Compulsory helmets for school pupils?

[ufkacbln]

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.

..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]

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]

[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]

..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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

There's a smiley for that, DZ.

 

[MacB]

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

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

 

[Dan_h]

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]

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.