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?

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 changing the 'should' and implementing it as a 'must' be punishing transgressions.

Why should anyone wanting to use the bike racks have to keep to his arbitrary rules about what they do outside the school?

The fact is that this policy WILL reduce the number of kids cycling if only because it is painting cycling as a dangerous activity. Unfortunately, those kids who get driven to school rather than cycling there will most likely have reduced activity levels which is a modern epidemic that should be fought against and not welcomed with unthinking rules.

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.

Aye well some of us are hoping to get the victim blaming shit in the HC removed or just ensure that the balance is addressed and motorists advised to wear same and hi-vis for their motors.

over 300,000 head injuries admitted into hospital from 1.4 million reported head injuries, and kids on bikes are a tiny, tiny fraction of this, the majority of these incidents are the fault of some cunt in a shit ton of metal and plastic, in fact more kids die of head injuries in motorvehicles, twice as many as the total number of child cycling deaths of all injuries in the UK If he bothered to do some research he would force all kids being dropped off to wear helmets too!

 Yeah, ignoring facts and putting the onus of safety really works, not, never has. Again, if children are getting stabbed, shot and having head injuries in other aspects outside the school, or indeed in the school grounds you can bet your bottom dollar no-one is going to suggest the wear stab/bullet proof vests or a crash helmet as a safety device.

Kids cycling anywhere doing pretty much what they like don't make a dent in the casualty stats of others, in a civil society we let children play, when we force helmets on them they do even more stupid stuff and get hurt more.

People who keep on ignoring the facts are dangerous morons, this moron who is supposed to be looking after the wealthfare of children (ON HIS PREMISES ONLY) cannot risk assess properly, hasn't the capacity to understand victim blaming, hasn't the capacity to grasp that helmets are not a solution to the problem he obviously seems to think it is and ignores head injuries in other facets of life including pupils in his own school. He hasn't even bothered to look at the facts surrounding helmets and if he's just gone off some mickey mouse 'advice' in the HC as his evidence to force this nonsense he shouldn't be in charge of a pile of steaming shit never mind a school.

it's not just lazy, it's contemptable dangerous BS.

JeffB wrote:

Not sure why so many negative comments.

He's exceeding his powers, just as if an employer told you or me that you weren't allowed to commute to work by x mode of transport or were not allowed eat a particular food after work on Fridays.

Another one from last week: http://road.cc/content/news/232962-academy-school-makes-cycle-helmets-co...

Kids riding with headphones or dicking about are not really the problem. And before you say "they can't hear the traffic" I'll say:

1. even if they can hear the 4x4 / van / truck about to make the close pass what are they supposed to do about it?

2. how do deaf people manage?

3. cars have great sound insulation (and powerful audio systems) but I bet you aren't tut-tutting at them for driving around with the stereo on, parking on the pavement, dropping off their kids on the zig-zags, speeding, using mobiles...

Singling out RLJing or headphone-wearing cyclists is just scapegoating, deflecting attention from what is by far the greatest threat on the roads. And so is this headteacher. By all means make explain what good and bad behaviour is, how it impacts on the school and the people around it, perhaps even pay for Bikeability to be run on the school grounds, but FFS don't ignore the elephant in the room.

Simon E wrote:

JeffB wrote:

Not sure why so many negative comments.

He's exceeding his powers, just as if an employer told you or me that you weren't allowed to commute to work by x mode of transport or were not allowed eat a particular food after work on Fridays.

Another one from last week: http://road.cc/content/news/232962-academy-school-makes-cycle-helmets-co...

Kids riding with headphones or dicking about are not really the problem. And before you say "they can't hear the traffic" I'll say:

1. even if they can hear the 4x4 / van / truck about to make the close pass what are they supposed to do about it?

2. how do deaf people manage?

3. cars have great sound insulation (and powerful audio systems) but I bet you aren't tut-tutting at them for driving around with the stereo on, parking on the pavement, dropping off their kids on the zig-zags, speeding, using mobiles...

Singling out RLJing or headphone-wearing cyclists is just scapegoating, deflecting attention from what is by far the greatest threat on the roads. And so is this headteacher. By all means make explain what good and bad behaviour is, how it impacts on the school and the people around it, perhaps even pay for Bikeability to be run on the school grounds, but FFS don't ignore the elephant in the room.

Excellent points. Could also point out that there is no research which actually shows that headphones  contribute to crashes (I don't use them BTW)

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.

The highway code is a significantly-flawed document, it's not the word of God.  In any case it has a great many 'should' statements directed at motorists that are routinely ignored, yet I don't see this headmaster imposing any sanctions on parents who have their children in their car when they ignore those 'shoulds'.

And has he banned any parent from driving their child in a car that doesn't, in reality not theory, meet NOx or particulates emissions standards?  In fact, to be consistently concerned with childrens' wellbeing, he should be banning parents from using any non-electric motorised vehicles.

I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think, incidentally, that his authority does stop at the school gate.  Legally I suspect he can impose all sorts of restrictions on out-of-school activities and expel pupils for breaking them.  But at least it's a private school, so parents have some element of choice as whether they want to be subject to his power-crazed whims.  Not so with state-funded academies, which have the same problem of mini-Putins running amok but taxpayers have no choice about funding them.

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.

mikeymustard wrote:

I don't wish to be rude to Mr Elliott as I'd like to think he is not doing this as a power kick, but as a genuine concern for his pupils safety. And, let's face it, a properly maintained bike is important.

However, perhaps he should consider campaigning to make the roads around the school safer for his little darlings to cycle on.

Yes of course. And if he is worried about improper cycling behaviour he could support high quality on-road cycle training which - if done properly - can breed  confidence. And awareness of cyclists' rights as well as responsibilities. If done propelry, which seems unlikely with him.