- This topic has 42 replies, 27 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 7 months ago by
blablablacksheep20.
-
CreatorTopic
-
January 27, 2014 at 9:29 pm #20583
drfabulous0
So today I received the below letter from my sons’ school, needless to say I am in a state of total outrage. Any suggestions to how I might best respond? I’m thinking that although imediately satisfying, a drunken rant may not be the most appropriate course of action.
-
CreatorTopic
-
AuthorReplies
-
Isnt there a simple answer to
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.Flying Scot
My own daft physics is that
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.
Paul J
Jimmy: One problem with
Jimmy: One problem with helmets is that it is not true that they /always/ help.A helmet makes the head much larger, which means it can turn a miss (no impact at all) into an actual blow – in such cases the helmet actually causes harm. Further, any rotational blow will /always/ have its leverage increased by a helmet. You have to balance those effects against the somewhat limited impact protection a basic EN1078 helmet gives, over the fairly sturdy brain-case evolution provided us to protect the brain from impaction.
Each should make their own assessment of these trade-offs (or their parents/ward for children).
Stumps
Jimmy, i agree with you here.
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,
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.
Jimmy Ray Will
Hmmm, I refer to an old
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.
Stumps
kids dont have to get hurt to
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.
northstar
Slightly off topic
Slightly off topic there…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.
GoingRoundInCycles
“kids should wear a helmet,
“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!”northstar wrote:No they “shouldn’t” if the parent decides not too then that “should” be accepted and respected…There is a limit to personal freedom to do what you like with your kids. For example, I do not believe that parents should have the right to withhold potentially lifesaving treatment from their children because it conflicts with their personal beliefs, religious or otherwise.
The courts have agreed and for example overruled the decision of Jehovah’s Witness parents to withhold life saving treatment for their child. I totally agree with this. When the kid is old enough to make an informed decision, then I have no problem with him/her refusing a blood transfusion etc.
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.
farrell
farrell wrote:http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ljtlzxFxl51qfksato1_500.gifHah, very good…had to look it up.
md6
I don’t see the fuss in all
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.
jellysticks
Yep…I’ve also failed to
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?
kamoshika
It actually seems pretty
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.parksey
Am with the overwhelming
Am with the overwhelming majority here in just not seeing this as something to get outraged about, let alone needlessly so…Even if you’re vehemently in the anti-helmet camp as far as adults are concerned, it’s surely just common sense amongst kids? I see it exactly the same way as this:
glynr36 wrote:Chances are for the majority of the instances of how kids come off bikes (ignoring getting hit by a car) it’s actually within the range of what a helmet is effective for.In regard to the bit about not taking liability for the bike itself, I don’t see how this is any different to leaving a bike locked up elsewhere, or your car in the office/supermarket car park? It’ll presumably be insured should it get nicked anyway.
-
AuthorReplies
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.