British Cycling Activities for Schools

[Marc Brett]

On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 20:13:30 GMT, "burtthebike"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> Here it is again.
>>
>> "And you'll get loads of useful free equipment and helemts."
>>
>> I deliberately distinguished between "useful free equipment" and
>> "helmets", making no judgement on their usefullness or otherwise.
>>
>Apologies Tom, and you are absolutely right not to list helmets as "useful"

Wrong. Helmets are useful. My daughter's new secondary school has an
insane policy requiring helmets and parents' written permission before
students are allowed to cycle to school.

So a helmet is her ticket to ride.

No mention of a mechanically fit bike, or of adequate training. Just
mandatory magic hats. Doh!

 

[Colin McKenzie]

David Martin wrote:

> What do you get from Go-Ride (I should say Sponsored by TESCO)?
> Kids who enjoy themselves and are confident on a bike.

Do you or do you not get kids who are forced to wear helmets without
having the helmets' true worth explained?


Colin McKenzie

--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at
the population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as
walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 22:22:28 +0100, Colin McKenzie
<[email protected]> wrote:

>David Martin wrote:
>
>> What do you get from Go-Ride (I should say Sponsored by TESCO)?
>> Kids who enjoy themselves and are confident on a bike.
>
>Do you or do you not get kids who are forced to wear helmets without
>having the helmets' true worth explained?

Whatever the merits or otherwise of helmets, I found the Go Ride!
instructors to be excellent and remarkably quick at making sure that
children's helmets were correctly fitted.

Several of our pupils weren't wearing helmets when they attended the
Tour De France Grand Depart Media Launch, but the Go Ride! instructors
had two spares and insisted on their use before allowing pupils to
take part in their activity.

Certainly the girl in this photo found her helmet to be useful.

www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/ouch/granddepart_126.html
(Click next for an animated sequence).

Although it could be argued that she didn't make it *because* of the
helmet.

 

[_]

On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 23:03:00 +0100, Tom Crispin wrote:

> On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 22:22:28 +0100, Colin McKenzie
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>David Martin wrote:
>>
>>> What do you get from Go-Ride (I should say Sponsored by TESCO)?
>>> Kids who enjoy themselves and are confident on a bike.
>>
>>Do you or do you not get kids who are forced to wear helmets without
>>having the helmets' true worth explained?
>
> Whatever the merits or otherwise of helmets, I found the Go Ride!
> instructors to be excellent and remarkably quick at making sure that
> children's helmets were correctly fitted.
>

The correct fitment of a cycle helmet is to leave it in the box at the shop
that tried to sell it to you.

 

[David Martin]

On Sep 5, 12:48 am, _ <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 23:03:00 +0100, Tom Crispin wrote:
> > On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 22:22:28 +0100, Colin McKenzie
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>David Martin wrote:
>
> >>> What do you get from Go-Ride (I should say Sponsored by TESCO)?
> >>> Kids who enjoy themselves and are confident on a bike.
>
> >>Do you or do you not get kids who are forced to wear helmets without
> >>having the helmets' true worth explained?
>
> > Whatever the merits or otherwise of helmets, I found the Go Ride!
> > instructors to be excellent and remarkably quick at making sure that
> > children's helmets were correctly fitted.
>
> The correct fitment of a cycle helmet is to leave it in the box at the shop
> that tried to sell it to you.


I am going to disagree. Helmets are great at protecting from minor
scratches and bruises. With activities such as Go-Ride the kids are
putting themselves at their limits of technical control. Crashes are
more likely than just riding. Crashes of just the sort where some sort
of head covering would provide some protection. No of the 'saved my
life' but the uncomfortable scratches and bruises.

I am quite happy to insist that the kids at the club wear helmets 'for
this activity'. I always (well, almost always) qualify the request by
saying something like 'we are going to be pushing ourselves to day on
MTB/track/whatever and for this you should wear a helmet'. It is the
sort of situation where I (who is one of the least likely to wear a
helmet) would wear one.

As with ensuring you take appropriate precautions before riding (we
strongly encourage track mitts on the track, and long sleeves/leggings
when training at Meadowbank). We encourage risk assessment.

Helmets have a place in cycling. It isn't a big place, but they do
have a place.

...d

 

On 5 Sep,
David Martin <[email protected]> wrote:

> I am going to disagree. Helmets are great at protecting from minor
> scratches and bruises. With activities such as Go-Ride the kids are
> putting themselves at their limits of technical control. Crashes are
> more likely than just riding. Crashes of just the sort where some sort
> of head covering would provide some protection. No of the 'saved my
> life' but the uncomfortable scratches and bruises.
>
> I am quite happy to insist that the kids at the club wear helmets 'for
> this activity'. I always (well, almost always) qualify the request by
> saying something like 'we are going to be pushing ourselves to day on
> MTB/track/whatever and for this you should wear a helmet'. It is the
> sort of situation where I (who is one of the least likely to wear a
> helmet) would wear one.
>
> As with ensuring you take appropriate precautions before riding (we
> strongly encourage track mitts on the track, and long sleeves/leggings
> when training at Meadowbank). We encourage risk assessment.
>
> Helmets have a place in cycling. It isn't a big place, but they do
> have a place.

They are very useful on cycling farcilities for deflecting the overhanging
brambles, thorns and other sharp objects found there from damaging the skin.

--
BD
Change lycos to yahoo to reply

 

[Colin McKenzie]

David Martin wrote:
> On Sep 5, 12:48 am, _ <[email protected]>

>>The correct fitment of a cycle helmet is to leave it in the box at the shop
>>that tried to sell it to you.
>
> I am going to disagree. Helmets are great at protecting from minor
> scratches and bruises. With activities such as Go-Ride the kids are
> putting themselves at their limits of technical control. Crashes are
> more likely than just riding. Crashes of just the sort where some sort
> of head covering would provide some protection. No of the 'saved my
> life' but the uncomfortable scratches and bruises.

Except that a baseball cap is almost as protective and a turban
probably more so.

> I am quite happy to insist that the kids at the club wear helmets 'for
> this activity'.

The decision should lie with the participants or their parents. By
insisting, you proclaim that the activity is too dangerous to do
without. It isn't, if cuts and bruises are the main risks, any more
than (e.g.) running is.

> Helmets have a place in cycling. It isn't a big place, but they do
> have a place.

1. Voluntarily worn to protect against minor wounds as you suggest.
2. For small children strapped into child seats on large bikes.

Colin Mckenzie

--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at
the population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as
walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

 

[_]

On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 01:18:18 -0700, David Martin wrote:

> On Sep 5, 12:48 am, _ <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 23:03:00 +0100, Tom Crispin wrote:
>>> On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 22:22:28 +0100, Colin McKenzie
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>>David Martin wrote:
>>
>>>>> What do you get from Go-Ride (I should say Sponsored by TESCO)?
>>>>> Kids who enjoy themselves and are confident on a bike.
>>
>>>>Do you or do you not get kids who are forced to wear helmets without
>>>>having the helmets' true worth explained?
>>
>>> Whatever the merits or otherwise of helmets, I found the Go Ride!
>>> instructors to be excellent and remarkably quick at making sure that
>>> children's helmets were correctly fitted.
>>
>> The correct fitment of a cycle helmet is to leave it in the box at the shop
>> that tried to sell it to you.
>
>
> I am going to disagree. Helmets are great at protecting from minor
> scratches and bruises.

They are also great at reducing the numbers of cyclists (increasing the
danger to those who remain) and for encouraging politicians to bring
forward legislation compelling their use.

Wear a cloth cap instead, and mind how you go.

 

[David Damerell]

Quoting David Martin <[email protected]>:
>I am going to disagree. Helmets are great at protecting from minor
>scratches and bruises. With activities such as Go-Ride the kids are
>putting themselves at their limits of technical control.

Will you also insist they wear BMX elbow and knee pads, then?
--
OPTIONS=name:Kirsty,menustyle:C,female,lit_corridor,standout,time,showexp,hilit
e_pet,catname:Akane,dogname:Ryoga,fruitkonomiyaki,pickup_types:"!$?=/,scores:
5 top/2 around,color,boulder:0,autoquiver,autodig,disclose:yiyayvygyc,pickup_bu
rden:burdened,!cmdassist,msg_window:reversed,!sparkle,horsename:Rumiko,showrace

 

[Tom Crispin]

On 05 Sep 2007 17:18:40 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Quoting David Martin <[email protected]>:
>>I am going to disagree. Helmets are great at protecting from minor
>>scratches and bruises. With activities such as Go-Ride the kids are
>>putting themselves at their limits of technical control.
>
>Will you also insist they wear BMX elbow and knee pads, then?

False argument.

The most serious of knee or elbow injuries is not as serious as the
most serious of head injuries.

Risk is the product of liklihood and consequence, and a knee or elbow
injury would have to be significantly more likely to occur for the
risk to be greater than for a head injury.

 

[marc]

Tom Crispin wrote:
> On 05 Sep 2007 17:18:40 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Quoting David Martin <[email protected]>:
>>> I am going to disagree. Helmets are great at protecting from minor
>>> scratches and bruises. With activities such as Go-Ride the kids are
>>> putting themselves at their limits of technical control.
>> Will you also insist they wear BMX elbow and knee pads, then?
>
> False argument.
>
> The most serious of knee or elbow injuries is not as serious as the
> most serious of head injuries.
>
> Risk is the product of liklihood and consequence,

No, risk is likelyhood, danger is consequence.

Low risk+ Low danger = No problem

High risk+ low danger = not much of a problem, but it happens a lot, so
maybe we had better do something about it.

Low risk + high danger= doesn't happen very often but when it does it
makes headlines and causes handwringing, and often kneejerk reactions
from legislators

High risk + high danger = Make sure the situation doesn't arise.

 

[David Damerell]

Quoting Tom Crispin <[email protected]>:
><[email protected]> wrote:
>>Quoting David Martin <[email protected]>:
>>>I am going to disagree. Helmets are great at protecting from minor
>>>scratches and bruises. With activities such as Go-Ride the kids are
>>>putting themselves at their limits of technical control.
>>Will you also insist they wear BMX elbow and knee pads, then?
>The most serious of knee or elbow injuries is not as serious as the
>most serious of head injuries.

But we're not talking about those. We're talking about scratches and
bruises. See the quoted text.
--
OPTIONS=name:Kirsty,menustyle:C,female,lit_corridor,standout,time,showexp,hilit
e_pet,catname:Akane,dogname:Ryoga,fruitkonomiyaki,pickup_types:"!$?=/,scores:
5 top/2 around,color,boulder:0,autoquiver,autodig,disclose:yiyayvygyc,pickup_bu
rden:burdened,!cmdassist,msg_window:reversed,!sparkle,horsename:Rumiko,showrace

 

[David Damerell]

Quoting Tom Crispin <[email protected]>:
><[email protected]> wrote:
>>Quoting David Martin <[email protected]>:
>>>I am going to disagree. Helmets are great at protecting from minor
>>>scratches and bruises. With activities such as Go-Ride the kids are
>>>putting themselves at their limits of technical control.
>>Will you also insist they wear BMX elbow and knee pads, then?
>The most serious of knee or elbow injuries is not as serious as the
>most serious of head injuries.

But we're not talking about those. We're talking about scratches and
bruises. See the quoted text.
--
OPTIONS=name:Kirsty,menustyle:C,female,lit_corridor,standout,time,showexp,hilit
e_pet,catname:Akane,dogname:Ryoga,fruitkonomiyaki,pickup_types:"!$?=/,scores:
5 top/2 around,color,boulder:0,autoquiver,autodig,disclose:yiyayvygyc,pickup_bu
rden:burdened,!cmdassist,msg_window:reversed,!sparkle,horsename:Rumiko,showrace

 

[_]

On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 18:18:11 +0100, Tom Crispin wrote:

> On 05 Sep 2007 17:18:40 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Quoting David Martin <[email protected]>:
>>>I am going to disagree. Helmets are great at protecting from minor
>>>scratches and bruises. With activities such as Go-Ride the kids are
>>>putting themselves at their limits of technical control.
>>
>>Will you also insist they wear BMX elbow and knee pads, then?
>
> False argument.
>
> The most serious of knee or elbow injuries is not as serious as the
> most serious of head injuries.
>

Um, how can you slide from "minor scratches and bruises" to "the most
serious of head injuries" and claim that someone else's argument is false?

 

[John Kane]

On Sep 4, 4:26 pm, Marc Brett <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 20:13:30 GMT, "burtthebike"
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Here it is again.
>
> >> "And you'll get loads of useful free equipment and helemts."
>
> >> I deliberately distinguished between "useful free equipment" and
> >> "helmets", making no judgement on their usefullness or otherwise.
>
> >Apologies Tom, and you are absolutely right not to list helmets as "useful"
>
> Wrong. Helmets are useful. My daughter's new secondary school has an
> insane policy requiring helmets and parents' written permission before
> students are allowed to cycle to school.
>
> So a helmet is her ticket to ride.
>
> No mention of a mechanically fit bike, or of adequate training. Just
> mandatory magic hats. Doh!

I'm not from the UK so excuse the dumb question: What right does the
school have to dictate how a student reaches the school?

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

 

[Colin McKenzie]

> Um, how can you slide from "minor scratches and bruises" to "the most
> serious of head injuries" and claim that someone else's argument is false?

Quite. Cycle helmets: devices for preventing minor cuts and bruises,
disguised as, and marketed as, devices for preventing death and
serious injury.

Shall I make that my sig?

Colin McKenzie

--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at
the population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as
walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

 

[marc]

vernon wrote:
> "burtthebike" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:ho%[email protected]...
>> "Tom Crispin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Go for it Vernon. Go-Ride is an excellent scheme run by the cycling
>>> professionals. And you get loads of useful free equipment and
>>> helmets.
>> Free helmets. That'll be useful then, teaching kids that cycling is
>> dangerous. No matter how many times it's been said, it's worth repeating
>> again: cycling is safe, helmets provide no protection. Feel free to
>> disagree as much as you like, but please post some respected,
>> peer-reviewed evidence when you do.
>>
>> Vernon, as I understand it, British Cycling is about competive cycling, so
>> if that's what you think will attract the kids, then fine.
> And the Army is about killing people and being killed - still attracts kids
> to the Army cadets ;-)
>
> In all seriousness though. I am aware that British Cycling is ultimately
> about winning medals. Where else is it going to recruit new blood if not
> through youth activities? Youngsters rarely spontaneously decide that they
> are going to become top flight sportmen and sportswomen. I'm looking at
> providing opportunities for kids to:
> Get more out of cycling
> Take some regular exercise
> See cycling in a context other than a mode of transport
> Be competitive
> Possibly migrate to a local cycling club
> Have fun
>
> Discovering future cycling stars is not my primary aim, having fun is my
> target. If the future British champion emerges then that would be nice.
>
> As for helmets, if British Cycling insist on kids wearing them then the kids
> will have to wear them. I will not be proffering an opinion on the worth of
> wearing helmets as I am undecided on the issue. In competitive cycling,
> helmet wearing tends to be compulsory - something that I can live with. Kids
> at my school can infer what they like from my non-wearing of a helmet when
> I'm on my bike. Another thing to consider is the risk assessments that have
> to be carried out when taking kids off the school site. I'll be seeking
> advice from the LEA on their stance on helmets because if some mishap
> happens, LEAs tend to stand back, watch the feaces hit the fan, wring their
> hands in contrition and watch the teacher in charge get charged with
> whatever criminal charges the HSE can throw at him/her without offering a
> crumb of support. I'm brave/mad enough to want to take kids out and about
> but I also want to be protected by proxy by the kids wearing helmets if it
> is decreed that that is the preferred state of affairs. Education is now a
> very risk averse environment - ask the science teachers who can't do bangs
> flashes and smells anymore. I gave up the teaching the subject because my
> pyromaniacal urges would have curtailed my liberty or brought an early end
> to my career a quite a while ago.

Become a Scout leader. The one thing that links all scouts world wide
and throught history is not the promise, the law or the badges but that
they are all to a man( and woman) F***ing pyromaniacs

FIRE! FIRE BURN! FIRE GOOD!

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 12:54:40 -0700, John Kane <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Sep 4, 4:26 pm, Marc Brett <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 20:13:30 GMT, "burtthebike"
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> Here it is again.
>>
>> >> "And you'll get loads of useful free equipment and helemts."
>>
>> >> I deliberately distinguished between "useful free equipment" and
>> >> "helmets", making no judgement on their usefullness or otherwise.
>>
>> >Apologies Tom, and you are absolutely right not to list helmets as "useful"
>>
>> Wrong. Helmets are useful. My daughter's new secondary school has an
>> insane policy requiring helmets and parents' written permission before
>> students are allowed to cycle to school.
>>
>> So a helmet is her ticket to ride.
>>
>> No mention of a mechanically fit bike, or of adequate training. Just
>> mandatory magic hats. Doh!
>
>I'm not from the UK so excuse the dumb question: What right does the
>school have to dictate how a student reaches the school?

I'm a teacher in the UK and ask myself the very same question.

And as I could answer it I didn't give the idea of a permit scheme for
cycling to school a second thought.

 

[Tom Crispin]

On 05 Sep 2007 19:31:08 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Quoting Tom Crispin <[email protected]>:
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>Quoting David Martin <[email protected]>:
>>>>I am going to disagree. Helmets are great at protecting from minor
>>>>scratches and bruises. With activities such as Go-Ride the kids are
>>>>putting themselves at their limits of technical control.
>>>Will you also insist they wear BMX elbow and knee pads, then?
>>The most serious of knee or elbow injuries is not as serious as the
>>most serious of head injuries.
>
>But we're not talking about those. We're talking about scratches and
>bruises. See the quoted text.

I was expalaining why BC might insist on helmets and not knee pads.

However, as the BC activities I organised took place on grass, I found
the insistence on helmut use to be absurd.

 

[Ian Smith]

On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 12:54:40 -0700, John Kane <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sep 4, 4:26 pm, Marc Brett <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Wrong. Helmets are useful. My daughter's new secondary school has an
> > insane policy requiring helmets and parents' written permission before
> > students are allowed to cycle to school.
> >
> > So a helmet is her ticket to ride.
> >
> > No mention of a mechanically fit bike, or of adequate training. Just
> > mandatory magic hats. Doh!
>
> I'm not from the UK so excuse the dumb question: What right does the
> school have to dictate how a student reaches the school?

None. Doesn't stop them trying it on though.

If (when?) my daughter's school tries such a thing I intend to meet
the headteacher and demand a written, signed statement that if they
impose conditions on her travel to school they will accept full
responsibility and liability for her safety while she is complying
with their conditions.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|