Cycling Scotland are apparently starting a new campaign to persuade parents that cycling to school is save. All very well and good, but why do they insist on using images of Hi-Viz and helmets? Talk about shooting your self in the foot! If cycling is safe, then there is no need for the "safety" equipment, isn't it time to get the messages straight, and stop wasting public money.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!
Cycling Scotland: ‘Parents must be shown bikes are safe’
(23 posts)- Started 13 years ago by Kim
- Latest reply from chdot
- This topic is
closed
-
Posted 13 years ago #
-
no comment
Posted 13 years ago # -
To use your own argument, isn't it better if they all start cycling - with helmets and hi-viz - than if they don't?
There is not going to be a programme working with school-kids that does not involve helmets and hi-viz. Let's just accept that and work with it. Anything that did try that, would simply be boycotted by parents and portrayed as irresponsible at best.
Kim, if you want to send your kids out without helmets etc, then please do so, but why condemn those try to (a) get their kids cycling and (b) protect them against unnecessary harm?
Posted 13 years ago # -
The problem is that even Cycling Scotland don't really think it's safe. The message they are actually peddling is, with full war-gear on it is just about safe *enough*.
You don't wear armour to walk along the pavement, but this is not because there are fewer per-mile head injuries amongst pedestrians (there are more). The difference is that walking along the pavement is *considered* safe, cycling is not.
As Kim observes you simply cannot have an activity which is safe, but requires armour and special survival jackets. That truth is not politically acceptable, until it is we will always have doomed-to-failure attempts.
The bright side I suppose, is that if the kids in the photos are anything like the ones on our estate, the helmets will immediately go on the handlebars, stuffed with the silly vests. So in real terms, it might lead to a lot more cycling after all.
What we really need is a movement to revoke the recommendations in the Highway Code for helmets & high-viz, leaving them as possibilities only. That would free up organisations to offer realistic advice without going contrary to the HC (which is probably not a good idea for them).
Only we ordinary cyclists could get such a change through, but we don't even have consensus on whether it's responsible to promote war-gear amongst ourselves, never mind a unified view to campaign around.
Posted 13 years ago # -
Hi-Viz and helmets are symptomatic sign of fear, you sell the message that it is safe using fear. Have a look at the video in this thread, notice that in Cambridge there is a lack of Hi-Viz and helmets, even in the cycle training class none of the children are wearing Hi-Viz and helmets, for them cycling is something normal not something to be afraid of.
Posted 13 years ago # -
@Kim - I had a friend on a road bike come off on a steep hill down through beecraigs country park, and whack his head until it bled and he passed out falling over again. We were heavily told off by an gorwn up park ranger. Yes had he had a helmet on I seriously reckon he would not have had such an injury.
Now I have had my fill of my opinion being attacked. You go your way as SRD says:
"Kim, if you want to send your kids out without helmets etc, then please do so" and please stop shoving your opinion down other people's throatsPosted 13 years ago # -
Well a friend of mine's kid was left severely brain damaged as a result of falling from his bike and cracking his head on the ground.Of course this is an extreme example but there's no doubt in my mind that sticking a helmet on your childs head is an acceptable safety precaution to take and is no more a symptom of fear than wearing a seatbelt in your car or having a handrail up your stair. Although I don't always wear my helmet I make sure the kids do.
Posted 13 years ago # -
When I was younger, no word of a lie, I hit my head in the street and passed out. Yet I was not told off despite being bare-headed, and I wasn't made to wear a helmet afterwards (and neither did any of my friends) although it would certainly have prevented the injury.
I wasn't on a bike.
That is the argument reduced to its simplest terms- at no point is the idea that "nobody ever hurts themselves" used against either walking armour or cycling armour.
Had an interesting conversation with Laidback where he related that his daughter goes out bareheaded, and would they rather that she didn't cycle at all (through enforcing armour use) or just got on with it and faced the 1 in 40,000 year risk of a fatal head injury.
Fear is a powerful weapon, no doubt.
Posted 13 years ago # -
PS. interestingly road deaths didn't go down when seatbelts were introduced. How's *that* for a head twister?
Posted 13 years ago # -
"interestingly road deaths didn't go down when seatbelts were introduced" do you mean introduced or made mandatory? Where's your data from?
Have you ever seen a car windscreen that has the imprint of a face in it? Not a pretty sight.
I could go on, but I don't see the point.
Posted 13 years ago # -
Seat belts were introduced - more cars were on the road.
If you want to talk statistics at least look at the number of accidents (fatal and non fatal) before that date and the number after.You say we are giving in to fear as a weapon
I am saying I like to take a precaution
Can you explain why it hurts me to have a lid on and a waterproof jacket that is made of bright material? If I wore a black waterproof jacket would that make me "cool" to you?
You hit your head when walking, well done. Were you doing 10 mph? 15?
Posted 13 years ago # -
"Had an interesting conversation with Laidback where he related that his daughter goes out bareheaded, and would they rather that she didn't cycle at all (through enforcing armour use) or just got on with it and faced the 1 in 40,000 year risk of a fatal head injury."
There is a big difference between a teenager - who needs to learn how to assess risks for himself/herself and primary school children.
To go back to the original post here: what is the point to someone trying to run a pro-cycling campaign that parents will reject and headteachers will refuse to have in their schools?
Posted 13 years ago # -
Tbh "fatal head injury" is the least of my worries i'm from the better dead than smeg school of thought.
Can we have helmet "amnesty" round here please its getting old. Wear, Don't wear, but stop trying to convince any one else that you are correct, no one is listening.
This applies to both "sides"
Posted 13 years ago # -
No matter what/when/where/how you cycle... As long as you do...
The only thing I'll add is this, and it is NOT a comment on whether helmets or hi-viz are actually of use or not (because sometimes they are and sometimes they're not, which is why the argument is so circular):
Hi-viz is said to be worn so that other road users can see you and not run you over; helmets are said to be worn because you might fall off and hit your head. By saying that you need to wear some specialist clothing to avoid being run over, and need to wear some specialist headwear to avoid damaging your head, there is a strong implication, therefore, that cycling is hazardous. I don't think that's a contentious correlation.
The campaign referred to in the OP (which has been lost in the to-ing and fro-ing) is about convincing parents that cycling is 'safe'. The images used to convey this have the specialist clothing that implies that cycling is 'hazardous'. Oxymoron-tastic.
The debate over the actual use or otherwise of the specialist clothing is something separate to the issue raised by the OP (though the OP wording was naturally going to lead to this degeneration).
Posted 13 years ago # -
Anth has a fair point its difficult to show some thing is safe with hi viz and lids but to go back to SRD surely its better they are on bikes than not? We can worry about
assimilatingnormalising them later?Posted 13 years ago # -
Yep, that's pretty much my view. They could force them to dress up as the Teletubbies for all I care - get them on bikes; get them realising how much fun it is and how much better they feel.
I don't wear hi-viz, I don't wear a helmet to commute, I do wear a helmet to mountain bike, I wear loud shirts to ride in during the summer that get me looks that make it clear I've been seen. Whatever anyone else wants to do, as long as they're on a bike and not actually breaking the law, fine and dandy.
My views on all of this have mellowed markedly even in the last 6 months or so. I'd love a Copenhagen relaxed style here, but I'd like more people on bikes more.
Posted 13 years ago # -
@steveo - define normalising (since you don't need to define
assimilating)
You want everyone to be like you and do what you think is right?Posted 13 years ago # -
I personally see 'normalising' as 'making cycling normal' - meaning, Joe Public doesn't hate a cyclist for being a cyclist; non-cyclists don't mouth off frequently telling cyclists what they should or shouldn't do without having any experience. It's separate from the clothing (though in a truly 'normalised' society for cycling the hazardous nature of cycling ends up on the wane and a natural progression is less specialist clothing - I'm a firm believer in what gets referred to here as Cycle Chic being a consequence rather than a cause of a cycling society).
The kids themselves will grow up to see cycling as normal. Cycling has been normalised, and kids cycling have become normalised.
Posted 13 years ago # -
I want every one to do as I tell them but i'm told i'm a megalomaniac who will never be allowed any power :D
What i meant was that once people are used to using there bikes for normal activities, getting school is a bigy, leave them to make their own minds as to how much gear they consider safe. I don't feel the need for hi-viz but do wear a lid, others rely on loud shirts and others prefer the all the gear. Up to you, i'm neither interested nor preaching.
Actually reading back over a couple of posts some thing occurs, when schools organise walking buses (or what ever they are called) do they not make at least some of the kids wear hi viz?
Posted 13 years ago # -
@steveo - Sorry I seem to have misread your post, it seems to read get people on bikes then worry about normalising them later, so by that I take it that makes me abnormal?
Nice@anth - cycling is still normal, what does banging a lid on make it not normal? there will still be the same number of kids getting bikes at Christmas (cos their pals have one and they
needwantneed to have one to hang out with themIt is my opinion that the KIDS decide they want a bike not a playstation and not the parents.
The parents that do go out and buy a bike for their kids as a matter of course rather than making the child choose it as a "present", that is, the kids that just get a bike because it is a good thing to have a bike will not be influenced by campaigns and leaflets as they are more likely like us cyclists in the first place.
From there the bike phenomenon will spread as kids fall like dominoes to the "they have one so I must have one" way of childhood.
I read it somewhere before possibly here, don't expect a link, that for a child to think of cycling as normal their parents have to cycle... so really we need to target the drivers not the schools.
Keep driving it home (see what I did there?) that I get to work faster than them, cheaper than them and am fitter
Oh no wait, we don't like preaching do we cos drivers hate being preached at
Aaaaand we're back at #1, nobody gets out of their car unless they are forced to by cost or health reasons (or a ban from driving), and possibly a bad bus service between home and workPosted 13 years ago # -
Whoah there spytfyre, I'm on your side! (in that I think constantly bashing hi-viz and helmets is pointless at least).
I'm not saying that wearing a helmet is not 'normal', but that when cycling is truly normal you tend to find that less people wear helmets. It's the cycling that is normalised, not the cyclists. Copenhagen and Amsterdam you see a lot less helmets - that's simply a consequence of there being a lot more cyclists and it being seen as a legitimate means of getting from A to B by the majority of the public. And that doesn't mean that those wearing a helmet there are 'abnormal', just that they're more in the minority. It's not right, it's not wrong, it's individual choice.
Individual choice is, thankfully, something we also have here, but the consequence of us not having a cycling society is that the majority and minority are flipped.
Like I said, kids on bikes, no matter what they wear, is a good thing.
Posted 13 years ago # -
Sorry, spytfyre, if you've taken some offence at my post, for you cycling clearly is normalised in your life you make the choice to ride where most of the population chooses to drive. You've also chosen how much gear you think is appropriate for you, cool, i'm not commenting on that or passing judgement. Personally i think that its important that people make that choice with out having people whinge and moan at them what ever makes an individual comfortable.
Perhaps it was a poor choice of phrase on my part by i was mostly attempting to lighten the flame war but clearly i should have made my intentions more clear.
Posted 13 years ago # -
NOTE: Since I started writing this, the thread has moved a bit, but not got any clearer.
There have been no more posts in the last 1/4 hour so maybe 'it's all over'.
But just in case this post stirs things up again I'm taking the very rare step of closing the thread.
Perhaps someone would like to start a new topic about how to deal with the prevailing 'car culture' - without fighting about whether helmets/hi-viz send out the wrong signals or are a sensible solution to the realities of the road.
@anth
"My views on all of this have mellowed markedly even in the last 6 months or so."
Must be being on here...
@steveo
"Can we have helmet "amnesty" round here please its getting old. Wear, Don't wear, but stop trying to convince any one else that you are correct."
I'll go with that - and add my piece first...
Main problem is there are no absolutes.
I suspect most people on here think that helmets/hi-viz should be personal choice.
There are definitely different issues regarding children - yours, other people's, in school, on-road for training etc. etc.
Here we are in the realms of health, safety, caution, paranoia, common sense, practicalities, or not, etc.
You are dealing with people who may or may not have managers, health and safety guidelines, pushy parents, insurance policies to deal with. Who may or may not be considering their 'safety'.
Personally I wouldn't consider taking children 'gorge walking' or hill climbing in winter etc. NOT LEAST because I have no personal experience of such things - I only know about them because I've seen on telly that kids get killed.
Cycle Training can be led by adults who don't cycle and therefore will not really be able to properly assess risks - so go for the 'easy' or 'sensible' option (depending on your point of view).
Arguing the case on here does little other than entrench attitudes.
The whole business of "normalising" is even more difficult. The UK has politicians who think the voters want/like to drive. They seem to think it's their duty to facilitate this.
There are so many reasons for turning this attitude on it's head. Westminster and Holyrood have passed legislation on Climate Change targets. Some people have a desire to be 'more Continental' - though drinking at pavement cafés didn't quite work... But cities with less motor traffic/more bikes must surely be nicer to have/want?
Edinburgh has its 15x20 cycling target and looks set to allow lots more parking at the RIE. Even on here there is no agreement about that!
Posted 13 years ago #
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.
posts
