# Hit children on the head with mallets if they don't wear cycle helmets.



## lech (15 May 2009)

Words fail me, teaching road safety to kids by means of a game where you hit children with a mallet if they aren't wearing cycle helmets:



http://talesoftheroad.direct.gov.uk/cycling-safety.php


Un-freakin'-believable.


----------



## Bollo (15 May 2009)

Now that has gripped my shoot. Complaint on its way to the dft right now.


----------



## MartinC (15 May 2009)

Well, it certainly showed the value of magic polystyrene hats. I hit almost every helmet scoring -10 a go but at the end my score was 0! This proves how effective they are by preventing my score going below 0.


----------



## gavintc (15 May 2009)

Good fun though.


----------



## bonj2 (15 May 2009)

Bollo said:


> Now that has gripped my shoot. Complaint on its way to the dft right now.



for god's sake dont' be so STUFFY! What the bloody hell harm is that?


----------



## bonj2 (15 May 2009)

It would be a lot better if they'd programmed it so you could just double- or triple- click on the ones that ARE wearing a helmet in order to just whack them that much harder to compensate for the fact they're wearing a helmet.


----------



## Bollo (15 May 2009)

bonj said:


> for god's sake dont' be so STUFFY! What the bloody hell harm is that?


Go f*** yourself bonj


----------



## Al Fowler (15 May 2009)

I never used to wear my helmet, mum got so mad she threatened she'd get my dad to put the grinder to my bike. 


The thing is, the peer pressure from people calling you all sorts of names for wearing it out-weights the danger you believe your subject to without it.

I crash that often that its suicidal not to wear it, plus i got a nice fancy one...also helps that ive grown up and dont really care what anybody thinks anymore...hence ive just ordered my first set of lycra. .


I think the only way to solve it, is to some how make it the law.


----------



## MajorMantra (15 May 2009)

Al Fowler said:


> I think the only way to solve it, is to some how make it the law.



Do some research. There are excellent reasons why helmet compulsion is a terrible idea.

Matthew


----------



## thomas (15 May 2009)

WOOO - 290 ...where do I submit my high score???


----------



## thomas (15 May 2009)

bonj said:


> for god's sake dont' be so STUFFY! What the bloody hell harm is that?




+1...Though...I am worried this might become a new craze in the school ground.....

I bet not one kid has ever gone on the direct gov website so I really shouldn't worry


----------



## tdr1nka (15 May 2009)

S'funny because a cycle helmet would probably serve you well if you get attacked with a mallet.

Re educating drivers and teaching all kids to cycle safely would serve so much better.


----------



## dodgy (15 May 2009)

Bollo said:


> Now that has gripped my shoot. Complaint on its way to the dft right now.



Did you complain about the Cow that turned white advert, too?


----------



## bonj2 (15 May 2009)

Bollo said:


> Go f*** yourself bonj



If i was the person opening your complaint I would instantly ball it up and throw it in the bin. And that would be even if I _agreed_ with you!


----------



## tdr1nka (15 May 2009)

That's really touching....


----------



## bonj2 (15 May 2009)

I hope bollo works in the private sector. Dread to think our taxes are going towards him wasting time firing off complaints to the DFT for trivial reasons...


----------



## Bollo (15 May 2009)

bonj said:


> If i was the person opening your complaint I would instantly ball it up and throw it in the bin. And that would be even if I _agreed_ with you!


If I knew I was sending a complaint to you bonj, I'd instantly ball it up and shove it up your arse. And ram it home with a mudguard.


----------



## tdr1nka (15 May 2009)

It may seem trivial, but it is an important point.

During a cycling session in a school playground today not one kid that had a helmet had it fitted properly!

When so much is weighed in the pro helmet camps about how 'you really must wear a helmet, or you will die' why is abso-f*ck*ng-lutely nothing done to promote how you should wear the bloody thing in order that they might actually afford you some protection?

In our sessions we'd much rather the kids learn and practice their cycling skills, sans helmet, in order to ride more safely and in turn be much safer, rather than listening to idiot adults scaring them away from a skill and pastime that will improve their health and their confidence.


----------



## Crackle (15 May 2009)

Tested on a nine year old. He got a better score than me.


----------



## ufkacbln (15 May 2009)

Acually this is just the tip of an iceberg.

The whole site is far from "educational"

The emphasis is teaching children to fear roads and cars rather than interact on an equal basis, and in some cases with a right of priority.

Other delights include:



> Before his leg was bent backwards
> He loved to play football all day
> But the boy didn't cross in a safe place
> Where he could see cars come his way
> ...


----------



## Crackle (15 May 2009)

thomas said:


> +1...Though...I am worried this might become a new craze in the school ground.....



I can't find my wooden mallet but I never thought to look in the kid's schoolbags


----------



## Tharg2007 (15 May 2009)

bonj said:


> If i was the person opening your complaint I would instantly ball it up and throw it in the bin. And that would be even if I _agreed_ with you!



what if he did it via email? would they ball their computer up instead?


----------



## tdr1nka (15 May 2009)

Bonj 'balling' his computer?!


----------



## Bollo (15 May 2009)

Bonj, "our taxes"? Come on - that's a bit UKIP even for you. Are you using a sub-editor these days?


----------



## Bollo (15 May 2009)

tdr1nka said:


> Bonj 'balling' his computer?!



Which port gets 'the special treatment'?


----------



## Crackle (15 May 2009)

If he was doing it often it would have to be the serial port.


----------



## Bollo (15 May 2009)

Cunobelin said:


> Acually this is just the tip of an iceberg.
> 
> The whole site is far from "educational"
> 
> ...




That's the core of my whinge. I think the game is w@nk but the whole site is just the Politics of Fear for 6 year-olds.

I've seen some related material at my littl'n's school. The overriding message is "look out for yourselves kids, because the important adults don't have the time to give a toss."


----------



## Bollo (15 May 2009)

Crackle said:


> If he was doing it often it would have to be the serial port.


Bonj would accuse me of using the PC port <coat removed from hook>


----------



## bonj2 (16 May 2009)

Bollo said:


> Bonj, "our taxes"? Come on - that's a bit UKIP even for you. Are you using a sub-editor these days?



Ah, so you ARE being paid by taxpayer's money to compose a complaint about some game highlighting the dangers of not wearing a helmet! You might as well just sign on with a 'bad back' - no different


----------



## dellzeqq (16 May 2009)

I can't read his posts, but I'm guessing that Bonj is protesting that being hit on the head with a mallet didn't do him any harm......


----------



## tdr1nka (16 May 2009)

Close Dell, but no cigar.


----------



## TheDoctor (16 May 2009)

*gets mallet, heads North*

Dell's just given me a great idea...


----------



## jonesy (17 May 2009)

Bollo said:


> ...
> 
> I've seen some related material at my littl'n's school. The overriding message is "look out for yourselves kids, because the important adults don't have the time to give a toss."



That's exactly what is wrong with the approach to road safety in this country. It continues to place greatest responsibility on the most vulnerable and least able to take responsibility. As I've pointed out before, this attitude would never be acceptable in any other area of health and safety. If you were an employer with a hazardous workplace and relied on fear messages instead of making the environment safer, you'd end up in jail.


----------



## lech (17 May 2009)

wot jonesy said.


----------



## Crackle (17 May 2009)

jonesy said:


> That's exactly what is wrong with the approach to road safety in this country. It continues to place greatest responsibility on the most vulnerable and least able to take responsibility. As I've pointed out before, this attitude would never be acceptable in any other area of health and safety. If you were an employer with a hazardous workplace and relied on fear messages instead of making the environment safer, you'd end up in jail.




Is the fear message any different to don't play on railway lines or don't swim in quarries/pools. It is after all, aimed at kids who view these things in an entirely different way to adults. After all kids should wear helmets so how do you get that message to them?


----------



## jonesy (17 May 2009)

Crackle said:


> Is the fear message any different to don't play on railway lines or don't swim in quarries/pools. It is after all, aimed at kids who view these things in an entirely different way to adults.



Very different situations: no-one, child or adult, is supposed to be trespassing on railways or in dangerous quarries, factories etc. But even then the operators of a dangerous site would not get away with relying on fear messages alone, which is why the railways spend an awful lot of money on fencing, for example. Our streets are part of the public realm; children are not only entitled to cycle but, through travel plans, cycle training etc are supposedly being encouraged to, as they should be, and there are far more important measures for reducing the risk to child cyclists than trying to scare them into wearing helmets. By concentrating on a measure that puts the burden of responsibility onto the child, the government and councils are shirking its responsibility to make the road environment safer.



> After all kids should wear helmets so how do you get that message to them?



Should they? Can you justify that claim?


----------



## Crackle (17 May 2009)

The analogy is no different to your workplace/roads one. In both cases legislation reflects what the general public want. 

I also see no evidence that this campaign is a shirking of responsibility, it's just a campaign amongst many other road safety campaigns. The first main line is about falling off and hitting the dirt, no mention of being walloped by a car. Seems to me it's more about kids protecting themselves if they come off. Anyway, you didn't answer my question as to how you'd get the message across or justification of why you don't think it needs getting across?


----------



## dellzeqq (17 May 2009)

do any of us (and Jonesy is more likely to know than any other) know whether child cyclists are suffering head injuries? 

I see kids on roller skates and on scooters wearing helmets. Is there any evidence to suggest that this is worthwhile?


----------



## jonesy (17 May 2009)

Crackle said:


> The analogy is no different to your workplace/roads one. * In both cases legislation reflects what the general public want. *


What a strange comment. If you believe this, then you should never criticise anything the government does.



> I also see no evidence that this campaign is a shirking of responsibility, it's just a campaign amongst many other road safety campaigns. The first main line is about falling off and hitting the dirt, no mention of being walloped by a car. Seems to me it's more about kids protecting themselves if they come off.



That is interesting- are you saying that it is now the government's position that helmets are only effective in accidents that don't involve a motor vehicle? Can you tell us how many fatal and serious head injuries there are amongst children from falling off a bike?



> Anyway, you didn't answer my question as to how you'd get the message across or justification of why you don't think it needs getting across?




You had simply stated as if it were an indisputable fact that "After all kids should wear helmets". In a free country the onus is usually on those who wish to regulate our lives to make the case for doing so, not the other way round.


----------



## jonesy (17 May 2009)

dellzeqq said:


> do any of us (and Jonesy is more likely to know than any other) know whether child cyclists are suffering head injuries?
> 
> I see kids on roller skates and on scooters wearing helmets. Is there any evidence to suggest that this is worthwhile?



Depends on who you believe and how you interpret the data... I haven't had any particular reason to look at this for a while, but there are some referenced stats here, concerning head injury for children under 16 years of age.:
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1100.html

Cycling represents 7.1% of all head injuries

Cycling represents 6.5% of all serious head injuries

_But_:

Deaths due to head injury:
Cyclists: 10 
This represents 53% of child cyclist deaths

So what conclusion do you draw? That as over half of child cyclist deaths involve head injury, then helmets may be able to make a big difference? Or that the numbers are actually very low compared with the total number of child cyclists, in which case the risk is small? If you go with the former, then you still have to show that helmets can be more effective at reducing those casualties than other measures you might apply. And so far, the evidence for effectiveness doesn't seem to support that, but let's see what the DfT's current cycling safety research project concludes.

Edit- for Crackle's benefit, even if the evidence does demonstrate a worthwhile benefit from getting children to wear helmets, I would still not support the sort of cack-handed scare tactics favoured by DfT. This approach is more likely to discourage children from cycling at all. If there is a good reason for encouraging children to wear helmets, the 'encouraging' is what should be being done, basically normalising their use as part of a wider package of the promotion of cycling, within training etc and getting cycling accepted as a normal mode of transport. The starting point has to be making the road environment better for cycling, and changing the behaviour of those who create the risk should come before imposing restrictions on those who are on the receiving end of that risk.


----------



## Crackle (17 May 2009)

So now I had to rubout my first reply to consider your second - Harrumph! 

I think it's necessary to consider not just cycling injuries but general head injuries which are higher in kids due to the greater mass of their head in proportion to their body and the fact it's not fully formed so prone to greater injury. The stats probably don't spell it out but if my two are anything to go by, the need to push themselves to their limits also makes it more likely they'll have accidents, several so far.

I also don't like the campaign, not because I think the underlying message to wear a helmet is flawed but because it's poorly concieved, confusing, mixed in it's message, tediously dull and the game's sh!t - 'Cack handed', I'll go with that.


----------



## jonesy (17 May 2009)

Crackle said:


> So now I had to rubout my first reply to consider your second - Harrumph!



I know, wasn't it kind of me to give you in the second post the stats you needed to reply to the first. 



> I think *it's necessary to consider not just cycling injuries but general head injuries* which are higher in kids due to the greater mass of their head in proportion to their body and the fact it's not fully formed so prone to greater injury. The stats probably don't spell it out but if my two are anything to go by, the need to push themselves to their limits also makes it more likely they'll have accidents, several so far.


But unfortunately it looks like you didn't make proper use of them! 

How can the bit in bold be an argument for cycle helmets? Not even BHIT claims that helmets can help reduce injuries that aren't caused by cycling!


----------



## Crackle (17 May 2009)

jonesy said:


> But unfortunately it looks like you didn't make proper use of them!
> 
> How can the bit in bold be an argument for cycle helmets? Not even BHIT claims that helmets can help reduce injuries that aren't caused by cycling!



Steady. I was not attempting to justify helmet use on the basis of non cycling accidents but to point out the higher likelihood of a child striking their head compared to an adult. Of course they can't be linked but logically it follows that the likelihood extends to cycling ........ or puppet shows, or slides .....whatever and no I don't think helmets are necessary for puppet shows, except in rougher schools of course.


----------



## dellzeqq (18 May 2009)

My take on this is that children's heads are bigger and weightier in proportion to the rest of their bodies, and that children are more likely to hit their heads when they fall over. Their skulls are thinner. I'm talking small kids, rather than teenagers. I can see a logic in putting a helmet on a kid if the speed differential between them and the outside world is higher than fast walking speed - for example if the kid is on one of those seats that goes on the back of a bicycle. 

But, as for the DfT website, that's just crap.


----------



## Bollo (18 May 2009)

Although I'm no great believer in the magical power of helmets, that wasn't the core of what made me so pissed off about this site. 

The game is inappropriate for the age group for which its intended. It's got no educational value and accepts that inflicting pain on children who don't conform is ok.

But I really object to is the fear-based message of the whole site. We create an environment that's hostile to children, are unwilling or too selfish to make concessions, then attempt to scare them into coping with that environment and blame them when they get it wrong. 

This link sums it up nicely.


----------



## jonesy (18 May 2009)

Bollo said:


> ...
> But I really object to is the fear-based message of the whole site. *We create an environment that's hostile to children*, are unwilling or too selfish to make concessions, then attempt to scare them into coping with that environment and blame them when they get it wrong.
> 
> This link sums it up nicely.



Quite. An environment that makes it harder for children to be physically active, and discourages parents from being active with their children, is the 'fat kids' question posed on P&L really such a mystery?


----------



## ufkacbln (18 May 2009)

jonesy said:


> How can the bit in bold be an argument for cycle helmets? Not even BHIT claims that helmets can help reduce injuries that aren't caused by cycling!





> Thudguard® - Infant Safety Hat
> "Over 318,575 baby & toddler head injuries are recorded each year!"(Department of Trade & Industry)
> It's normal for young children to sustain bumps and bruises occasionally as part of exploring. However, learning to walk in a world of hard surfaces can turn a special moment into a heart rendering incident in a flash. Consider for one moment being the height of an average toddler. If you're not sure about this, get down on your hands and knees and have a wander around. Look at all the furniture, hard surfaces and sharp edges you would hit if you fell on them - both inside your home and outside in your garden.
> 
> ...





> Safety Helmets for Bouncing Babies
> “When you see a 7-month-old bouncing around in this soft headgear, which stretches as the kid grows, you might be quick to say that this is the child of hysterically overprotective parents. But when you consider all the large number of head injuries that children under two suffer, you stop laughing, and start thinking that this newly patented product -- now available in the U.S. -- might catch on.” – Buck Wolf




.. and it is suported by doctors and paramedics:





> It is a pleasure to support the 'Thudguard' in my capacity as President of the British Association for Accident and Emergency Medicine. Any device which helps to reduce the number of head injuries sustained by young children each year is most welcome
> 
> John Heyworth
> President
> British Association for Accident and Emergency Medicine






From the advertising for Thudguard childrens helmets...and finally supported by RoSPA



> ... should make a valuable contribution to risk reduction in a similar way to cycle helmets...
> 
> David W. Jenkins BA MPhil(Eng) PhD DCA FTSI
> Product Safety Adviser to RoSPA






Now is anyone out there not going to be making their children wear one?


----------



## User169 (19 May 2009)

Cunobelin said:


> ..
> 
> 
> Now is anyone out there not going to be making their children wear one?



I won't be.


----------



## Dan B (19 May 2009)

dellzeqq said:


> I see kids on roller skates and on scooters wearing helmets. Is there any evidence to suggest that this is worthwhile?


I would be very surprised if there was any evidence either way: who's collecting the statistics in the first place? A&E admissions don't tell you anything about the kids whose injuries didn't merit a trip to hospital.

My gut feeling is that helmets are probably more use on roller skates than on a bike, simply because there are so many more ways of falling over when wearing skates. But that's purely a gut feeling


----------



## Origamist (20 May 2009)

Here's the DFT's stock reply to complaints about the campaign: 



I am sorry to hear that our new child road safety game, 'knocking
noggins has upset you.

I'd like to explain why we produced this game and why we took the
decision to portray the message about the need to always wear a cycling
helmet to children in this particular way.

Although child road deaths have reduced steadily over the last ten to
twenty years, there are still on average thirty seven road safety child
casualties each week in the UK. Our aim is to continue to reduce child
road deaths and injuries and to ensure that correct and safe road
behaviour is something that children learn and remember throughout their
childhood and into their teenage years and beyond.

To develop the most effective campaign, we conducted extensive research
on children's knowledge and understanding of road safety, how the
previous Hedgehog campaign was resonating with children today and what
strategic ideas would potentially have the most impact and retention
amongst this audience. What we found was that the children in our sample
groups could recite 'stop, look, and listen' by rote but on further
probing seemed to lack a clear understanding of when or how to implement
this behaviour in a real life situation. Our research also indicated
that children of this age range wanted to understand the reasons for
needing to cross the road safely.

Before commissioning this game, we researched a range of ideas among
children aged six to eleven, from both genders and different social
groups. We also researched ideas with groups of parents and primary
school teachers. This particular creative route was shown to demonstrate
both the negative consequences (showing an injury to an animated
character as a result of failing to follow safe road behaviour) followed
by a demonstration of positive road safety behaviour, and because of
this was by far the most successful in research across all of our child
groups and with parents and teachers. The creative which was tested
engaged the children but also made them think about the consequences of
their actions.

This campaign is targeted at children aged six to eleven and advises
"Should you fall and hit the dirt, a helmet might prevent the hurt". We
also run campaigns offering information and advice to parents about how
to help their children to learn how to be as safe as possible on the
roads. Our new Education website offers a new range of offline and
online materials and information for parents and teachers, including a
range of posters, booklets, a website and assorted games.

The agency who developed "knocking noggins" had also shared the game and
spoken with the NSPCC, to get their approval. Of course they do not
endorse any form of "violence" against children, however the general
consensus is that "knocking noggins" can have its benefits:

· This type of game is very popular among children and to an
extent, adults who will remember these type of games from their childhood

· These sorts of games are widely available and recognised in
the public domain

· The game has been researched and devised to be enjoyed by
children, but the most important thing is that the game has been
developed to communicate and reinforce a very important message; the
consequences of a bad decision i.e. choosing not to wear a helmet

· The game is one part of the Tales of The Road campaign, and
will help to deliver a bigger road safety message to children. As the
message is being delivered in the context of the TOTR website, it is
quite clear as to why the characters are getting hurt. It is therefore
not very likely that the message will be perceived as condoning violence
against children

· And in some countries like Australia, where it is compulsory
to wear helmets, this has saved many lives

I hope this helps to answer your concern and gives you the necessary
reassurance that the Department for Transport is doing the best to
educate and communicate a serious message in the most engaging and
effective way.


----------



## Bollo (20 May 2009)

Thanks O, I look forward to receiving that one.

Wow, I'm starting to sympathise with bonj. I just thought it might have been dreamt up by a couple of civil servants and a failed Flash developer. But JHC, they look like they've spent millions on it! What a waste of bonj's taxes!

It fails to address any of the concerns here though and makes some pretty dramatic and evidence-free statements. For example, there's nothing in that response that mentions the responsibility and education of drivers or any other approach to road safety. I forgot, kids don't pay road tax.

I also suspect the NSPCC didn't particularly like the game - the wording is VERY careful there.

I've just had a response from the CTC. They're not exactly chuffed, but then would you expect them to be?


----------



## Tony (20 May 2009)

"In Australia...etc"
Saved lives? Bollocks.


----------



## dellzeqq (20 May 2009)

the CTC (aka Young Geffen) is good on that intra-departmental DfT thingy stuff. Young Geffen understands that there are civil servants in the DfT that are put in out-of-the-way places in the hope that they don't do anything silly. But sometimes they do. It's then a question of pressure points.


----------



## atbman (21 May 2009)

I think we should all encourage the government's, "Wear a HELMET or you *WILL DIE!*" campaign to encourage cycling


----------



## MartinC (21 May 2009)

Tony said:


> "In Australia...etc"
> Saved lives? Bollocks.



Yes, it's interesting that they claim this is true - I'd ask them to back it up. The available evidence doesn't seem to support this at all.


----------



## ChrisKH (21 May 2009)

"· And in some countries like Australia, where it is compulsory
to wear helmets, this has saved many lives".

I wonder if this guy was wearing one (probably not).

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Wo...To_Save_Boy_With_A_Blood_Clot_Under_His_Skull


----------



## MartinC (21 May 2009)

ChrisKH said:


> "· And in some countries like Australia, where it is *compulsory
> to wear helmets*, this has saved many lives".
> 
> I wonder if this guy was wearing one (probably not).
> ...



The answer is probably in your post!


----------



## CotterPin (22 May 2009)

Looks like the game is gone but the message remains the same


----------



## Bollo (22 May 2009)

I've just had a response from the NSPCC. I didn't complain to score forum points so I'm not going to post up their response verbatim but, in summary, they're NOT HAPPY.

It appears that they've also got wind of the standard response posted by Origamist and take issue with the weasel words that claim the NSPCC were 'involved'.


----------



## lech (22 May 2009)

The NSPCC weren't happy, neither were the CTC and Headway- the head injuries charity.

It is beyond belief, it reinforces bad stereotypes, encourages violence, solves nothing and was pretty unpleasant.

I got 400 first go.


----------



## Bollo (22 May 2009)

lech said:


> I got 400 first go.



Jimmy chin-on you did!


----------

