Tweet yesterday:
Lasswade Primary @lasswadeps
"In June we will have talks for all from Headway about the importance of wearing a helmet when cycling #lifesaver
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!
Sorry ... helmet related
(38 posts)-
Posted 11 years ago #
-
Presumably because Primary school kids are going lidless as a matter of course and of their own volition and hence need taught 'home truths'???
I would be surprised if many parents of primary school age kids allow them to cycle sans helmet or if the debate has even surfaced - even if they dont wear one themselves - so this seems a bit heavy in my opinion.
However, mine is only P4 so things may be different for older sproglets.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Without wanting to start the whole debate up, I wouldn't allow my kids on a bike without a helmet for 2 reasons
1) Helmets are (alleged) to protect head from falling off bike.
2) Kids learning to ride a bike will (likely) fall off more.When they are grown they can make their own informed choice as to go lidded or not, as far as I'm concerned it's a personal preference, but while young and unstable I'll insist.
Commence firing. :-)
Posted 11 years ago # -
@condor
Your kids, your call, clearly. What was disappointing was Headway's narrow view of the issue. They are a head injury charity, so they're against head injuries so they're for helmet compulsion.
It's well known that helmet compulsion reduces cycling, which in turn causes un upturn in poor health outcomes other than head injuries - obesity, heart disease, strokes, suicide and so on. The government response on their website is remarkably sane.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Looking at the following tweets by the school https://twitter.com/lasswadeps some guidance on how to wear the helmets might be beneficial.
Posted 11 years ago # -
The interesting question, even for a head injuries charity, is why cycling is seen as so uniquely head-threatening that we should insist on a helmet. I pondered this as I watched children play on an elaborate climbing frame, the top of which was at least 10 feet off the ground, placing their delicate noggins perhaps 10-13 feet up. Not one of them was wearing a helmet (or a harness!). Some of them had arrived on bicycles and taken their helmets off to climb. The assessment of risk is not only illogical it's anti-logical.
Posted 11 years ago # -
On the Headway website, there's images of a charity bike ride - with many in their 'team' not wearing helmets!
Posted 11 years ago # -
From the posted twitter feed 1hour ago.... "P6 starting their first skiing lesson. How exciting!"
Not a helmet in sight.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Headway have obviously got a bee in their bonnet (sorry) about helmets. See the key facts page:
https://www.headway.org.uk/key-facts-and-statistics.aspx
No breakdown of causes of brain injury and some rather one-sided stats on cycle injuries. And on their position statements (https://www.headway.org.uk/position-statements.aspx), they only have two - one for boxing and one for cycling.
I am sure they do some worthy work but they are not presenting the whole picture and that's a shame. It might be better if they campaigned for safer driving (and for motorists to wear helmets).
Posted 11 years ago # -
"The plea for all cyclists to wear helmets comes from the family of Ryan Smith, a 16-year-old Lincolnshire schoolboy who was knocked off his bike by a van. Ryan, who was not wearing a helmet, has been in a coma for the past five weeks."
No plea for all van drivers not to direct their vehicles into adolescent cyclists.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Interesting that none of their seven key cycling facts states that wearing a helmet reduces the risk of becoming a KSI figure.
They also don't tell you how many fewer journey 14 year old cyclists made after helmets became compulsory.
Posted 11 years ago # -
My kid's school sent letters home about this kind of thing which I assume was aimed at me and/or my boys as nobody else used a bike without one.
A couple of years ago number 3 son's teacher made comments about these things.
Luckily my boys don't give much weight to comments from the HT or the guy in question. Number 3 regularly had to correct the guy's arithmetic.
Posted 11 years ago # -
What happened to The Helmet Thread?
I am against compulsion
I caused uproar in Balerno by not having a helmet on the other day, kids flinging bricks at me etc.
I am not keen on opinion as fact that appears on all sides of helmet debate.
I did like when we wrapped the debate up into one thread.
I can see this is slightly different angle, fair enough
Posted 11 years ago # -
I've been knocked off my bike twice now and the light that I have on the back of my helmet was smashed on both occasions. I believe that had I not been wearing a helmet I'd have sustained more damage so for me it's a no brainer, ahem. I really don't understand why people are so very against wearing one. I agree it wont save your life if you're in a serious accident but if you come off at mild speed and your head hits the ground it'll probably stop you splitting your head over. Just out of curiosity is it a rule in TdF that cyclists must wear a helmet?
Posted 11 years ago # -
No one said they were so very against wearing them. Some people just don't. I don't and I don't force my kids to. They have them, they can wear them if they want to.
I grazed my scalp and bled a little once when I fell off my bike. I once split my head wide open and bled like a pig over my nice shirt (but that was in the garage where helmets aren't even suggested). So, helmets, meh. I do more damage with chisels and knives.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Here is the thread:
http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=10427Posted 11 years ago # -
Don't forget everyone there is THE Helmet Thread
@ paul.mag
"I really don't understand why people are so very against wearing one"
Reasons include
'personal choice' - you have made yours.
scepticism about effectiveness (and claims of) - you have made a choice based on your own risk assessment.
'general public health reasons' i.e. belief that (compulsory) helmet requirements reduce amount of cycling/healthy activity.
notions of 'victim blaming' - 'must' have hi-viz, helmets etc. countries with high cycle use tend not to use 'safety equipment'. Clearly some people in UK will use helmets/hi-viz until they think roads/drivers are 'safe'.
Personal choice.
Posted 11 years ago # -
I'm in agreement with paul.mag on this, it wont save your life if hit by a car but a fall at mild speed then it'll probably save your noggin.
Always wear one and would expect my kids to wear theirs as well.
Posted 11 years ago # -
@chdot apologies for not sticking to the correct thread. :-)
Posted 11 years ago # -
That's fine.
It started as a legitimate 'other' thread - school/Headway.
Anyway it's not like the old days where there were two venomous camps and I had to close threads!!!
It's personal choice at CCE - with (perhaps) the emphasis on informed.
You might like to mention that on THE Helmet Thread.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Zesty, see Gembo's comment above,
"I am not keen on opinion as fact that appears on all sides of helmet debate."
Posted 11 years ago # -
@rust, why? I'm just stating my opinion and agreement with paul
Posted 11 years ago # -
My main issue with the helmet debate is....oh wait, I have said it before on the other threads, oh go on, ok then, .....is, it soaks up energy that should be directed towards bad driving and better infrastructure.
My kids wear helmets. I had one on today, wind, east , rain hard, cold, first morning commute in traffic for weeks, quite glad of it keeping my head warm. Last year at POP2 I came in the canal wearing tweed bunnet and joined up with certain discerning tweedinistas by accident as I knew them from here but no inkling we would all be tweeded up.
Smattering of tweed this year but not so many tweed bunnets?
Posted 11 years ago # -
This is rumour control. These are the facts * <intake of breath>
Paul.Mag: is it a rule in TdF that cyclists must wear a helmet?
All UCI races have compulsory helmet wearing, since May 2003. All SCU & BCF races have had compulsory helmet rules since 1991.
(Professional road racer fatalities have actually gone up since the introduction of this rule.)* Aliens reference
Posted 11 years ago # -
Please continue this on THE Helmet Thread.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Are we allowed to discuss the original point here, still?
If so, what should I do if it turns out that Headway are coming to my children's school and I disagree with their premise that somehow cycling is massively more dangerous than the playground or the car and so you've got to wear special stuff to do it otherwise you're going to be brain-injured. I'm sure that they are well-intentioned, and I am sure that they see lots of dreadful brain injuries of people who've been injured in all kinds of ways: bicycles, car accidents, simply falling over, horses, playgrounds and so on, but that doesn't mean that I agree with them.
My children wear helmets on their bikes, for the reasons @condor2378 cited above, but I've not majored on the risk of brain injury with them because I know that cycling isn't dangerous. I'd be worried that they'd come back from a presentation like this thinking that cycling's so dangerous they don't want to do it because they saw a thing about someone who had an accident and is now in a wheelchair.
How does one put the opposing point of view? How does one challenge the school when this kind of thing happens without coming across as a complete nutcase?
Posted 11 years ago # -
Kids might come home thinking they are OK as they wear helmets?
Greenroofer are you looking to take the debate to the school? In this hypothetical scenario not sure how that would work. Assembly booked, headway coming etc? You can always discuss with your own children. Fortunately kids not always impressed by assembly talks?
Posted 11 years ago # -
Thanks for that post greenroofer. I'd been similarly wondering myself. Thinking maybe I'd refuse to let her attend? But suppose that goes against my principles too.
Posted 11 years ago # -
@gembo - exactly. How does one get an alternative view presented to the children? My own children I can handle, it's the rest that I worry about.
I assume that the school doesn't allow evangelical religious groups to preach to assembly. I think that this is the same: it's a group of people with a sincerely-held view who may (quite understandably) present an argument to support that view to the exclusion of others. My concern is that there are alternative views, and that they need an airing too. How practical is it to have someone else stand up and say "that's what they think, now this is what I think"...and what would 6-year olds make of it anyway?
Clearly, for older children there's an interesting piece of homework to do on picking apart the Headway statistics and getting them to think about what they actually say.
Posted 11 years ago # -
I would estimate that quite a few schools do have religious assemblies and / or ministers giving more secular presentations. Humanists and atheists would struggle.to get slots to counter this. Maybe Richard Dawkins does get slots.?
PoP I could see getting a gig but an anti-headway group not sure how that could be pitched?
Rational society? In my younger days I tried the Wason four card problem at a class assembly. You have a rule vowels on front will have even number on back and you show a vowel a consonant an odd number and an even number and ask which cards you turn over to prove the rule. Supposedly children can do this if you have envelopes sealed and unsealed and stamp, no stamp..........what was I doing?
I think having an anti helmet compulsion assembly might be similar?
Posted 11 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
