Kids on bikes

[tuono001]

Wow, this is one hot potatoe, page 3 already

 

[Joker 1299]

Sorry WG, I wanted to put a green tick to agree but I don't seem to have that facility since the site was re-organised. How is it done?

Touch and hold the like button (or hover over it) and a list of options should appear

 

[Joker 1299]

Given that pedestrians are just as likely to be killed on our streets as cyclists, I'm simply extending your argument about utility cyclists wearing helmets to pedestrians.

Tom, as I have alluded to, in all the possible outcomes of an accident, there are worse things than being killed. Look again at your stats in the light of that. If you still think it worth the risk, then good luck.

 

[GrannyJen]

That’ll teach me (not) to read without my glasses; I read this as one of the most dangerous snogs anywhere... The rest was a bit of a disappointment!

No, my most dangerous snog was on top of Gardyloo Gully, Ben Nevis during winter. We got a bit distracted in a place where one foot wrong would have meant a quick descent

 

[Borris]

Touch and hold the like button (or hover over it) and a list of options should appear

You are a star. Thanks.

 

[Aubisque]

Taking your comment seriously, having been an operational fire fighter for thirty years I've seen plenty of evidence supporting the very many safety aids and features fitted to vehicles over that time, including seat belts, airbags and energy absorbing crumple zones that protect and maintain the integrity of the passenger compartment to name but three. Whereas many years ago the occupants of vehicles often had serious head and crush injuries following a serious crash, that is no longer the norm. Vehicles are much better designed now to absorb the energy of an impact and protect the occupants.

The wearing of crash helmets in vehicles would no doubt be an added safety measure as it is in motor racing. But that isn't the direction that research into motor vehicle safety measures has gone. Modern vehicles have numerous airbags spouting from various locations covering legs, abdomen and most importantly the head from side and frontal impacts so the use of helmets is less than critical. Racing cars have most of these safety features stripped out and are generally engaged in higher risk driving so the need to wear helmets is both regulation and a necessity.

Putting a kid on a bike is an entirely different matter. Youngsters are constantly developing their motor and balancing skills whilst at the same time often showing no fear at all. Some children may also not be fully aware of the surfaces they are riding on and how the bicycle will react. Road conditions and other traffic may either confuse or frighten them into doing something unexpected. So the potential for a serious accident is always there. They only have one cranium, one brain and one life and without a crash helmet, the only thing protecting it in an impact is their skin and hair!

Just following the logic in your statement "it's an inescapable fact that people including kids get injured and killed every year whilst cycling so any measure that can reduce this risk should be used"

If you believe that, you inconsistently apply it, because of course it depends on many other factors as well. It also ignores the macro picture which Hillman's article nicely covers, linked earlier.

As useful as vehicle crumple zones and airbags are, it would still be much safer to wear a crash helmet, especially for mini-bus and coach passengers. Your zero tolerance risk approach should mean you insist upon these measures, especially as you are more likely to be seriously injured on the roads in a vehicle than riding your bike.

And ultimately 'any measure to reduce risk' would mean not doing the activity at all, so we are always making choices to mitigate or accept risk, not always remove it. Cycle helmets aren't a magic risk remover, and when a vehicle hits you they are next to useless. Your approach should insist on a motorbike helmet instead of a flimsy cycle helmet.

I cycle all the time without a helmet, because my risk assessment weighs up the likelyhood/impact and other considerstions. Other times I will definitely wear a helmet. It's because the circumstances are different. It's not binary, nor are most of life's risk decisions

 

[WelshGas]

Sorry WG, I wanted to put a green tick to agree but I don't seem to have that facility since the site was re-organised. How is it done?

Just place the Mouse Pointer over " Like" and a whole range of Icons show up. If you then put the Mouse Pointer over one of the Icons it shows what it stands for. Then Click on the one you want.

 

[WelshGas]

Just following the logic in your statement "it's an inescapable fact that people including kids get injured and killed every year whilst cycling so any measure that can reduce this risk should be used"

If you believe that, you inconsistently apply it, because of course it depends on many other factors as well. It also ignores the macro picture which Hillman's article nicely covers, linked earlier.

As useful as vehicle crumple zones and airbags are, it would still be much safer to wear a crash helmet, especially for mini-bus and coach passengers. Your zero tolerance risk approach should mean you insist upon these measures, especially as you are more likely to be seriously injured on the roads in a vehicle than riding your bike.

And ultimately 'any measure to reduce risk' would mean not doing the activity at all, so we are always making choices to mitigate or accept risk, not always remove it. Cycle helmets aren't a magic risk remover, and when a vehicle hits you they are next to useless. Your approach should insist on a motorbike helmet instead of a flimsy cycle helmet.

I cycle all the time without a helmet, because my risk assessment weighs up the likelyhood/impact and other considerstions. Other times I will definitely wear a helmet. It's because the circumstances are different. It's not binary, nor are most of life's risk decisions

I would love to see a young Child carry out a risk assessment. Get real for heavens sake. A young child on a bicycle, scooter or skateboard is more likely to fall off on the pavement, or in a park or someplace where there are no moving vehicles. Losing control, frightened by a dog anything that frightens them. They ARE NOT adults , they are learning and that's when accidents happen. None of these will be included in the Road Traffic Accident Statistics but visit any Accident & Emergency Department and ask them. And not infrequently they would end up in Intensive Care or a Neurosurgical Unit.

You, and others are focusing on Bicycle, Helmet, Road, Traffic.

It should be Young Child, Helmet, Accident in the Park,Pavement.

 

[Amarillo]

I think I'll start driving my boys the 800 yards to school. A steel cage should keep them safe.

 

[flying banana]

is it because it won't stop raining that your all at each other quoting facts and figures over a pic of a kid on a bike ? ?
the pubs open you know ?

 

[bigmac77]

View attachment 46136

That looks like me on my Raleigh Burner jumping off a ramp made out of planks of wood and milk crates. But I did have a helmet on.

 

[Borris]

Just following the logic in your statement "it's an inescapable fact that people including kids get injured and killed every year whilst cycling so any measure that can reduce this risk should be used"

If you believe that, you inconsistently apply it, because of course it depends on many other factors as well. It also ignores the macro picture which Hillman's article nicely covers, linked earlier.

As useful as vehicle crumple zones and airbags are, it would still be much safer to wear a crash helmet, especially for mini-bus and coach passengers. Your zero tolerance risk approach should mean you insist upon these measures, especially as you are more likely to be seriously injured on the roads in a vehicle than riding your bike.

And ultimately 'any measure to reduce risk' would mean not doing the activity at all, so we are always making choices to mitigate or accept risk, not always remove it. Cycle helmets aren't a magic risk remover, and when a vehicle hits you they are next to useless. Your approach should insist on a motorbike helmet instead of a flimsy cycle helmet.

I cycle all the time without a helmet, because my risk assessment weighs up the likelyhood/impact and other considerstions. Other times I will definitely wear a helmet. It's because the circumstances are different. It's not binary, nor are most of life's risk decisions

1. This thread Is entitled Kids on bikes.
2. Risk should be managed but not removed altogether. A degree of risk is essential for children, thereby developing safer adults. Example: a child must learn how to cross the road safely. Many adults clearly haven't learnt that lesson! Helmets are a way of managing risk. I am not advocating the complete removal of all risk as I'm sure that would ultimately lead to more accidents.
3. Most accidents are a combination of several factors. Most people don't need a research report to tell them that.
4. Of course cycle helmets aren't a "magic risk remover" but they are an aid to managing that risk.
5. A risk assessment is no substitute for a cycle helmet if your or your child's head is about to hit something hard.
6. Helmets in vehicles including buses might well save injuries and lives but are clearly not a realistic proposition. Cycle helmets are.

 

[Amarillo]

1. This thread Is entitled Kids on bikes. Risk should be managed but not removed altogether. A degree of risk is essential for children thereby developing safer adults. Example: a child must learn how to cross the road safely. Many adults clearly haven't learnt that lesson! Helmets are a way of managing risk. I am not advocating the complete removal of all risk as I'm sure that would ultimately lead to more accidents.
2. Most accidents are a combination of several factors. Most people don't need a research report to tell them that.
3. Of course cycle helmets aren't a "magic risk remover" but they are an aid to managing that risk.
4. A risk assessment is no substitution for a cycle helmet if your or your child's head is about to hit something hard.
5. Helmets in vehicles including buses might well save injuries and lives but are clearly not a realistic proposition. Cycle helmets are.

I seem to remember a few years ago revised advice to headteachers about the use of mats in physical educations lesson. Mats were to be used where children were expected to jump, and not to be used as a safety device under apparatus. The implied reason was that the use of mats as safety devices made children feel safe and take unnecessary risk. Limbs were being broken.

For utility cycling, helmets can at best, have a marginal benefit in reducing the consequence of a fall.

They cannot reduce the likelihood of a fall.
They cannot reduce the likelihood of a collision.
They offer no protection for most parts of the body, only to the very top part of the head.

It is likely that helmet use makes children feel safer and take more risk.
It is likely that helmet use makes drivers take more risk around cyclists (they may consider cyclists less as a human and more as an object).

It is preferable to reduce the likelihood of an accident occurring than reduce the severity of a small subset of possible injury. Good cyclist training, a properly maintained bike and bright clothing all reduce the likelihood of an accident.

That is not to say that helmets have no place in cycling. Mountain biking, racing, time trials and BMX, for example, all necessarily involve risk taking and pushing the limits. In those cases a cycle helmet, preferably one that offers protection to the face and support to the neck, are, in my opinion, necessary.

 

[RodCouncil]

I’m a person who rides his Brompton at low speeds and often doesn’t use a helmet, however on any other bike when I’m riding usually 35-40kph on the road it’s always with a helmet, and on the MTB for obvious reasons.

The slow commuter me bases the likelyhood of crashing on statistics which are invariably linked to speed, your approach and the cycling infrastructure you’re using. Look to Holland if you want evidence on cycling safely without helmets.

 

[tuono001]

Lets get back on topic

Both went through the balance bike and then onto a bike with no stabilisers.

 

[Jay20cali]

Ooooh... Check the tyres..... Wear a helmet... Wear a hv vest... When I was a kid we drove our bikes down mine shafts in a pair of shorts. We survived. Let kids be kids. It should hurt and it should be fun. Climb trees... Fall off your bike without a suit of armour on. Live. Bleed. Breathe. Enjoy.

After reading through all these posts I totally forgot I was on the California forum for a minute

 

[flying banana]

After reading through all these posts I totally forgot I was on the California forum for a minute

yep. yawn.

 

[Amarillo]

Lets get back on topic
View attachment 46165
Both went through the balance bike and then onto a bike with no stabilisers.

We did the same. Balance bike + 2; normal bike with pedals off + 3; pedals on and off they pedalled + 3.5; bike with gears + 4.

 

[SpikeMcBike]

This is a passionate subject for me, as is my California... but.... I ride bikes a lot. Around 5,000km a year and I have experience on this subject.

For example, I commute from Waterloo to Canary Wharf every day on my Brompton. In the last ten years I have come off three times for various reasons. On each occasion, my helmet has been a saviour.

At weekends I ride at least 70-80km on the road with my club. I’ve come off the bike once on these rides in the last 15 years, and that was last week. Again, my head hit the ground but I had a helmet. I am fine and lucky.

Most Sundays we go for a ride with the kids on a local ex-railway track. Under no circumstances would they not wear a helmet. Ever. I protect them, I coach them, they are proficient, but, never, would they be without a helmet.

Our club rule is no helmet, no ride.

You cannot legislate for dickhead drivers or other cyclists (yes, there are a lot of dickhead cyclists) that are beyond your control. Helmets are essential; adults, kids, experienced or occasional, on road or off road.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RodCouncil]

I agree, I probably conflated no helmets and being an adult there, for me kids and helmets is mandatory, making sure it fits properly is key too.

Modern helmets are actually super comfortable too and don’t pose to much of an issue which begs the question why I’m not using one of the 5 I own for simple trips on the Brommy, I might change my approach.

 

[Velma's Dad]

For example, I commute from Waterloo to Canary Wharf every day on my Brompton. In the last ten years I have come off three times for various reasons. On each occasion, my helmet has been a saviour.

Not sure if Bromptons are less controllable/jinxed, but I saw a guy get knocked off one a year or two back (by car driver turning left, later convicted for careless driving). Slow speed accident but no helmet, head vs tarmac: tarmac won, masses of blood and serious head injury with I gather lasting consequences. Just a sample of one, but I'd never ride on a public road helmet-less as I've no wish to become a vegetable before my time.

 

[T6 CFO]

Took me a while to adjust to wearing a helmet. As many cyclists know a helmet is just as important at slow speed. Brought it home to me when I was at crawling speed zig zagging around a gate when the front wheel went away on some gravel. Caught me by complete surprise and helmet saved me.


Mike

 

[Amarillo]

Knocked off my bike in the centre of Blackheath fifteen years ago.

Passing a line of slow moving traffic on the outside to avoid doors opening as commuters are dropped off at the station white van man started a U turn without warning.

Suffered an acromioclavicular joint separation. Asked upon admission to Lewisham hospital if I’d been wearing helmet. On hearing the answer the Doctor said “well there’s a lesson learned”. It did not inspire confidence in Lewisham’s medical professionals.

White Van Man was prosecuted and ordered to pay me £2,500. I bought my Brompton with that. Never come off since, but I do tend to cycle slowly; even when I cycled down Flåm mountain on my Brompton towing my two boys behind in a trailer.

 

[bigmac77]

@Amarillo Look at this from another angle, if you went skiing with your boys would you make them wear helmets?

 

[Ken M]

In line with the intent of the topic - this is my 15 year old on what is probably his tenth bike in a series that started with a balance bike and transitioned through road, bmx, track, XC and now gravity mtb racing. It becomes rather expensive after a while, especially with a 11 year old daughter following a similar path. Both wear helmets.