# I called 911- tell me I wasn't being ridiculous.



## WindyCityMom (Aug 17, 2009)

My DH thinks I was a bit over the top on this one







so I was wondering, *as a parent*- would you have done the same?

I was walking with my girls (one in our Ergo, the other alongside holding my hand) and I saw a man pass us in the bike lane (which is in the actual street but to the right of the traffic lane). We were approaching a busy intersection- three main streets intersect, and there are two gas stations, a grocery store, a bank, and a fast food restaurant that have frequent traffic. I don't like being there but I needed to go there to get to the bus stop.

the Above mentioned man had a rickety homemade wooden bench seat on the back of his bike (it was a 3 wheeler bike that typically has a basket back there). There were surely no seat belts. He had his two daughters(?) on the back of the bike, both about 4 or 5 years old, both with no helmets. He didn't have on either. Just as I thought to myself, "hmm, that's not safe", he merged left into the traffic lane, and cut off a car (car slammed on their brakes). He then went into *ONCOMING TRAFFIC*, and the oncoming car was about 5secs away from him. He was just weaving in and out all over the place! I called 911 and told the operator that I was very concerned for the girls' safety, and she said she'd send the police. I went to wait for the bus, the bike man and kids went to one of the above mentioned gas stations to put air in their tires. A police SUV came, slowed down as they approached the intersection, and turned the corner in the opposite direction. So nothing happened to anyone (just had to add that in case anyone was wondering).

Was I over the top? Would you have done the same? My DH agrees that it's obviously unsafe, but he told me (and frequently tells me) "You're not the police. You can't be everyone's mommy. You have good intentions but sometimes you just need to let people learn their lesson." I don't frequently call 911. It has been over a year. The last time I called even 311 was for a well being check on one of our neighbors and was over a year ago also.


----------



## Earthy Mama (Jun 4, 2004)

In this case, I would have called. "learning a lesson" could have been a dead child.

Just last week I called to non-emergency number to report an elderly man riding a motorized wheelchair in the slow lane of a BUSY 4-lane street facing on-coming traffic. There was a line of cars that had to slam on brakes to switch lanes to avoid hitting him. I was so afraid he was going to either get hit or cause an accident by people trying to avoid him. I think it is our duty as humans to look out for one another.


----------



## new2this (Feb 11, 2010)

I wouldn't have called, but would have maybe called the non-emergency number.


----------



## mamadelbosque (Feb 6, 2007)

I wouldn't have called. I'm w/ your DH - its not your job to make sure everyone is being 'safe' all the time, and its just not your job.


----------



## Limabean1975 (Jan 4, 2008)

With what you describe, I may have considered calling - I mean, if he was slowly biking down a quiet residential street, I probably would think "gee that's not safe" and leave it at that. But what you describe would strike me as erratic driving - heck, if I saw a car doing that, I might think "drunk driver"...add in the kids, and that's upsetting.

Thinking more - I probably would have called the non-emergency number.


----------



## VillageMom6 (Dec 2, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Limabean1975* 
...if I saw a car doing that, I might think "drunk driver"

Exactly. My dad, a retired cop, says you did the right thing.

This was not you being everyone's mommy. You saw a man operating a vehicle of some sort in an extremely erratic, dangerous manner. It sounds as if he was impaired in some way.

He, his children, other drivers and other pedestrians were at serious risk and you notified the proper authorities who could help.

Good for you!


----------



## VisionaryMom (Feb 20, 2007)

No, I wouldn't have called.


----------



## rhiOrion (Feb 17, 2009)

I probably wouldn't have called, but i would have felt guilty about it! I think you did the right thing.


----------



## ChristyMarie (May 31, 2006)

My first thought was also drunk driver. I probably would have called the local police department non-emergency if I had it. If not, I would have called 911 saying I thought he might be drunk. How else do you explain that driving? Yeah, on a bike but still driving if he's in traffic, IMHO.

I've called on a few drivers who appeared drunk over the years. It is not something to mess around with.


----------



## earthmama369 (Jul 29, 2005)

He was driving erratically in a traffic lane. Several traffic lanes, in fact. I would have called. It doesn't really matter what vehicle he was in -- he was driving erratically. The fact that he had two unrestrained, unprotected children with him just adds to the number of people he was endangering. If people were having to swerve to avoid him, even if he'd been by himself, he would have been a danger. If a cop had been sitting right there, he would have been checked out by the cop. That tells me that you had a reason to call 911.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

I would have felt very concerned about the erratic driving -- but, lazy bum that I am, I would've just said something like "Oh my gosh! He's crazy! Those poor kids!" But that would've been the extent of my actions 'cause I'm just too lazy, plus I don't carry a cellphone with me, so by the time I would have returned home, it would've been too late to call anyway.









I would have also felt concerned about the no helmets thing, but I've gotten used to the fact that my dd seems to be the only child in our neighborhood who wears a helmet while riding her bike.


----------



## JBaxter (May 1, 2005)

No I would not have called. I may have yelled at him but would not have called 911 I agree with your husband


----------



## Jenne (May 21, 2004)

My DH works for 911. Essentially, if you don't meet with cops and make a report nothing can happen unless the cop *sees* the erratic, dangerous behavior. So, I would have called but I would have made a report so that the cops could do something--but that usually means waiting around for the cops to show up. When 911 asks, "Do you want to speak with an officer?" what they are really asking is, "Do you want to make a police report?" Without the police report nothing can happen.

I'm glad that no one was hurt while you watched. Thanks for being an active community member!

Jenne


----------



## amma_mama (May 20, 2008)

I would have called the non-emergency number first. I think that the safety of children is the responsibility of everybody, especially a situation that can involve serious head injury or death.

Heck, I recently called the non-emergency line, which also took calls regarding animal control, about a stray turtle that was on a busy road (we tried to move him but he turned out to be a very strong, snappy turtle and we did not want to injure him or ourselves)...


----------



## Lizafava (Nov 28, 2004)

No way would I have called. As someone who rides her bike with both kids on the back I am aware that many (likely non-bike commuters) people feel like its inherently unsafe. A three wheel bike is meant to cary that load, just like my cargo bike is. Seatbelts are not appropriate. They should probably be wearing helmets and it sounds like he didn't do a good job of crossing the intersection. But so much can get lost in the translation - crossing a busy intersection in a bike is HARD, especially with a heavy load.


----------



## ElliesMomma (Sep 21, 2006)

sounds like he was wobbly and weaving b/c he didn't have air in the tires.

yes *should have* taken care of that before loading up the kids.

yes *should have" helmets on everyone.

neither of which is illegal.

seeing as though the cop eyeballed it and moved on, probably the call to 911 was not necessary (i would not go as far as to say ridiculous, though.)

cops in chicago have a lot on their plate, as you know.

speaking just for myself, i feel a lot more peace when i focus only on my own kids and their safety -- so i'm with your husband that you can't change the world.

now, if the kids were running loose in traffic and you couldn't physically catch them yourself, then, yes, a call to 911 could have saved their lives.


----------



## SubliminalDarkness (Sep 9, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ElliesMomma* 
sounds like he was wobbly and weaving b/c he didn't have air in the tires.

yes *should have* taken care of that before loading up the kids.

yes *should have" helmets on everyone.

neither of which is illegal.

seeing as though the cop eyeballed it and moved on, probably the call to 911 was not necessary (i would not go as far as to say ridiculous, though.)

cops in chicago have a lot on their plate, as you know.

speaking just for myself, i feel a lot more peace when i focus only on my own kids and their safety -- so i'm with your husband that you can't change the world.

now, if the kids were running loose in traffic and you couldn't physically catch them yourself, then, yes, a call to 911 could have saved their lives.

Minors without bike helmets is not illegal where you are? It's been illegal since I was a kid everywhere we've lived. Under 18, helmet required, no exceptions.


----------



## SubliminalDarkness (Sep 9, 2009)

OP, I would have done the same.

I'm married to an avid cyclist, and as such, we are very serious about bicycle safety, especially when it comes to kids. What that person was doing was unsafe. It does not sound like the "bench" was an appropriate way to transport children, not wearing helmets is inexcusable, and it doesn't sound like the person was biking safely AT ALL. Not ok when there's kids involved.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *SubliminalDarkness* 
Minors without bike helmets is not illegal where you are? It's been illegal since I was a kid everywhere we've lived. Under 18, helmet required, no exceptions.

That's interesting. As far as I know, no one's ever been arrested for this where we live. The other day some child teased my dd saying, "What kid wears a helmet?" -- and I piped up and said, "A kid who does't want a brain injury!" and I got looked at kinda funny.

I don't know if it's the law, but I just know that, during college and shortly after graduating, I met two different women who'd had their lives majorly disrupted by brain injuries.

Both young women had been riding along, sans helmets, when they suddenly flipped over and landed on their heads, I think in both cases due to hitting a rock. My college friend actually suffered permanent paralysis of one side of her mouth or face due to the injury...

So to me it's just a no-brainer to take the extra few seconds it takes to strap on that helmet, and dd agrees even though it makes her head sweat. But I guess most other parents haven't had my opportunities to meet brain-injured young people. Or maybe they think their own children are too smart to hit a rock the wrong way.

If people question me about why dd has to wear a helmet, I tell them about this horrible risk. So far I've only been questioned by kids, no parents, but I'm always hopeful that some of them might pass on the story or stories to their parents, and ask their parents to keep them safe, too. This doesn't seem to have happened so far. And our police seem pretty busy with other stuff just like the ones in Chicago.


----------



## Lisa1970 (Jan 18, 2009)

I love your dh's response "you're not the police." Ummm...that is WHY you called the police!

I think you did the right thing.


----------



## limabean (Aug 31, 2005)

I don't know if I would have called, but I don't think there's anything wrong with you having called. You have to do what you can live with, you know? If you would have felt bad about not having called, then for you calling was the right thing to do.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *WindyCityMom* 
My DH agrees that it's obviously unsafe, but he told me (and frequently tells me) "You're not the police. You can't be everyone's mommy. You have good intentions but sometimes you just need to let people learn their lesson."

This quote just strikes me as sort of funny, because ... obviously you're not the police, that's why you called them.







And "learning his lesson" for this guy may have meant having an officer approach him and have a short discussion about biking safely with children. I dunno, it just kind of cracks me up that your DH's big argument against calling could just as easily be seen as an argument *for* calling.

ETA: Regarding the side convo, helmets for kids under 18 is the law where I live too. The law reads, "This requirement also applies to a person who rides upon a bicycle while in a restraining seat that is attached to the bicycle or in a trailer towed by the bicycle." In a quick Google search, it appeared that Illinois doesn't have a helmet law, but I'm not sure how updated the web page I looked at was.


----------



## VisionaryMom (Feb 20, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *SubliminalDarkness* 
Minors without bike helmets is not illegal where you are? It's been illegal since I was a kid everywhere we've lived. Under 18, helmet required, no exceptions.

Where we are, it's 12 and under and only if they're driving the bicycle.


----------



## SubliminalDarkness (Sep 9, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
That's interesting. As far as I know, no one's ever been arrested for this where we live. The other day some child teased my dd saying, "What kid wears a helmet?" -- and I piped up and said, "A kid who does't want a brain injury!" and I got looked at kinda funny.

I don't know if it's the law, but I just know that, during college and shortly after graduating, I met two different women who'd had their lives majorly disrupted by brain injuries.

Both young women had been riding along, sans helmets, when they suddenly flipped over and landed on their heads, I think in both cases due to hitting a rock. My college friend actually suffered permanent paralysis of one side of her mouth or face due to the injury...

So to me it's just a no-brainer to take the extra few seconds it takes to strap on that helmet, and dd agrees even though it makes her head sweat. But I guess most other parents haven't had my opportunities to meet brain-injured young people. Or maybe they think their own children are too smart to hit a rock the wrong way.

If people question me about why dd has to wear a helmet, I tell them about this horrible risk. So far I've only been questioned by kids, no parents, but I'm always hopeful that some of them might pass on the story or stories to their parents, and ask their parents to keep them safe, too. This doesn't seem to have happened so far. And our police seem pretty busy with other stuff just like the ones in Chicago.









I've not been aware of it being an arrest-able offense, but one where the parents get fined. Even if the parent was unaware the child was not wearing a helmet, the law was such that the child HAS TO. They drummed this into our heads when we were in school and doing bike safety week or whatever it was.

My DH's spin has been that anyone who chooses not to wear a helmet has some suicidal tendencies. Kind of like not wearing a seatbelt. It shows just a total lack of concern for one's life and well-being to not be willing to be minorly inconvenienced or uncomfortable for the sake of your life.... I don't get it.


----------



## Ruthla (Jun 2, 2004)

I would have called 911. Yes, the cop couldn't see the eratic driving, but he DID see the kids in the makeshift bike seat and without helmets, so it's clear that the man was riding the bike with the children in that manner (this was in a public place, not in front of their house.) I don't know what the laws are in IL, but in NY there are laws about bike helmets on kids under 14, and a police officer seeing what you described would likely contact CPS. Even if there are no laws requiring helmets for kids in IL, if the officer felt the situation was unsafe, he could have called CPS anyway.


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

No, I wouldn't have thought to call 911 on that one.


----------



## 4evermom (Feb 3, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ElliesMomma* 
yes *should have" helmets on everyone.

neither of which is illegal.


It's illegal here for kids 12 and under to not wear helmets, not that that seems to be enforced.


----------



## liliaceae (May 31, 2007)

I can't imagine minding my own business if I saw someone putting their children's lives, not to mention the lives of other drivers, in danger. You did the right thing.


----------



## rhiOrion (Feb 17, 2009)

NC requires all children under 16 to wear a helmet if they are the bike driver.

And, "All child passengers falling at or below 40 pounds/40 inches, must be carried in a separate restraining seat. "

But, the fine is only 10 stupid dollars.


----------



## Comtessa (Sep 16, 2008)

We are an avid cycling family and frequently take our daughter out in a trailer hooked up to my bike. There are probably plenty of people who think that it is serious child endangerment to pull my child in a bike trailer in traffic, but there are also people who think that all bicycles should ride on the sidewalk (which is illegal in our state because it's so dangerous), so I don't pay too much attention to the people who yell out their car windows about how I'm endangering my child.

When you're biking with a child, you need to be incredibly more careful than when you're biking alone, but some things are more risky than others. Someone riding with children on the bike as you describe is not necessarily putting them in danger. (Seatbelts, for example, aren't necessary if they're on the back of a tricycle, and depending on the setup, could even be more dangerous in that situation.) Putting them on the bike without helmets, in traffic, and cutting across lanes of traffic without signalling traffic to slow down, _is_ putting them in danger, IMO.

It's hard to judge without having been there, because like a PP said, lots of people see all bicycling as inherently dangerous, especially when you're trying to make a legal left-hand turn (which often requires cutting across several lanes of traffic and putting the bike into the very center of the road).

I think that if I saw this I probably would have called, too, even though I normally avoid calling police for pretty much everything. The police in our community don't have a very good track record when it comes to treating people with respect and appropriateness, though -- I've seen too many innocent people get arrested or beat up or verbally abused by our city's finest. I've spent some time locked up in the muni jail myself, too (don't worry, I meant to be there), and it's the filthiest and most dehumanizing place I've ever been. I can't imagine doing anything that might send someone there for _any_ reason. But in this case, yes, I would have called. Someone who endangers children by riding in such a way that they are at risk needs a serious wake-up call, and there are many many wake-up calls that are better than having a child seriously injured or, heaven forbid, killed.


----------



## Marsupialmom (Sep 28, 2003)

Honestly, If I saw a guy with a make shift seat for his kids on a bike with no helmets I would assume he (they) were doing the best they could. To me this situation seems an action of people in poverty not people willfully trying to put their kids in danger. The flat tire could be why he had some erratic biking.

I don't see how ticketing them or having the harassed by police helpful. What if they did stop him. Told him not to put the kids on the bike or threaten to arrest him. Now he has to push the bike and keep two kids in control over a busy street.


----------



## Drummer's Wife (Jun 5, 2005)

I wouldn't have called - but then I've never called 911 or the cops on anyone in my life.

That said, I don't think what you did was wrong; you were obviously concerned for the little girls.


----------



## nola79 (Jun 21, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Lisa1970* 
I love your dh's response "you're not the police." Ummm...that is WHY you called the police!

I think you did the right thing.

This, exactly. I would have called.


----------



## dakotablue (Jun 21, 2009)

I would have called the police, 911 if I didn't have the local number. I call when I see aggressive drivers or what appears to be drunk drivers. As a citizen how can I not step in and help the police protect _my_ life?

How would the OP feel if she saw on the news that night that those kids died? That's why I call in drivers who will likely cause accidents and could kill someone. I'm not a passive person.

I also vote


----------



## scottishmommy (Nov 30, 2009)

I would have called. Lots and lots of people die in bike accidents here. Also, I don't think the police "have better things to do". They don't send detectives out to police this sort of thing. The cops who regulate traffic are the same ones who write parking tickets. I've probably had 15 parking tickets since moving to this city. If the cops have the time to write parking tickets for a meter that expired 2 seconds ago, they have time to talk to a father about endangering the life of his children.


----------



## Baby~Braatens~Mama (Apr 21, 2010)

I think you did the right thing, and am sure I would have done the same if I had my cell phone on me. If I had seen this and had not reported it, I would have had a guilty conscience and the constant worry that something may happen to the children and no one spoke up when it could be prevented.


----------



## ThisCat (Jun 19, 2010)

You weren't being ridiculous all. It sounds like those kids were in real danger, and the man was a hazard to the rest of the drivers on the road.


----------



## fork (Feb 7, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Marsupialmom* 
Honestly, If I saw a guy with a make shift seat for his kids on a bike with no helmets I would assume he (they) were doing the best they could. To me this situation seems an action of people in poverty not people willfully trying to put their kids in danger. The flat tire could be why he had some erratic biking.

I don't see how ticketing them or having the harassed by police helpful. What if they did stop him. Told him not to put the kids on the bike or threaten to arrest him. Now he has to push the bike and keep two kids in control over a busy street.


This.

I would not have called.
Only once in my live have I called 911 on a drunk driver, and they were CLEARLY drunk. They were swerving from curb to curb on a 2 lane road.

I just don't feel comfortable "mothering" everyone else in regards to their personal safety.


----------



## angelpie545 (Feb 23, 2005)

It's against the law here for anyone to ride a bike without a helmet (not sure I completely agree with the law for personal reasons...but regardless it's on the books) so I most likely would have called. All it takes is one wrong move either on the part of the car or the bicyclist and someone can die, literally instantly. That's worth a phone call to 911.


----------



## lilyka (Nov 20, 2001)

I would not have called the police. However I don't think calling was wrong either. I am not at all concerned about the seat or the no helmets. he is on a trike.

however he was driving erratically in traffic.


----------



## meemee (Mar 30, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Marsupialmom* 
Honestly, If I saw a guy with a make shift seat for his kids on a bike with no helmets I would assume he (they) were doing the best they could. To me this situation seems an action of people in poverty not people willfully trying to put their kids in danger. The flat tire could be why he had some erratic biking.

I don't see how ticketing them or having the harassed by police helpful. What if they did stop him. Told him not to put the kids on the bike or threaten to arrest him. Now he has to push the bike and keep two kids in control over a busy street.

This is exactly what i thought. Esp. where i live there are many low income migrant families where probably that kind of transportation was the norm from where they came. i probably would have gone and told the dad that its illegal to not have helmets on the kids. yeah CA is strict. anyone under 18 has to wear a helmet - whether passenger or not.

however being in CA and having lived in a low income area i am more aware of signs of poverty than not.


----------



## ThisCat (Jun 19, 2010)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *meemee* 
This is exactly what i thought. Esp. where i live there are many low income migrant families where probably that kind of transportation was the norm from where they came. i probably would have gone and told the dad that its illegal to not have helmets on the kids.

The guy was weaving in and out of traffic and went into the oncoming lane of traffic. The OP said she didn't call because of the type of bike or the lack of helmets but because of the erratic driving.


----------



## VillageMom6 (Dec 2, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Marsupialmom* 
To me this situation seems an action of people in poverty not people willfully trying to put their kids in danger.

I'm trying really hard to understand this line of thinking. Are you saying that if a poor person endangers himself, his children and bystanders that we are to look the other way? At what income level do we start to protect the children? What does a person have to earn before consequences apply to them?


----------



## lovingmommyhood (Jul 28, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *amma_mama* 
I would have called the non-emergency number first. I think that the safety of children is the responsibility of everybody, especially a situation that can involve serious head injury or death.

I respectfully disagree. The safety of children is not the responsibility of everybody...

OP. I would have stopped and talked to the man to see if there was something going on, such as him being drunk (If my husband was with me) if he seemed to be I would have called the police and waited for them to arrive. If I didn't talk to him I wouldn't call. I see things every day that are dangerous for kids.Sadly some people are not as concerned with safety as I am.


----------



## momtoS (Apr 12, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lilyka* 
I would not have called the police. However I don't think calling was wrong either. I am not at all concerned about the seat or the no helmets. he is on a trike.

however he was driving erratically in traffic.

How is his bike safer, if rear ended, than a two wheeled bike? I am curious

I would not have confronted him, and would have called the non-emergency number.

I am actually surprised that so many posters think this would be okay.









When answering the question how would the same people that responded that it was not a big deal if it were changed slightly to: if you hired a babysitter and you were driving down a busy street and saw them in the back of a trike, in a basket, with no helmets, and the sitter was riding in a dangerous manner. Would you continue to drive....because it really doesn't bother you? Just curious if the answer would change if it was your own children.


----------



## lovingmommyhood (Jul 28, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *VillageMom6* 
I'm trying really hard to understand this line of thinking. Are you saying that if a poor person endangers himself, his children and bystanders that we are to look the other way? At what income level do we start to protect the children? What does a person have to earn before consequences apply to them?

Who are we really protecting the children from? If you turn someone in and they are deemed unfit, is it always for the best?? Because they were driving with their kids on a bike in a less than safe manner? It's not as if the OP saw the child being physically or verbally harmed. Would *I* do that with my kids? Never. Does that make it wrong in the grand scheme of things? I'm not sure.


----------



## lovingmommyhood (Jul 28, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *momtoS* 

When answering the question how would the same people that responded that it was not a big deal if it were changed slightly to: if you hired a babysitter and you were driving down a busy street and saw them in the back of a trike, in a basket, with no helmets, and the sitter was riding in a dangerous manner. Would you continue to drive....because it really doesn't bother you? Just curious if the answer would change if it was your own children.

Are you kidding? I'd fire my babysitter on the spot and would have a hard time not slapping them silly. I would *NEVER* allow that to happen to my kids but that's the thing, these are not my kids. I'd also never vaccinate my kids but that doesn't mean I call 9-1-1 on those that do. That's a moot point.


----------



## Breathless Wonder (Jan 25, 2004)

If you are in the United States, in most states a bicycle is considered a vehicle. It is thus subject to the same rules and regulations as a car or truck (other than the speed limit, obviously). So he could have been ticketed for improper maintenance of the bike (people can and do get ticketed regularly for failure to have lights when riding at night), failure to use proper signals (hand signals if you don't have blinkers), violation of helmet laws, and who knows what else- maybe reckless driving for being in the wrong lane? Check your state's driver's manual for information regarding your state. In most places, the bicycle information is included.

He was obviously driving erratically, with the children in unsafe conditions.

I would have called.

Edited to add: And for the record, some places do NOT have a non-emergency number. Or the number is the number of the local police department, which you may not have available to you in a "borderline" emergency. So 911 is your only option, other than doing nothing.


----------



## St. Margaret (May 19, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Limabean1975* 
With what you describe, I may have considered calling - I mean, if he was slowly biking down a quiet residential street, I probably would think "gee that's not safe" and leave it at that. But what you describe would strike me as erratic driving - heck, if I saw a car doing that, I might think "drunk driver"...add in the kids, and that's upsetting.

Thinking more - I probably would have called the non-emergency number.

This. I think it's fine you called in this case-- I should put the non-e # in my phone b/c sometimes that's the better options, but of course we all know 911, and I think in this case someone dealing with it would have been better than ignoring it.


----------



## Marsupialmom (Sep 28, 2003)

Simply put, I have seen impoverish people more skilled at negotiating situations like this because they have to. What can seem erratically to you is maybe experience, struggling with a flat, or some other situation.

All kids are worth protecting, but sometimes when we try to protect kids in poverty we do more harm than good by calling police.

Let say the cops told him not to put the kids on the bike and he has to try to get them across.

What if the cops ticket him? He can't afford it. Doesn't pay it. Bench warrant issued. Later he pulled over and arrested.

Poor people are more likely to have their kids removed from their homes, instead of helped.

Yes, I am more careful when I call the cops to help people that are poor. I would be more likely to gone up to him and offer to purchase his kids helmets.

I have bought food, sleeping bags, paid for laundry, et before calling police or CPS. In this case, I be inclined to see what else him might need.


----------



## sparklefairy (May 21, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *rhiOrion* 
NC requires all children under 16 to wear a helmet if they are the bike driver.

And, "All child passengers falling at or below 40 pounds/40 inches, must be carried in a separate restraining seat. "

But, the fine is only 10 stupid dollars.

The fine should be higher and come with a "free" bike helmet. (Though you can get a bike helmet in my town for $10.)


----------



## meemee (Mar 30, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ThisCat* 
The guy was weaving in and out of traffic and went into the oncoming lane of traffic. The OP said she didn't call because of the type of bike or the lack of helmets but because of the erratic driving.









: yes erratic driving was unsafe. and yes i have also seen erratic drivers who are lost or trying to find an address. so erratic driving over a few blocks is not reason enough for me to call unless it was way beyond erratic.

dunno. i probably would have done the same thing if i saw the dad drive a long distance.

but i lived near a food bank. and i saw the poor struggle so hard to take care of their children. and just coz they were poor didnt make them negligent parents even though it would seem like that on paper.

and as marsupial mom has pointed out, the poor and illeterate get such a rough deal with the authorities.


----------



## ThisCat (Jun 19, 2010)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *meemee* 









Seriously?


----------



## junipermoon (Nov 19, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lovingmommyhood* 
Who are we really protecting the children from? If you turn someone in and they are deemed unfit, is it always for the best?? Because they were driving with their kids on a bike in a less than safe manner? It's not as if the OP saw the child being physically or verbally harmed. Would *I* do that with my kids? Never. Does that make it wrong in the grand scheme of things? I'm not sure.

I totally agree.

At what income level do we address safety? At the highest levels first! Rich people ought not to be taking privileges and gleaning resources at rates that cause others' children to suffer suffer like this, at unfair disadvantage that impacts their safety! But if I called 911 about that, they would come for me or send a psych consult, soo...

In any case, I think when "emergencies" are so widespread, the best response is to address and send our energy towards healing the root causes.


----------



## meemee (Mar 30, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ThisCat* 
Seriously?

sorry this was perhaps too harsh for MDC. but sometimes our best intentions can really ruin lives.

but yeah. i volunteer with the poor and illiterate. and i mean illiterate. you have no idea how limiting life is for them. and how despicably they are treated (they have a c section and their tubes are tied, or their uterus taken out - with their signed consent, except that they had no idea what they wrote their name for). and so sometimes they have to take a chance. a chance you and i thankfully dont have to, but they have to.

for many of us a $10 bicycle ticket might be nothing or not so bad. for others it could totally break them.

some of the police are understanding. but not all.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *junipermoon* 
In any case, I think when "emergencies" are so widespread, the best response is to address and send our energy towards healing the root causes.

ITA


----------



## WindyCityMom (Aug 17, 2009)

First and foremost- thank you all for the replies.

I called non-emergency because it states something like (when you call, the recording) "If you are in a situation that requires police, ambulatory, or fire service, please call 911". I was unsure and wondered if the operator would have had me call 911 instead.

Each street of the intersection was a 4 lane street (I suppose you could consider one of them six lanes if you include the turning lanes- I've never paid much attention to lanes and such as I don't drive). Imagine three busy streets crossing at once. Imagine cars pulling in and out of various stops along side (as I mentioned, gas station, etc). It can get dangerous and my DH and I have been in a very minor accident there before.

I myself am poor. Do you know what I do? I take the bus. Sure- the bus costs money, but I don't use it for joyriding and only use it when I really need it (in the past for work and school, currently for doctors appointments, etc). If I couldn't afford the bus, I'd ask for a ride from family or a nice neighbor. If that weren't an option, I'd bike or walk. If I took a bike, I'd most certainly put helmets on myself and my children and I'd even more certainly NOT drive like that man did. Being impoverished has nothing to do with going into oncoming traffic knowingly with your kids (or someones kids) on the back of your bike.

All in all, I think I did the right thing.

Oh- and I don't think the police saw the man when he was filling the tires with air. You couldn't see them from the police car's point of view- they were behind the air pump thing.


----------



## theatermom (Jun 5, 2006)

I am not the kind of person that calls 911 or even the non-emergency numbers -- not when children aren't restrained in cars, aren't wearing helmets, or many of the other kinds of violations that more conservative folks call about. In this case, I would definitely have called. Just because he was on a bicycle doesn't make it a live and let live situation. He was operating a vehicle (in most places, bicycles are expected to follow basic traffic laws) in an erratic and unsafe manner, endangering the lives of the children, himself, and anyone driving near him. It doesn't matter WHY the bicycle was moving erratically, it was unsafe and definitely warranted a call. If he were driving a motorcycle or a car, or even just walking back and forth across the intersection, I guarantee someone would have called, if they were being conscientious.


----------



## Sharlla (Jul 14, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamadelbosque* 
I wouldn't have called. I'm w/ your DH - its not your job to make sure everyone is being 'safe' all the time, and its just not your job.









agreed
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## mama2mygirl (Dec 14, 2005)

I would have called. He could have killed his kids or someone else's kids.


----------



## ThisCat (Jun 19, 2010)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *meemee* 
sorry this was perhaps too harsh for MDC. but sometimes our best intentions can really ruin lives.

I think in a case like the OPs, the point to calling the cops would be to keep the guy from ruining lives. What if a car he swerved in front of couldn't stop in time and someone in the car got hurt or the girls got seriously injured or killed? Or what if a car in an oncoming lane he swerved into swerved to avoid him and hit another car? I understand that calling the authorities can sometimes have unintended negative consequences and don't think people should make the decision lightly, but in the case of a public safety threat (which I would consider someone weaving in and out of traffic making people slam on their brakes and swerving into the oncoming lane of traffic), I'd be willing to take that chance. I can see suggesting not calling CPS on parents that don't measure up to our standards, but this is an entirely different case, and I don't think anyone needs to be tolerant about dangerous behavior on the roads regardless of anyone's socioeconomic status.

And as to this guy's socioeconomic status, well we just don't know, and there really is no way of knowing. To be honest, the first thing that popped into my mind wasn't poverty stricken illiterate immigrant as some here have suggested but rather environmentalist hippie alternative living dude that watched No Impact Man one too many times (who was not poor by any stretch). But that's stereotyping too just like assuming he was poor. I'll work on that.


----------



## *bejeweled* (Jul 16, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamadelbosque* 
I wouldn't have called. I'm w/ your DH - its not your job to make sure everyone is being 'safe' all the time, and its just not your job.


----------



## One_Girl (Feb 8, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *new2this* 
I wouldn't have called, but would have maybe called the non-emergency number.

I would have done this also, but obviously they considered it an emergency if they came out that quickly.


----------



## meemee (Mar 30, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *WindyCityMom* 
All in all, I think I did the right thing.

no matter what mama the key is this. at that moment you had to do what you felt was right. you had to act immediately. here i am sitting in my comfortable chair i can 'think' i will act one way but who knows how i would have acted.

and just to point out there are different definitions of poor. i am poor too. but the level of poverty i am talking about i assure you no one on MDC is that poor. not just financially but resources and chances too.


----------



## gcgirl (Apr 3, 2007)

I love how there's an assumption being made that this was a poor family. Maybe...but it could just as easily be my middle-class dad who jerry-rigs everything and scoffs at safety laws.


----------



## lovingmommyhood (Jul 28, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *gcgirl* 
I love how there's an assumption being made that this was a poor family. Maybe...but it could just as easily be my middle-class dad who jerry-rigs everything and scoffs at safety laws.









The point is we don't know. The point is we should give people the benefit of the doubt sometimes...when possible.


----------



## phathui5 (Jan 8, 2002)

Quote:

yes *should have" helmets on everyone.

neither of which is illegal.
Where we live, kids not wearing helmets IS illegal.


----------



## MCatLvrMom2A&X (Nov 18, 2004)

I may have used the non emergency number to call it in.


----------



## Emzachsmama (Apr 30, 2004)

I think based on what you described and the recording your non-emergency number has, that you did the right thing by calling 911. You don't know the man's economic status and really it doesn't even matter if he is poor or not - bottom line, the kids weren't in a safe situation and that needed to be addressed.


----------



## EdnaMarie (Sep 9, 2006)

Quote:

the Above mentioned man had a rickety homemade wooden bench seat on the back of his bike (it was a 3 wheeler bike that typically has a basket back there).
I would not have called but I might have gone up to him and told him to watch out, that kids on a bike even like that need helmets and harnesses, according to the law, and I'd hate to see him get a ticket. "Maybe they'd go easier if you stayed on the sidewalk. Sorry to bother you, I just would hate to see your fun ruined!"


----------



## crpsmnwife (Aug 17, 2007)

I think you did the right thing. Especially since he was driving in such an irratic manner and putting EVERYONE else at risk.


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

I would've called. Tell your dh that he'd better never "learn a lesson" like that where your kids are involved.

If he'd been alone, I would've called the non-emergency number because I have it in my phone. If I didn't have it for some reason, I would still call 911 for drunken-seeming bicycle riding.


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sparklefairy* 
The fine should be higher and come with a "free" bike helmet. (Though you can get a bike helmet in my town for $10.)

Or the fine should be $10, come with a helmet, and the second fine should be $100.


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Oh, and I can't imagine an illiterate and poor person wanting anyone to think that being either poor or illiterate would mean that they'd be stupid enough to bike into oncoming traffic. Just like with rich people, the vast majority of poor people have basic common sense and would be horribly offended to be treated like they didn't.


----------



## vbactivist (Oct 4, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamadelbosque* 
I wouldn't have called. I'm w/ your DH - its not your job to make sure everyone is being 'safe' all the time, and its just not your job.



















http://www.ski-epic.com/amsterdam_bicycles/

I love the site I posted above. We don't use helmets either


----------



## vbactivist (Oct 4, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *SubliminalDarkness* 
Minors without bike helmets is not illegal where you are? It's been illegal since I was a kid everywhere we've lived. Under 18, helmet required, no exceptions.


It's not illegal where I live, thank goodness!!


----------



## vbactivist (Oct 4, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *liliaceae* 
I can't imagine minding my own business if I saw someone putting their children's lives, not to mention the lives of other drivers, in danger. You did the right thing.


I feel strongly that it's the parents' rights to decide what constitutes danger.


----------



## EdnaMarie (Sep 9, 2006)

Can I just say... there are lots of places that give out free helmets.

Bike and motorbike head injuries are awful. I honestly think I'd rather have almost anything than a head injury... to not feel myself. That is the logic behind those laws, you know. That, and the fact that head injuries keep you permanently incapacitated and yet... alive. Which costs a LOT of money. You can imagine that it's in our interest to make people at least keep their noggin padded.

I don't like helmets, either, but tough titties. I'm not going to take the risk of subjecting society to my enormous lifetime medical bills, or risk some horrid brain injury just to feel the wind in my hair.


----------



## vbactivist (Oct 4, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Marsupialmom* 
*Honestly, If I saw a guy with a make shift seat for his kids on a bike with no helmets I would assume he (they) were doing the best they could.* .

I agree.


----------



## vbactivist (Oct 4, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lovingmommyhood* 
I respectfully disagree. The safety of children is not the responsibility of everybody...

OP. I would have stopped and talked to the man to see if there was something going on, such as him being drunk (If my husband was with me) if he seemed to be I would have called the police and waited for them to arrive. If I didn't talk to him I wouldn't call. *I see things every day that are dangerous for kids*.Sadly some people are not as concerned with safety as I am.


I agree. Actually I would say "I see things that _I feel_ are dangerous for kids every day. Like formula feeding (in most cases). Or people smoking in a car with the windows rolled up with their kids in the back seat. But I mind my own business.


----------



## Ceinwen (Jul 1, 2004)

As a trauma nurse that could have been taking care of their injuries - or calling family to let them know of a tragedy - I say thank you.

I would have called too.


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *vbactivist* 
I feel strongly that it's the parents' rights to decide what constitutes danger.

Fine. As long as they aren't putting others at risk too. And biking into on coming traffic, so that an accident was only avoided by the car braking, risks a multi-car pile-up.

Like I said, I would've called the police on him if he'd been alone. If he then has to explain to the police why he felt the seat and not wearing helmets was safe, that's his look out, shouldn't have been doing it unless he had made a deliberate decision that it did not constitute danger.


----------



## One_Girl (Feb 8, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *vbactivist* 
I feel strongly that it's the parents' rights to decide what constitutes danger.

Many parents decide that beating their children doesn't constitute danger. There needs to be some line where we as society look out for the rights that young children have to living to adulthood. Dodging in and out of traffic isn't safe in a car much less on thin, difficult to see bike. I am all for parents making decisions about safety, but not when it comes to things life threatening decisions like dodging in and out of moving traffic, not using car seats, and beating kids up.


----------



## Nicole730 (Feb 27, 2009)

I would have called the non-emergency number - I have it stored in my phone for stuff like that.


----------



## Spirit Dancer (Dec 11, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamadelbosque* 
I wouldn't have called. I'm w/ your DH - its not your job to make sure everyone is being 'safe' all the time, and its just not your job.









I agree.
Also I thought 911 was for emergencies? This while dangerous certainly was not one.


----------



## midstreammama (Feb 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *vbactivist* 









http://www.ski-epic.com/amsterdam_bicycles/

I love the site I posted above. We don't use helmets either









That website is really neat!


----------



## lovingmommyhood (Jul 28, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *midstreammama* 
That website is really neat!

I liked it too, I passed it on!


----------



## SpiderMum (Sep 13, 2008)

I would have, honestly. He put his kids and other drivers at risk and that's not okay. Good for you for calling.


----------



## AllisonR (May 5, 2006)

WOW, I am totally scratching my head here in confusion. I see posts here all the time about calling the cops or CPS because you see some kid who might not have had lunch or doesn't have shorts on- which IMO is way overboard, but then a guy biking without helmets on his kids through traffic (not next to traffic) and people say don't call. Really, really confused here. I have never in my life called the police about a parent (called twice for robberies and twice after shootings), but in this case, I would have called. Really interesting to read everyones perspective.


----------



## ThisCat (Jun 19, 2010)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Spirit Dancer* 
Also I thought 911 was for emergencies? This while dangerous certainly was not one.

The 911 system works a little differently in each area. Alternate numbers are used in some areas but not all, and again they work a little differently everywhere. It sounds like the OP felt the children and everyone on the road for that matter were in danger and the situation needed immediate police response, and the recording on 311 said to call 911 if police services were needed. Seems reasonable to me to use 911 in that situation. And apparently emergency services felt the same since they didn't hassle her when she called, and they dispatched a cop right away.

I'm all for live and let live, but I also think people should look out for each other to some extent. I'm not going to call the cops or CPS every time I see a parenting decision I disagree with personally. I saw a mother have a less than stellar parenting moment outside of the store the other day which included some physical punishment for her child. I kept walking. It was nothing illegal and none of my business. But if I see someone putting their children and others in harms way like driving a bike into oncoming traffic and weaving in and out of traffic causing drivers to slam on their brakes, yeah, I'm calling. I see a pretty clear distinction there, and I'm kind of surprised it's being compared to formula feeding or vaccinating by some, but different strokes I guess.


----------



## VisionaryMom (Feb 20, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EdnaMarie* 
I would not have called but I might have gone up to him and told him to watch out, that kids on a bike even like that need helmets and harnesses, according to the law, and I'd hate to see him get a ticket. "Maybe they'd go easier if you stayed on the sidewalk. Sorry to bother you, I just would hate to see your fun ruined!"

Bikes are illegal on sidewalks. More cyclists actually get hurt on sidewalks than on streets.

I think one issue that got missed is that apparently the OP has called 911 multiple times in the past from her husband's comment that she shouldn't have called again and her admission that it has been a year since she's called. So whether we would have called, I think her husband's concern is that she's too free to call.


----------



## ThisCat (Jun 19, 2010)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *VisionaryMom* 
I think one issue that got missed is that apparently the OP has called 911 multiple times in the past from her husband's comment that she shouldn't have called again and her admission that it has been a year since she's called. So whether we would have called, I think her husband's concern is that she's too free to call.

The OP also said she's "poor," and according to her username and location apparently lives in a big city with a high crime rate. It's not hard to imagine that she might see a fair number of things that might be grounds for a call to 911. I assumed she had called in the past for good reason. Sometimes people living in big cities especially with high crime rates get a bit desensitized which might be why her DH has the attitude he does. That doesn't make the OP wrong though for choosing to get involved.


----------



## VillageMom6 (Dec 2, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Spirit Dancer* 
Also I thought 911 was for emergencies? This while dangerous certainly was not one.

My dad, who is a retired police officer, disagrees with you.

The police know that civilians are not going to make the perfect decision every time. But they would _much_ rather us call when not entirely "necessary" than *not* call when it turns out that it was.

If you have to err, err on the side of caution.


----------



## momtoS (Apr 12, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AllisonR* 
WOW, I am totally scratching my head here in confusion. I see posts here all the time about calling the cops or CPS because you see some kid who might not have had lunch or doesn't have shorts on- which IMO is way overboard, but then a guy biking without helmets on his kids through traffic (not next to traffic) and people say don't call. Really, really confused here. I have never in my life called the police about a parent (called twice for robberies and twice after shootings), but in this case, I would have called. Really interesting to read everyones perspective.


I am with you on this one. I posted a thread about leaving kids in a car....say putting them in the carseats and walking 10 feet to lock the door. (Which I do often). I was surprised at the responses. There are some people that believe you must have a hand on the car AT ALL times or it is wrong. I don't see the harm in leaving children in a carseat, with the windows rolled down for 10 seconds to lock a door, but weaving in and out of traffic on the back of a bike without helmets is totally okay?


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *vbactivist* 









http://www.ski-epic.com/amsterdam_bicycles/

I love the site I posted above. We don't use helmets either









Well of course you don't, this video is of a "crazy busy street" in your area. http://il.youtube.com/watch?v=yO05qx...eature=related

Here's a picture of a small, not particularly crowded, street in a medium sized city in the U.S. http://blogs.indystar.com/starwatch/broadripple12.jpg in an area where bicycle riding is immensely popular.

What is safe when there's 90% bikes and 1% cars and some public transport is far different than what is even remotely close to acceptable when you're the only bike on a road with 6 lanes each way.

I imagine that the intersection in the OP was more like this except the OP's intersection had a 3rd street coming in as well and more lanes. (Please note that that is light traffic for Indianapolis, and Chicago traffic is always heavier than Indy traffic.)

Question, WindyCityMom, did he run a red light or was the car he almost had a head-on collision with just not at the light yet? Because if it was sitting at the light, it wouldn't have had to brake.


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Marsupialmom* 
Honestly, If I saw a guy with a make shift seat for his kids on a bike with no helmets I would assume he (they) were doing the best they could.

And needed assistance getting bike helmets, bus passes, any number of other things that people who are most in need of having have the least chance of finding out about because they don't have the time even if they know where to go to ask about resources.


----------



## vbactivist (Oct 4, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *momtoS* 
I am with you on this one. I posted a thread about leaving kids in a car....say putting them in the carseats and walking 10 feet to lock the door. (Which I do often). I was surprised at the responses. There are some people that believe you must have a hand on the car AT ALL times or it is wrong. I don't see the harm in leaving children in a carseat, with the windows rolled down for 10 seconds to lock a door, but weaving in and out of traffic on the back of a bike without helmets is totally okay?









I would assume its the same people who say no big deal about both things, or overreact about both things.

FTR, I think both are no big deal


----------



## vbactivist (Oct 4, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sapphire_chan* 
And needed assistance getting bike helmets, bus passes, any number of other things that people who are most in need of having have the least chance of finding out about because they don't have the time even if they know where to go to ask about resources.

Or...some people like riding their bikes. And understand that living life comes with risks. We all get to weigh those risks for ourselves. Or _should_. More people are injured in cars every day than riding bikes (even accounting for the fact that there are more cars on the rode). Do you suggest people stop driving their cars?


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *vbactivist* 
Or...some people like riding their bikes. And understand that living life comes with risks. We all get to weigh those risks for ourselves. Or _should_. More people are injured in cars every day than riding bikes (even accounting for the fact that there are more cars on the rode). Do you suggest people stop driving their cars?

If they can't afford seatbelts? Heck ya.


----------



## Ceinwen (Jul 1, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *vbactivist* 
Or...some people like riding their bikes. And understand that living life comes with risks. We all get to weigh those risks for ourselves. Or _should_. More people are injured in cars every day than riding bikes (even accounting for the fact that there are more cars on the rode). Do you suggest people stop driving their cars?

I don't think adults get to make decisions re: basic safety, that can lead to injuring their children. Riding a bike in the situation described, sans helmet - is a no brainer. Those kids could have been killed or worse.

Again, I've done CPR, _more than once_, on an child with a traumatic injury - that could have been prevented. It's not pleasant. Being with a doctor who tells a family their child is dead - also not fun.

Maybe this person is simply unaware of the importance of bike helmets in a busy urban setting like the one described? Maybe they get spoken to, given assistance re: getting helmets? People don't have to jump to the worse case scenario.


----------



## lovingmommyhood (Jul 28, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *momtoS* 
I am with you on this one. I posted a thread about leaving kids in a car....say putting them in the carseats and walking 10 feet to lock the door. (Which I do often). I was surprised at the responses. There are some people that believe you must have a hand on the car AT ALL times or it is wrong. I don't see the harm in leaving children in a carseat, with the windows rolled down for 10 seconds to lock a door, but weaving in and out of traffic on the back of a bike without helmets is totally okay?









I doubt it's the same people answering the same two questions. MDC is quite large.


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ceinwen* 
Maybe they get spoken to, given assistance re: getting helmets? People don't have to jump to the worse case scenario.









I don't get the assumption that the kids will be taken away if the authorities become involved but couldn't possibly be killed if the authorities aren't involved.


----------



## vbactivist (Oct 4, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ceinwen* 
*I don't think adults get to make decisions re: basic safety, that can lead to injuring their children.* Riding a bike in the situation described, sans helmet - is a no brainer. Those kids could have been killed or worse.

Again, I've done CPR, _more than once_, on an child with a traumatic injury - that could have been prevented. It's not pleasant. Being with a doctor who tells a family their child is dead - also not fun.

Maybe this person is simply unaware of the importance of bike helmets in a busy urban setting like the one described? Maybe they get spoken to, given assistance re: getting helmets? People don't have to jump to the worse case scenario.

Well, there are studies saying not vaxxing isn't safe. should we call 911 every time we see someone declining to vax their kids? Technically (statistically) c-sections are _safer for the baby_ - do you think that we should take away the right to birth vaginally?


----------



## scottishmommy (Nov 30, 2009)

I read a report recently(in a password locked medical journal, my dad got it up for me) that elective c-sections are associated with a considerably higher infant mortality rate (4X) compared with vaginal deliveries. Vaginal birth is safer for babies and mommies.


----------



## tbone_kneegrabber (Oct 16, 2007)

What I got from the op is not erratic driving. He was in the bike lane. Needed to make a left turn, the biker would *have* to go through multiple lanes and incoming traffic to make a left turn. There is not other way. That's not illegal or erratic, that is locamoting.

Tricycles have a different center of gravity than a bike and with extra weight on the back have much different momentum. I assume the biker was making a left turn and was not completely familar with riding the trike with the extra weight and or a flat tire.

Would you call 911 if you saw someone with a flat tire pulling into a gas station and not doing an excellent job because of the flat tire? Maybe taking longer than normal to get across the intersection? Or someone driving a car they are less familar with and cutting someone off because the blind spot is different? Happens all the time. One could even say the person was driving erratically, but normally we wouldn't call the cops. What if someone was making a left turn, miscalucated how fast oncoming traffic was coming and *almost* got hit/caused an accident (a common occurance) would you call then? O

A bike/trike is a vehicle and allowed on the road. In some places there are helmet laws. In some places there are not.


----------



## vbactivist (Oct 4, 2006)

I am pretty sure noone here is going to change their views. I am just glad that I live in a city large enough that if the police were called for something like in the op, they would say thanks to the caller and then hang up and roll their eyes. They've got "crimes" to fight, not personal opinions to validate.


----------



## scottishmommy (Nov 30, 2009)

http://bicycleuniverse.info/transpo/almanac-safety.html

http://www.helmets.org/stats.htm


----------



## ThisCat (Jun 19, 2010)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *tbone_kneegrabber* 
What I got from the op is not erratic driving. He was in the bike lane. Needed to make a left turn, the biker would *have* to go through multiple lanes and incoming traffic to make a left turn. There is not other way. That's not illegal or erratic, that is locamoting.

I think if it had been as simple as all that, there may not have been an issue. The OP said "He was just weaving in and out all over the place!" and that at least one driver had to slam on the breaks. I'm going to take her at her word that this wasn't just typical locomoting.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *tbone_kneegrabber* 
Tricycles have a different center of gravity than a bike and with extra weight on the back have much different momentum. I assume the biker was making a left turn and was not completely familar with riding the trike with the extra weight and or a flat tire.

If he were unfamiliar with riding a trike, perhaps riding with two small children on the busy streets of Chicago might not have been the best way to practice. If he realized that it was more than he could handle once he was out, he could have pulled over at any time. And if he had a flat, he should have pulled over just like a car likely would. No one should continue to drive a vehicle motored or not when it's unstable. On the plus side, you can walk a bike unlike a car.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *tbone_kneegrabber* 
Would you call 911 if you saw someone with a flat tire pulling into a gas station and not doing an excellent job because of the flat tire? Maybe taking longer than normal to get across the intersection?

Probably not since they were already off the roads and the tire was the issue, but I might think the person was not very bright to say the least for continuing to operate a vehicle that was not roadworthy. There are times when continuing to drive to the station might be the best option, but there are times when the best thing to do is pull over.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *tbone_kneegrabber* 
Or someone driving a car they are less familar with and cutting someone off because the blind spot is different? Happens all the time. One could even say the person was driving erratically, but normally we wouldn't call the cops. What if someone was making a left turn, miscalucated how fast oncoming traffic was coming and *almost* got hit/caused an accident (a common occurance) would you call then?

I probably wouldn't call for a single error if it seemed like some random isolated incident. But if a driver was making multiple "miscalculations," yes I might call because they're a hazard and they could be impaired. It really depends on the situation.

But to be perfectly honest, I'd probably cut even less slack to a cyclist with a kid on board, helmet or not, making repeated miscalculations. The margin for error is much less on a bike. Most people I've seen with kids on bikes are extremely cautious because of that.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *tbone_kneegrabber* 
A bike/trike is a vehicle and allowed on the road.

Of course they are. And they need to exercise caution and obey traffic laws just like the motorists.


----------



## ThisCat (Jun 19, 2010)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *vbactivist* 
I am just glad that I live in a city large enough that if the police were called for something like in the op, they would say thanks to the caller and then hang up and roll their eyes. They've got "crimes" to fight, not personal opinions to validate.









Yeah, they don't have "crimes" in Chicago.

ETA - In case it wasn't clear, I was being a little sarcastic because I was so amused by the comment, but what I meant was Chicago is a large city with actual crime, and yet the cops managed to respond to the call. Even in big cities, cops respond to traffic calls and small time stuff. They can prioritize if need be.


----------



## liliaceae (May 31, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *vbactivist* 
I am pretty sure noone here is going to change their views. I am just glad that I live in a city large enough that if the police were called for something like in the op, they would say thanks to the caller and then hang up and roll their eyes. They've got "crimes" to fight, not personal opinions to validate.

Personal opinions?? Did you even read the OP? This guy was breaking the law, so she called the police.


----------



## VillageMom6 (Dec 2, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *vbactivist* 
I am just glad that I live in a city large enough that if the police were called for something like in the op, they would say thanks to the caller and then hang up and roll their eyes. They've got "crimes" to fight...

I'm glad I live in a town small enough that the police care about the lives of all the residents and aren't overwhelmed dealing with violent crimes.

Cops around here don't roll their eyes. They embody the term "civil servant".


----------



## lovingmommyhood (Jul 28, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ThisCat* 







Yeah, they don't have "crimes" in Chicago.

I noticed that as well!! Murder...Rape...Yeah...


----------



## Ceinwen (Jul 1, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *vbactivist* 
Well, there are studies saying not vaxxing isn't safe. should we call 911 every time we see someone declining to vax their kids? Technically (statistically) c-sections are _safer for the baby_ - do you think that we should take away the right to birth vaginally?

If you worked where I did - you would realize how ridiculous that comparison is.

If you haven't seen a traumatic brain injury in a child, that could have been prevented - you won't understand it.

Studies re: vax are up for debate. A child's body vs. a moving vehicle is not.

Edit: I also live in an extremely large metropolitan area. Our police force has time to fight so called 'real crime' - and respond to situations like the one described in the OP.

The concern outlined was hardly a personal opinion. It was potentially a fatality involving children. One that could be avoided. Full stop.


----------



## vbactivist (Oct 4, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *liliaceae* 
Personal opinions?? Did you even read the OP? This guy was breaking the law, so she called the police.

What law was he breaking? THere are no mandatory helmet laws in Chicago.


----------



## Ceinwen (Jul 1, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *vbactivist* 
What law was he breaking? THere are no mandatory helmet laws in Chicago.

From the op's description - he was driving recklessly.


----------



## WindyCityMom (Aug 17, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *vbactivist* 
What law was he breaking? THere are no mandatory helmet laws in Chicago.

He drove into ONCOMING TRAFFIC.

From my OP, just in case anyone didn't catch what I said..

Quote:

he merged left into the traffic lane, and cut off a car (car slammed on their brakes). He then went into the oncoming traffic lane, and the oncoming car was about 5secs away from him. He was just weaving in and out all over the place!
The bike lane is at the right of the traffic lane. He was not yet at the intersection. He went into the lane to the left of him, cut off a car who had to slam on their brakes, then merged left across into the ONCOMING TRAFFIC LANE. Not to make a left turn. He didn't go to the left turn lane. He went into the oncoming traffic's lane. I'm pretty sure that it was a solid yellow line, ie, no passing. Then he came back into the correct lanes, and continued his weaving in and out of traffic.

In regards to my calling 911 in the past- yes, it has been for REAL emergencies. DHs grandmother getting ill. Shots fired near our home. People breaking into cars on our block (including attempting to break into my DHs). Things like that. The only time I have called 911 on a negligent parent was once when a mom was driving erratically outside of Babies R Us with her toddler and preschool aged child hanging out of the windows.


----------



## zebra15 (Oct 2, 2009)

I wouldnt call. But then again I let my kid do all kinds of dangerous things and somehow riding on the back of a parents bike doesnt *sound* that dangerous to me. I am a HUGE believer in parents choice.

Dangerous to you doesnt not equate to dangerous to me.


----------



## WindyCityMom (Aug 17, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *vbactivist* 
I am pretty sure noone here is going to change their views. I am just glad that I live in a city large enough that if the police were called for something like in the op, they would say thanks to the caller and then hang up and roll their eyes. *They've got "crimes" to fight, not personal opinions to validate*.

Wow. Really? Nah, 450+ homicides last year? No biggie. (That's sarcasm.)

Also, in Chicago, our Police SUVs are used for traffic patrol.. (I am the daughter of a retired Chicago Police Officer, so I know a thing or two) and an SUV showed up to the scene. I'm sure our beat cops know how to prioritize themselves and won't take a reckless driver call over a shots fired call.


----------



## MissMaegie'sMama (Jul 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Spirit Dancer* 
I agree.
Also I thought 911 was for emergencies? This while dangerous certainly was not one.

Where I live, both 911 and non-emergency calls are dispatched by the same operators. I've called non-emergency and had a 911 operator answer my call. 'Round here, if you call 911 because you don't know/remember the non-emergency number, they're okay with that and will patch you through to an operator whose job it is to handle the non-emergency calls.









OP, I probably would have called too, just for peace of mind. I would be bothered by the girls not wearing helmets and the erratic driving. A thought I had when reading your first post is that maybe the driver of the trike is unaware of helmet laws or doesn't know where to get helmets for the children. If the SUV cops deal with traffic control, then it's likely that a big part of their job is outreach and education for cyclists. They could have told the man that the girls need helmets if they're going to ride on the back of the trike, and could give him info on where to get them for cheap (or even free) if he truly is too poor to afford them.


----------



## Viola (Feb 1, 2002)

I think the OP's intentions were good and came from a place of caring. It's hard to know what the full consequence of calling was, and if we could see the future and the past, all the things that led to the situation and the ramifications of calling the police, maybe we'd make a different decision, but I think her decision was a good one. Based on what you saw, WindyCityMom, you made the decision that felt right.

I do like junipermoon's comments about the poverty of the situation, and I can get that angle of it. I know people who have done things that aren't legal or safe because they were desperate and had to do what they had to do to get by. There are risks, sure, but we feel like the chances will be with us that it will all work out. If I thought the guy was weaving because he had some problems with his tires and he was trying to fix that, I wouldn't have called. But if he's pulling out into oncoming traffic with so little time, as well as faulty equipment, that would disturbe me more. I'd think maybe being talked to by police might at least spur him to be more cautious the next time he has to make a left turn into oncoming traffic. Of course, I've made dumb driving errors and then after the fact thought about how I was lucky it all worked out, so maybe he just seriously misjudged.

I disagree that people who ride without bicycle helmets have suicidal tendencies. There are tons of bicycle and motorcycle riders around the world, and I'd bet the majority of them don't wear helmets. I'm not sure if I would have called, because, honestly, I have seen some hairy, hairy bike and motorcycle riding with children involved, no helmets. Not in this country, but relatively recent enough that the situation as described wouldn't have fazed me as much as it might have at one point.

However, I do think that bicycle riding in the US is different than in other countries, heck, it's different from city to city, I'm sure, but most every city I've been in in the US does not have bike riders in the same numbers as big cities in many other countries, and I think many drivers in the US have a different sort of attitude about sharing the road. As much as we might be told to practice defensive driving, there are so many incidents that could be avoided if both drivers did, but sometimes people really see it as a right of way situation and figure it will be the other guy's fault.


----------



## bobandjess99 (Aug 1, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *SubliminalDarkness* 
Minors without bike helmets is not illegal where you are? It's been illegal since I was a kid everywhere we've lived. Under 18, helmet required, no exceptions.

Many, many states do not have helmet laws. Mine is one of them. You do not even have to wear one on a MOTORCYCLE. Wearing one on a bike is...unheard of.









I would have been concerned about the seemingly erratic driving. IT could have been a simple mistake though...I've been driving for about 15 years now, and I can say with all honesty that there have been a few times where I simply did not see an oncoming vehicle, or some other potentially dangerous issue. The seat he made wouldn't have bothered me at all. I've been considering modifiying a bike that way myself, much, much cheaper than a $2000 specialized euro bike meant for transporting families. And the helmet thing is completely legal here and uh..ya, I don't call 911 to report completely legal activity.


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *tbone_kneegrabber* 
What if someone was making a left turn, miscalucated how fast oncoming traffic was coming and *almost* got hit/caused an accident (a common occurance) would you call then?

If they cut someone off first and then pulled into a gas station right there? Probably. However, I wouldn't expect the fast response the OP got about the bike guy.

I wouldn't bother calling if they'd already left the area though.

And I wouldn't, in either case, be trying to get the cops to arrest him or whatever, it'd be a matter of wanting them to come to the area and check it out.

And I'd call for the helmets too because it IS illegal in the OP's city to not have helmets. http://www.bhsi.org/mandator.htm


----------



## vbactivist (Oct 4, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *WindyCityMom* 
Wow. Really? *Nah, 450+ homicides* last year? No biggie. (That's sarcasm.)

Also, in Chicago, our Police SUVs are used for traffic patrol.. (I am the daughter of a retired Chicago Police Officer, so I know a thing or two) and an SUV showed up to the scene. I'm sure our beat cops know how to prioritize themselves and won't take a reckless driver call over a shots fired call.

Your sarcasm is even more reason why I wouldn't have called - to even tie up the lines with something like a call about a cyclist would be beyond upsetting if a homicide was happening.


----------



## vbactivist (Oct 4, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sapphire_chan* 
If they cut someone off first and then pulled into a gas station right there? Probably. However, I wouldn't expect the fast response the OP got about the bike guy.

I wouldn't bother calling if they'd already left the area though.

And I wouldn't, in either case, be trying to get the cops to arrest him or whatever, it'd be a matter of wanting them to come to the area and check it out.

And I'd call for the helmets too because it IS illegal in the OP's city to not have helmets. http://www.bhsi.org/mandator.htm

It's illegal for messengers only, not pleasure cyclists.


----------



## One_Girl (Feb 8, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *vbactivist* 
What law was he breaking? THere are no mandatory helmet laws in Chicago.

Weaving in and out of traffic is often against the law, especially if you are passing on the right. Cutting someone of in their lane so that they have to slam on their breaks is an infraction where I live (I just got my only ticket for doing that last year when I was making a turn). I don't think the issue was the helmet, though it was less safe because the kids didn't have a helmet. The helmet seems like a little thing people seem to have latched onto to debate. The big issue was that he was cutting people off, weaving in and out of traffic, causing cars to have to slam on their breaks, and putting the drivers and the children at risk of a crash that could have resulted in serious injury.

My city isn't nearly the size of Chicago, but one person having to slam on their breaks because of another person's traffic infraction can cause a serious accident. All drivers should pay attention to what is going on, but our roads often get backed up because they don't and the person behind isn't paying enough attention to what is going on. I think that weaving in and out of traffic would be taken even more seriously there than it is here because there are more cars and the crash could be bigger and cause more of a delay. Bikes and motorcycles are also often hit because they are harder to see when you are going the speed limit even by people who are looking.


----------



## ThisCat (Jun 19, 2010)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sapphire_chan* 
And I'd call for the helmets too because it IS illegal in the OP's city to not have helmets. http://www.bhsi.org/mandator.htm

Since there seemed to be some disagreement about this, I looked up the bike laws for Chicago, and apparently the helmet law only applies to messengers. However, while perusing the laws, I stumbled across a law that states that bikes cannot carry more people than they were designed for, so the makeshift seat for the girls might not fly. And as someone mentioned earlier, the extra weight on the back might be at least part of the reason he was weaving and swerving into oncoming traffic, and it might be why he was having tire problems too. There's more to safely modifying a bike for extra people than just slapping down a piece of wood for a seat. If a bike is difficult to control, it becomes everyone's problem.


----------



## Quinalla (May 23, 2005)

Calling the non-emergency number, yes I might have hard to judge just by a description, but not 911. But here, minors have to wear helmets by law, so that's an even bigger deal here.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

I don't get why the big fuss is being made about helmets in traffic here. Yes helmets can save your brain if you fall off your bike because you hit a rock. But they are not in any way designed to protect you if a car hits you. They will be useless. I see this misconception so much, that if riding on a busy road of course you must have your helmet on lest you get hit by a car. It makes no sense. I see it in safety advertising too, right up the road from me there is a big poster that reads something like, 'Because of an improperly worn helmet, one less student will graduate this year.' It shows a pic of a bicycle crushed on the road beside a car. I want to graffiti it to say, 'Because OF A CAR, one less student will graduate this year.'

If the cyclist was truly driving into oncoming traffic with kids aboard, I think an emergency call was necessary. But I think it is also one of those things I can't judge without being there to see, because clearly the OP was freaked out just by a bicycle in the road (lack of seatbelts, which of course are not used on bicycles, and the diy bench - which may indicate poverty, yes, but it may also indicate a diy'er who mods his cycle to carry cargo, as this is pretty common among cycling-for-transportation enthusiasts).


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sapphire_chan* 
And I'd call for the helmets too because it IS illegal in the OP's city to not have helmets. http://www.bhsi.org/mandator.htm

If you are going to call 911 over helmets, you should also call for every speeder you see on the road (not just the extreme ones). After all speeding is illegal too. And cars are the biggest danger on the road. This cycling advocacy blog, copenhagenize.com, discusses the phenomenon of 'ignoring the bull' in terms of how we frame car/bicycle safety in our culture: http://www.copenhagenize.com/2010/01...a-dot-psa.html


----------



## Anastasiya (Jun 13, 2006)

I think people are getting too hung up on the poverty and helmet thing.

The ISSUE was that the man was swerving in and out of lanes into oncoming traffic. He could have not only killed himself and his kids, but others as well.

He was in the bike lane, then swerved into the driving lane, almost getting hit, then swerved into oncoming traffic with no intent to turn left (he wasn't locomoting a turn). He just was swerving....then went back to the bike lane eventually, where he swerved some more. Sounds like he was drunk. See the OP's clarification.

Yeah, I would have called. Even if they'd been in a super expensive trike with seatbelts and helmets and all that - if Dad was driving recklessly and endangering his kids and other drivers on the road, then it's an issue for the police.


----------



## Anastasiya (Jun 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *vbactivist* 
Your sarcasm is even more reason why I wouldn't have called - to even tie up the lines with something like a call about a cyclist would be beyond upsetting if a homicide was happening.

But how upsetting would it be had she called, and your police would have rolled their eyes, only for you to find out later that the cyclist had caused a three car pile-up and someone you _loved_ was in the accident?


----------



## ThisCat (Jun 19, 2010)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *vbactivist* 
Your sarcasm is even more reason why I wouldn't have called - to even tie up the lines with something like a call about a cyclist would be beyond upsetting if a homicide was happening.

I can't imagine any law enforcement agency in the US that only expected or was only equipped to deal with calls for murders in progress. And considering the recording on 311 said to call 911 for police services, and it sounds like the OP got through right way, and the cops showed up right away, it would seem the system is not so fragile that only murders in progress can be reported. If it were, I would think they would ask that people call 311 for less urgent matters.


----------



## scottishmommy (Nov 30, 2009)

Why are some of you against wearing helmets? I'm not asking in a facetious way at all, I'm just wondering if there are safety concerns with wearing a helmet (ie it blocks your line of sight or something).


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *scottishmommy* 
Why are some of you against wearing helmets? I'm not asking in a facetious way at all, I'm just wondering if there are safety concerns with wearing a helmet (ie it blocks your line of sight or something).

No, no safety concerns with wearing a helmet to my knowledge. Only thing is that it offers a false sense of security about the dangers cars present, and there is evidence that making helmets mandatory can discourage cycling, because it gives the impression that cycling is oh so very dangerous, and also discourages bike share programs etc. Here is an article, again from copenhagenize.com (sorry LOL, tho if you google it is covered elsewhere, I just like this article) about Mexico City repealing its helmet laws: http://www.copenhagenize.com/2010/04...elmet-law.html

And if you notice in the link posted about cyclists in Amsterdam, nobody wears a helmet. It is much safer to cycle there, yes, due to bicycle infrastructure, but again bike helmet doesn't protect against cars.

eta - The only thing about helmets IMO is that they are too heavy for infants under 1, and maybe even infants a bit over 1, to safely support on their heads, I believe. I have seen people put carseats in bike trailers for younger infants (6 or 9 mos plus), and put the babe in there helmet-less. I would do that no problem. I carried my own infant in the trailer from 10ish months plus, and after trying to get her to wear a helmet, I quit because it was so uncomfortable for her and she hated it. I believed she had plenty of protection in the trailer with the 5 point harness and the roll bar. Now I have an Xtracycle so she rides in a baby seat on the bike, so of course I put a helmet on her every time. She is also over 2 now and has no problem with wearing the helmet.


----------



## MissMaegie'sMama (Jul 27, 2006)

This post is sort of OT, but related to the discussion nonetheless. A few years ago my DH witnessed the death of a young man on the street in front of our house. The kid climbed out the window of the car he was riding in and fell head first to the pavement. DH says he will never forget the sound the young man's skull made as it split on the pavement. The EMTs who responded to the 911 call said that the young man's head trauma was relatively minor because the car had only been traveling about 15 mph when the kid jumped (it appears the guy and his friends were trying to replicate stunts they'd watched on the internet).

"Minor" contusions, perhaps, but they were serious enough to kill him. For more than a month, his blood was on the street just beyond our driveway. I couldn't look at the blood stain and not reflect on his death. What I took from this young man's accident was that pavement doesn't care if you fall from a car, a bike, or wherever else- if your skull hits the ground with enough force, you can sustain a brain injury or worse. Needless to say, since that tragic day the people in our family all wear helmets when we ride bikes, just as we always buckle our seatbelts when riding in a car.

Helmets aren't 100% foolproof, but they do increase your chances of walking away from a bike accident without serious head trauma. That's why (IMO) it's incredibly irresponsible to allow children to ride in/on any vehicle without proper restraints and safety precautions, including helmets if applicable. Ask an EMT about how it feels to respond to a call where a child has hit her/his head after falling from a bike- few things are more upsetting than seeing a child injured or killed because of someone else's poor decision making or negligence.


----------



## KayTeeJay (Jul 22, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ceinwen* 
I don't think adults get to make decisions re: basic safety, that can lead to injuring their children. Riding a bike in the situation described, sans helmet - is a no brainer. Those kids could have been killed or worse.

I totally agree with you here. Also, in response to some other pp's, I'm not quite sure what the man's income (or the _perception_ of what his income is or isn't) has to do with anything? Is the OP supposed to yell out her window and ask to see his tax returns and current bank statements before she decides to call or not? She saw a situation that looked to be extremely unsafe for not only the kids in the bike, but for other cyclists and motorists as well. So what if he was poor? If it was as the OP describes, even if it was him "doing his best," it's just not good enough in this situation. I know that sounds harsh, but I don't mean it to. He doesn't get to blatantly endanger his kids *and* other peoples' loved ones for any reason. Period.

Not to open a whole 'nother can of worms







but I have called in the past when I saw a car with kids not in carseats that obviously should have been (<2 years). The make/model of the car and whether the driver "looked" like he/she could afford a carseat was never a factor in that decision.


----------



## vbactivist (Oct 4, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
I don't get why the big fuss is being made about helmets in traffic here. Yes helmets can save your brain if you fall off your bike because you hit a rock. But they are not in any way designed to protect you if a car hits you. They will be useless. I see this misconception so much, that if riding on a busy road of course you must have your helmet on lest you get hit by a car. It makes no sense. I see it in safety advertising too, right up the road from me there is a big poster that reads something like, 'Because of an improperly worn helmet, one less student will graduate this year.' It shows a pic of a bicycle crushed on the road beside a car. I want to graffiti it to say, 'Because OF A CAR, one less student will graduate this year.'

If the cyclist was truly driving into oncoming traffic with kids aboard, I think an emergency call was necessary. But I think it is also one of those things I can't judge without being there to see, because clearly the OP was freaked out just by a bicycle in the road (lack of seatbelts, which of course are not used on bicycles, and the diy bench - which may indicate poverty, yes, but it may also indicate a diy'er who mods his cycle to carry cargo, as this is pretty common among cycling-for-transportation enthusiasts).


----------



## WindyCityMom (Aug 17, 2009)

The helmet thing isn't the huge issue. The reckless driving was (and is) a bigger issue for me.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

These things are very subjective. You look at a situation and make the best judgment you can at that moment. I don't know if it's a situation where I could hear about it, particularly just with words and no video, and make a call on what I would have done. If you felt a strong urge to call, then there was probably something to it, though the police also respond subjectively so calling doesn't ensure any particular response. The only thing I'd check in myself, and I'm not saying this is about the OP but something I would watch internally, is that I'd make sure I was calling because I truly felt fear over what was happening and that there was true danger instead of calling because I simply felt like pointing out a wrong or to bolster any feeling of me being right in that I would have handled it differently.


----------



## NYCVeg (Jan 31, 2005)

If a car had driven into the incoming lane, I don't think anyone would be questioning the OP. A bicycle is considered a vehicle, just like a car is--and I think the police should absolutely be called about a vehicle driving erratically INTO ONCOMING TRAFFIC.

This isn't about whether or not you think kids should wear bike helmets. This is about the cyclist endangering the safety of other drivers on the road.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

The helmet thing is a worthwhile side conversation, on topic to this thread.

How the cyclist was driving - if what the OP reports is true, I agree that it is very dangerous. However, so often people find bicycles dangerous just for existing on the road, and this can prejudice how they view their actual behaviour, causing them to find or overdramatize fault. I said it is hard to tell without being there, because it is obvious from the OP that she was alarmed by basic things about the existence of the bicycle - helmets, calling the bench 'rickety' when I don't see how it would be possible to assess this quickly, with two children on the bench no less. And others have made many comments that are anti-cycling or that 'ignore the bull,' so to speak.

So I think the discussions have been relevant, and I think it is appropriate that some do not take the OP's assessment at exact face value, considering the alarmist sentiments in the OP and in the thread.


----------



## ThisCat (Jun 19, 2010)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
(lack of seatbelts, which of course are not used on bicycles...

I've seen modified bikes with seat belts or harnesses for the passenger seats. Of course they wouldn't offer any protection in a collision with a car, but they can keep small children from climbing or falling out. The company that makes this bike uses them. Bike trailers have 5 point harnesses too for the same reasons.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Yes that is true, I didn't think about that, yes there are often seatbelts in trailers, bakfiets and other bucket style bikes like the Madsen. And obviously on baby carriers that ride on the bicycle. But apart from that, I wouldn't want to be sitting on a bike and be strapped in. I think that would be less safe than just sitting freely.


----------



## lovingmommyhood (Jul 28, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
The helmet thing is a worthwhile side conversation, on topic to this thread.

How the cyclist was driving - if what the OP reports is true, I agree that it is very dangerous. However, so often people find bicycles dangerous just for existing on the road, and this can prejudice how they view their actual behaviour, causing them to find or overdramatize fault. I said it is hard to tell without being there, because it is obvious from the OP that she was alarmed by basic things about the existence of the bicycle - helmets, calling the bench 'rickety' when I don't see how it would be possible to assess this quickly, with two children on the bench no less. And others have made many comments that are anti-cycling or that 'ignore the bull,' so to speak.

So I think the discussions have been relevant, and I think it is appropriate that some do not take the OP's assessment at exact face value, considering the alarmist sentiments in the OP and in the thread.
















Yes to this.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

This is such a fascinating thread, especially because of all the information I've gained about bicycle cultures in places like Amsterdam and Copenhagen.

I wonder if anyone knows the statistics about head injuries -- namely, are there higher rates of bicycle-related head injuries in cities like Amsterdam where nobody wears helmets? Also, do most bike-related head injuries occurr because bicyclists were hit by cars, or because someone hit a rock or a bump the wrong way?

It does seem ultimately safer to begin to think of bicycling as a completely normal mode of transportation.

I'd also love to see statistics about the rates of children injured in bike versus car accidents. I mean, proportionately speaking. I understand that most children in the U.S. are going to spend a whopping amount of time in cars, so these are the kinds of accidents they're more likely to be in.

So maybe there could be some comparisons of transportation accident rates in Amsterdam, versus those in Chicago.


----------



## alis (Aug 14, 2010)

I'm a mom and a 911 dispatcher.

Bottom line: If you are not sure - please call.

If it is not important, it will be given a low priority response. Police do not need to respond to every call - so if it really doesn't matter, nobody will be sent (this is particularly true of urban areas). Obviously it seemed to have some importance if they actually sent somebody.

911 is technically for emergencies, yes, but that is considered whenever you feel that somebody's safety is at risk. If someone is going into oncoming traffic - whether it be a vehicle, bicycle, or even a turtle (hehe), then yes, that poses a risk to safety.

I'm not sure if everyone here realizes what the vast majority of 911 calls are - they are random cell phone pocket dialing, accidental house calls from speed dial, and perhaps the occasional emergency. Believe me, no 911 dispatcher is offended if someone calls 911 because they really thought there was a safety risk - it is the ones who call about dumb questions (when are bylaw hours in effect?) that peeve.

It's sort of like why you never scold a child for accidentally calling 911 - because they might be scared to do it when there is a real problem.

And remember, things are not always as they seem. A lot of "drunks" reported are people in diabetic shock too. If you don't feel right - spidey sense or whatever - just call. It's not a problem.


----------



## alis (Aug 14, 2010)

And yes, your original call would have constituted an acceptable report to 911. We do receive those reports occasionally. You did nothing wrong.


----------



## WindyCityMom (Aug 17, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
The helmet thing is a worthwhile side conversation, on topic to this thread.

How the cyclist was driving - if what the OP reports is true, I agree that it is very dangerous. However, so often people find bicycles dangerous just for existing on the road, and this can prejudice how they view their actual behaviour, causing them to find or overdramatize fault. I said it is hard to tell without being there, because it is obvious from the OP that she was alarmed by basic things about the existence of the bicycle - helmets, calling the bench 'rickety' when I don't see how it would be possible to assess this quickly, with two children on the bench no less. And others have made many comments that are anti-cycling or that 'ignore the bull,' so to speak.

So I think the discussions have been relevant, and I think it is appropriate that some do not take the OP's assessment at exact face value, considering the alarmist sentiments in the OP and in the thread.

I don't find bicycles dangerous on the road. I find the particular bicycle _riding_ of some cyclists to be dangerous. My DH rides one and I rode one for quite some time in grammar school (I don't own a bike at the moment, when I go out on my own it's usually the bus and I always have my two little ones alongside me).

I was walking on the sidewalk- bike lane directly to my left, right alongside me. I got a good look at the seat- looked like it was thrown together.


----------



## 2timestrouble (Aug 11, 2010)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *rhiOrion* 
I probably wouldn't have called, but i would have felt guilty about it! I think you did the right thing.

I was going to say that too. I wouldn't have call but I would have feel guilty about it, and if something would have happen I would have feel responsible.
What is the name when somebody doesn't do a crime but knows about it and doesn't do nothing? I saw it in Law and Order but can't remember the name, lol.
Anyway, is not like you put your super hero suit and leave your house everyday to see who you can safe,







but if you happen to be there and something like this happen, what you should do? I think you did right, it wasn't not only the guy but the kids and everybody around them that their lifes were in risk.


----------



## Ceinwen (Jul 1, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
I don't get why the big fuss is being made about helmets in traffic here. Yes helmets can save your brain if you fall off your bike because you hit a rock. But they are not in any way designed to protect you if a car hits you. They will be useless. I see this misconception so much, that if riding on a busy road of course you must have your helmet on lest you get hit by a car.

Incorrect. It will/has/can/ and will continue to protect people on bicycles who have been hit by cars. In no way, shape or form is it a misconception - I've cared for people (more than a few) who were in an MVC on bike - and suffered much less severe injuries due to wearing a helmet.

This kind of misinformation is dangerous.


----------



## WindyCityMom (Aug 17, 2009)

Yes to what Ceinwen said.

No, helmets don't make you invincible. Anyone who thinks they do surely needs a reality check. Helmets do, however, protect the brain from serious trauma. They may not protect limbs, internal organs, etc, from trauma, but hey.. if you can take one (serious) factor off of the table, it's something.


----------



## pigpokey (Feb 23, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *scottishmommy* 
Why are some of you against wearing helmets? I'm not asking in a facetious way at all, I'm just wondering if there are safety concerns with wearing a helmet (ie it blocks your line of sight or something).

There are actually safety concerns to wearing bike helmets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet
This is a nice article.

My husband was hit by a car on his bike without wearing a helmet, and did a face plant. He had concussions and eventually needed surgery to drain a clot (subdural hematoma). The brain injury was caused by his head suddenly coming to a stop. I do not have any reason to think that a helmet would have prevented the injury he suffered. His brain was injured because it slammed into his skull. Helmets do not prevent that. He was injured because a driver did not look where she was going and ran into him. Not because he was responsibly biking to work.

See the wikipedia article paragraph on rotational injuries. He did not have any rotational injuries -- which apparently can be very severe and disabling and caused by current helmet design in the kind of accident he had.

I just don't believe that helmets do what people think they do, e.g., provide a dramatically safer cycling experience. I don't see that there's evidence for me to believe that.

As to the OP's situation, I would have been concerned about a potentially impaired driver in traffic, and might have called or gone over to find out more about what was going on. I mean, if the kids had on helmets and bubble-wrap and flashing lights clipped onto them, the guy was obviously having some issues.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ceinwen* 
Incorrect. It will/has/can/ and will continue to protect people on bicycles who have been hit by cars. In no way, shape or form is it a misconception - I've cared for people (more than a few) who were in an MVC on bike - and suffered much less severe injuries due to wearing a helmet.

This kind of misinformation is dangerous.

I'll lob the 'incorrect' ball back at you.

Quote:

Under US standards bike helmets are tested in 2 meter drops that achieve about 14 miles per hour (22.5 kph) on the flat anvil. In Europe the drop height is only 1.5 meters.
and

Quote:

If you have the misfortune to impact head first against a bridge abutment at the bottom of a screaming 55 mph downhill, your helmet will not prevent a head injury. That is not very important, since the rest of your body will be mush anyway. Fortunately that very seldom happens. Most of the cases where the helmet's limits are exceeded involve crashes with cars. Every rider understands that it is very important to avoid being hit by a car.

Obviously a helmet covers only your head, leaving the rest of your body unprotected.
from http://www.helmets.org/limits.htm, along with

Quote:

If more people knew and understood these results, were aware that the vast majority of seriously debilitating head injuries are caused by bike/motor vehicle collisions often involving forces outside the design limit for bike helmets, and knew about the Dutch research showing that a reduction in vehicle impact speed from 40 to 30 km/hr halves maximum head acceleration [2], there might be more emphasis on measures to prevent high impact car/bike crashes (e.g. by education, enforcement of traffic laws and random breath tests) rather than on secondary measures such as cycle helmets, for which the benefits are much less certain.
from http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1182.html, discuss that bicycle helmets are wholly inadequate to protect in collision with cars. I don't doubt that anecdotally they may help lessen some severe brain trauma, but the second study discusses the problem of rotational injuries in severe crashes, for which there is evidence that the presence of a helmet can worsen such injury.

So the idea that if we all wear our helmets we will be much safer on the road, is false and IMO this is the ideology that is dangerously misleading. Because it places blame for collisions and injury on cyclists, instead of addressing the real issue, which is designing towns and cities with decent cycling infrastructure. This is where the real protection lies.


----------



## Ceinwen (Jul 1, 2004)

All your stats aside - *I've actually, physically cared for children and adults who have had reduced head injuries from wearing a helmet.*










There's not really an argument against that. I work in trauma, I've cared for traumatic head injuries (some survive, some don't) A helmet will at least reduce the risk of serious injury - I've seen it. First hand.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ceinwen* 
All your stats aside - *I've actually, physically cared for children and adults who have had reduced head injuries from wearing a helmet.*










There's not really an argument against that. I work in trauma, I've cared for traumatic head injuries (some survive, some don't) A helmet will at least reduce the risk of serious injury - I've seen it. First hand.

Well as they say, the plural of anecdote is not data. And obviously it is impossible for you to have the victims relive their accidents without a helmet, so there is no way to make a conclusion that the same accident would have had xyz different result with a helmet on. The actual studies come to different conclusions than you have.


----------



## pigpokey (Feb 23, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ceinwen* 
All your stats aside - *I've actually, physically cared for children and adults who have had reduced head injuries from wearing a helmet.*










There's not really an argument against that. I work in trauma, I've cared for traumatic head injuries (some survive, some don't) A helmet will at least reduce the risk of serious injury - I've seen it. First hand.

Is it possible to see this first hand? Because you can't replay the accident, switching the helmet variable.


----------



## Ceinwen (Jul 1, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pigpokey* 
Is it possible to see this first hand? Because you can't replay the accident, switching the helmet variable.

I'm not sure what you're asking.

My statement (while purported to be 'anecdotal') is this - I work in a level one trauma centre/hospital in Ontario.

My personal experience is such that in cars vs. humans - humans wearing helmets have better outcomes.

You can be hit by a car (at variable speeds) being thrown (for example) into the curb. You fall off, tumble, whatever - your head hits the ground.

Wearing a helmet has provided these trauma patients with an automatic better chance of surviving their head injury.

Patients I've had with no helmet (who survived) - had much worse injuries. Facial traumas, severe brain injuries, higher rates of intubation, etc.

So yes, my experience is not data. I still believe it to be relevant.

I've seen both sides - patients who live w/wo helmets, and patients who don't live w/wo helmets.

All I know is, I'll be wearing a helmet. The facial injuries alone on non-helmet patients makes me shudder.

ETA - I will be bowing out of the conversation because we could go around and around this. Also, we're pretty far off the OP now


----------



## WindyCityMom (Aug 17, 2009)

Yeah, I think we should open the helmet/no helmet topic in the Family Safety forum. I'm going to be checking out of this thread because I feel that I've rec'd adequate responses and the topic has strayed too far from my intended post


----------



## gcgirl (Apr 3, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ceinwen* 
All your stats aside - *I've actually, physically cared for children and adults who have had reduced head injuries from wearing a helmet.*










There's not really an argument against that. I work in trauma, I've cared for traumatic head injuries (some survive, some don't) A helmet will at least reduce the risk of serious injury - I've seen it. First hand.

The article isn't an argument against helmets either. Just an argument that PREVENTING accidents in the first place is EVEN SAFER than wearing a helmet. Well, duh.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *gcgirl* 
The article isn't an argument against helmets either. Just an argument that PREVENTING accidents in the first place is EVEN SAFER than wearing a helmet. Well, duh.

No, the articles are definitely not against helmets, nor is anyone on this thread *against* helmets that I have seen.

It is not just saying tho that 'preventing accidents is even safer than wearing a helmet.' The articles back up the point that helmets are seriously inadequate protection in the event of being hit by a car.

I wear my helmet on my bicycle, but it's in case I hit a rock. Not in case I have an accident with a 2000 lb vehicle.


----------

