Pro compulsion

[Bicycle]

Curiously there is a piece in the Sunday Times today about moves to remove those surfaces and introduce risk back into the playground so that children learn to handle it. One of the quotes is "We are making significant strides in recognising that a risk-averse approach disables children. We are crippling their competence by not letting them learn through experience"

I think this is excellent news.

A risk-averse approach is always wrong with children.

It is my conviction that as long as they are wearing a helmet that conforms to British Standards, children should be allowed to take any risks their parents choose to sanction.

 

[david k]

Curiously there is a piece in the Sunday Times today about moves to remove those surfaces and introduce risk back into the playground so that children learn to handle it. One of the quotes is "We are making significant strides in recognising that a risk-averse approach disables children. We are crippling their competence by not letting them learn through experience"

i think theres a lot of truth in that, problem is it goes far wider than just cycle helmets. id also add lack of discipline is stopping them knowing boundaries, i feel this is along the same lines as we are over protective of their feelings at an early age also. When they leave school for the real world they are shocked that in the real world theres nobody there to pick them up or support their rights when someone shouts at them

 

[ufkacbln]

your posts do follow and similar theme every time

Absolutely correct... You post something with a ridiculous claim:

...... cycling is potentially dangerous as people and children do die when riding a bike, do you claim nobody is at any risk at all when on a bike?

I reply:

Rather a weak argument?

If the justification simply boils down to "it is not absolutely safe" and people die when undertaking an activity then we are again going to have to widen the debate?


To put this in context?


Walking is potentially dangerous as people and children do die when walking, do you claim nobody is at any risk at all when walking?

Going to school is potentially dangerous as people and children do die when going to school, do you claim nobody is at any risk at all when going to school?

You then then make some bizarre claim about a hidden meaning and that you really meant something else after all:

i have never claimed walking is without risk at all, but you know i have claimed that when i walk i am at less risk than cycling and thereofre wear a helmet when cycling and not walking, something many people agree with, anyone who thinks otherwise is in the minority

 

[hotmetal]

Dear Mr Pro-compulsion, (if indeed anyone actually is… I've lost track of who thinks what and have skipped to the end).

I wear a helmet when cycling because I believe that in a limited set of circumstances it's probably beneficial. Also it saves me from hitting my head on low branches, and gives me something to fix my lamps to when off-road cycling at night. (Which no doubt you'd make illegal too?)

If parents want to make their kids wear helmets then they should do so. After all, it's their kids. Young kids may well be wobbly on 2 wheels and their softer skulls more vulnerable. I don't think we really need to bother Parliament and the police with it though. If you want to wear a helmet, feel free to join me in doing so. After all, you and I are well-informed enough and old enough to make up our own minds, aren't we? Just like those who choose not to, in fact!

If you really want to make the world better for cyclists, surely there are better things to concentrate on? After all, helmets are only helpful in a limited set of circumstances. Forcing people to wear them (and fining people who don't comply) will only reduce the number of cyclists. Imagine if it were illegal to use a 'Boris Bike' in London unless you owned a helmet but not a bike. Or if there was a big locker full of second-hand greasy sweaty ill-fitting helmets that you had to pick from before you could ride. Reducing the number of cyclists would make things worse for various reasons:
1 - more pollution for us to breathe as would-be cyclists take the car instead
2 - fewer people with experience of cycling means more motorists with no understanding of our needs
3 - drivers who know and love someone who cycles will be more respectful/careful of cyclists
4 - greater lobbying power and representation

I slipped on some ice while walking once and hit my head. Shall we make walking without a helmet illegal, only below a certain temperature, or shall we just settle for outlawing winter? It begs the question, should there be a minimum amount of tread on a shoe? Only in bad weather?

I'm sick of the nanny state banning everything that they either don't like, don't understand or think might be dangerous. We had enough of it under Nanny Blair and I really don't think that we need another piece of legislation to make cyclists' life more difficult. If cycling is so dangerous maybe we should ban it totally? Or at least only allow people with driving licences to cycle? The very idea that all risk can be eradicated is utterly ludicrous. The world is no safer as a result - we just have a population who refuse to take any responsibility for themselves any more. Being pro-compulsion would appear to me to be the result of being so sure of yourself and your cut'n'paste statistics that you consider yourself qualified to tell others what's good for them and force them to obey. What's next? Number plates for cyclists? Full kevlar suits? Stabilisers even for adults? Wearable air bags? (Don't laugh – they really do exist for motorcyclists with deep pockets).

Seriously, I'm glad you agree with me that helmets are a good idea, but you really ought to consider shoving your megalomaniac pro-compulsion stance up yer seatpost.

I was so pleased when, after the last helmet thread got out of hand, these threads were given their own wastebin sub-forum. I can't believe I've clicked on a link that dragged me back in. I promise not to darken these doors again!

 

[Red Light]

Imagine if it were illegal to use a 'Boris Bike' in London unless you owned a helmet but not a bike.

No need to imagine.

[media]
]View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPjvZlAl_js[/media]

 

[david k]

You still can't quite manage that straight answer can you. Here you are hiding behind someone else's rules rather than giving your answer.

Which is the better choice in your opinion?

training is more advantageous than protection IMO

i support helmet use

i would support a decision to ensure helmet use before training

in my view both are important

 

[ufkacbln]

Now all we need to do is work out how play areas generate 40,000 injuries (including 4,000 head injuries) yet are "completely safe" whereas cycling, an activity that generates 2,000 head injuries a year is so dangerous you need to wear protective helmets!

Especially when exposure is concerned and the child is likely to be spend less time in play areas than on a cycle!

 

[david k]

not all play areas are completely safe

 

[Bicycle]

Now all we need to do is work out how play areas generate 40,000 injuries (including 4,000 head injuries) yet are "completely safe" whereas cycling, an activity that generates 2,000 head injuries a year is so dangerous you need to wear protective helmets!

Especially when exposure is concerned and the child is likely to be spend less time in play areas than on a cycle!

I live in a small market town in the Marches. Very few children here cycle. Those who do ride, ride very little.

There is an excellent play area in my town. In good weather and out of school hours, young chidren cover it like flies on a corpse, from early morning to late evening.

I spend a lot of time in London. Very few children in W11, W12, N6, E3, E14 or W2 cycle. I dare say the same is true of other post codes.

I spend a lot of time in mid-Wales with extended family and their sprogs. The same is true there.

The play areas in all those areas attract a lot of children a lot of the time.

I think most children (not mine) spend far, far more time in play areas than on bicycles.

My children (now older - 12, 15, 18) have always cycled a lot, but they are the exception not the rule.

Two have had serious falls in play areas when pushing the Laws of Physics on a swing - as we all did in our youth.

Two have had serious falls from bicycles (although neither hit their head).

Apart from my own, I think I know (or know of) very few children who spend even 1/5 of the time on bicycles that they do in play areas.

I do not for a moment think that play areas are safe; they are 'just dangerous enough' - as they were for me in my childhood although they were known as 'Recs' then.

Children in play areas now behave as we did then. They do their utmost to find an activity which will risk them getting hurt if they foul up. They test the Laws of Physics. In my experience, the few children who ride for any distance or length of time spend a lot of that time trying not to bend the Laws of Physics. My children and many others behaved completely differently in a play area to the way they behaved on the A419.

I have no side in this thread, but I'm not sure we can safely say that 'the child will spend less time in a play area than on a bicycle'. In my experience the reverse is true for the great majority of children.

The comparison may not be a valid one.

 

[ufkacbln]

(Snipped)

I have no side in this thread, but I'm not sure we can safely say that 'the child will spend less time in a play area than on a bicycle'. In my experience the reverse is true for the great majority of children.

The comparison may not be a valid one.

There are always problems with these comparisons.

I worked with deprived children in inner cities for many years, and they would not cycle, but did use play areas, equally these play areas were less well maintained and hence more dangerous. Equally there is a lot of evidence to show that children in deprived areas suffer more injuries of all types.

All we can do is look at the data.and make a reasonable comparison.

Unless an author (authors) decide to do a comparative study with the same data source then this will never be totally valid.

All we can do is look at reputable sources such as the HSE, RoSPA and scientific papers.

This establishes a total number of head injuries in the two activities and at least allows a comparison

Was this a close call ( 5 - 10% ) then there would be reasonable doubt. However as the number of head injuries in play areas is double that of cyclists in the same age group - then it is reasonable to assume that the risk would be greater.



The original and worrying post stated definitively that helmets must be worn whilst cycling to a play area as this was dangerous, and that the play areas were completely safe (the short length of exposure was a factor in this "complete safety" - this is the claim that I was referring to when i mentioned exposure)

This is not only naive, misleading, and incorrect but also puts into context the validity of other claims

 

[ufkacbln]

As a qualifier I must admit that at present I am totally anti helmet when it comes to playgrounds.

 

[twobiker]

I am going to start a list of other possibly dangerous activities for which a helmet would provide protection as the CYCLING forum seems to have expanded to other areas.
Bullfighting.
Tightrope Walking.
Football.
Busking.
Please feel free to discuss for 30+ pages of Pedantic drivel as after the first 5 pages anything relevant will have been said.

 

[ufkacbln]

The conclusion I draw is that it is all almost certainly completely unconsidered, at least previously. Playground? No one wears a helmet, it must be safe. Walking? likewise. Driving? likewise. Cycling? Well we all know that people wear helmets. It must be dangerous enough to need a helmet. That sort of thing.
It is why I think we really should take the argument to use in motor vehicles.

I was actually delighted when the playground is safer than cycling claim was made. Firstly because it was so easy to disprove, but it also highlights the potential dangers of helmets.

There are a number of cases (IIRC 8 since 1990) where helmets have been directly attributed as a cause of death through the asphyxiation of the wearer.

The safety issue with the bike helmet being worn on the playground is the increase the helmet causes in the size of the head. This increase has caused accidents were the head has become trapped in the guardrails of the playground structure, causing severe injury to the child along with a few reported deaths. As parents or caregivers to the children using the playground, we must make sure they remove the helmet before they enter the playground area. This is the only way of removing this potential critical hazard from the playground.

 

[david k]

I was actually delighted when the playground is safer than cycling claim was made. Firstly because it was so easy to disprove, but it also highlights the potential dangers of helmets.

There are a number of cases (IIRC 8 since 1990) where helmets have been directly attributed as a cause of death through the asphyxiation of the wearer.

if you are referring to me then you are taking my post out of context. i did not say all playgrounds are safer than all cycling. I said the playground i take my kids too is safe as it has a very good spongy floor, i could also add no sharp edges, nothing very high etc

If you want to use a post please use it in context and be accurate. all that inaccurate claims do is push the discussion into something personal, something the anti helmet lobby are good at doing like the personal abuse aimed at me for feeling helmets are of benefit

i await the 'im not anti helmet' reply, funnily enough thats how it comes across when you say cycling doesnt need helmets. If your not anti helmet why do you fight my justification for wearing one so vigourously? Oh i can see it now, 'im not anti helmet im anti compulsion'. yet you state they cannot be separated issues, so if you are anti compulsion which is the same as wearing a helmet you are anti helmet

 

[dellzeqq]

I am going to start a list of other possibly dangerous activities for which a helmet would provide protection as the CYCLING forum seems to have expanded to other areas.
Bullfighting.
Tightrope Walking.
Football.
Busking.
Please feel free to discuss for 30+ pages of Pedantic drivel as after the first 5 pages anything relevant will have been said.

Try construction. PPE (other than steel shod shoes) has had no effect on injury rates. Despite that one has to walk around a construction site wearing helmet, goggles, armoured gloves, hi-viz jackets and the shoes. Slowly. Bumping in to things.

As for your last post, David, it's tosh. Most, if not all almost all of us are anti-compulsion - including people who wear helmets. If you want to wear a helmet, that's fine with us..........