Children taught to cycle youngest cycle longest

I suppose it depends on what sort of head injury you anticipate a young child suffering whilst learning to cycle.

If it's a low energy direct impact injury, ie from a low speed fall, then a helmet may well be of benefit.

Most direct injuries are minor but the potential for a catastrophic injury exists.

I think a direct injury would be quite likely in the above situation and therefore a helmet would be of use.

"Cycle helmets may produce benefit by reducing and spreading the forces that lead to direct injuries"
Cyclehelmets.org

Shock horror... I'm a mindless fucking moron... happy to let me kids ride without a helmet... for now.

When we go up to the woods, we all helmet up, when we go to the park, we all go with the wind in our hair. I agree with Joules, one in, all in... but equally, I se eno reason to wear a helmet most of the time.

All about risk for me, and from my perspective, the risk of seriously hitting your head when tottling to and around the park is very low. The risk of hitting your head on something that might do damage and where a helmet can definitely help is significantly greater when challenging yourself off-road. 

My kids get this... they also have no issue with helmets being uncool. For me the most important thing is for my kids to understand that cycling, when done responsibly, is a very safe passtime. 

I think the survey headline about age starting on a bike doesn't give the full story. The age at which someone starts riding and their later competency might be a good indicator, but the age they start might not be the thing that means they are more likely to cycle in later life.

Could the age they start indicate the parents attitude towards cycling - more positive attitude will mean good chance the parent is a cyclist, or at least go out on the bike regularly with the kids, which will mean the kids grow up with cycling being 'normal', and thus more likely to follow said parents in later life. I think the starting age is a consequence of the attitude, not the thing that results is higher cycling level in later life.

And to wade into the helmet debate - I don't care whether you think helmets are good or bad, but if you are convinced enough about their merits to fit your child with one, then stick one on your own head as well. I get really annoyed seeing families riding where kids have helmets and parents don't.

1. parents set an example so it should be do as I do.

2. who relies on who? Child has head injury, yes it terrible, but parent can still carry on (other than obvious grief/stress/time off to care for child). Parent has head injury and child's life is affected big time, particularly if parent dies as a result.

Mine had a frog bike.

Said frog bike also had a Chris King Headset and Full easton carbon finishing kit.

also "No Helmet No Ride" because I'm not a mindless fucking moron.

Could you edit the title to make it more of a tongue twister?

If your kids start with a strider bike, it'll be a lot easier. When you get the first bike with pedals, remove the pedals at first to let the child get used to the different handling as well as the brakes. Then put the pedals back on and raise the saddle a little, but not as much as would be normal for pedalling. If your child has a small backpack, then make them wear that at first when learning to ride. The parent should hold onto the backpack to help stabilise the child. But it is essential that the parent teaching the child should NOT hold the saddle or the handlebars - doing so is preventing the child from learning.

My kids learned to ride when they were four and three respectively. I also taught several of their friends how to ride. As they all had balance bikes first, it only took about two hundred metres at most until they got the idea of pedalling.

Do all that and you can forget about stabilisers, which are a bad idea as they teach poor riding technique and also cause a lot of crashes.

Oh, and don't forget that gloves are actually more important than helmets for kids riding in the park.