Outrage: How to respond?

Isnt there a simple answer to this.

If a parent says to a child wear a helmet, WEAR ONE RESPECT YOUR OLDIES....

If a parent says to a child don't wear a helmet, WEAR ONE REBEL AGAINST YOUR OLDIES.

problem sorted. point is, by focusing the attention on the school your just going to cause them to be like "too much hassle getting kids involved in cycling, screw this"....
a sad day for all.

My own daft physics is that with kids being lighter moving slower and being nearer the ground, the helmets might be of more use than to adults.

I do believe that until they are teenagers, they should wear them.....just in case.

My own kids wear the hard shell type.

Jimmy, i agree with you here. Everyone agrees about the limitations of helmets but with a kids head being softer until its formed completely then the risk is greater, but lets not get into an arguement over it

So... for what it's worth, there isn't any good evidence of efficacy of helmets in children. I don't know of studies that focused on them especially though, so it's just an unknown, however the general, overall evidence for efficacy isn't that great, so I wouldn't place too much faith in helmets.

I would strongly advocate other means of risk-reduction, rather than relying on helmets. Even if you make your children wear a helmet, deal with them (education, constraints, etc.) as if they're *not*. This, hopefully, is obviously sensible advice.

Hmmm, I refer to an old argument banded about in helmet debates about the real risk compared to the perceived risk.

As mentioned, my daughter has (touch wood) never banged her head falling off her bike, despite wearing a helmet. That is not through luck, that is the nature of self preservation, of the evolution of the human body to not land on its head if possible.

The point being that rather than being lucky not to hurt your head when cycling, the reality is that should you bang your head, you have been very unlucky.

However, people get unlucky, kids get unlucky, and if wearing a helmet helps litigate against bad luck then great... but its not necessary to your child's survival.

Its like helmets for toddlers. Most get by fine without them.

kids dont have to get hurt to understand the dangers of things and by putting them in protective gear such as a helmet isn't going to make them into Evil Knievel.

Proper parenting works wonders.

Slightly off topic there...

Quote:

Accepted and respected? Accepted very grudgingly but I could not ever respect parents who are too stupid to acknowledge the facts that the skulls of children are relatively soft and even a minor fall can have more serious consequences for a child than an adult. Why take the risk, no matter how small?

I wouldn't let my girls skateboard, rollerskate, snowboard or ski without wearing adequate protection and I don't see why cycling should be any different.

If you can't accept it, that's your "problem", kids aren't always going to learn the dangers of everything if they are wrapped up in safety gear.

You don't need to go on about the skulls, fully aware of it and the consequences of the minor fall but this lack of tolerance to a different view is very disturbing.

http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ljtlzxFxl51qfksato1_500.gif

I don't see the fuss in all this. The school are just asking you as a parent to confirm your wishes regarding your child cycling to school. Do you want them to wear a helmet or are you ok with them going without? If you are then the school accepts no liability to any injury due to them not wearing a helmet. As i read that it is ONLY going to be head injuries that they are not liable for. Anything that a helmet wouldn't have prevented isn't covered by the statement. So why the fuss?

Personally I don't understand why the school could possibly be liable for your child being injured on their way to/from school by bike, foot or otherwise, but then i guess I am old enough to remember that sh*t happens and sometimes that is just bad luck rather than someones fault so you can blame and claim.

Yep...I've also failed to locate any potential source of outrage in that. It seems entirely reasonable and simply the school trying to ensure children's safety.

What am I missing?

It actually seems pretty sensible to me. I'm quite surprised that it's not just a blanket "all children cycling to school must wear helmets". That's what I had when I started cycling to secondary school almost 25 years ago.

I can't see why anyone would get upset with this?

The school is doing the right thing in this regard.
They cannot force kids to wear helmets as there isn't a law in which they can use to do so.

By making a big deal of this the school will just turn around and say no cycling at all to school because of people like yourself making a big deal out of it.

Sorry to be harsh but I deal with schools and parents are at times the most annoying/ troublesome people in the world when it comes to thinking they know best.

I'm no medical expert but i thought i would have a quick read up on a childs skull. Whilst the chld is young (upto 18 months) the sutures in the skull are still open and soft - obviously not the age we are looking at here.

As the child grows so does the skull but its not until they are older that the sutures fuse together - usually once the brain has stopped growing but they do get smaller as the child grows.

So taking this into account the child still has soft spots in the skull when they are at an age to start cycling. Personally speaking i would get my child to wear a helmet at this stage and both my kids still do.

If it has come from Govt then they are not alone. In the USA the centre for disease control and prevention makes the same point and the brain injury assoc of america validates the points made regarding children and brain injuries.

I found this on the American Association of Neurological Surgeons, who i think might know a thing or two about head injuries and its a straight cut and paste from their website.

"Every year, more than 500,000 people visit emergency rooms in the United States with bicycle-related injuries. Of those, nearly 85,000 were head injuries in 2009. There are about 600 deaths a year, with two-thirds being attributed to TBI. It is estimated that up to 85 percent of head injuries can be prevented through proper usage of The Snell Memorial Foundation, American National Standards Institute (ANSI) or American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)-approved helmets. It is essential that the helmet fit properly so that it doesn't fall off while the user is riding or if he or she takes a fall".

The following facts/statistics are from Safe Kids USA:
■Head injury is the leading cause of wheeled sports-related death and the most important determinant of permanent disability after a crash.
■Without proper protection, a fall of as little as two feet can result in a skull fracture or other TBI.
■Approximately 50 percent of U.S. children between 5- and 14-years-old own a helmet, and only 25 percent report always wearing it while bicycling.
■Universal use of bicycle helmets by children ages 4 to 15 could prevent 45,000 head injuries.
■Helmet use can reduce the risk of head injury by 85 percent and severe brain injury by 88 percent.
■Eight states and the District of Columbia require children to wear a helmet while participating in wheeled sports such as riding on scooters, in-line skates or skateboards.

Feel free to poo poo what i've typed but i've added it just to make people aware of whats said in other countries and NOT to start a helmet debate.

Interesting... I get it. I can imagine with the amount of lobbying from the school for parents not to drive their kids in unless they have to... i.e. find alternative methods of transport, such as... the bicycle, there is an argument that the school is 'forcing' kids to cycle.

Its not a long legal journey to then say its the schools fault when kids have accidents travelling to school by bike.

I'm not sure this will really cover their backsides from such claims, but I guess its covering their duty of care sufficiently for their insurers to pay out in such cases.

I like the comment about the school inadvertently accepting liability for kids wearing helmets, I'd like to explore that further.

As for helmet use, lets not cover this ground again. Interestingly I'm all but anti-helmet, however if I'm taking my 6 year old for a cycle, I'll ask her to helmet up. Seems sensible, however, if I am honest, she has never banged her head once from plenty of falls...

No they "shouldn't" if the parent decides not too then that "should" be accepted and respected...

kids should wear a helmet, when they're old enough to make their own decision then they can decide for themselves. Don't be a chump!

My wife is a schoolteacher, and her thoughts are that the school is following government advice. If the government view changes, then so will the school's.

So petition the government to change their stance

Regarding the security of the bike - my company has the same policy. I have a proper lock. Schools run on a very tight budget and simply don't have the cash to keep replacing bicycles.

No problem. I personally think children should be encouraged to wear helmets and for them to indemnify themselves if the child doesn't is reasonable. Especially if you want them to wear a helmet, they then go home without it, injure themselves and then you blame the school. Blame the letter on the parents, not the school.

No problem. I personally think children should be encouraged to wear helmets and for them to indemnify themselves if the child doesn't is reasonable. Especially if you want them to wear a helmet, they then go home without it, injure themselves and then you blame the school. Blame the letter on the parents, not the school.

Yes, that comma after "Parents" is a disgrace.

I see that as pretty reasonable, they are just covering their arses. From my knowledge of parents and the way they view schools and teachers I fully support them in every last little bit of being ridiculous sticklers to the rules. Far too many parents see school as somewhere they can abandon their little shitty horror spawn for as long as possible so they dont have to do any real parenting and also as a cozy way of finding someone to blame and hold responsible for their complete failure in being able to raise a child properly.

I'm not for one second suggesting you are one of those parents by the way.

With my kids I'd insist on wearing a helmet, and I'm vehemently anti helment compulsion for adults. I appreciate that could be seen as hypocritical.

I would let the malevolent side of me create an extra box that states whilst I take resposibility for my child riding to school without a helmet, I would hold the school, and the head personally, 100% to blame for any incident caused by them allowing cars to exceed speed limits, parking in restricted areas and innapropriately sized vehicles such as 4x4s and other such twatwagons from Bramhall etc.

Yup, if you're outraged at that then perhaps you need to reassess your outrage parameters.

Quote:

... needless to say I am in a state of total outrage.

Maybe I am being a bit thick but having read the letter, I still haven't a clue why you are in a state of 'total outrage'.

Any chance of an explanation?

I would have thought that 'absolving' the school of liability if your child was involved in an accident whilst in the school grounds would be questionable practice. It's like giving the school permission to injure your child while they are on school property. That's why organisations have public liability insurance. You can be guaranteed that it ceases to offer cover beyond the school gates. Will they be asking families that walk to sign a similar disclosure? Somehow I think not. The solution is to ban cycling within the gates of the school.

When I cycled to primary school, we had to push our bikes from the gates to the bike shed. To dare to be caught on the saddle let alone bring your bike into the playground was to incur the wrath of the headmaster.

As far as not guaranteeing the integrity of a secure area for the bikes surely that is a failure in duty of care especially as they have made provision for the safekeeping of children's property.

...