On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 14:36:37 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<
[email protected]> wrote:
>>Yup, but the helmet debate has been done to death, all the positions have
>>been advanced ad nauseam. No-one who has taken part is going to change
>>their opinion
>
>That is provably false. Ask anyone who remembers my first helmet
>thread on here.
I have changed my mind twice!
First I had the opinion that compulsion was wrong, but that helmet use
should be encouraged as there were clear safety benefits to helmet
use.
Then I was convinced that there were no clear safety benefits to
helmet use, and that helmet use should be the result of an informed
choice by the cyclist or the cyclists' parents. I argued a closely
fought debate with my school's governors to leave helmet use as a
parental choice, not school policy for cycle training. I lost the
argument.
Having now given playground and on-road training to about 60 children,
I believe the governors were right to insist on compulsory helmet use
for children. A risk assessment gives the following:
1. For complete novices, there is a high risk of a low speed fall in
the playground. Helmets may reduce the risk of any fall by giving the
novice cyclist confidence and thereby reducing the training time. For
low speed falls, onto a level surface, helmets are most effective and
can reduce the severity of any head injury.
2. On the road there is a very low risk of a collision between a
moving vehicle and a cyclist. Helmets will do nothing to reduce the
risk of a collision and little, if anything, to reduce the severity of
any injury caused by a vehicle.
3. On the road there is a low risk of a new cyclist falling of their
own accord. Any fall is likely to be at a low speed, and, although
doing nothing to help prevent a fall, a helmet is likely to be
effective at reducing the severity of any head injury.
4. On the road there is a medium risk of two cyclists colliding. A
collision of this type is most likely to be at low speed and may well
be at the kerb, for example when stopping at the roadside. A low
impact fall onto a kerb can be particularly dangerous and a helmet may
reduce the severity of any injury.
5. At low speeds the risk of clouded judgments due to the head
overheating is negligible.
6. The risk of rotational neck injury as a result of wearing a helmet
is real, but the possible protection offered by a helmet almost
certainly far outweighs the risks.
7. There is nothing to suggest that compulsory helmet use has detered
a single child from taking part in cycle training at the school,
although one child has commented that having to wear a high visibility
tabard was not "exactly a fashion statement". She still enjoyed the
training!
