# Compulsory helmets for school pupils?



## Sara_H (22 Nov 2011)

My sons primary school has just had some sheffield stands installed outside the entrance.

Good that they're there, but I would have preferred them to be inside the grounds or at least be lockable (more secure).

The head teacher has sent this information out in a letter:

_"A Reminder About Riding Bikes to School. I am very happy To see that children are riding their bikes to school. It's a great way to gain some exercise and develop independence. Please can I remind parents though that children MUST wear a helmet if they are coming to school on their bikes and They MUST have completed their Pedal Ready Training. If anyone sees a chiid coming to school ontheir bike without a helmet, please can you let the office know? Thank you."_

I am somewhat concerned that the head teacher has taken it upon herself to dictate who may or may not cycle to school. As an example, I know one 9 year old who cycles independantly and safely (taught by parents) and has done for some time, he has not completed Pedal Ready (not offered til Year 5) and so is excluded from cycling to school under these rules.

I'm also concerned about the head teacher making it compulsorary for helmets to be worn, as far as I'm aware, this is not a legal requirement?

Given that the stands are non secure and in a public place, I don't supposse the Headteacher can enforce these rules, but the tone is all wrong if the intention is to encourage cycling?

Thoughts, and top tips for a well worded letter to the head teacher please.


----------



## benb (22 Nov 2011)

Arse covering.


----------



## Jezston (22 Nov 2011)

I'd focus more on the Pedal Ready bit - that's really not fair if it's excluding the majority of pupils just because the course isn't available until year five.

I can see it being arse covering, but I can't see how the school could be seen as any way liable for anything that happens to pupils outside of school grounds.

Bit about helmets is always a weird sticking point, especially as they don't mention lights etc, but I can appreciate benefits of helmets for children while their skulls are still comparatively weak. Although it is ridiculous when you see a bunch of kids with parents riding bikes, wearing helmets ... completely incorrectly sloped backwards on their heads - isn't that more dangerous than no helmet?


----------



## Dan_h (22 Nov 2011)

Once they are on school grounds then the school can enforce the helmets rule, but the answer is to get off and push when you get there (at my sons school you have to push from the school gate to the bike stand as they don't allow cycling on school property). Outside the school there is no way they can enforce these rules.

I would personally write to the school gently pointing this out to them!


----------



## Alun (22 Nov 2011)

I wonder if by attempting to exercise it's authority beyond the school's grounds, a school might be inadvertently extending it's liability for the child's safety. Perhaps not what they want to be doing.


----------



## Bicycle (22 Nov 2011)

I was the chair of the PTA at a primary where cycle racks were built.

Similar restrictions were put on pupils who wanted to ride in: Year 5-and-above only. I don't remember the helmet bit, but at primary-school age my children all wore helmets, so i may not have noticed. They certainly had to have completed cycle training.

I'd look at the positives here:

1. A school has taken the step to put cycle racks in when money was tight and it didn't have to do it. That is a good, good thing. 

2. There is an extent to which the Governors and the Head are roped in by local, national or LEA policy. I'm not surprised about the conditions. I'm not sure it's a big issue, partly for the following reason:

3. You can always ignore them. We did. My children rode in from a very young age and no-one batted an eye. I take a French view on conditions like this: I comply with the ones I agree with or feel like complying with. Only one of my children did the free cycle training at primary school, but all cycled there. All cycled in well before Year 5. Who is going to police this? Are they really going to get in a fluster about it? I think the school staff have plenty to worry about without checking names against a list. 

It's not arse-covering per se, but it's not far from being just that.


----------



## Monsieur (22 Nov 2011)

Headteacher using common sense...they have a duty of care to pupils coming to school, at school and going home from school so his stipulation about wearing helmets is good practice, sensible and instills some road discipline in the children.
No issue with this ruling at all...
My 14 year old is going on a ski trip with his school in january. Going to Italy where the law states that all under 14s MUST wera helmets on the slopes.
Again, sensible.


----------



## coffeejo (22 Nov 2011)

There's a difference between what happens on school property or trips etc where the school is the legal guardian, but overruling parental decisions out of school hours? Hmmm.


----------



## Sara_H (22 Nov 2011)

Bicycle said:


> I was the chair of the PTA at a primary where cycle racks were built.
> 
> Similar restrictions were put on pupils who wanted to ride in: Year 5-and-above only. I don't remember the helmet bit, but at primary-school age my children all wore helmets, so i may not have noticed. They certainly had to have completed cycle training.
> 
> ...


Whilst I agree that its fab that the bike stands have been introduced, I see no point whatsoever in introducing unnecesserry rules that discourage children from cycling.
And I find the part asking parents to report unhelmeted children to the office completely OTT.


----------



## summerdays (22 Nov 2011)

I was involved in my child's Safe Routes to School years ago, and when we had cycle stands installed in school the head wanted to to make a similar rule both on the helmets and having completed cycle training. We contacted the council's Safe Routes to School officer who helped the head to change their mind.

I think I remember that the school can control whether they can actually bring their bikes onto school property but not how they get there, whether it is in a car without using a seatbelt or on the back of a motorcycle etc.

Who provided the money for the cycle stands? Do they agree with the head?

For me it would of caused a problem cycling with more than one child to school. I love the fact that we even get bikes with stabilizers in the school.


----------



## Sara_H (22 Nov 2011)

1618349 said:


> Did you say that this school was in the former GDR?


LOL - The Headteacher is a lovely woman, but I've seen her in telling off mode - I wouldn't cross her!


----------



## ufkacbln (22 Nov 2011)

Monsieur said:


> Headteacher using common sense...they have a duty of care to pupils coming to school, at school and going home from school so his stipulation about wearing helmets is good practice, sensible and instills some road discipline in the children.


 
How does a helmet instill road discipline?

There are some bizarre claims for helmets - but that one needs explanation.


----------



## Alun (22 Nov 2011)

Monsieur said:


> Headteacher using common sense...they have a duty of care to pupils coming to school, at school and going home from school so his stipulation about wearing helmets is good practice, sensible and instills some road discipline in the children.
> No issue with this ruling at all...
> My 14 year old is going on a ski trip with his school in january. Going to Italy where the law states that all under 14s MUST wera helmets on the slopes.
> Again, sensible.


I don't think that headteachers do have a duty of care outside the school, other than official school functions. It would leave them open to legal action for events over which they have little or no control.
Skiing in Italy is very different from cycling to school in the UK. I would expect the teachers to ensure that your son wears a helmet if required by law whilst they are in "loco parentis".


----------



## Richard Mann (22 Nov 2011)

Training in year 5 is so they can use the roads, once it's become an offence for them to use the pavements (there's no such thing as a criminal offence for the under 10s). So it's advisable to do some training about that point, but in no way should one particular course be compulsory.

In my children's school in Oxford, they do the training in year 6, because they need to be despatched to secondary school unaccompanied. It's good training, even if they fail (and some do). We've got 3 year olds on balance bikes cycling to school, and I don't know what sort of training your headteacher might insist on for them!

As for helmets: ask her whether she's aware that the medical profession is divided on the subject, with some evidence of increased neck injuries as a result of wearing helmets. Best to leave it to the parents to make up their own minds.


----------



## ufkacbln (24 Nov 2011)

Also point out the evidence that compulsion has been shown to reduce the number of pupils undertaking training a well as those riding to school.

Unless that is her agenda


----------



## Bicycle (24 Nov 2011)

Some very good points being made here.

It never occured to me to take up with the head tacher the conditions imposed when my children were cycling to primary school. I simply ignored the ones I didn't like. One child of my three was 'officially trained'. They all rode in before reaching Year 5. No-one batted an eyelid.

Some further thoughts: The bit about dobbing in children who don't comply looks odder every time I read it. I don't doubt for a moment that the phrase was in the letter, but I cannot imagine a concerned parent going up to the Reception desk at the end of a school day and saying that Kyle Denton from 5PG wasn't wearing a helmet. It all seems a bit surreal.

On the jokey (I'm guessing) suggestion that the head teacher's agenda might be slightly anti-cycling, I find that hugely unlikely. Getting the bike racks installed would have been a fairly involved task, involving the Governors and probably the LEA. Funding would have to be found. A Head could squash it quite easily at an early stage of discussion, but simply wouldn't.

Despite the slightly bizarre (and un-teacherlike) wording of the letter in the OP, I think it is a VERY GOOD THING that schools are making bike racks available.


----------



## summerdays (24 Nov 2011)

I would never report a child for not wearing a helmet. I have mentioned my concerns about a couple of them to the school and suggested they be put at the top of the list for cycle training - usually the ones that rode on the road into oncoming traffic.


----------



## darth vadar (24 Nov 2011)

Isn't it just about getting into good habits from a young age?

Cycling good. Training good. Helmets good.

Stuff like this this may last kids a lifetime.

There is no _'human rights'_ stuff going on here.

For once, maybe its just the right thing to do.


----------



## snorri (24 Nov 2011)

A controversial viewpoint darth vadar!


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (24 Nov 2011)

I'd say helmets are good for kids as they are likely to be travelling more slowly, and have less control... so if they did fall off it may provide some protection and not cause any undue problems with shearing/neck strain etc. due to the lower speeds involved. That said though, the Head has absolutely no rights/power to insist on any conditions outside of the School though, I wouldn't have thought.


----------



## 4F (24 Nov 2011)

What a load of utter cobblers, you should tell the head to do one and if she wan'ts to start policing the roads she should apply to be a plastic policeman. All my kids have cycled to primary school and I would not be told by some over fussy busy body that my youngest who is in year 3 would not be allowed to cycle in. 

I won't even get started on the ridiculous suggestion of dobbing in kids who do not decide to wear a bit of coloured polystyrene.


----------



## darth vadar (24 Nov 2011)

Like I said it is just getting kids into good habits.

That's all it is.

No helmets debate blah, blah, blah.

Wait until somebody's precious "little darling" goes flying over the handlebars, and then you'll see all the over protective parents coming out the woodwork trying to blame somebody else.


----------



## Dan_h (24 Nov 2011)

darth vadar said:


> Like I said it is just getting kids into good habits.


 
I agree, we should make sure the kids know how dangerous cycling is from the start, that way when they reach 17 they can go and get a license and a car like any good citizen.

I don't wear a helmet generally and my kids don't. I never did when I was a kid and I soaked up all the bumps and crashes just fine. Yes I went over the handlebars while trying to jump down steps on my Raleigh Grifter but I survived relatively unscathed. When I was 14 I even rode straight into the front of a car, still nothing more than a bump and some bruising. Rules like this are made up because some do good know it all head teacher has decided that they want to see kids wearing helmets which, frankly, is not their decision.


----------



## Bman (24 Nov 2011)

I used to cycle to primary school all the time. I never wore a helmet and never fell off and hit my head (while cycling to school). Then again, this was the 80's and people were not really interested in The H Word.

However, I did fall off my bike as a kid and hit my head when messing about, which resulted in a concussion. One thing is for sure, It made me a much more careful cyclist! Falling off hurts!

I know I would like my children to learn that lesson early too. Instead of preventing them learning that lesson by forced helmet wearing.

As for arse covering. The school can "advise" rather than enforce helmet wearing and achive the same thing.


----------



## StuartG (24 Nov 2011)

Oh dear its degenerating into the general bust up. There are two independent questions:

1. Should the head seek to exert authority outside school. The issue is almost irrelevant to the answer IMHO. No. I hope most pro-helmet people agree.
2. Should kids wear helmets to school? Can we agree that should be a parental decision in as much as parental control exists ...

Now if you wear a helmet it is consistent to get your kids to do so too.
If you do not wear a helmet is it consistent to discourage your kids from wearing one?

Not necessarily. I choose not to wear a helmet as I prefer not to and no one has balanced the benefits/disbenefits in a way that I see it as reducing risk. But that is based on the way I ride my bike. Kids are different, their accidents are different and the risks are different. Whichever way you look at it the risk and especially the type of risk is orientated more towards the possibility of helmets being useful.

One cannot say there is a net benefit in wearing a helmet but there is a greater benefit then for a mature and experienced cyclists who is not game playing. So I would argue you should be more inclined to helmet your kids than yourself. For me - I did ask, but did not insist, my kids wore helmets when they were young. Its now their choice and they have followed their father into the sceptic camp.

That's my take. Interested how many other sceptic parents agree/disagree.


----------



## Dan_h (24 Nov 2011)

This does have the potential to degenerate further, a discussion involving helmets AND parenting 

Still, in answer to the questions you posed...

1) I don't think this is always clear cut, in the instance of people doing something that is illegal then I think they perhaps should try to influence behaviour as far as they are able. However in this case we are talking about a subject that is not illegal and is a matter of personal choice - under these circumstances it should be a choice for the parents to make (in fact I still think it IS a choice for the parents to make, whatever the school says).

2) As in the answer above I think it is a personal choice. I do not wear a helmet and do not insist that my kids do when cycling. This is based on the fact that I did not wear one as a kid and don't as an adult. However I would never criticize parents who do insist on their kids wearing helmets, nor would I criticize an adult who wears one.


----------



## MontyVeda (24 Nov 2011)

whilst I agree with you to an extent Darth, cycling when i was a kid was a fun activity rather than a dangerous one. Of course it has it's risks, but so does crossing the road... but we wouldn't suggest wearing a helmet for that.


----------



## the snail (24 Nov 2011)

I think we should be grateful that the head doesn't require the kids to be wrapped in dayglo bubblewrap. I despair when I see a local nursery taking the kids downtown to feed the ducks, they're strapped in double buggies, all wearing little hi-vis jackets. I'm really glad I went to school before they thought of health and safety. Apparently one of our local schools got a grant of £10000 to build a covered bike rack, then a new head took over and decided that the kids couldn't use it because there weren't enough spaces for all of them, which would be unfair.


----------



## MacB (25 Nov 2011)

StuartG said:


> Oh dear its degenerating into the general bust up. There are two independent questions:
> 
> 1. Should the head seek to exert authority outside school. The issue is almost irrelevant to the answer IMHO. No. I hope most pro-helmet people agree.
> 2. Should kids wear helmets to school? Can we agree that should be a parental decision in as much as parental control exists ...
> ...


 
Seems reasonable to me my only concern is over the perception of risk that these things can instil in the young. It's like the difference between safety equipment that develops via experience and necessity and that which is thrust upon people.

I have no recollection as a child, despite almost living on my bike, of head injuries being a big concern. I do remember some nasty offs, missing skin and facial/mouth injuries(to others generally I was too timid). I also remember safety gear evolving, so those of us that built up tracker bikes would wear long trousers and long sleeves, maybe some gloves knicked off my Dad, that sort of thing. I also used wellies for riding, kept the jeans out of the chain, protected the shins a bit and weren't bothered by the mud. Some of my friends also got into skateboarding and would wear a helmet for that but not for offroading, though we did adopt the elbow and knee pads. When I played rugby I wore a gumshield but I didn't know anyone that wore a head protector.

If I cut my hair really short I have several visible scars on my head from childhood accidents. Two are a result of stones being thrown(one deliberate one not), one was from diving into a shallow pool, one was a fall in the school playground, one a fall from a tree and the other a fall down some steps. Oh yeah and one more from horseplay at college when I managed to jump headfirst into a low lintel. 

The point of this is that if I were to insist on my children wearing bike helmets then, based on my own personal experience, I should really be making them wear a helmet pretty much all the time. In fact I should be making them wear helmets for all other activities ahead of cycling as they are the 'risky' ones.


----------



## Alun (25 Nov 2011)

Gosh, you were a bit of a ruffian MacB !


----------



## ufkacbln (25 Nov 2011)

darth vadar said:


> Isn't it just about getting into good habits from a young age?
> 
> Cycling good. Training good. Helmets good.
> 
> ...


 
..ish

The problem, as highlighted in training schemes and by the IAM is that training is not being taken up when helmets are made compulsory. Norwich is a case in point where the uptake is affecting the most vulnerable children.

Children form lower income families are more likely to have an accident, they are (according to teachers and trainers) avoiding training and the reason being attribted is helmets.

The 80% reduction in accident rate proven in trained children (as opposed to the lesser and contentious decrease in a single type of injury attributed to helmets) is pandering t the helmet brigade and detrimental to the actual safety of the children.


----------



## ufkacbln (25 Nov 2011)

Totally OT, but MacB's stone throwing reminds me of a drunken session when I was in the Navy

We were chatting about such things and one of the lads was saying how they used to throw stones at the "rich barsteward's" cars and then run away. One of the senior rates took an interest in this and joined in.

We eventually established that it was a married quarters estate and his was one of the cars the youngster had been throwing stones at!


----------



## MacB (25 Nov 2011)

[QUOTE 1621647, member: 45"]My boys rarely wear helmets when riding to school. When we eventually got a cycle shed installed there was mention of children only being allowed to ride in if they'd done their year 6 training, but on the first day of opening the shed was full of bikes and scooters from all across the school, and nothing more was said. I think to be honest that it was recognised that this would look great in the school travel plan. The shed is now overflowing on most days.[/quote]

The middle school that all three of mine went to had a similar situation then a change of head teacher(previous head had been regular cyclist), thankfully only for the last bit of the last one, meant a change to the rules. Out went the relaxed attitude and in came strict enforcement around helmets and cycling/scootering on school property. Bike sheds, which were excellent fully enclosed ones, went from full to near empty. My youngest still rode in but I had a couple of clashes with them over helmet use. We compromised on him donning his helmet to wheel bike from school gate to bike shed and out again. They tried to tell me that they could insist on him wearing it for the whole trip or they could ban him from riding. It got heated and I persisted and they eventually just ignored it. 

Head teacher also took decision to lock car park after incident in car park, thus pushing all the cars out on to the surrounding roads. Whole place became even more of a traffic bottleneck, twice a day, than it had ever been previously. We don't use school now but headteacher has moved on(no more than 2 years in role) and things seem to have reverted.


----------



## summerdays (25 Nov 2011)

Cunobelin said:


> ..ish
> 
> The problem, as highlighted in training schemes and by the IAM is that training is not being taken up when helmets are made compulsory. Norwich is a case in point where the uptake is affecting the most vulnerable children.
> 
> ...


I agree - they are the group that is most likely to be out playing on their bikes on the road, late at night, unsupervised, most likely on bikes which are poorly maintained. They are the group that most needs the training. Enforcing helmet use in those areas would have a significant negative effect. They are also the group which are most anti-helmet in the same way that they are also the least likely to wear seat belts as well.


----------



## ufkacbln (25 Nov 2011)

summerdays said:


> I agree - they are the group that is most likely to be out playing on their bikes on the road, late at night, unsupervised, most likely on bikes which are poorly maintained. They are the group that most needs the training. Enforcing helmet use in those areas would have a significant negative effect. They are also the group which are most anti-helmet in the same way that they are also the least likely to wear seat belts as well.


 
There is no proven anti-helmet case here, simply choosing whether they are an essential priority. It is possible to choose not to wear a helmet, and not be anti-helmet


----------



## summerdays (25 Nov 2011)

Cunobelin said:


> There is no proven anti-helmet case here, simply choosing whether they are an essential priority. It is possible to choose not to wear a helmet, and not be anti-helmet


 
Took me a minute to re-read that ... trying to reword what I was saying instead. I don't mean they are anti-helmet for the sake of thinking they don't do any good. I mean that as so few wear them it is seen as being the odd one out to be wearing one, to stand out from the crowd. You are right that the parents don't see it as a priority when they have limited funds, and if they do buy one it is more likely to be the really cheap ones which are not so adjustable so likely to be badly fitting and uncomfortable and hung over the handlebars rather than their heads.


----------



## Richard Mann (25 Nov 2011)

The training we run at the local primary school requires helmets and a safe (ie roughly the right size) bike. Funnily enough, take-up among the middle-class kids is 100%, take-up from the poorer / non-white kids is zero. #fail


----------



## dellzeqq (25 Nov 2011)

Richard Mann said:


> The training we run at the local primary school requires helmets and a safe (ie roughly the right size) bike. Funnily enough, take-up among the middle-class kids is 100%, take-up from the poorer / non-white kids is zero. #fail


(hit's head gently, but repeatedly, on wall...)


----------



## User169 (25 Nov 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> (hit's head gently, but repeatedly, on wall...)


 
There's a smiley for that, DZ.


----------



## MacB (25 Nov 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> (hit's head gently, but repeatedly, on wall...)


 
That's one of them there Big Society opportunities that is


----------



## Dan_h (25 Nov 2011)

Cunobelin said:


> There is no proven anti-helmet case here, simply choosing whether they are an essential priority. It is possible to choose not to wear a helmet, and not be anti-helmet


 
I agree with this. I don't wear a helmet and I don't make my kids wear one. This does not mean I think everyone should think like I do. I don't believe there is much benefit in helmet wearing and have so far not seen any evidence to convince me otherwise. Added to that my own experience as someone who has cycled for as long as I can remember and the conclusion I have arrived at is that helmets are not a necessity. 

Everyone must make their own choice for themselves and their children and in the case of the OP the school has tried to make this choice for them which in my opinion is wrong.


----------



## alecstilleyedye (25 Nov 2011)

Richard Mann said:


> The training we run at the local primary school requires helmets and a safe (ie roughly the right size) bike. Funnily enough, take-up among the middle-class kids is 100%, take-up from the poorer / non-white kids is zero. #fail


that's pretty much the same for any activity. it will require a bigger spanner to the nut of society to prevent any such school activities being taken up by the usual suspects.


----------

