School brings in detentions for children who don't wear a cycle helmet

PRSboy wrote:

I suspect we are putting adult standards on the effect of helmet use on children cycling.  Generally children do what they are told and don't worry about it if it means they can carry on doing something they want to do.  Not saying its right or wrong, its the way it is.

I don't get why its such an emotive issue.

There are parents who will not let their kids go out on their bikes without helmets, so arguably, having a rule on this might make some children more likely to be allowed to cycle to school.

its an emotive issue because, as mentioned its victom blaming from someone the majority see as stepping beyond their responsibilities. If you ignore this stuff, it grows and before you know it, we will all be forced to wear hi-viz, helmets and not enjoy toons in our ears. 

But, you also raise a good point. OK, when they are older, and trying to be cool, they may rejec tthe helmet, but as kids, they generally don't give a fudge about sticking a helmet on, so it probably won't be the deterrent some are saying it is. 

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

PRSboy wrote:

I suspect we are putting adult standards on the effect of helmet use on children cycling.  Generally children do what they are told and don't worry about it if it means they can carry on doing something they want to do.  Not saying its right or wrong, its the way it is.

I don't get why its such an emotive issue.

There are parents who will not let their kids go out on their bikes without helmets, so arguably, having a rule on this might make some children more likely to be allowed to cycle to school.

 

its an emotive issue because, as mentioned its victom blaming from someone the majority see as stepping beyond their responsibilities. If you ignore this stuff, it grows and before you know it, we will all be forced to wear hi-viz, helmets and not enjoy toons in our ears. 

But, you also raise a good point. OK, when they are older, and trying to be cool, they may rejec tthe helmet, but as kids, they generally don't give a fudge about sticking a helmet on, so it probably won't be the deterrent some are saying it is. 

The kids might not be fussed about wearing a helmet, but one of the issues about mandating helmet usage is the way that it makes cycling seem to be extremely dangerous. Some parents might now not allow their kids to cycle to school because they (wrongly) think that it's too dangerous.

This is a big problem with victim blaming - it changes people's risk evaluation without having a foundation in actual facts. e.g. Helmets would prevent more head injuries if motorists wore them, but that never seems to be discussed except on cycling forums.

This reminds me of a current Apple advert where a young kid is doing lots of kid stuff. At one point, she's shown cycling around wearing a helmet, but at another point, she's climbing a tree but not wearing the same helmet. Since when is tree climbing considered safer than riding a bike?

hawkinspeter wrote:

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

PRSboy wrote:

I suspect we are putting adult standards on the effect of helmet use on children cycling.  Generally children do what they are told and don't worry about it if it means they can carry on doing something they want to do.  Not saying its right or wrong, its the way it is.

I don't get why its such an emotive issue.

There are parents who will not let their kids go out on their bikes without helmets, so arguably, having a rule on this might make some children more likely to be allowed to cycle to school.

 

its an emotive issue because, as mentioned its victom blaming from someone the majority see as stepping beyond their responsibilities. If you ignore this stuff, it grows and before you know it, we will all be forced to wear hi-viz, helmets and not enjoy toons in our ears. 

But, you also raise a good point. OK, when they are older, and trying to be cool, they may rejec tthe helmet, but as kids, they generally don't give a fudge about sticking a helmet on, so it probably won't be the deterrent some are saying it is. 

The kids might not be fussed about wearing a helmet, but one of the issues about mandating helmet usage is the way that it makes cycling seem to be extremely dangerous. Some parents might now not allow their kids to cycle to school because they (wrongly) think that it's too dangerous.

This is a big problem with victim blaming - it changes people's risk evaluation without having a foundation in actual facts. e.g. Helmets would prevent more head injuries if motorists wore them, but that never seems to be discussed except on cycling forums.

This reminds me of a current Apple advert where a young kid is doing lots of kid stuff. At one point, she's shown cycling around wearing a helmet, but at another point, she's climbing a tree but not wearing the same helmet. Since when is tree climbing considered safer than riding a bike?

Great points. Deep down, I think this is why many of us get so frustrated by this stuff... its because deep down we believe cycling isn't dangerous. We are having all this protective stuff thrust upon us, when there is little evidence of the need (statisitcally is there a higher real time risk from cycling than other activities), or indeed evidence that the prescribed solutions are effective.

If cycling was genuinely dangerous, I would give it up. I have too many responsibilities to be reckless with my life.

Every day I ride my bike I am faced with poor standards of driving, both due to incompetence and aggression, but still I am not really endangered. Inconvenienced, made to feel uncomfortable, but actually its all fine. 

Now I am not saying that being inconvenienced and made to feel uncomfortable is fine, its not at all, and as a group we need to lobby hard for changes, but at the same time, we need to put the negatives in to perspective... cycling is actually very safe.

As I've said before, this website reports on every fatality it can get its grubby hands on... in a country of 60+ million, there really aren't very many stories to report. 

PRSboy wrote:

I suspect we are putting adult standards on the effect of helmet use on children cycling.  Generally children do what they are told and don't worry about it if it means they can carry on doing something they want to do.  Not saying its right or wrong, its the way it is.

I don't get why its such an emotive issue.

There are parents who will not let their kids go out on their bikes without helmets, so arguably, having a rule on this might make some children more likely to be allowed to cycle to school.

Putting helmets on someone who already has limited understanding of their boundaries to stay safe has the effect of making their environment less safe, a LOT less safe and all of their own doing.

Tests on kids have being done many times over with respect to risk compensation, each and every time the results are the same, make kids think they are more protected and they take a very significant increase in risk taking. Ergo, putting helmets on kids induces them to do more risky stuff so they get hurt more because the helmet isn't anything like enough protection to compensate for that extra risk taking, that doesn't even take into account any changes in how those presenting the harm are effected by same.

The average teenager in NL cycles 2000km per year, in the UK children aged 0-16 cycled 26miles per year on average, we have roughly the same number of child cycling deaths. Not quite a completely like for like comparison in terms of the age group but distance cycled in NL by kids is massively more than ours, by a much bigger factor than that of the adults.

Guess which country has the lowest rate of helmet wearing in children in the two countries, do you think the Dutch managed to achieve their level of safety by plonking plastic hats on their kids or did they address the real problem and continue to address the problems with circa €500M spent every year on infra?

drosco wrote:

Unfortunately, this is pretty much all this website has become. Endless footage of 'near misses' and articles about helmets. Chuck in the odd overpriced jacket and there you go. Everything joyless about cycling.

On the plus side: your whinges always bring a smile to my lips and put a spring in my step.

Bluebug wrote:

With this independent school parents  will vote with their feet, and I am aware in certain areas too many parents have been so many such schools have closed down.

Why would they? Would you risk your childs education at such a place (that the facilities seem second to none)? Or would you just get on with it, grumble a little on the internet and make your child wear a helmet? Changing schools over something like this would be silly, and so the anti-cycling idiots like Mr Ed Elliot win, motorists win, and our children grow up being scared of what should be a safe activity.

JeffB wrote:

Not sure why so many negative comments. The headmaster is adopting the 'should' statements in the highway code. He is not going beyond that, and they are in line with the way Bikeability is taught. The kids cycling to Perse are way better than the other idiots in Cambridge riding no hands with headphones on that do not stop at red lights. True, his authority stops at the school gate, but anyone wanting to rack their bike at school has to follow his rules.

He's taken the law into his own hands, and decided to issue punishments where non are warrented.

More importantly though - and far worse - he's demonstrating that its ok for our children to grow up scared of cycling, and that the real killers on our roads are not what should be targeted.

kitsunegari wrote:

Bluebug wrote:

With this independent school parents  will vote with their feet, and I am aware in certain areas too many parents have been so many such schools have closed down.

Why would they? Would you risk your childs education at such a place (that the facilities seem second to none)? Or would you just get on with it, grumble a little on the internet and make your child wear a helmet? Changing schools over something like this would be silly, and so the anti-cycling idiots like Mr Ed Elliot win, motorists win, and our children grow up being scared of what should be a safe activity.

Heads who put in one stupid rule tend to put in a lot more.