UK and Europe · Public discussion

Interesting report

Started by Tom Crispin · · Last activity · 15 posts · 596 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
UK and Europe
Published
14 May 2008
Last activity
17 May 2008
Original author
Tom Crispin
Posts
15
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
596
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–15 of 15
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. www.bikebiz.com/news/29519/Lets-get-kids-back-on-bikes-urges-Cycling-England

    Striking new evidence of a generational decline in cycling has been
    revealed by Cycling England. A study - which coincides with the launch
    of Bike to School Week (6-9 May) - reveals that parents are clamping
    down on the freedoms they took for granted as children, limiting when,
    where and how their children cycle.

    The most common age at which parents were able to cycle on the roads
    was 10. Today it has gone up to 12, almost at the onset of the teenage
    years.

    One in three parents (35 percent) were allowed to cycle to school, but
    today, only one in five (18 percent) allow their children to do so.
    Just 4 percent of children cycle to school regularly.

    Parents are no longer giving their children the run of local roads. 81
    percent of parents ban their children from cycling independently, or
    limit their children's cycling to such a degree that Britain is seeing
    an emerging breed of "Cul-de-sac Kids" – children restricted to
    cycling circuits of their immediate road or neighbourhood streets.

    When asked what would make them feel more reassured about their child
    cycling without adult supervision on the roads, the most popular
    measure was cycle training (52 percent). And two-thirds (64 percenbt)
    of parents felt that their child did not have the confidence and
    skills to ride on the road. The biggest reason as to why parents did
    not let their child cycle was safety (36 percent) yet just 3 percent
    said they knew someone who'd had an accident.

    This fear has resulted in over a quarter of children (29 percent) only
    allowed to cycle with adult supervision. While three quarters (75
    percent) of children are allowed to cycle for recreation at the
    weekend or after school, only one in five (19 percent) are allowed to
    use their bicycle as a way of getting from A to B during the week.

    Phillip Darnton, Chairman of Cycling England, said: "This research
    underlines the important role of cycling training in giving children
    the skills and confidence they need to cycle on the roads - and in
    giving parents the reassurance that their child is well equipped to do
    so.

    "Concern about safety is understandable, but we need to remember that
    on-road accidents are in long term decline. Every parent will want to
    ensure their children are kept safe, but they can't live out their
    lives within the shadows of the cul-de-sac, never able to venture
    further away from home.
    This is particularly important, as we know that cycling to school, to
    friends, or just as a fun activity in its own right, can play a hugely
    positive role in the development of a child's independence. I urge
    schools to come forward and offer Bikeability training as part of the
    push to get children cycling."

    To help promote the benefits of children cycling more often, Cycling
    England has recruited a nationwide 'Mums Panel' that uses parent power
    to promote the benefits of cycling and encourage take up of
    Bikeability – the new cycling proficiency scheme for the 21st century.
    Mums Panellist Emma Calloway, from Bristol, said:

    "Completing Bikeability training as a parent not only gave me a
    confidence that I can pass onto my children, but also reinforced the
    notion that bikes have the same right to be on the roads as other
    vehicles.

    "Since my children started cycling to school they have benefited in
    all sorts of ways – they are healthier, more alert and more
    confident."

    Children, Schools and Families Minister, Kevin Brennan, said:

    "Cycling to school is a great way for children to keep fit and develop
    their independence. 'Bike to School Week' is a really good way of
    encouraging children and their parents to get on their bikes, and
    develop a habit that promotes health and fitness for life. Staying
    safe while cycling is also very important and that is why I'm
    delighted to support the Bikeability cycling proficiency test to give
    the next generation the skills and confidence to ride their bikes on
    today's roads."

    The research report was conducted online for Cycling England by
    Populus, who interviewed a random sample of 1,079 parents, whose
    children had bikes and were aged between 7 and 15.

  2. Tom Crispin said:

    When asked what would make them feel more reassured about their child
    cycling without adult supervision on the roads, the most popular
    measure was cycle training (52 percent)

    And if their kids have no previous cycle training, an entirely
    resonable concern. But why is this a new thing? Is cycle training so
    much more difficult to find than it was in the olden days of Cycling
    Proficiency, or is it that parents are much less likely to cycle
    themselves and therefore assume they won't be able to teach their kids?

    I wasn't allowed to ride to school until I'd passed CP, but that was
    the school's rule not my parents. By the time I was old enough for
    that my Dad had already taught me everything covered in the official
    course (and a rather more sensible attitude to road positioning than
    the "50cm - 1 metre from the kerb" approach that I remember from CP,
    too).

    -dan

  3. On 14 May, 16:53, Tom Crispin <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:

    This fear has resulted in over a quarter of children (29 percent) only
    allowed to cycle with adult supervision.

    Quoted message said:

    The research report was conducted online for Cycling England by
    Populus, who interviewed a random sample of 1,079 parents, whose
    children had bikes and were aged between 7 and 15.

    So the kids are aged 7 to 15 and a quarter of them are only allowed to
    cycle with adult supervision. That can be because 7 to 8 year olds
    aren't allowed to cycle on the road on their own? Seems fair enough.

  4. "Tom Crispin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    www.bikebiz.com/news/29519/Lets-get-kids-back-on-bikes-urges-Cycling-England

    Striking new evidence of a generational decline in cycling has been
    revealed by Cycling England. A study - which coincides with the launch
    of Bike to School Week (6-9 May) - reveals that parents are clamping
    down on the freedoms they took for granted as children, limiting when,
    where and how their children cycle.

    The most common age at which parents were able to cycle on the roads
    was 10. Today it has gone up to 12, almost at the onset of the teenage
    years.

    One in three parents (35 percent) were allowed to cycle to school, but
    today, only one in five (18 percent) allow their children to do so.
    Just 4 percent of children cycle to school regularly.

    Parents are no longer giving their children the run of local roads.

    It seems to me wrong to view this as a cycling issue independent from other
    inter-generational changes:

    Between the same generations has there been a change in the age at which
    parents will let kids go to the local park/playground/cinema on their own?

    Between the same generations has there been a change in the level of
    "safety" of play equipment in the local park/playground?

    Between the same generations has there been a general change in the amount
    of freedom parents allow children to roam around town on their own?

    I think the answer to each of those is "Yes" and that in that context the
    cycling freedom/age issue is simply a reflection of wider societal changes.

    I used to disappear into the countryside at the age of 9/10 (on foot) after
    breakfast and possibly come back for lunch or sometimes not reappear till
    dusk - never was there any concern or restriction on that behaviour. and
    that was the pattern for most of my contemporaries. Few children would have
    that freedom now!

    pk

  5. PK said:

    I used to disappear into the countryside at the age of 9/10 (on foot)
    after breakfast and possibly come back for lunch or sometimes not
    reappear till dusk - never was there any concern or restriction on that
    behaviour. and that was the pattern for most of my contemporaries. Few
    children would have that freedom now!

    Err.. Yes that's the point. Progress or return to the swamp?

    FWIW You can't develop _responsibility_ in people without _taking the risk of
    trusting them_. Good to do it at an early age as you found out. Bloody
    important to do it today when every other opportunity to be independent and
    explore is closed off by scaremongering and political correctness.

    --
    Peter (Prof) Fox
    Multitude of things for beer, cycling, Morris and curiosities at
    <http://vulpeculox.net>
    2 Tees Close, Witham, Essex 01376 517206

  6. POHB said:

    That can be because 7 to 8 year olds
    aren't allowed to cycle on the road on their own? Seems fair enough.

    Fair enough that they're not allowed? In my day, we were riding all over
    Birmingham by the time we were 8.

    --
    Regards
    Alex
    http://www.ap-consulting.co.uk
    http://www.badphorm.co.uk/

  7. On Wed, 14 May 2008 09:29:42 -0700 (PDT), POHB <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:

    On 14 May, 16:53, Tom Crispin <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:

    This fear has resulted in over a quarter of children (29 percent) only
    allowed to cycle with adult supervision.

    Quoted message said:

    The research report was conducted online for Cycling England by
    Populus, who interviewed a random sample of 1,079 parents, whose
    children had bikes and were aged between 7 and 15.

    So the kids are aged 7 to 15 and a quarter of them are only allowed to
    cycle with adult supervision. That can be because 7 to 8 year olds
    aren't allowed to cycle on the road on their own? Seems fair enough.

    ===QUOTE===

    81 percent of parents ban their children from cycling independently,
    or limit their children's cycling to such a degree that Britain is
    seeing an emerging breed of "Cul-de-sac Kids" – children restricted to
    cycling circuits of their immediate road or neighbourhood streets.

    ===========

    It is not until they are nearly 15 that the average bike-owning child
    is allowed to make an independent journey by bicycle.

  8. "Alex Potter" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    POHB said:

    That can be because 7 to 8 year olds
    aren't allowed to cycle on the road on their own? Seems fair enough.

    Fair enough that they're not allowed? In my day, we were riding all over
    Birmingham by the time we were 8.


    In my day there were less than half the number of cars on the road.

    pOB

  9. "Tom Crispin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    www.bikebiz.com/news/29519/Lets-get-kids-back-on-bikes-urges-Cycling-England

    Striking new evidence of a generational decline in cycling has been
    revealed by Cycling England. A study - which coincides with the launch
    of Bike to School Week (6-9 May) - reveals that parents are clamping
    down on the freedoms they took for granted as children, limiting when,
    where and how their children cycle.

    The most common age at which parents were able to cycle on the roads
    was 10. Today it has gone up to 12, almost at the onset of the teenage
    years.

    One in three parents (35 percent) were allowed to cycle to school, but
    today, only one in five (18 percent) allow their children to do so.
    Just 4 percent of children cycle to school regularly.

    Parents are no longer giving their children the run of local roads. 81
    percent of parents ban their children from cycling independently, or
    limit their children's cycling to such a degree that Britain is seeing
    an emerging breed of "Cul-de-sac Kids" - children restricted to
    cycling circuits of their immediate road or neighbourhood streets.

    When asked what would make them feel more reassured about their child
    cycling without adult supervision on the roads, the most popular
    measure was cycle training (52 percent). And two-thirds (64 percenbt)
    of parents felt that their child did not have the confidence and
    skills to ride on the road. The biggest reason as to why parents did
    not let their child cycle was safety (36 percent) yet just 3 percent
    said they knew someone who'd had an accident.

    This fear has resulted in over a quarter of children (29 percent) only
    allowed to cycle with adult supervision. While three quarters (75
    percent) of children are allowed to cycle for recreation at the
    weekend or after school, only one in five (19 percent) are allowed to
    use their bicycle as a way of getting from A to B during the week.

    And these kids are to be our future driving licence holders !!! .. Heaven
    protect us, because a H**LM*T isn`t much use !!!

    I understand now why it is getting harder to pass a driving test as the kids
    have no idea of road sense ... and it shows with most young motorists ..
    and cyclists !!!

    Lee...

  10. Pob said:

    "Alex Potter" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    POHB said:

    That can be because 7 to 8 year olds
    aren't allowed to cycle on the road on their own? Seems fair enough.

    Fair enough that they're not allowed? In my day, we were riding all
    over Birmingham by the time we were 8.


    In my day there were less than half the number of cars on the road.

    pOB

    I was 8 in 1954.

    I really do not believe that the number of cars in towns has much to do
    with whether or not it is safe to cycle.

    In my view, cycling safety is more to do with a rider's competence at
    bike handling and having been trained to ride safely on the roads.

    As an aside, probably totally irrelevant, I've always been "just another
    vehicle", and the only accident I've ever had involved a loose dog, not a
    car.

    --
    Regards
    Alex
    http://www.ap-consulting.co.uk
    http://www.badphorm.co.uk/

  11. Quoting Alex Potter <[email hidden]>:

    Quoted message said:

    I really do not believe that the number of cars in towns has much to do
    with whether or not it is safe to cycle.

    What? If there were no motor vehicles, what would a few hundred cyclists
    die of every year? Lightning strikes?
    --
    David Damerell <[email hidden]> Kill the tomato!
    Today is Leicesterday, May.

  12. David Damerell said:

    Quoting Alex Potter <[email hidden]>:

    Quoted message said:

    I really do not believe that the number of cars in towns has much to do
    with whether or not it is safe to cycle.

    What? If there were no motor vehicles, what would a few hundred cyclists
    die of every year? Lightning strikes?

    Cycling is somewhat dangerous, I agree, but is not, as far as I can tell,
    very dangerous at all, by any reasonable measure, for a competent,
    vehicular cyclist.

    If that danger is not caused by incompetence on the part of the cyclist,
    most of it does indeed come from other traffic.

    Yes, if there is more traffic the odds on being injured shorten, but, I
    suspect, not by a significant amount, for the aforementioned competent
    cyclist, in towns, which is where most of the under-privileged children
    that sparked this sub-thread live.

    I am aware that children mature at different speeds (I'm a father of four
    and a grandfather), but, IMHO, of course, they need to be encouraged from
    an early age to develop independence and questing spirits, and forbidding
    cycling on the grounds that there is so much traffic does them a great
    disservice.

    --
    Regards
    Alex
    http://www.ap-consulting.co.uk
    http://www.badphorm.co.uk/

  13. David Damerell said:

    Quoting Alex Potter <[email hidden]>:

    Quoted message said:

    I really do not believe that the number of cars in towns has much to do
    with whether or not it is safe to cycle.

    What? If there were no motor vehicles, what would a few hundred cyclists
    die of every year? Lightning strikes?

    Old age.

  14. David Damerell said:

    Quoting Alex Potter <[email hidden]>:

    Quoted message said:

    I really do not believe that the number of cars in towns has much to do
    with whether or not it is safe to cycle.

    What? If there were no motor vehicles, what would a few hundred cyclists
    die of every year? Lightning strikes?

    Don't pneumatic tyres make lightning strikes on cyclists particularly
    unlikely?

  15. On Sat, 17 May 2008 14:18:25 +0100

    Tom Crispin said:
    David Damerell said:

    Quoting Alex Potter <[email hidden]>:

    Quoted message said:

    I really do not believe that the number of cars in towns has much
    to do with whether or not it is safe to cycle.

    What? If there were no motor vehicles, what would a few hundred
    cyclists die of every year? Lightning strikes?

    Don't pneumatic tyres make lightning strikes on cyclists particularly
    unlikely?

    If the lightning can jump hundreds of feet out of the sky I doubt it
    will be discouraged by an inch or two of rubber.

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.