Helmets are compulsory

[Tilly]

But it was a close thing.

At a governors' meeting last term the school governors agreed a cycle
training policy where cycle helmet were subject to parental choice,
but they insisted that the matter be reviewed in a governors' meeting
before the end of term.

After much debate, mostly avoiding the subject of the effectiveness or
otherwise of helmets, instead dealing with the responsibility of the
school, and the rights of the parent to make decisions about the
safety of their child, and the matter of informed choice, the question
was put to a vote. Do you want cycle helmets to be compulsory for
cycle training or do you want the choice to be left to an agreement
negotiated between parent and child with the parent informing the
school of their decision?

The vote was a 5 - 5 split.

In such cases the decision rests with the chair of governors, who
after voting for parental choice, switched sides saying that with such
a tight vote he'd prefer a 6 - 4 vote to decide the matter.

Helmet use is compulsory for school cycle training.

 

[Steven]

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 22:02:04 +0100, Tilly <[email protected]> wrote:

>But it was a close thing.
>
>At a governors' meeting last term the school governors agreed a cycle
>training policy where cycle helmet were subject to parental choice,
>but they insisted that the matter be reviewed in a governors' meeting
>before the end of term.
>
>After much debate, mostly avoiding the subject of the effectiveness or
>otherwise of helmets, instead dealing with the responsibility of the
>school, and the rights of the parent to make decisions about the
>safety of their child, and the matter of informed choice, the question
>was put to a vote. Do you want cycle helmets to be compulsory for
>cycle training or do you want the choice to be left to an agreement
>negotiated between parent and child with the parent informing the
>school of their decision?
>
>The vote was a 5 - 5 split.
>
>In such cases the decision rests with the chair of governors, who
>after voting for parental choice, switched sides saying that with such
>a tight vote he'd prefer a 6 - 4 vote to decide the matter.
>
>Helmet use is compulsory for school cycle training.

Write to the school and tell them that if your child is injured and there is any
evidence that the extra weight of a helmet could have worsened the injury, you
will be certain to take any and evey legal recourse available to you. And that
you will be advising any other parent who finds themselves in that position to
do likewise.

Point out to them that if they put the facts before the parents of children
undergoing cycle training so that they can come to an informed decision, they
are pretty much watertight, but if they wish to dictate matters that are really
none of their business, then they must be prepared to take any consequences.

 

[Peewiglet]

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 21:48:13 GMT, [email protected] (Steven)
wrote:

<snip>
>>Helmet use is compulsory for school cycle training.
>
>Write to the school and tell them that if your child is injured and there is any
>evidence that the extra weight of a helmet could have worsened the injury, you
>will be certain to take any and evey legal recourse available to you. And that
>you will be advising any other parent who finds themselves in that position to
>do likewise.
>
>Point out to them that if they put the facts before the parents of children
>undergoing cycle training so that they can come to an informed decision, they
>are pretty much watertight, but if they wish to dictate matters that are really
>none of their business, then they must be prepared to take any consequences.

Is there a summary somewhere of the arguments for and against helmet
use? I'd not realised that there was an issue about it, but clearly
there is. I'd like to read up on it.

Thanks for any pointers.


Best wishes,
--
,,
(**)PeeWiglet~~
/ \ / \ pee AT [guessthisbit].co.uk

 

[Ningi]

Peewiglet wrote:
> <snip>
>
> Is there a summary somewhere of the arguments for and against helmet
> use? I'd not realised that there was an issue about it, but clearly
> there is. I'd like to read up on it.
>

Light blue touch paper, stand well back.

Here is a starting point :

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/

Pete

 

[Chris Eilbeck]

Peewiglet <[email protected]> writes:

> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 21:48:13 GMT, [email protected] (Steven)
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>>>Helmet use is compulsory for school cycle training.
>>
>>Write to the school and tell them that if your child is injured and there is any
>>evidence that the extra weight of a helmet could have worsened the injury, you
>>will be certain to take any and evey legal recourse available to you. And that
>>you will be advising any other parent who finds themselves in that position to
>>do likewise.
>>
>>Point out to them that if they put the facts before the parents of children
>>undergoing cycle training so that they can come to an informed decision, they
>>are pretty much watertight, but if they wish to dictate matters that are really
>>none of their business, then they must be prepared to take any consequences.
>
> Is there a summary somewhere of the arguments for and against helmet
> use? I'd not realised that there was an issue about it, but clearly
> there is. I'd like to read up on it.

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/

Chris
--
Chris Eilbeck

 

[elyob]

"Ningi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Peewiglet wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>> Is there a summary somewhere of the arguments for and against helmet
>> use? I'd not realised that there was an issue about it, but clearly
>> there is. I'd like to read up on it.
>>
>
> Light blue touch paper, stand well back.

Exactly.

 

[David Martin]

Peewiglet wrote:

> Is there a summary somewhere of the arguments for and against helmet
> use? I'd not realised that there was an issue about it, but clearly
> there is. I'd like to read up on it.
>
> Thanks for any pointers.
>
A good summary is the view of Cycling Scotland, the national body
charged with propmoting cycling.
http://www.cyclingscotland.org/downloads.asp?DLsection=11

...d

 

[Buck]

On 06/29/2005 22:48:13 [email protected] (Steven) wrote:

> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 22:02:04 +0100, Tilly <[email protected]>
> wrote:


>> Helmet use is compulsory for school cycle training.

> Write to the school and tell them that if your child is injured and there
> is any evidence that the extra weight of a helmet could have worsened the
> injury, you will be certain to take any and evey legal recourse available
> to you. And that you will be advising any other parent who finds
> themselves in that position to do likewise.

Not to throw a damp towel on your little crusade, but this will likely result in the cycle training scheme being abandoned.


--

Buck

I would rather be out on my Catrike

http://www.catrike.co.uk

 

[Robert]

"Steven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 22:02:04 +0100, Tilly <[email protected]>

> Write to the school and tell them that if your child is injured and there
> is any
> evidence that the extra weight of a helmet could have worsened the injury,
> you
> will be certain to take any and evey legal recourse available to you. And
> that
> you will be advising any other parent who finds themselves in that
> position to
> do likewise.
>

This is silly. The School have a policy and have made it clear. Knowing this
policy it is your decision to send or not send your child to cycle training.
It is precisely this sort of litigious approach that forces Schools to
introduce helmet compulsion.

> Point out to them that if they put the facts before the parents of
> children
> undergoing cycle training so that they can come to an informed decision,
> they
> are pretty much watertight, but if they wish to dictate matters that are
> really
> none of their business, then they must be prepared to take any
> consequences.
>

Watertight? you live in a fantasy world. As I said above it is people like
you that force Schools to introduce helmet compulsion in order to protect
themselves from prosecution.

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

At Wed, 29 Jun 2005 23:01:53 GMT, message
<[email protected]> was posted by Buck
<[email protected]>, including some, all or none of the
following:

>Not to throw a damp towel on your little crusade, but this will likely
>result in the cycle training scheme being abandoned.

And your evidence for that is.... ?

Oh, and please fix your line lengths.


Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

 

[John Hearns]

Guys and girls,
let's not get too worked up about this.
And BTW, Tilly is a teacher...

All I can add is that the way Cycletraining UK operates is
they ask parents to sign a form stating their preference re. helmets.
CTUK have done an excellent job in the schools projects in Greenwich
and Southwark. With the disclaimer that I have nothing to do with them,
would you consider using them for training at the school?

 

[Steven]

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 07:23:00 +0100, "Robert" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Steven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 22:02:04 +0100, Tilly <[email protected]>
>
>> Write to the school and tell them that if your child is injured and there
>> is any
>> evidence that the extra weight of a helmet could have worsened the injury,
>> you
>> will be certain to take any and evey legal recourse available to you. And
>> that
>> you will be advising any other parent who finds themselves in that
>> position to
>> do likewise.
>>
>
>This is silly. The School have a policy and have made it clear.

The school have no business making such a policy when there is evidence that
cycle helmets *could* worsen an injury.

It if for the parents to decide, not some group who *believe* that they are
covering their own backsides.

> Knowing this
>policy it is your decision to send or not send your child to cycle training.

Parents should be allowed to make use of the cycle training as they see fit. It
is not for someone to deny them the use of such training based on their usurping
of the parents decision to assess the possible risks of using or not using
helmets.

>It is precisely this sort of litigious approach that forces Schools to
>introduce helmet compulsion.

Quite.

You've got it in one.

And thus you have to fight their unreasonable behaviour with the same force that
they *believe* is causing that behaviour.

You have to make it clear to them that if they meddle, they are (vaguely) likely
end up on the wrong end of an action.

>> Point out to them that if they put the facts before the parents of
>> children
>> undergoing cycle training so that they can come to an informed decision,
>> they
>> are pretty much watertight, but if they wish to dictate matters that are
>> really
>> none of their business, then they must be prepared to take any
>> consequences.
>>
>
>Watertight? you live in a fantasy world. As I said above it is people like
>you that force Schools to introduce helmet compulsion in order to protect
>themselves from prosecution.

So your approach would be to kow-tow to the "people like me" who force people to
meddle in other people's business.

I'd rather fight fire with fire to keep parental responsibility where it
belongs: with the parents.

 

[Tony Raven]

Buck wrote:
>
> Not to throw a damp towel on your little crusade, but this will
> likely result in the cycle training scheme being abandoned.
>

I would be more concerned about it creeping into "if you cycle to school
you must wear a helmet" etc.

Out of curiosity Tilly, did they specify where the helmet was to be
worn? Could it be possible that the elbow is far more in need of
protection than the head in the opinion of a parent?

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

 

[Peter Clinch]

David Martin wrote:

> A good summary is the view of Cycling Scotland, the national body
> charged with propmoting cycling.
> http://www.cyclingscotland.org/downloads.asp?DLsection=11

I'll drop them a line to point out they've got the B in BHIT wrong (is
British, should be Bicycle). Bit of a partial success on the
proofreading front :-(

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/

 

[JohnB]

Tony Raven wrote:
>
> Buck wrote:
> >
> > Not to throw a damp towel on your little crusade, but this will
> > likely result in the cycle training scheme being abandoned.
>
> I would be more concerned about it creeping into "if you cycle to school
> you must wear a helmet" etc.

That *is* the case around here.
Plus the LA says no one under 10 should be on the road anyway.
And some secondary schools insist that cyclists must have passed a
'cycling proficiency test' before they can ride to school. This is
despite the fact that there is only very limited training in primary schools.
It hardly encourages cycling.

I'm presently being approached by numerous parents asking for training
to allow their children to be able to ride to their new schools in September.
Do I refuse on a point of principal?
Of course not.

It is all *very* wrong, but very difficult to reverse.

John B

 

[Jeremy Collins]

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 09:44:36 +0100, JohnB <[email protected]> wrote:

> And some secondary schools insist that cyclists must have passed a
> 'cycling proficiency test' before they can ride to school. This is
> despite the fact that there is only very limited training in primary
> schools.

That's a shame (I don't have kids so I'm out of touch with schools).

I was at primary school in the 70's, and we had to take cycling
proficiency before we were allowed to ride to school (I've still got
the little metal badge somewhere!). But as I remember it CP training
was readily available, and almost all of my class turned up for it
even though it wasn't compulsory.

Hmm, I'd better put a lid on the nostalgia or I'll start getting
misty-eyed about my Raleigh Grifter...


--
jc

 

[davek]

Robert wrote:
> It is precisely this sort of litigious approach that forces Schools to
> introduce helmet compulsion.

As I understand it, in all cases where insurers have tried to claim
contributory negligence for non-wearing of helmet, they have been
laughed out of court.

Which would suggest that you're talking out of your ****.

> Watertight? you live in a fantasy world.

He's not the only one.

As I said above it is people like
> you that force Schools to introduce helmet compulsion in order to protect
> themselves from prosecution.

Utter nonsense. Who are they going to be prosecuted by? On what
grounds? Do you know of any specific case of a school being prosecuted
because one of its pupils had an accident while not wearing a cycle
helmet?

ISTR from the original discussion that Tilly's stance on this matter
was for parents to make the choice and sign some bit of paper to
acknowledge that they accepted responsibility for their decision. That
would hardly have put Tilly in a good position to sue the school in the
event of her child having an accident.

As it happens, the element of choice has been removed. How does that
help anyone?

d.

 

[Simon Brooke]

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

> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 22:02:04 +0100, Tilly <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>But it was a close thing.
>>
[snip]
>>
>>Helmet use is compulsory for school cycle training.
>
> Write to the school and tell them that if your child is injured

DKUATB. She's the teacher, and will presumably be responsible for
enforcing this policy.

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

;; in faecibus sapiens rheum propagabit

 

[Steven]

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 10:54:39 +0100, Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:

>in message <[email protected]>, Steven
>('[email protected]') wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 22:02:04 +0100, Tilly <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>But it was a close thing.
>>>
>[snip]
>>>
>>>Helmet use is compulsory for school cycle training.
>>
>> Write to the school and tell them that if your child is injured
>
>DKUATB. She's the teacher, and will presumably be responsible for
>enforcing this policy.

IDKWYAM.

That was not at all clear from the OP which almost seems as if it was part of an
on-going thread.

So the advice would be to profer (OTR) said advice to any parent who objects.

JWOWYAM.

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 09:44:36 +0100, JohnB <[email protected]> wrote:

>> I would be more concerned about it creeping into "if you cycle to school
>> you must wear a helmet" etc.

>That *is* the case around here.

Here being New Zealand? ;-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound