What advice to give - WARNING: contains helmets

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 13:14:21 +0000, Peter Fox
<[email protected]> wrote:

>If parents say "why not you irresponsible person" you reply "The
>effectiveness of helmets cannot be understated [no that was only a
>bit of fun] "The real effectiveness of helmets is nothing like what
>people believe. The important thing is to get people cycling and know
>how to use the roads safely and enjoyably with all the benefits that
>brings. You can make your own choices - We've made our policy clear."
>End of story.

Or even: my job is to ensure that your child knows how to avoid
crashing in the first place.

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

 

[dkahn400]

Peter Fox wrote:

> You shouldn't have anybody doing their own thing - the playground
> is a classroom not a playground (if you see what I mean.)

Tee hee. Reminds me of a wonderful line from Dr. Strangelove when a
scandalised President Merkin Muffley (Peter Sellers) admonishes
Ambassador de Sadesky (Peter Bull) and General Buck Turgidson (George
C. Scott) with, "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the War
Room!"

--
Dave...

 

[dkahn400]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> How about: "If you wish your child to wear a helmet then...", because
> the "need to consider" is externally imposed rather than inherent.

I suppose replacing "helmet" with "polystyrene hat" would be going too
far?

--
Dave...

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On 11 Mar 2005 08:03:25 -0800, "dkahn400" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>I suppose replacing "helmet" with "polystyrene hat" would be going too
>far?

Stick with PFDB and don't explain the acronym

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

 

[Tilly]

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 09:21:17 +0100, Erick T. Barkhuis
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Tilly [on Fri, 11 Mar 2005 07:32:49 +0000] wrote:
>
>> As a school, if we ask that helmets are worn we have a duty to provide
>> them. If we give parents a choice we have no such duty.
>
>Excuse me, but I don't quite understand. Why must you provide a helmet if
>they are mandatory?
>
>[Perhaps a skewed comparison, but....do you require kids to wear
>clothes?]

It's classed as safety equipment. Goggles for metalwork, overalls for
chemistry, helmets for cycling...

 

[Tilly]

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 10:19:24 +0000, Tony Raven <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Colin McKenzie wrote:
>>
>> Then you need some text to point out their limitations. I think it's
>> irresponsible not to provide this, to counterbalance others' opinions
>> that they cure all ills.
>>
>
>Is there a post ASA text from the CTC that could be handed out?

Not that I could find.

http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=3630

 

[Tilly]

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 10:08:31 +0000, JohnB <[email protected]> wrote:

>Tilly wrote:
>>
>> What advice do I give to parents of 10/11 year old children about
>> helmet use when offering cycle training?
>>
>> At present I duck the issue:
>>
>> You will also need to consider insisting that your child wears a
>> helmet during training, especially in the playground where cycling
>> skills are being challenged. However, if a helmet does not fit
>> correctly and I cannot adjust it, your child will not be able to take
>> part in the training if you have requested helmet use.
>>
>> The parents then have three choices:
>>
>> I want my child to wear a helmet: yes, no, up to child.
>
>I am assuming you are working to the National Standards and are a
>qualified instructor?
>
>Are you working as an 'Organiser'? If so you should already have
>formulated your policies.
>If as an Instructor working for an Organiser then you will need to
>comply with _their_ policies.
>
>However I would strongly recommend you look at the National Standard Guidelines.
>There is a lot of good advice.
>
>This seems to be one of the most important sections where your policy is
>to have a helmet:
>
>"Remember that overall it is the training and subsequent experience that
>is most likely to contribute towards the clients safe cycling and
>increase in cycle use so you will not want to turn them away. To enable
>the client to continue training have a standard form available that the
>client can sign saying they know about your helmet policy but have opted
>out at their own discretion. For under 18s this form should be
>countersigned by a parent or guardian."
>
>Secondly the section about badly fitting helmets is relevant,
>particularly the advice on potential claims.
>
>"Clients cannot be relied upon to arrive with a helmet that is either
>properly fitted or appropriate for their use."
>
>"A view has been expressed by some that adjusting a helmet leaves the
>Instructor open to claims of liability in the event that a client
>suffers an accident. This has been checked at length with insurers and
>others in the field and it is clear that a competent instructor carrying
>out the duties for which he or she has been trained can be expect to be
>protected by the law in the event of a claim, the importance is in being
>clear of the limits of the service being provided."
>"It would appear that instructors may be at greater risk if they train
>people and do not adequately instruct them in any equipment use, such as helmets."
>
>"This should include a clear understanding of both what helmets do and
>what they cannot do.
>In particular no instructor should ever suggest that a helmet 'improves
>safety'. If appropriate words are needed then 'can reduce injury in the
>event of an accident' is appropriate, and an emphasis on the client
>maintaining cycling skills and awareness to reduce the risk of accidents
>emphasises the purpose of the training session."
>
>There is then advice on how to fit a helmet.
>
>I hope the above helps, but you really need to set your own policy or
>obtain the policy of your 'Organiser' if that is the way you operate.
>
>Its a brilliant thing to be doing though, and I hope you find it as
>satisfying as I do.

I've been trained as an instructor by CTUK, funded by TfL.

I am a teacher and teacher governor and am responsible for advising
governors on policy.

I have run a ten hour pilot course and am running three eight hour
courses next term.

For the pilot course policy was to give the parents a yes/no choice
for helmets. One parent answered, no in the playground, yes on-road.
Of course, they got this the wrong way round. We had four playground
tumbles and no on-road tumbles. To remedy this I suggest a third
choice, *up to child*. This is also in line with my personal
philosophy of allowing children to be responsible for making their own
decisions.

I am fully aware of the quotes you give above. And to give the
children a balanced view, I wear a helmet when teaching and my
co-instructor does not.

 

[JohnB]

Tilly wrote:
>
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 10:08:31 +0000, JohnB <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Tilly wrote:
> >>
> >> What advice do I give to parents of 10/11 year old children about
> >> helmet use when offering cycle training?
> >>
> >> At present I duck the issue:

> >> The parents then have three choices:
> >>
> >> I want my child to wear a helmet: yes, no, up to child.
> >
> >I am assuming you are working to the National Standards and are a
> >qualified instructor?
> >
> >Are you working as an 'Organiser'? If so you should already have
> >formulated your policies.
> >If as an Instructor working for an Organiser then you will need to
> >comply with _their_ policies.

<snip national standards info>
>
> I've been trained as an instructor by CTUK, funded by TfL.
>
> I am a teacher and teacher governor and am responsible for advising
> governors on policy.

So it would seem the Governors are the 'Organiser' and it is they who
should set the policy with which you would need to comply (with your advice).
Interesting, and it puts you in quite a strong position in setting that
policy ;-)

> I have run a ten hour pilot course and am running three eight hour
> courses next term.
>
> For the pilot course policy was to give the parents a yes/no choice
> for helmets. One parent answered, no in the playground, yes on-road.
> Of course, they got this the wrong way round. We had four playground
> tumbles and no on-road tumbles. To remedy this I suggest a third
> choice, *up to child*.

This bit would concern me a little.
Should the Organiser really be letting the child make such an important
decision - by this I mean one that could have severe repercussions on
you as an Instructor or them as Organisers.
I would think it best to have a clear policy for children that can be
modified by a parent/guardian as several have suggested.
There does need to be some flexibility (which can be covered by a simple
form) as otherwise training could be halted and that's the last thing
that must happen.

> This is also in line with my personal
> philosophy of allowing children to be responsible for making their own
> decisions.

Oh, if only that were possible.
I agree entirely but in today's messed-up world it's no longer always
practical :-(
The lawyers jaws are snapping at any hint of potential litigation fees
and I suspect they would have a field-day with Governors who left safety
issues 'up to the child', should any injury subsequently occur.

> I am fully aware of the quotes you give above. And to give the
> children a balanced view, I wear a helmet when teaching and my
> co-instructor does not.

Sounds good.
FWIW I never wear one and it has only ever been mentioned once.

Good luck with solving your problem.

John B

 

[Tilly]

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 20:05:54 +0000, JohnB <[email protected]> wrote:

>So it would seem the Governors are the 'Organiser' and it is they who
>should set the policy with which you would need to comply (with your advice).
>Interesting, and it puts you in quite a strong position in setting that
>policy ;-)

I am pretty close to having absolute authority over policy.

>> I have run a ten hour pilot course and am running three eight hour
>> courses next term.
>>
>> For the pilot course policy was to give the parents a yes/no choice
>> for helmets. One parent answered, no in the playground, yes on-road.
>> Of course, they got this the wrong way round. We had four playground
>> tumbles and no on-road tumbles. To remedy this I suggest a third
>> choice, *up to child*.
>
>This bit would concern me a little.
>Should the Organiser really be letting the child make such an important
>decision - by this I mean one that could have severe repercussions on
>you as an Instructor or them as Organisers.
>I would think it best to have a clear policy for children that can be
>modified by a parent/guardian as several have suggested.
>There does need to be some flexibility (which can be covered by a simple
>form) as otherwise training could be halted and that's the last thing
>that must happen.

It is the parent who has delegated their responsibility to their
child. Given the fact that the parent has been given the *option* to
control their child's headgear, or lack of, I cannot see any way that
I could be held responsible for a head injury caused by the use of a
correctly fitted helmet, or absence of helmet.

>> This is also in line with my personal
>> philosophy of allowing children to be responsible for making their own
>> decisions.
>
>Oh, if only that were possible.
>I agree entirely but in today's messed-up world it's no longer always
>practical :-(
>The lawyers jaws are snapping at any hint of potential litigation fees
>and I suspect they would have a field-day with Governors who left safety
>issues 'up to the child', should any injury subsequently occur.

It has been the parents' choice to leave the safety issue to the
child.

 

[Colin McKenzie]

Tilly wrote:
> I am fully aware of the quotes you give above. And to give the
> children a balanced view, I wear a helmet when teaching and my
> co-instructor does not.

Not sure about this. Wear a helmet if you want, but it takes a lot of
non-helmet-wearing to counterbalance the pro-helmet views they get
from elsewhere.

4 tumbles sounds rather a lot for one course. How many trainers, how
many children, were they particularly ill-disciplined?

Colin McKenzie
(I'm a CTUK-trained trainer too)

 

[JohnB]

JohnB wrote:

> I see the CTC now has (or should have soon) a hotline for training advice.
> I'd try that.

Its:
0870 607 0415

There's also a Forum now on the CTC site specifically for Cycle Training matters:

http://www.ctcforum.org.uk/default.aspx

John B

 

[David Hansen]

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 18:25:24 +0000 someone who may be Tilly
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>It's classed as safety equipment. Goggles for metalwork, overalls for
>chemistry, helmets for cycling...

Incorrect. Cycle helmets are specifically not safety equipment (PPE)
according to the HSE.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

 

[JLB]

David Hansen wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 18:25:24 +0000 someone who may be Tilly
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>
>>It's classed as safety equipment. Goggles for metalwork, overalls for
>>chemistry, helmets for cycling...
>
>
> Incorrect. Cycle helmets are specifically not safety equipment (PPE)
> according to the HSE.
>
>
Much as I'd like to believe that, it seems to me that the PPE regs say
only that they do not apply to PPE worn for protection while travelling
on a road. That leaves open the question of what a piece of polysterene
strapped to one's head might be. (Regulation 3 of Statutory Instrument
1992 No. 2966 The Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992):

Disapplication of these Regulations
3.—(1) These Regulations shall not apply to or in relation to the
master or crew of a sea-going ship or to the employer of such persons in
respect of the normal ship-board activities of a ship's crew under the
direction of the master.

(2) Regulations 4 to 12 shall not apply in respect of personal
protective equipment which is—

(a) ordinary working clothes and uniforms which do not
specifically protect the health and safety of the wearer;

(b) an offensive weapon within the meaning of section 1(4) of
the Prevention of Crime Act 1953[2] used as self-defence or as deterrent
equipment;

(c) portable devices for detecting and signalling risks and
nuisances;

(d) personal protective equipment used for protection while
travelling on a road within the meaning (in England and Wales) of
section 192(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988[3], and (in Scotland) of
section 151 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984[4];

(e) equipment used during the playing of competitive sports.

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 18:25:24 +0000, Tilly <[email protected]>
wrote in message <[email protected]>:

>It's classed as safety equipment. Goggles for metalwork, overalls for
>chemistry, helmets for cycling...

Not been around here long, have you?


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

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

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 10:19:24 +0000, Tony Raven <[email protected]>
wrote in message <[email protected]>:

>Is there a post ASA text from the CTC that could be handed out?

It is virtually identical, but they are still arguing about the vexed
issue of quite why the ASA thinks that claims it agrees to be false,
countered by facts it agrees to be true, cannot be presented in a
"claims and facts" table.


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

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

 

[Mike Sales]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message
> Tony Raven
> wrote in message > >Is there a post ASA text from the CTC that could be
handed out?
>
> It is virtually identical, but they are still arguing about the vexed
> issue of quite why the ASA thinks that claims it agrees to be false,
> countered by facts it agrees to be true, cannot be presented in a
> "claims and facts" table.
>
>
> Guy
This seems a good point to be made....
"This CTC document has been passed by the ASA"..
Or perhaps not since the ads we see are presumably passed by the ASA.
Mike Sales

 

[Tilly]

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 21:33:07 +0000, David Hansen
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 18:25:24 +0000 someone who may be Tilly
><[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>>It's classed as safety equipment. Goggles for metalwork, overalls for
>>chemistry, helmets for cycling...
>
>Incorrect. Cycle helmets are specifically not safety equipment (PPE)
>according to the HSE.

Even so, I will oppose any move to make helmet wearing compulsory. If
a child has a fall and injury is blamed on helmet use, the school
could be liable if helmet use was compulsory.

 

[Tilly]

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 21:18:36 +0000, Colin McKenzie
<[email protected]> wrote:

>4 tumbles sounds rather a lot for one course. How many trainers, how
>many children, were they particularly ill-disciplined?

It was a pilot course. 4 children 2 new instructors. During Level 1B
drill - looking behind without wobbling - one tumble. During a game,
keeping bike in a reducing area without colliding, a collision
involving 2 tumbles. Practicing snaking in the playground, 1 tumble.

*Tumble* may be a bit of an extreme word. Child loses control of
bike, resulting in child and bike becoming detached.

 

[David Hansen]

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 23:54:41 +0000 someone who may be Tilly
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>>4 tumbles sounds rather a lot for one course. How many trainers, how
>>many children, were they particularly ill-disciplined?
>
>It was a pilot course. 4 children 2 new instructors. During Level 1B
>drill - looking behind without wobbling - one tumble. During a game,
>keeping bike in a reducing area without colliding, a collision
>involving 2 tumbles. Practicing snaking in the playground, 1 tumble.
>
>*Tumble* may be a bit of an extreme word. Child loses control of
>bike, resulting in child and bike becoming detached.

How often do the children tumble when not on the course?

When I was their age I remember a metal set of climbing bars about
4m high, which gave a good view over the wall to the railway line.
Boys and girls enjoyed climbing up these and hanging upside down,
which caused the girl's skirts to cover their faces. The same when
they did handstands against the fence. The occasional tears and
blood were dealt with by a cuddle and antiseptic if necessary. I
don't think adults or children suffered from this, but now all sorts
of people would be rushing in to "save" us.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 23:11:56 -0000, "Mike Sales"
<[email protected]> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>This seems a good point to be made....
>"This CTC document has been passed by the ASA"..

"This political campaigning document with absolutely no marketing
content aimed at MPs, campaigners and other politically aware adults
is nothing to do with the ASA and it can keep it's nose out" is
probably closer to the mark.

BeHIT claimed the statement that it takes over 3,000 years of average
cycling to suffer a serious injury to the head would be widely
misunderstood to mean that there was no possibility of suffering a
head injury unless you lived to be 3,000 years old- and ASA agreed!
Not with the figure, but with the wording. What is really scary is
that out there you could probably find one or two people who would
read it that way, and they are probably still allowed to vote. But I
don't think there was any chance whatsoever that anybody in the target
audience of MPs and cycle activists would read it that way.


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

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