Factsheet - Cycling to School

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by Tom Crispin, Apr 9, 2006.

  1. Tom Crispin

    Tom Crispin Guest

    The London Cycle Campaign have online factsheets. This could be an
    excellent starting point for our factsheet.




    INTRODUCTION

    http://www.lcc.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=760



    Cycling to school allows you to avoid the congestion of the school
    run, and helps your children to become healthier, happier and more
    independent and confident.


    The government has highlighted its concern over increasing levels of
    obesity in children. Cycling is a great way to combat this.


    Increasingly schools are promoting cycling for children over 9 years
    old, and cycle training and cycle proficiency courses are often part
    of the curriculum. Some schools are still hesitant to encourage
    students to cycle as they feel it is too dangerous, however lack of
    exercise and the associated health problems bring far greater risks to
    children.


    By cycling to school, children and parents are taking daily exercise
    which will have immediate benefits as children will be more alert for
    the day ahead, and long term benefits as both parents and children
    will become healthier. Whilst cycling to and from school, children are
    able to socialise with other children who live locally and form
    connections within their community.


    Studies have shown that the heavy traffic around schools when parents
    are dropping off and collecting children makes them especially
    dangerous areas for all students, including those being delivered by
    car. By leaving the car at home you will help improve the safety of
    roads around schools, as well as reducing traffic congestion and
    pollution.



    EQUIPMENT CHOICES

    http://www.lcc.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=757



    Children are increasingly well catered for in cycle design, from
    infants and small children who can ride in child seats or in child
    trailers moving up to tag-alongs and tandems for those slightly older
    children and then finally on to individual bicycles. Bicycles are now
    designed to suit almost anyone, including those with disabilities.


    When cycling with children of different ages you will need to make
    sure you have the most suitable equipment for your child and for the
    cycling you will be doing.


    The age and size of your child will probably be the deciding factors
    when considering which option is right for you. It is useful to find a
    bikeshop you can trust to discuss your cycling needs with. For
    contacts of manufacturers and suppliers of these products please
    contact the London Cycling Campaign.


    This can be a difficult decision as there are many options on the
    market.



    SELECTING A BIKE

    http://www.lcc.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=765



    At some point you will decide it is time to get your child their own
    bike, generally this will be from 4 years upwards.


    For any child getting their first bicycle this is very exciting and
    learning to ride is a wonderful achievement.


    Depending on the age and confidence of your child the first machine
    might be a tricycle, come with trainer wheels or stabilisers or you
    may launch straight into teaching your child to ride solo. Getting the
    right size bike is important, and you should not think of a bike as
    something that can be grown into. It is safer to have the right size
    bike to start with, even if your child will then have to ride a bike
    that is slightly too small for them later on until you can afford to
    go to the next size up. A bike that is too big will be hard for them
    to control and they may not be able to dismount safely.


    The child should be able to stand astride the bike with both feet on
    the ground and be able to touch the ground with the toes of one foot
    when sitting on the seat. As with any bike you should make sure the
    bike is in good working order and is fitted with a bell and
    reflectors.



    LEARING TO RIDE

    http://www.lcc.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=766



    You should find a quiet off-road place to teach your child and, if you
    are taking them out cycling with you, be aware they will not have the
    same riding skills as an adult.


    It will take time for them to learn how to ride among other cyclists
    and pedestrians and to deal with the various obstacles you will
    automatically avoid. It is not generally advisable to take them on the
    road until they are 9 or 10 years old. There will no doubt be falls
    and grazes as they learn. Getting them to wear long sleeves and
    trousers can help protect them while they get their balance and gain
    confidence in braking, turning and steering.


    When they are ready to start cycling on the road, either on their own
    or with you, you should spend some time riding with them on quiet
    roads, to ensure they understand road rules and how to cycle safely
    on the road. It is a good idea to decide on certain roads which they
    can ride on alone and others which they are not to go on without an
    adult. Many schools and local authorities will offer cycle training
    for this age group.


    There are a couple of points which you should impress on any child who
    is going to be cycling on the road:

    - They should take care when they are coming out of a driveway or side
    road, in a similar manner to crossing a road on foot. They need to
    give way to other traffic, stop, look right and left and then enter
    with care.

    - Never to make a turn, or move sideways on the road without looking
    over their shoulder first.

    - When cycling with others, each person must judge the traffic
    conditions for themselves and make their decisions accordingly: they
    should not rely on the person in front as traffic conditions can
    change very quickly.

    - If they are cycling at night they must have a front white light,
    rear red light and rear red reflector.



    CYCLE TRAINING

    http://www.lcc.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=767



    One of the best ways to ensure your child will be well prepared for
    riding on the roads is to enrol them on a cycle training course.


    Cycle training is offered by many schools and local authorities for
    children of 9 years and over. It is important that training includes
    on-road training.


    Training for younger children may be available in some areas.


    The government is encouraging schools to support cycling and there
    have been a number of initiatives to support schools that wish to
    install cycle parking or provide cycle training. If it is not offered
    by the school or local authority then there are a number of private
    cycle training providers you can go to. For further information on
    these see the section on cycle training or call London Cycling
    Campaign 020 7234 9310.



    WHAT TO WEAR

    http://www.lcc.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=759



    If you are cycling in cold weather you should dress your child warmly,
    remember younger children will not be cycling themselves; so while
    they will get wind chill they will not warm up as they go along.


    Simarlily in the summer don’t forget to protect your child against the
    sun. It is also a very good idea to wear high visibility clothing such
    as reflective vests, armbands and leg straps.


    Some people choose to wear helmets. It is important for children to
    understand that helmets do not make them invulnerable, they do not
    prevent collisions and are only designed to withstand low speed
    impacts. If you are choosing a helmet it should be neither too loose
    nor too tight. Toddlers should be able to support the helmet without
    it forcing their head forward. Helmets should be replaced after an
    impact such as being dropped, or if you have been in a collision and
    hit your head. Visit the website section on cycle helmets for further
    information.
     
    Tags:


  2. David Hansen

    David Hansen Guest

    On Sun, 09 Apr 2006 22:43:02 +0100 someone who may be Tom Crispin
    <[email protected]> wrote this:-

    >Helmets should be replaced after an impact such as being dropped,


    Old advice, but it says it all really. Anything so flimsy that it
    needs to be replaced after being dropped isn't going to provide much
    protection to a head.


    --
    David Hansen, Edinburgh
    I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
    http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54
     
  3. Tony Raven

    Tony Raven Guest

    David Hansen wrote:
    > On Sun, 09 Apr 2006 22:43:02 +0100 someone who may be Tom Crispin
    > <[email protected]> wrote this:-
    >
    >> Helmets should be replaced after an impact such as being dropped,

    >
    > Old advice, but it says it all really. Anything so flimsy that it
    > needs to be replaced after being dropped isn't going to provide much
    > protection to a head.
    >
    >


    Hardly worth following. If it provides no protection before it was
    dropped its not going to do worse than provide no protection after it
    was dropped!

    --
    Tony

    "The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
    right."
    - Lord Hailsham
     
  4. Paul Boyd

    Paul Boyd Guest

    David Hansen said the following on 10/04/2006 07:49:

    > Old advice, but it says it all really. Anything so flimsy that it
    > needs to be replaced after being dropped isn't going to provide much
    > protection to a head.


    Do motorbike helmets look flimsy? Even they should always be replaced
    when dropped. Helmets are designed to protect your head against that
    rare event (hopefully) of a severe impact. They are designed to absorb
    the shock forces themselves by deforming. Once they have been deformed,
    they should be replaced as they no longer provide protection. Just to
    spell it out - they do provide protection to a head *until* they've been
    dropped.

    Dropping a helmet counts as a severe impact. Would you want to rely on
    something that has already done it's sole job in life to keep on
    protecting you?

    I don't usually wear a helmet, but when I do I handle it with the same
    care as with any other piece of safety equipment. I'm sure a rock
    climber wouldn't rely on damaged ropes, and a cyclist shouldn't rely on
    a damaged helmet.

    --
    Paul Boyd
    http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/
     
  5. David Martin

    David Martin Guest

    Tom Crispin wrote:
    > The London Cycle Campaign have online factsheets. This could be an
    > excellent starting point for our factsheet.


    <much good advice snipped>

    Most of us here are quite literate and able to read through lots of
    documentation. This is not neccessarily the case for all parents, and
    many will lose interest just seeing a lot of text. I would be loathe to
    put too much wordage into a document (even though it is good wordage)
    but focus on the visual instead.

    For the equipment/bike choice/safe bike I'd suggest two pictures, one
    of a badly fitting bike and poorly dressed rider/insecure load and one
    of a properly equipped (no 'special' gear, just doing it right with the
    same clothing/luggage). The two pictures are contrasted with a series
    of bullet points. (helmet, bike size, lights, loose clothing, light
    colours, loose luggage, brakes/tyres)

    This would probably have to be done in landscape.

    More later.

    ...d
     
  6. vernon

    vernon Guest


    > Old advice, but it says it all really. Anything so flimsy that it
    > needs to be replaced after being dropped isn't going to provide much
    > protection to a head.
    >

    It may be old advice but it's sound advice. Motorcycle crash helmets can
    hardly be called flimsy yet the same advice applies to them and has done for
    at least the past thirty years. A crash helmet is designed as a one-shot
    safety device. Dropping the helmet onto a hard surface compromises the
    ability of the shell to perform its primary task. If anything, the care of
    motor cycle crash helmets was a lot more finicky with the owners being
    warned about the use of cleaning solvents, stickers, and paints. If I
    remember correctly ABS helmets were ore prone to solvent damage than GRP.
    I'm not sure such 'health warnings' are issued with cycle helmets having
    never owned one.
     
  7. Tony Raven

    Tony Raven Guest

    Paul Boyd wrote:

    > Helmets are designed to protect your head against that
    > rare event (hopefully) of a severe impact.


    No they are not, they are designed to protect your head against a very
    modest impact only.


    > ...they do provide protection to a head *until* they've been
    > dropped.
    >


    Ah that's their problem, the moment you start to fall they cease to
    protect ;-)


    > Dropping a helmet counts as a severe impact.


    Your and my definition of severe are clearly different

    >
    > I'm sure a rock
    > climber wouldn't rely on damaged ropes
    >


    They all do. The moment you start to use them they suffer damage; minor
    damage admittedly. But climbing ropes are designed to work despite all
    the real life mistreatment of being trod on, snagged on rocks, rubbed on
    rock edges and through climbing ironmongery etc. And you don't replace
    them after every minor fall.

    Cycle helmets it seems are different

    --
    Tony

    "The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
    right."
    - Lord Hailsham
     
  8. Tom Crispin wrote:

    > The London Cycle Campaign have online factsheets. This could be an
    > excellent starting point for our factsheet.


    Is what follows, which I've mostly snipped, one of these factsheets
    verbatim, or pulled together from several?

    Whatever, it doesn't address the main problem, the perception that
    cycling is dangerous. It's useful for those who've decided to cycle to
    school, but won't help in encouraging anyone else to.

    This needs to go in para 3 below - hopefully before the uncommitted
    have stopped reading.

    Even more of a challenge, the whole thing needs to be shorter and
    snappier, with pointers to further information at the end.

    The bit on helmets is quite good, IF the danger issue has been
    addressed first. Otherwise it is just adding 'and helmets won't make
    you any safer' to the general idea that cycling is too dangerous.

    Colin McKenzie

    > INTRODUCTION
    >
    > http://www.lcc.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=760
    > Cycling to school allows you to avoid the congestion of the school
    > run, and helps your children to become healthier, happier and more
    > independent and confident.
    >
    > The government has highlighted its concern over increasing levels of
    > obesity in children. Cycling is a great way to combat this.
    >
    > Increasingly schools are promoting cycling for children over 9 years
    > old, and cycle training and cycle proficiency courses are often part
    > of the curriculum. Some schools are still hesitant to encourage
    > students to cycle as they feel it is too dangerous, however lack of
    > exercise and the associated health problems bring far greater risks to
    > children.
    >
     
  9. Peter Clinch

    Peter Clinch Guest

    Tony Raven wrote:
    > Paul Boyd wrote:


    >> I'm sure a rock climber wouldn't rely on damaged ropes


    > They all do. The moment you start to use them they suffer damage; minor
    > damage admittedly. But climbing ropes are designed to work despite all
    > the real life mistreatment of being trod on, snagged on rocks, rubbed on
    > rock edges and through climbing ironmongery etc. And you don't replace
    > them after every minor fall.


    Or every major fall Otherwise you'd be a bit snookered if someone took
    a lob half way up a multi-pitch climb... Ropes are rated in part
    according to the number of factor 2 falls (the biggest fall you can
    take, falling twice the length of the rope) they can be trusted to take,
    and it'll typically be around 10-20, not 1. If a rope won't take 5 as
    tested it won't get a UIAA stamp. Clearly damage is done every time
    they take a big lob or that number wouldn't be worth relating. The
    number reduces with time, as time damages ropes.

    > Cycle helmets it seems are different


    In part because they're not designed to take crashes as routine, which
    climbing ropes are. Climbing ropes are used very much in the assumption
    that there is a strong likelihood of taking a lob.

    Pete.
    --
    Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
    Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
    Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
    net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
     
  10. Mark McNeill

    Mark McNeill Guest

    Response to Colin McKenzie:

    > The bit on helmets is quite good, IF the danger issue has been
    > addressed first. Otherwise it is just adding 'and helmets won't make
    > you any safer' to the general idea that cycling is too dangerous.


    Which may be quite a psychological shock, IMO. It seems to me that a
    major motive for wearing a helmet, and forcing a child to wear a helmet,
    is the need to feel that one is exercising *some* control over an
    innately and randomly dangerous activity [just as e.g. many bomber
    pilots during WWII became very superstitious]. This of course is wrong,
    on three counts: cycling isn't particularly dangerous, helmets won't
    provide much if any protection, and the dangers are mostly not random
    and *can* be reduced by training.


    As you say, I'd stress the non-danger of cycling, and I'd also stress
    the usefulness of training in making it even safer [not an easy task, I
    know]. This may not only help to overcome parental fears by allowing
    them to feel they're doing something to increase the safety of their
    child, but has the incidental advantage over helmet-promoting rubbish of
    being true.

    --
    Mark, UK
    "If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of
    fighting a foreign enemy."
     
  11. Paul Boyd <[email protected]> wrote:
    > David Hansen said the following on 10/04/2006 07:49:


    >> Old advice, but it says it all really. Anything so flimsy that it
    >> needs to be replaced after being dropped isn't going to provide much
    >> protection to a head.


    > Do motorbike helmets look flimsy? Even they should always be replaced
    > when dropped. Helmets are designed to protect your head against that
    > rare event (hopefully) of a severe impact. They are designed to absorb
    > the shock forces themselves by deforming. Once they have been deformed,
    > they should be replaced as they no longer provide protection. Just to
    > spell it out - they do provide protection to a head *until* they've been
    > dropped.


    > Dropping a helmet counts as a severe impact. Would you want to rely on
    > something that has already done it's sole job in life to keep on
    > protecting you?


    > I don't usually wear a helmet, but when I do I handle it with the same
    > care as with any other piece of safety equipment. I'm sure a rock
    > climber wouldn't rely on damaged ropes, and a cyclist shouldn't rely on
    > a damaged helmet.


    I do wear a motorcycle helmet, and I do sometimes wear a climbing
    helmet. I have made a special point of selecting those with the kind
    of construction that can well handle being dropped without damage,
    i.e. whose shells are made of a fibrous composite rather than a
    plastic sheet. This business of replace-if-dropped is a neat
    combination of marketing scam and shoddy construction which no doubt
    produced jigs round the boardroom table when it was first dreamed up.

    I can't imagine any other piece of safety equipment where the public
    would allow manufacturers to get away with such nonsense. Would you
    buy a pair of protective gloves which had to be replaced if you'd sat
    on them? A safety rope which had to be replaced if it got dirty? I'm
    being led to suspect that the cycle-helmet wearing population is
    uniquely gullible.

    --
    Chris Malcolm [email protected] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
    IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
    [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
     
  12. Tom Crispin <[email protected]> wrote:

    > The London Cycle Campaign have online factsheets. This could be an
    > excellent starting point for our factsheet.


    > INTRODUCTION


    > http://www.lcc.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=760


    [...]

    > Whilst cycling to and from school, children are
    > able to socialise with other children who live locally and form
    > connections within their community.


    I think this is a neglected but important point about cycling. One of
    the definite benefits to me of doing my usual urban travels by bicycle
    is that once in every few hourneys I'll meet someone I know and stop
    and chat to them. Over months this adds up to quite a lot of keeping
    in contact which I miss out on when using other transport.

    --
    Chris Malcolm [email protected] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
    IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
    [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
     
  13. Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:
    ....
    | Ropes are rated in part
    | according to the number of factor 2 falls (the biggest fall you can
    | take, falling twice the length of the rope) they can be trusted to take,

    Having difficulty imagining such a stretchy rope being used for
    climbing, or did I understand it wrong?

    --
    Patrick Herring, http://www.anweald.co.uk/ph
     
  14. David Hansen

    David Hansen Guest

    On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 08:18:40 +0100 someone who may be "vernon"
    <[email protected]> wrote this:-

    >> Old advice, but it says it all really. Anything so flimsy that it
    >> needs to be replaced after being dropped isn't going to provide much
    >> protection to a head.
    >>

    >It may be old advice but it's sound advice.


    The sound advice is that it demonstrates that they don't provide
    much protection to one's head.


    --
    David Hansen, Edinburgh
    I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
    http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54
     
  15. David Hansen

    David Hansen Guest

    On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 11:20:54 +0100 someone who may be Patrick
    Herring <[email protected]> wrote this:-

    >Having difficulty imagining such a stretchy rope being used for
    >climbing, or did I understand it wrong?


    If someone is at one end of the rope and it is fixed below at the
    other end of the rope, then they will fall twice the length of the
    rope before, hopefully, they are arrested.


    --
    David Hansen, Edinburgh
    I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
    http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54
     
  16. Tony Raven

    Tony Raven Guest

    David Hansen wrote:

    >
    > If someone is at one end of the rope and it is fixed below at the
    > other end of the rope, then they will fall twice the length of the
    > rope before, hopefully, they are arrested.
    >


    Is falling illegal then? ;-)

    --
    Tony

    "The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
    right."
    - Lord Hailsham
     
  17. Richard

    Richard Guest

    Patrick Herring wrote:
    > Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:
    > ...
    > | Ropes are rated in part
    > | according to the number of factor 2 falls (the biggest fall you can
    > | take, falling twice the length of the rope) they can be trusted to take,
    >
    > Having difficulty imagining such a stretchy rope being used for
    > climbing, or did I understand it wrong?


    Shirley it's an (almost) worst case scenario; you're in the middle of
    climbing up a very tall rock face, much larger than the length of the
    rope, so you anchor one end at various places and climb up, putting in
    protection (pitons, through which the rope is passed) periodically.
    You get to the length of the rope, and then fall, and every piton comes
    loose without stopping you - except for the anchor at the other end of
    the rope. So you'll fall twice the length of the rope before the rope
    goes tight (and then a bit further, owing to the rope stretching).

    R.
     
  18. Tom Crispin

    Tom Crispin Guest

    On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 11:35:16 +0100, David Hansen
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >>Having difficulty imagining such a stretchy rope being used for
    >>climbing, or did I understand it wrong?

    >
    >If someone is at one end of the rope and it is fixed below at the
    >other end of the rope, then they will fall twice the length of the
    >rope before, hopefully, they are arrested.


    120 meters freefall, before arresting, is a hell of a drop, and
    velocity, without taking wind resistance into account, would be close
    to 50 m/s or 110mph, the speed of a freefall parachutist with arms and
    legs extended.
     
  19. Peter Clinch

    Peter Clinch Guest

    David Hansen wrote:

    > If someone is at one end of the rope and it is fixed below at the
    > other end of the rope, then they will fall twice the length of the
    > rope before, hopefully, they are arrested.


    Exactly. Obviously, this requires the rope's anchor point to be at
    least rope length + stretch above the ground, or the rope will be of
    little consequence, but on big multi-pitch routes this is quite normal.

    Normally one wouldn't fall that far thanks to running belays, but that
    assumes you can place them to start with and that they hold.

    Pete.
    --
    Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
    Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
    Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
    net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
     
  20. Simon Brooke

    Simon Brooke Guest

    in message <[email protected]>, Patrick Herring
    ('[email protected]') wrote:

    > Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:
    > ...
    > | Ropes are rated in part
    > | according to the number of factor 2 falls (the biggest fall you can
    > | take, falling twice the length of the rope) they can be trusted to
    > | take,
    >
    > Having difficulty imagining such a stretchy rope being used for
    > climbing, or did I understand it wrong?


    Stretchy ropes are used, because if you fall on a non stretchy rope you
    are just as seriously injured when you hit the end of the rope as you
    would be if you'd fallen onto a solid surface the width of the rope -
    which is to say, nine times out of ten, killed. The stretchier the rope
    the lower the probability of serious injury.

    --
    [email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

    ;; I can't work yanks out......
    ;; Why do they frown upon sex yet relish violence?
    ;; Deep Fried Lettuce
     
Loading...
Loading...