frequently, but, younger kids tend to ride on the sidewalks, so the
comparison is not all that good.

Jeff

> --
> Sue (mom to three girls)
>
>

[P. Tierney]

"dragonlady" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> (Catherine Woodgold) wrote:
>
>> Robyn Kozierok ) writes:
>> > If you have three (or more!) children in carseats, a compact car isn't
>> > going to work for you. Some people will simply need a larger vehicle
>> > (not necessarily an SUV, but I imagine that full-sized cars and
>> > minivans
>> > also don't fit well on those same city streets).
>>
>> "need" is relative. What did people like that do before
>> cars were invented? There are always choices, such
>> as moving to a place where it's easier to commute
>> by bicycle.
>
> I can't speak to "before there were cars" from a personal point of view,
> but when I was a kid, we could jam as many people into a car as we could
> fit -- on laps, squished together, whatever. When my youngest brother
> and sister were born, we had a Checker (yes, they did sell to the
> public), and could easily fit us four teenagers on the back seat, and
> put the babies to sleep on the floor in front of our feet.

Yep, our family of eight did that, sleeping the entire way on the
trip to Florida. It's essentially impractical to have such a large
family today.


P. Tierney

[Bruce Bridgman and Jeanne Yang]

"Donna Metler" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Hillary Israeli" > wrote in message
>>
> I didn't realize just how annoying that would be (since we have bases for
> the infant seat in both cars) until we flew with Alli and had to install
> the
> base on each plane and in the rental car. I'm thinking when she outgrows
> the
> infant seat we buy 2 copies of the next carseat, too.
>
>> --

People think that's excessive but we have two of each carseat. Until DD
gave up her booster(s), both car and minivan had two carseats (for DS) and
two boosters (for DD) and then we had spare boosters (Evenflo for $25) for
friends of DD (they hated it but it was our rule). We still carry an extra
booster for DD's younger friends.

Jeanne

[Rosalie B.]

"Bruce Bridgman and Jeanne Yang" > wrote:

>
>"Donna Metler" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Hillary Israeli" > wrote in message
>>>
>> I didn't realize just how annoying that would be (since we have bases for
>> the infant seat in both cars) until we flew with Alli and had to install
>> the
>> base on each plane and in the rental car. I'm thinking when she outgrows
>> the
>> infant seat we buy 2 copies of the next carseat, too.
>>
>
>People think that's excessive but we have two of each carseat. Until DD
>gave up her booster(s), both car and minivan had two carseats (for DS) and
>two boosters (for DD) and then we had spare boosters (Evenflo for $25) for
>friends of DD (they hated it but it was our rule). We still carry an extra
>booster for DD's younger friends.
>
>Jeanne
>
My kids got together and bought an extra car seat so that my mom and I
would have one when our grandchildren/great grandchildren would have
one when they came to visit by airplane. DD#2 often flew to visit us,
and since she was traveling Space A, she didn't usually take a car
seat. Her sisters had them, but my mom and I didn't.

grandma Rosalie

[Sue]

"Catherine Woodgold" > wrote in message
> "need" is relative. What did people like that do before
> cars were invented? There are always choices, such
> as moving to a place where it's easier to commute
> by bicycle.

They put everyone in the car and people held babies and if it was a truck,
they rode in the back. Not something that is recommended these days.
--
Sue (mom to three girls)

[Claire Petersky]

"Jeff" > wrote in message
k.net...

> They may be better off riding on the road all the time. Drivers are able
to
> see kids better when they are in the street than when they are on the
> sidewalks. And kids can often see drivers better, because they may have a
> better view, esp. if there are bushes or trees in the way.

The most common car/bike accident happens when a motorist backs out of the
driveway, and hits the bicyclist. For obvious reasons, this happens mostly
when the cyclist is on the sidewalk. A backing motorist can not see the
cyclist, and is looking out into the street for cross-traffic, anyway, not
to the sidewalk. It's why sidewalk riding is more dangerous than the street.

Having your kids ride on the sidewalk is fine when they are little, going at
a pedestrian's pace. An older elementary school kid should be riding on the
street. After you teach your kids to ride, you also need to teach them the
rules of the road. This goes for kids on scooters, too. You also need to set
the boundaries for them to ride, based on their skill and development. A ten
year old can judge crossing a street better than an eight year old, and
should have a wider range of streets to ride.


--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky

Personal page: http://www.geocities.com/cpetersky/
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky

[shinypenny]

Claire Petersky wrote:
> The most common car/bike accident happens when a motorist backs out
of the
> driveway, and hits the bicyclist.

There have been numerous times my DF almost got killed because a
motorist parked on the street opened the door without looking first.
The thought terrifies me that someday he won't be able to brake his
bike in time. A bicycle helmet is fairly useless to protect against a
full body slam into a car door. :-(

jen

[Nick Theodorakis]

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 14:22:24 EST, wrote:


[...]

>
>It depends, I think, on the street. If you live in a busy urban kind of
>setting, playing on the streets is very risky. But the point of quiet
>residential streets is that they are quiet and residential, and I think
>it's a reasonable expectation that kids will play there.
>

Oddly enough, when we lived in an "urban" neighborhood the streets
were safer than in the suburban neighborhood we live in now. In our
old urban 'hood, the streets were laid out in a typical gridded
pattern with stop signs at most corners that tended to slow traffic
down. Although a car *could* cut through our street on the way
through, there was no particular advantage to use our street vs.
another as a short-cut, so through traffic generally got diluted out.
Moreover, pedestrians could easily see cars coming from several blocks
away, and they had multiple stop signs before arriving. Our suburban
neighborhood is laid out in a branched "alveolar" fashion with side
streets and cul-de-sacs feeding into one steet which carries all the
neighborhood traffic out to the road. Great if you live on one of the
cul-de-sacs, but on the main street, cars can get going pretty fast
before exiting the neighborhood.

So, even though I wouldn't let my kids play in the street in front of
our house (although I would let them play on a cul-de-sac behind our
house) I would still nevertheless support a speed bump on our street
if someone should push for one.

Nick

--
Nick Theodorakis

contact form:
http://theodorakis.net/contact.html

[toto]

On 31 Mar 2005 23:34:32 GMT, (Catherine
Woodgold) wrote:

>
>Robyn Kozierok ) writes:
>> If you have three (or more!) children in carseats, a compact car isn't
>> going to work for you. Some people will simply need a larger vehicle
>> (not necessarily an SUV, but I imagine that full-sized cars and minivans
>> also don't fit well on those same city streets).
>
>"need" is relative. What did people like that do before
>cars were invented? There are always choices, such
>as moving to a place where it's easier to commute
>by bicycle.

Before cars were invented, people generally didn't travel long
distances to work. Many more worked on farms. People used
horses. However, cars gave us the mobility we wanted and I
don't think people are going to give that up because others tell
them to do something.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

[Barbara Bomberger]

On 31 Mar 2005 23:34:32 GMT, (Catherine
Woodgold) wrote:

>
>Robyn Kozierok ) writes:
>> If you have three (or more!) children in carseats, a compact car isn't
>> going to work for you. Some people will simply need a larger vehicle
>> (not necessarily an SUV, but I imagine that full-sized cars and minivans
>> also don't fit well on those same city streets).
>
>"need" is relative. What did people like that do before
>cars were invented? There are always choices, such
>as moving to a place where it's easier to commute
>by bicycle.

Well thats just a bit difficult with a family especially if the
children are younger.

As someone who is fifty plus, we did have cars BUT....my parents threw
four of us and dogs (the youngest was a baby when I was ten) in the
car haphazardly with no seatbelt. When it was around town, my mom put
us babies on the front seat lying down.

Before there were cars, people came to the house. We had a milk man,
the local drug store would deliver your prescription, the doctor came
to you for routine appointment. The fuller brush guy came buy, the
pan salesman, and a dozen other delivery type people and merchants,.
You either lived right in town, and walked to the store daily, or you
lived in the country, relied on traveling merchants and took a large
wagon (equivalent of an SUV) into town the few times you went.

Personally, I live in an urban villiage type location where my husband
can ride his bus to work and i can walk. There are still timewhen the
whole family gets in the car, to go to dinner and so on. if the
family involved kids with car seats, then yes, even in this
environment we would need a large vehicle.

I now live with in Germay with excellent public transportation, and we
still need the full sized car for traveling and so on.

[bizby40]

"shinypenny" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> If you absolutely need two cars, make one an SUV and the other a
> smaller car for those trips when you aren't carting around extra
> people.
>

Okay, now you've hit on one of *my* peeves!

This has nothing to do with the rest of your post as we live in a
suburb with a 2 car garage and park nothing on the street --
or across non-existent sidewalks.

But we have 3, count 'em *3* cars (for 2 drivers) and 2 of them
are SUVs. The third is a minivan. This has been an ongoing
argument between DH and me. I don't see why we need more
than one big car. In my childhood family, my mom always had
the big car because she toted around the kids. My dad always
had a zippy little 2-door for commuting.

But even though I hate that minivan, we "need" it (so says DH)
for family vacations when we have a lot of crap to take along.
Apparently we can't fit it all in an SUV.

On the other hand, we "need" an SUV because we need the
4WD for our ski vacations.

We don't "need" the 3rd car, which is a 17YO pathfinder,
but hubby is very attached to it, and does like to use it for
trips to the hardware store to lug around mulch or whatever.

The minivan is almost 7 years old. I've told DH that I'll
keep it for 10 years, then I'm getting a small 4-door sedan
-- maybe a Prius. I need the 4 doors because I'm still
the one toting the kids around. He says that we should
be able to get way more than 10 years out of the van. I
said that's not the point -- I shouldn't have to drive some-
thing I hate for more than a decade. But then he pulls
out the ultimate guilt-inducer. Without the van, we won't
have room to take the dog with us.

Bizby

[Jeff]

"shinypenny" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Claire Petersky wrote:
>> The most common car/bike accident happens when a motorist backs out
> of the
>> driveway, and hits the bicyclist.
>
> There have been numerous times my DF almost got killed because a
> motorist parked on the street opened the door without looking first.
> The thought terrifies me that someday he won't be able to brake his
> bike in time. A bicycle helmet is fairly useless to protect against a
> full body slam into a car door. :-(

Although a full body slam can result in serious injuries (like when the a
child slides into the end of a handle bar after the bike is stopped by an
open door), I would think that such injuries are relatively rare and much
easier to survive than a head injury. i guess it is useful to teach kids to
stay away from doors just after they are parked and to stay in the middle of
the street where they are more easily seen.

> jen
>

[Jeff]

"Nick Theodorakis" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 14:22:24 EST, wrote:
>
>
> [...]
>
>>
>>It depends, I think, on the street. If you live in a busy urban kind of
>>setting, playing on the streets is very risky. But the point of quiet
>>residential streets is that they are quiet and residential, and I think
>>it's a reasonable expectation that kids will play there.
>>
>
> Oddly enough, when we lived in an "urban" neighborhood the streets
> were safer than in the suburban neighborhood we live in now. In our
> old urban 'hood, the streets were laid out in a typical gridded
> pattern with stop signs at most corners that tended to slow traffic
> down. Although a car *could* cut through our street on the way
> through, there was no particular advantage to use our street vs.
> another as a short-cut, so through traffic generally got diluted out.
> Moreover, pedestrians could easily see cars coming from several blocks
> away, and they had multiple stop signs before arriving. Our suburban
> neighborhood is laid out in a branched "alveolar" fashion with side
> streets and cul-de-sacs feeding into one steet which carries all the
> neighborhood traffic out to the road. Great if you live on one of the
> cul-de-sacs, but on the main street, cars can get going pretty fast
> before exiting the neighborhood.

What they do in some places is make it so that their are islands on the
streets close to the intersection or that there are other barriers, forcing
drivers to slow down as they go through the streets.

> So, even though I wouldn't let my kids play in the street in front of
> our house (although I would let them play on a cul-de-sac behind our
> house) I would still nevertheless support a speed bump on our street
> if someone should push for one.

When there are speed bumps, I try to go around them. A lot of times, there
is room on the side of them to make it over, or make over with only the
wheels on one side of the car hitting the bump. Of course, if you do that,
you have accomplished the goals of putting in the speed bump.

Jeff


> Nick
>
> --
> Nick Theodorakis
>
> contact form:
> http://theodorakis.net/contact.html
>

[Nikki]

bizby40 wrote:

Without the van, we won't
> have room to take the dog with us.


I have a solution for that one. We bought a hitch and platform for the back
of my car. We then bought one of those kennel covers that go over the
kennel so that the dog stays comfy inside when it is cold.

Works like a charm and I could strap coolers or other things onto it if I
ever get the opportunity to take a vacation :-)

We got ours at the hardware store then had to pay for the whole U-Haul type
hitch and getting that installed under the car...and the stupid kennel cover
was $100. It added up but well worth it to get my car and I'm sure the
price saved on a car versus van in both purchase price and gas mileage was
enormous.

http://tinyurl.com/487oc


--
Nikki

[toto]

On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 12:14:58 EST, "shinypenny"
> wrote:

>
>Claire Petersky wrote:
>> The most common car/bike accident happens when a motorist backs out
>of the
>> driveway, and hits the bicyclist.
>
>There have been numerous times my DF almost got killed because a
>motorist parked on the street opened the door without looking first.
>The thought terrifies me that someday he won't be able to brake his
>bike in time. A bicycle helmet is fairly useless to protect against a
>full body slam into a car door. :-(
>
As an adult rider, I had this happen to me. I was not badly hurt,
luckily, but my bike frame was bent.

>jen

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

[dragonlady]

In article . com>,
"shinypenny" > wrote:

> Claire Petersky wrote:
> > The most common car/bike accident happens when a motorist backs out
> of the
> > driveway, and hits the bicyclist.
>
> There have been numerous times my DF almost got killed because a
> motorist parked on the street opened the door without looking first.
> The thought terrifies me that someday he won't be able to brake his
> bike in time. A bicycle helmet is fairly useless to protect against a
> full body slam into a car door. :-(
>
> jen
>

Since there is a bicycle lane to the left of the parking lane on our
street, this is something I try to be VERY cautious about. My brother
got injured pretty badly when someone did that to him.

On the other hand, I DID almost wipe out a bicyclist just a month or so
ago: it was early, I checked for pedestrians and other traffic, backed
across the sidewalk and into the parking lane, and sat watching over my
left shoulder for traffic to clear. When it did, I started to back out
-- only to have bicycle going the WRONG way in the bike lane appear
behind me. I hit the breaks fast enough -- but it was pretty close.

I've seen this guy (this is an adult) several times since then, always
riding on the wrong side of the street. If I ever see him stopped, I'll
have a chat with him about proper road use by bicyclists, but so far I
haven't had the chance.
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

[Marie]

On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 13:47:12 EST, "bizby40" >
wrote:
>thing I hate for more than a decade. But then he pulls
>out the ultimate guilt-inducer. Without the van, we won't
>have room to take the dog with us.

Do you strap the dog down in the car?
Marie

[Jeff]

"Nikki" > wrote in message
...
> bizby40 wrote:
>
> Without the van, we won't
>> have room to take the dog with us.
>
>
> I have a solution for that one. We bought a hitch and platform for the
> back of my car. We then bought one of those kennel covers that go over
> the kennel so that the dog stays comfy inside when it is cold.

(...)

I would be afraid that the kennel or the whole thing on the hitch would fall
off. I know it is securely fastened, though. As long as the kennel is
securely fastened, it is safe for the dog.

If you get the hitch, you can get a bike rack for your bikes, too.

Jeff
> http://tinyurl.com/487oc
>
>
> --
> Nikki
>

[Claire Petersky]

"shinypenny" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Claire Petersky wrote:
> > The most common car/bike accident happens when a motorist backs out
> of the
> > driveway, and hits the bicyclist.
>
> There have been numerous times my DF almost got killed because a
> motorist parked on the street opened the door without looking first.

This is known among cyclists as the Door Zone. Over in rec.bicycles.misc,
someone just got his $6000 Serrota totaled that way. I know of people who
have been killed, so it could have been worse.

> The thought terrifies me that someday he won't be able to brake his
> bike in time. A bicycle helmet is fairly useless to protect against a
> full body slam into a car door. :-(

I lead kids' rides through our bike club, and I have the kids go through
about seven safety rules before we hit the road/trail. The kids think
primary safety rule is "Wear a Helmet", but really it's: "Be Alert". The
most common reason on a club ride for accidents is momentary inattention.
With kids it's even more likely that you'll be distracted or lose focus, so
it's one we really stress. Wear a helmet is at the bottom of the list.
Helmets are great when all else fails, but we never want to be in a position
when the helmet will have to come into play.

Oh all right, here's my list, so you teach it to your kids, too, for rides
on multi-use trails and in traffic:

o Stay alert
o Obey all laws
o Leave space between you and other riders
o Ride single file and as far to the right as is practical
o Communicate with others by saying, "car back!" "passing on the left!"; use
your bell or horn if you have one
o Only pass on the left, only when safe
o Wear a helmet


Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky

Personal page: http://www.geocities.com/cpetersky/
See the books I've set free at:
http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky

[bizby40]

======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
4:42, no trimming
=================================== END MODERATOR'S COMMENT


"Jeff" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Nikki" > wrote in message
> ...
>> bizby40 wrote:
>>
>> Without the van, we won't
>>> have room to take the dog with us.
>>
>>
>> I have a solution for that one. We bought a hitch and platform for the
>> back of my car. We then bought one of those kennel covers that go over
>> the kennel so that the dog stays comfy inside when it is cold.
>
> (...)
>
> I would be afraid that the kennel or the whole thing on the hitch would
> fall off. I know it is securely fastened, though. As long as the kennel is
> securely fastened, it is safe for the dog.

Just the thought of having the dog outside the car is frightening to me.
Perhaps not for any logical reason....

Bizby


> If you get the hitch, you can get a bike rack for your bikes, too.
>
> Jeff
>> http://tinyurl.com/487oc
>>
>>
>> --
>> Nikki
>>
>

[Bruce Bridgman and Jeanne Yang]

"shinypenny" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Claire Petersky wrote:
>> The most common car/bike accident happens when a motorist backs out
> of the
>> driveway, and hits the bicyclist.
>
> There have been numerous times my DF almost got killed because a
> motorist parked on the street opened the door without looking first.
> The thought terrifies me that someday he won't be able to brake his
> bike in time. A bicycle helmet is fairly useless to protect against a
> full body slam into a car door. :-(
>
> jen
>

Actually in this case the helmet may help because the bicyclist may flip
over the door and then hit the street (head first). I had a friend "doored"
and he was lucky not to crack his head (no helmet) Afterwards, he wore a
helmet all the time.

Jeanne

[enigma]

"bizby40" > wrote in
:

>
> ======================================= MODERATOR'S
> COMMENT: 4:42, no trimming
> =================================== END MODERATOR'S COMMENT
>
>
>
> "Jeff" > wrote in message
> link.net..
> .
>>
>> "Nikki" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> bizby40 wrote:
>>>
>>> Without the van, we won't
>>>> have room to take the dog with us.

>>> I have a solution for that one. We bought a hitch and
>>> platform for the back of my car. We then bought one of
>>> those kennel covers that go over the kennel so that the
>>> dog stays comfy inside when it is cold.

>> I would be afraid that the kennel or the whole thing on
>> the hitch would fall off. I know it is securely fastened,
>> though. As long as the kennel is securely fastened, it is
>> safe for the dog.
>
> Just the thought of having the dog outside the car is
> frightening to me. Perhaps not for any logical reason....

oh, i can think of a couple perfectly logical reasons... car
exhaust isn't healthy & what if someone rearends your car.
my dog rides in the car or truck cab. if all the humans are
in the truck cab & the dog is also going along, he would be in
a securely anchored kennel in the bed. since we only have 3
adults & one kid, even in the Focus there's room for the dog
too (he's a Great Pyranees/Border Collie cross. not a small
dog by any standard).
we're thinking of taking him on longer trips with us this
summer & for that we'll be getting him a seatbelt harness, not
so he can't roam the car (he doesn't) but in case of accidents
he won't get thrown & injured (or injure us).
lee<dogs aren't luggage. they go *in* the vehicle>

[Nikki]

======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
This thread has drifted far beyond its original parenting scope. Please limit followups in misc.kids.moderated to the parenting aspects discussed within this thread, and remove mkm from the newsgroups line for further discussion of other topics such as pet care, driving tips, etc.
=================================== END MODERATOR'S COMMENT

enigma wrote:

> oh, i can think of a couple perfectly logical reasons... car
> exhaust isn't healthy & what if someone rearends your car.

The rear ending of the car would be pretty awful for the dog that is true.
I haven't noticed the exhaust thing as being a problem. I mean I don't
notice it going in the kennel but I suppose some of it might. There is zero
chance the hitch itself is going to fall off but if the kennel wasn't
properly secured to the platform it would be dangerous.

if all the humans are
> in the truck cab & the dog is also going along, he would be in
> a securely anchored kennel in the bed.

I don't see this hitch as any different then being in the pickup bed (other
then the rear ending factor which I agreed to).

> lee<dogs aren't luggage. they go *in* the vehicle>

Mine doesn't. It seems I'm always being accused of treating my animals
awful on Usenet. I view myself as perfectly ordinary and kind to animals
but maybe I just don't get it.

Dogs are not people. I've drove miles and miles in the back of a pick up
myself and didn't suffer so I can't imagine the dog suffers to much by not
being inside the car. It might not be *fun* but I just don't see how he is
suffering. I don't equate him to luggage but no I wouldn't strap my kid to
the bumper either. I don't think of my dog as a human. There are certain
seasons when the dog suffers less back there then inside. For instance in
the winter my feet would turn to blocks of ice trying to keep it cool enough
inside the vehicle to keep the dog from becoming miserably hot.

This is probably mostly a mute point now because it is dh's car as of today.
If he wants to let the dog up front he can unless we all go together and
then there isn't room unless he rides on my lap, ugh..no thank you.
--
Nikki