British Cycling Activities for Schools

[David Martin]

On Sep 5, 8:54 pm, 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?

Absolutely none. Except that the student arrive on time and in a fit
state to be taught.

I don't wear a helmet (usually) when I cycle to the club on a Saturday
or Thursday. I have to wear one to compete though (fair enough). I
don't make any comment on what the kids do when they come to the club
by bike. Some will ride in with the helmet on the bars on in a
rucksack. Then they put it on when they are there. When they are at
the club, they wear helmets. We can be doing a mixture of flat grass
racing, track racing, off road skills (including some rather hairy
descents that I am too cautious to go down) and so on in a morning,
and as helmet wearing is NOT a disincentive to such activities, I have
no problem with it. (I do have a problem with kids without plugs in
the end of their handlebars though)
I am however firmly of the opinion that if you wouldn't do it without
a helmet, you shouldn't be doing it with (for the activities we do).

When it comes to mass transport, there is no effective role for helmet
compulsion (or even aggressive promotion) unless you are trying to
free up space in the bike rack.

...d

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, David Martin wrote:
>On Sep 5, 8:54 pm, John Kane <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> 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?
>
>Absolutely none. Except that the student arrive on time and in a fit
>state to be taught.
[...]
>When it comes to mass transport, there is no effective role for helmet
>compulsion (or even aggressive promotion) unless you are trying to
>free up space in the bike rack.

But schools do have the right to say that you can't use their bike racks
if you don't go along with their conditions on how you get to school,
whether those conditions are silly, well thought out, or duplicate
existing legal restrictions (e.g. insisting bikes have lights after dark,
that helmets are worn, or that solo cycling is only allowed if you have
passed their Cycling Proficiency Test - examples not necessarily matching
the list of categories).

 

[marc]

Alan Braggins wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, David Martin wrote:
>> On Sep 5, 8:54 pm, John Kane <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> 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?
>> Absolutely none. Except that the student arrive on time and in a fit
>> state to be taught.
> [...]
>> When it comes to mass transport, there is no effective role for helmet
>> compulsion (or even aggressive promotion) unless you are trying to
>> free up space in the bike rack.
>
> But schools do have the right to say that you can't use their bike racks
> if you don't go along with their conditions on how you get to school,

I never had to wear a helmet to meet Sian Davies round the back of the
bike racks!

 

[David Damerell]

Quoting Tom Crispin <[email protected]>:
>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]>:
>>>>>Helmets are great at protecting from minor scratches and bruises.
>>>>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.

Well, why don't you go do that in a sensible place in the thread, and not
in response to me specifically asking David Martin about his comment
pertaining to scratches and bruises?
--
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 Thu, 06 Sep 2007 16:08:52 +0100, marc
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I never had to wear a helmet to meet Sian Davies round the back of the
>bike racks!

But was she wearing a cap?

 

[marc]

Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 16:08:52 +0100, marc
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I never had to wear a helmet to meet Sian Davies round the back of the
>> bike racks!
>
> But was she wearing a cap?

Who knows? it was too dark for that sort of exploration!

 

[Tom Crispin]

On 06 Sep 2007 16:39:21 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Quoting Tom Crispin <[email protected]>:
>>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]>:
>>>>>>Helmets are great at protecting from minor scratches and bruises.
>>>>>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.
>
>Well, why don't you go do that in a sensible place in the thread, and not
>in response to me specifically asking David Martin about his comment
>pertaining to scratches and bruises?

Because you asked if BC insist on knee and elbow pads.

I was pointing out that while there's a belief that helmets can
protect against death and serious injury, there is no similar belief
for knee and elbow pads so the comparrison is a false argument.

And believe me, BC insist on helmets, not to protect against minor
scratches and bruises, but to protect against death or serious brain
damage.

 

[David Damerell]

Quoting Tom Crispin <[email protected]>:
>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>Quoting David Martin <[email protected]>:
>>>>>>>Helmets are great at protecting from minor scratches and bruises.
>>>>>>Will you also insist they wear BMX elbow and knee pads, then?
>Because you asked if BC insist on knee and elbow pads.

No, I didn't.

I specifically asked if David Martin would insist on knee and elbow pads,
because he produced "protecting from minor scratches and bruises" as a
rationale for insisting on helmets.
--
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

 

[vernon]

"marc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.

Like pausing before answering when one's loved one asks "Does my bum look
big in this?' ?

 

[vernon]

"David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:GlA*[email protected]...
> Quoting Tom Crispin <[email protected]>:
>>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>Quoting David Martin <[email protected]>:
>>>>>>>>Helmets are great at protecting from minor scratches and bruises.
>>>>>>>Will you also insist they wear BMX elbow and knee pads, then?
>>Because you asked if BC insist on knee and elbow pads.
>
> No, I didn't.
>
> I specifically asked if David Martin would insist on knee and elbow pads,
> because he produced "protecting from minor scratches and bruises" as a
> rationale for insisting on helmets.
> --
Chaps you can argue about helmets as much as you like. IF BC says helmets
have to be worn for their activities then that will be state of affairs if I
choose to involve BC in school based cycling activites. Now please take the
helmet argument elsewhere it won't affect whether or not I get involved with
BC.

Ta.

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 18:46:01 +0100, marc
<[email protected]> wrote:

>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.

www.hgexperts.com/hg/article.asp?id=4783

Definitions may vary.

 

[Tom Crispin]

On 06 Sep 2007 20:13:36 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Quoting Tom Crispin <[email protected]>:
>>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>Quoting David Martin <[email protected]>:
>>>>>>>>Helmets are great at protecting from minor scratches and bruises.
>>>>>>>Will you also insist they wear BMX elbow and knee pads, then?
>>Because you asked if BC insist on knee and elbow pads.
>
>No, I didn't.
>
>I specifically asked if David Martin would insist on knee and elbow pads,
>because he produced "protecting from minor scratches and bruises" as a
>rationale for insisting on helmets.

So you did, my apologies.

 

[David Damerell]

Quoting vernon <[email protected]>:
>Chaps you can argue about helmets as much as you like. IF BC says helmets
>have to be worn for their activities then that will be state of affairs if I
>choose to involve BC in school based cycling activites. Now please take the
>helmet argument elsewhere it won't affect whether or not I get involved with
>BC.

Starting a thread does not convey ownership of it.
--
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

 

[Colin McKenzie]

vernon wrote:
> IF BC says helmets
> have to be worn for their activities then that will be state of affairs if I
> choose to involve BC in school based cycling activites.

It's the principal reason why I don't want BC involved in activities
at any schools I have influence over. Maybe if enough people turned
them down they'd review their policy.

But then my objective is to get lots of people cycling every day,
rather than to find a few champions.

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.

 

[vernon]

"David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:U0h*[email protected]...
> Quoting vernon <[email protected]>:
>>Chaps you can argue about helmets as much as you like. IF BC says helmets
>>have to be worn for their activities then that will be state of affairs if
>>I
>>choose to involve BC in school based cycling activites. Now please take
>>the
>>helmet argument elsewhere it won't affect whether or not I get involved
>>with
>>BC.
>
> Starting a thread does not convey ownership of it.

The helmet debate hijack is yet another cyclical (sic) argument yet to be
resolved to anyone's satisfaction and in this instance does nowt to answer
the original query.

By all means quibble endlessly about helmets if you must but is it a
tremendous waste of bits, bytes and electrons for the regulars of u.r.c who
are au fait with the oft repeated arguments and counter arguments that
litteer the u.r.c. archives.

I don't see how an oft repeated helmet quibble contributes anything that
answers the first question and does nothing but reinforces the personal
entrenchment of pro/anti helmet prejudices leaving the second question
unanswered.

Now then, remind me of your answer to the original queries:

'Does anyone in this newsgroup have any experience of British Cycling's
activities in schools? Any opinions on the merits of getting involved?

 

[Ian Smith]

On Wed, 05 Sep 2007, marc <[email protected]> wrote:
> Tom Crispin wrote:
> >
> > Risk is the product of liklihood and consequence,
>
> No, risk is likelyhood, danger is consequence.

Not normally. Normally risk is defined as a function of both
likelihood and severity of consequence. Typically, when using a
numeric system the likelihood score is simply multiplied by the
consequence score, as Tom suggests.

That's the normal definition, as adopted universally in industry and
in particular the HSE. Consider the HSE document "Five steps to risk
assessment", which is the default basic introduction to risk
assessment:
"the risk is the chance, high or low, that somebody could be harmed by
these and other hazards, together with an indication of how serious
the harm could be. "

You can download it from www.hse.gov.uk

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

 

[David Martin]

On Sep 6, 8:13 pm, David Damerell <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Quoting Tom Crispin <[email protected]>:
>
> >>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>>Quoting David Martin <[email protected]>:
> >>>>>>>Helmets are great at protecting from minor scratches and bruises.
> >>>>>>Will you also insist they wear BMX elbow and knee pads, then?
> >Because you asked if BC insist on knee and elbow pads.
>
> No, I didn't.
>
> I specifically asked if David Martin would insist on knee and elbow pads,
> because he produced "protecting from minor scratches and bruises" as a
> rationale for insisting on helmets.

BC insist on helmets so we wear them. If it were up to me.. things
might be different.

We get more out of BC (or SC) as a youth club than we lose by having
to follow rules like helmets. So I am happy with the current position.

...d

 

[David Martin]

On Sep 6, 11:37 pm, "vernon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:U0h*[email protected]...
>
> > Quoting vernon <[email protected]>:
> >>Chaps you can argue about helmets as much as you like. IF BC says helmets
> >>have to be worn for their activities then that will be state of affairs if
> >>I
> >>choose to involve BC in school based cycling activites. Now please take
> >>the
> >>helmet argument elsewhere it won't affect whether or not I get involved
> >>with
> >>BC.
>
> > Starting a thread does not convey ownership of it.
>
> The helmet debate hijack is yet another cyclical (sic) argument yet to be
> resolved to anyone's satisfaction and in this instance does nowt to answer
> the original query.
>
> By all means quibble endlessly about helmets if you must but is it a
> tremendous waste of bits, bytes and electrons for the regulars of u.r.c who
> are au fait with the oft repeated arguments and counter arguments that
> litteer the u.r.c. archives.
>
> I don't see how an oft repeated helmet quibble contributes anything that
> answers the first question and does nothing but reinforces the personal
> entrenchment of pro/anti helmet prejudices leaving the second question
> unanswered.
>
> Now then, remind me of your answer to the original queries:
>
> 'Does anyone in this newsgroup have any experience of British Cycling's
> activities in schools? Any opinions on the merits of getting involved?

I have no direct experience *in schools*. However, there are coaching
and similar activities made available. There can be funding for
startup equipment etc. and the activites like Go-Ride are well
thought out and presented.

I am hoping to start a mini Go-Ride club at the kids primary school
once I have the necessary coaching qualification. That would be a pre-
school club which would focus on having fun on bikes, improving skills
etc. It wouldn't do on-road training (as i have yet to be convinced
that the morning rush hour is the best time for that).

...d

 

[David Damerell]

Quoting David Martin <[email protected]>:
>On Sep 6, 8:13 pm, David Damerell <[email protected]>
>>>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>Quoting David Martin <[email protected]>:
>>>>>>>>>Helmets are great at protecting from minor scratches and bruises.
>>>>>>>>Will you also insist they wear BMX elbow and knee pads, then?
>BC insist on helmets so we wear them.

Why have you changed your spin on this one? Was it wrong to mention those
minor scratches and bruises?
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Kill the tomato!
Today is Leicesterday, August.

 

[vernon]

"David Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message

> I have no direct experience *in schools*. However, there are coaching
> and similar activities made available. There can be funding for
> startup equipment etc. and the activites like Go-Ride are well
> thought out and presented.
>
> I am hoping to start a mini Go-Ride club at the kids primary school
> once I have the necessary coaching qualification. That would be a pre-
> school club which would focus on having fun on bikes, improving skills
> etc. It wouldn't do on-road training (as i have yet to be convinced
> that the morning rush hour is the best time for that).
>
Thins are moving quickly and British cycling contacted me today offering me
four full days of coaching for kids with bikes and equipment provided. In
addition I've been offered training to allow me to lead Go-Ride sessions and
negotiations are underway to get a mountain bike circuit incorporated in our
new school build that is currently taking place. The new school will have
seperate dedicated bike sheds for staff and pupils as part of the green
credentials that all new schools built (at least in Bradford) must have.

Got a meeting next week with British Cycling to explore the feasibility of
moving things on.