Pro compulsion

[david k]

It is the people in Norwich who made it either or. You were asked which of the two options you favour helmet and training versus no helmet no access to training.

It is the people of Norwich who would have to answer then, I cannot speak for them. As previously said I prefer neither option, my views are firmly training is very important and i support helmet use (not the same as compulsion)

 

[david k]

They are just trying to cover themselves in case somebodys little darling does a dive on to the tarmac due to the no win no fee craze, if they provided helmets for the course no one would be excluded. its like horse riding.

I made this point earlier, if they make that rule and provide helmets nobody is excluded.

I dont know why they made this rule only they could say, but i do feel it is propbably more to do with covering their selves in case of an accident

 

[Theseus]

So you agree with the attitude "We provide training, but only if you spend thirty quid (or so) on something you never intend to use again. Fail to spend that money and we will not train your kid." ?

Because that is what some LAs are saying!

Nope, I don't agree with the attitude, but am pragmatic enough to know which battles are tilting at windmills. I would prefer that my kids get proper cycle training, even if it means that for the duration of the lessons they wear a hat. If you go down to LIDL on Monday you can pick one up for £8, there is no need to get top of the range for this usage.

 

[Red Light]

My thoughts are along similar lines. Items that have a (SWL) Safe Working Load will perform above those limits to enable safe use at the limits. If a helmet it designed to protect you at 12mph there is a chance it will actually protect you at higher speeds than that.

You should talk to the people that accreditation test them. A lot of them have trouble scraping through the test, let alone exceeding it. Which is why the helmet industry has consistently downgraded the severity of the tests from the original Snell to the current BS/EN.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

You should talk to the people that accreditation test them. A lot of them have trouble scraping through the test, let alone exceeding it. Which is why the helmet industry has consistently downgraded the severity of the tests from the original Snell to the current BS/EN.

Again I can only speak from personal experience but the off I have had have which have resulted in head impact have been at >12mph. In each case the helmet has done it's job.

 

[Red Light]

thats a concern, you are deliberatly saying it is either helmet or training. I cannot say one or the other because i believe in both, not avoiding the question, i'm answering it, both

But that is the choice the kids in Norwich and elsewhere we have been told about face. Turn up with a helmet for training or don't come at all. So what's your answer?

 

[Angelfishsolo]

But that is the choice the kids in Norwich and elsewhere we have been told about face. Turn up with a helmet for training or don't come at all. So what's your answer?

If that is the choice then any responsible parent will go to Asda or Tesco and pick up a helmet for their child. After all the training is of primary importance.

If you had young children what would you do?

 

[twobiker]

Again I can only speak from personal experience but the off I have had have which have resulted in head impact have been at >12mph. In each case the helmet has done it's job.

Do you think they have compromised the safety to make them look trendy?

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Do you think they have compromised the safety to make them look trendy?

I don't know TBH.

 

[Red Light]

if they provided helmets for the course no one would be excluded. its like horse riding.

If they provided even the very cheapest helmets it would at least double the cost of the training - cost of helmets, cost of sterilising them after each use, cost holding a stock of helmets sufficient to fit all sizes and replacing them if they get knocked. Or to put it another way - less than half the number of cyclists trained within the available budget.

 

[twobiker]

I don't know TBH.

The company I work for issues cycle helmets to us and it is an internal disciplinary offence if we don't wear them, they are large and not a bit like the TDF riders wear, you would'nt buy it for yourself, but it is a lot fatter than the new ones.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

The company I work for issues cycle helmets to us and it is an internal disciplinary offence if we don't wear them, they are large and not a bit like the TDF riders wear, you would'nt buy it for yourself, but it is a lot fatter than the new ones.

Any chance of posting a photo?

 

[Red Light]

Personally, despite being against compulsion, not wearing one myselfe and not insisting my kids wear one when they ride. I would say that the greater good is that they get the training, even if it means that helmets are worn. Of course, the ride to and from the training can take place with the helmets hanging off the handlebars.

But as was pointed out in the debate on mandatory helmets in Northern Ireland, that effectively excludes from training a whole raft of kids whose parents can't afford helmets.

 

[twobiker]

If they provided even the very cheapest helmets it would at least double the cost of the training - cost of helmets, cost of sterilising them after each use, cost holding a stock of helmets sufficient to fit all sizes and replacing them if they get knocked. Or to put it another way - less than half the number of cyclists trained within the available budget.

Balanced against cost of Ambulance,Police, Doctors,Nurses,Equipment, Council to sweep up the mess,conscience.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

But as was pointed out in the debate on mandatory helmets in Northern Ireland, that effectively excludes from training a whole raft of kids whose parents can't afford helmets.

I'm sorry I hear this "I can't afford" all the time in animal rescue. No issues with booze and fags but can't by cat food.