Kids on bikes

[Amarillo]

The risk to a child falling off of a bicycle at speed in an uncontrolled environment is a different matter.

Ahhhh! Now this is where your description of cycling differs from the reality of my boys cycling. We cycle to school in a very controlled manner. Jack following Ben's rear wheel, and me slightly to the right and behind Jack's rear wheel, controlling, by road position, any following vehicle, and communicating with hand signals and waves of "thanks for your patience". At junctions I go ahead and the boys wait until I have told them it is safe to proceed.

The thudguard is promoted as a mainstream product, using very similar language used by promoters of bicycle helmets. The testimonial section is nearly exclusively from those in the medical profession.

 

[Joker 1299]

Has anybody died as a direct result of wearing a cycle helmet? And don’t say it makes you a target for bad or inconsiderate drivers - those people don’t give a flying fox whether their victims wear a helmet or not. And please not - it makes you feel invincible and take risks you wouldn’t otherwise take - if that’s you, you maybe shouldn’t be on a bike in the first place.

 

[Joker 1299]

Tom’s gonna find one, I can feel it!

 

[Borris]

Accidents still happen even with all the common sense training in the world.
Wear a helmet at all times. Stupid not to.
It saved my elder son’ s life when he had a cycling accident and ended up in intensive care for three days.

I hope he has made a full recovery.

 

[Joker 1299]

Well it's relevant because it shows an example of an entire country (which cycles way more than the UK and is much healthier as a result) that according to you should be one giant hospital packed out with cyclists with head traumas. And the photo that initially triggered the accusationary 'why aren't they wearing helmets !' response on this thread is in an environment very similar or even safer than most Dutch scenarios.

It's fundamentally the same activity, that if sensibly assessed for dangers can be done safely without a helmet and some of the arguments presented as to why it's simply always way too dangerous in the UK don't follow any consistent logic.

I suspect you haven't spent any time in Holland or Denmark, nor read any of the material posted on the macro public health picture, because if you had you wouldn't conclude that "However, wherever you are cycling, whether it be in the UK, Holland or elsewhere, the wearing of cycle helmets and appropriate reflective clothing can only be a good thing." That's statement doesn't survive any scrutiny whatsoever.

Isn’t that a bit like saying if it’s safe to drive on the autobahn in Germany at 200 mph it must be safe on the M25 too?

 

[Joker 1299]

My advice... Wear the fox hat! https://uk.foxracing.com/mtb/men/helmets/

 

[Aubisque]

Isn’t that a bit like saying if it’s safe to drive on the autobahn in Germany at 200 mph it must be safe on the M25 too?

No, on the contrary it's an example of an activity that isn't inherently dangerous (driving) but depending on the circumstance can be relatively safe at different speeds.
But for those feeling uncomfortable I suggest a full face helmet and sticking below 70 when on unrestricted autobhan..after all accidents can and do happen and can you afford to take the risk?

 

[WelshGas]

Actually I think it is a lot simpler than we all think.
@Amarillo 's children want to be like the others in school who have helmets and he is afraid if he gets them helmets they'll want to know why he isn't wearing one and he has looked but can't find one big enough to fit him. So, he is rationalising his arguments not to buy them helmets.

 

[Amarillo]

Actually I think it is a lot simpler than we all think.
@Amarillo 's children want to be like the others in school who have helmets and he is afraid if he gets them helmets they'll want to know why he isn't wearing one and he has looked but can't find one big enough to fit him. So, he is rationalising his arguments not to buy them helmets.

And @WelshGas raises the level of debate...

 

[WelshGas]

And @WelshGas raises the level of debate...

Of course. What else is there to do. You're not going to change your mind so it is a pointless debate.

 

[ArunAlec]

Does anyone wear cycle clips anymore?

 

[MartG]

Does anyone wear cycle clips anymore?

No!
I did notice that almost all the bikes in the Dutch pic earlier had chain guards...

 

[Aubisque]

Instead of making wildly exaggerated statements as to my stance, just remember that I am on your side.

I can't find any examples of this, could point one out ? And I'll amend.

Look....I totally get that it can be totally counter intuitive to argue against wearing cycling helmets in all circumstances, it seems like such a no brainer at first glance. You must be right, right ? It's just logic.
But that's why wider reading on this subject is so critical.

It's also counter-intuitive to conclude that medical professionals or fire-fighters are also generally poorly placed to form a balanced opinion on this. They rarely see the bigger picture, they generally only see one aspect of cycling (the messy end) over and over again. And to an extent looking at specific injury examples they are right, you can avoid injuries by using more protection.
But millions of miles of enjoyable and safe helmetless cycling were completed yesterday, but that they didn't think about whilst treating injuries. Or the consequences of society going down the 'more protection' route as a primary response.

You really don't want to combine the two...a poorly read A&E medic deciding public health policy.

Article worth reading https://chrisboardman.com/blog/index_files/e67d4b8aac0c709c5801ce466bdcd90e-1.html Even if you don't agree it will open up some of the nuances.

And I realise this is not a debate about helmet law, but it is a debate on pressuring other people or their kids to wear one in all circumstances.

Alternatively take a campervan trip to Holland or Denmark. It is is eye-popping.
I am off to both today today so will report back.

 

[Amarillo]

Of course. What else is there to do. You're not going to change your mind so it is a pointless debate.

Why not!? I've changed my mind of the matter once before - after I looked beyond the anecdotal and saw that countries with lower rates of helmet use generally have lower casualty rates and British towns and cities with higher accident rates generally have higher helmet use; mandatory helmet laws have a negative impact on cycling rates. Regular cycling has a positive impact on life expectancy, so much so that it can be safely asserted that not cycling is more dangerous than cycling.

There are many examples of counter-intuitive safety matters. When Sweden switched from driving on the left to driving on the right there was an immediate fall in accidents, which over the next eighteen months returned to pre-switch levels. Schools which do not place mats under climbing equipment have fewer incidents of broken limbs compared with those which leave bare wooden floor.

What I do not claim is that cycle helmets are inherently dangerous for the individual. However, their use does give a perception that cycling is inherently dangerous, requiring specialist safety equipment, usually used by construction workers, rock climbers, white water rafters, boxers and the like. This perception leads to a drop in cycling rates and an increase in accident rates: the safest thing for cycling is more cyclists.

Year	1,000 daily journeys	Killed	Seriously injured	killed/ billion journeys
1993​	270​	18​	485​	183​
1994​	270​	15​	480​	152​
1995​	270​	15​	521​	152​
1996​	270​	20​	571​	203​
1997​	270​	12​	560​	122​
1998​	270​	12​	595​	122​
1999​	270​	10​	469​	101​
2000​	290​	14​	399​	132​
2001​	320​	21​	434​	180​
2002​	320​	20​	387​	171​
2003​	370​	19​	414​	141​
2004​	380​	8​	332​	58​
2005​	410​	21​	351​	140​
2006​	470​	19​	373​	111​
2007​	470​	15​	446​	87​
2008​	490​	15​	430​	84​
2009​	510​	13​	420​	70​
2010​	540​	10​	457​	51​
2011​	570​	16​	555​	77​
2012​	580​	14​	657​	66​
2013​	590​	14​	475​	65​
2014​	610​	13​	432​	58​
2015​	670​	9​	378​	37​
2016​	730​	8​	454​	30​
2017​	721​	10​	-​	38​

So, as you can see, as cycling in London has become ~2.5 times more popular, it has become ~5 times safer. What this does not show is any correlation between helmet use in London and safety. What we do know is that the vast majority of Boris Bike users in London wear no helmet, and much of the boom in cycling in London is by Boris Bike. Unless there has been a very significant increase in helmet use by non-Boris Bike users, there is no positive correlation between helmet use and cycling safety.

At very best, helmet use has a marginal impact on cyclist safety in London. Far, far more significant is the sheer numbers cycling.

 

[Amarillo]

Some years ago, probably 2006 or 2007, I wrote a leaflet for Transport for London, Cycling and Your Child: A Fact Sheet for Parents.

An electronic version of which I have found on the Luton Council website.
https://www.luton.gov.uk/Transport_...l free leaflet for children about cycling.pdf

 

[paradise city]

I am a bicycle commuter and wear a helmet. This is my personal choice and I don't feel it should be compulsory.

As well as the (albeit debatable) protection it provides in case of an accident, it increases my visibility. It's the only part of my body visible above the level of car roofs, particularly important for pedestrians who like to nip out between parked cars.

I've modified it with reflective tape for winter / night riding.

My daughters 7 and 9 both wear helmets, I think mainly because they see me wearing one. If they decide when they are older they don't want to wear one I don't think I would have a problem with that.

Sent from my CLT-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[jts46]

Does anyone wear cycle clips anymore?

yes

 

[Digger]

Amazed that a simple observation could arouse such debate and argument. Myself - just finished a bowl of cullen skink by the harbour and enjoying life. Peace!

 

[Borris]

I can't find any examples of this, could point one out ? And I'll amend.

Look....I totally get that it can be totally counter intuitive to argue against wearing cycling helmets in all circumstances, it seems like such a no brainer at first glance. You must be right, right ? It's just logic.
But that's why wider reading on this subject is so critical.

It's also counter-intuitive to conclude that medical professionals or fire-fighters are also generally poorly placed to form a balanced opinion on this. They rarely see the bigger picture, they generally only see one aspect of cycling (the messy end) over and over again. And to an extent looking at specific injury examples they are right, you can avoid injuries by using more protection.
But millions of miles of enjoyable and safe helmetless cycling were completed yesterday, but that they didn't think about whilst treating injuries. Or the consequences of society going down the 'more protection' route as a primary response.

You really don't want to combine the two...a poorly read A&E medic deciding public health policy.

Article worth reading https://chrisboardman.com/blog/index_files/e67d4b8aac0c709c5801ce466bdcd90e-1.html Even if you don't agree it will open up some of the nuances.

And I realise this is not a debate about helmet law, but it is a debate on pressuring other people or their kids to wear one in all circumstances.

Alternatively take a campervan trip to Holland or Denmark. It is is eye-popping.
I am off to both today today so will report back.

1. "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".

I have never advocated a "zero tolerance risk approach".

2. "Well it's relevant because it shows an example of an entire country (which cycles way more than the UK and is much healthier as a result) that according to you should be one giant hospital packed out with cyclists with head traumas."

Nonsense.

3. "It's fundamentally the same activity, that if sensibly assessed for dangers can be done safely without a helmet and some of the arguments presented as to why it's simply always way too dangerous in the UK don't follow any consistent logic".

Who has implied that?

I'm well aware that many millions of miles are ridden each day without injury and I accept that overall it's probably a relatively low risk healthy activity that should be encouraged. Telling yourself that it's highly unlikely to happen to you so a helmet isn't required on this or that particular ride is your choice. I have never advocated making the wearing of helmets compulsory for adults or children nor have I pressured anyone into wearing one. I have merely expressed my opinion clearly as one is supposed to do on a forum. I don't expect everyone to agree with me.

I really don't see any point in continuing this debate as it's all been said. I'll just leave you with this: https://www.rospa.com/rospaweb/docs...fety/cyclists/cycling-accidents-factsheet.pdf

It too makes interesting reading especially the paragraph entitled, Head Injuries.

 

[Aubisque]

1. "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".

I have never advocated a "zero tolerance risk approach".

2. "Well it's relevant because it shows an example of an entire country (which cycles way more than the UK and is much healthier as a result) that according to you should be one giant hospital packed out with cyclists with head traumas."

Nonsense.

3. "It's fundamentally the same activity, that if sensibly assessed for dangers can be done safely without a helmet and some of the arguments presented as to why it's simply always way too dangerous in the UK don't follow any consistent logic".

Who has implied that?

I'm well aware that many millions of miles are ridden each day without injury and I accept that overall it's probably a relatively low risk healthy activity that should be encouraged. Telling yourself that it's highly unlikely to happen to you so a helmet isn't required on this or that particular ride is your choice. I have never advocated making the wearing of helmets compulsory for adults or children nor have I pressured anyone into wearing one. I have merely expressed my opinion clearly as one is supposed to do on a forum. I don't expect everyone to agree with me.

I really don't see any point in continuing this debate as it's all be said. I just leave you with this: https://www.rospa.com/rospaweb/docs...fety/cyclists/cycling-accidents-factsheet.pdf

It too makes interesting reading especially the paragraph entitled, Head Injuries.

You’ve completely missed the point again.

That’s just a specific bit on injuries, you realise their overall policy doesn’t insist on cycle helmets as they are concerned about the reduction in cycling which is a greater health issue than any injuries due to no helmets ?

Have you read any of the other material ?

 

[WelshGas]

You’ve completely missed the point again.

That’s just a specific bit on injuries, you realise their overall policy doesn’t insist on cycle helmets as they are concerned about the reduction in cycling which is a greater health issue than any injuries due to no helmets ?

Have you read any of the other material ?

Have you?

 

[Aubisque]

There continues to be much debate regarding the effectiveness of cycle helmets and whether the wearing of them should be made compulsory. RoSPA’s position regarding this is that we strongly recommend that cyclists wear a cycle helmet, as it reduces the risk of suffering a serious head or brain injury in an accident. However, cycle helmets do not prevent crashes from happening in the first place, nor guarantee survival, but they do provide a last line of defence for the cyclist’s head.
RoSPA does not support calls for compulsory cycle helmet laws because it is not clear whether such a law would discourage some people from cycling, which, if it did, would mean losing the health and environmental benefits from cycling. By deterring people from cycling, they may also reduce the benefits that cyclists gain from ‘safety in numbers’. For more information on the safety in numbers effect, read our factsheet.
If we are to make cycling safer, it is vital that drivers and cyclist share the road space and that driver have a greater appreciation of their vulnerability. Cyclists are most likely to be injured at junction, roundabouts, where the road narrows (pinch points) and near left turning HGVs. Cyclists are particularly vulnerable at junctions where drivers 'look and fail to see'. RoSPA has completed a free downloadable presentation, which looks at where and when cyclists are most at risk and considers what actions both drivers and cyclists can take to help make cycling safer. This can be found at: http://www.rospa.com/road-safety/resources/free/drivers/
Helmets do have a role to play, however they must be regarded as a secondary safety feature. Preventing the collision happening in the first place should be paramount.

 

[Borris]

There continues to be much debate regarding the effectiveness of cycle helmets and whether the wearing of them should be made compulsory. RoSPA’s position regarding this is that we strongly recommend that cyclists wear a cycle helmet, as it reduces the risk of suffering a serious head or brain injury in an accident. However, cycle helmets do not prevent crashes from happening in the first place, nor guarantee survival, but they do provide a last line of defence for the cyclist’s head.
RoSPA does not support calls for compulsory cycle helmet laws because it is not clear whether such a law would discourage some people from cycling, which, if it did, would mean losing the health and environmental benefits from cycling. By deterring people from cycling, they may also reduce the benefits that cyclists gain from ‘safety in numbers’. For more information on the safety in numbers effect, read our factsheet.
If we are to make cycling safer, it is vital that drivers and cyclist share the road space and that driver have a greater appreciation of their vulnerability. Cyclists are most likely to be injured at junction, roundabouts, where the road narrows (pinch points) and near left turning HGVs. Cyclists are particularly vulnerable at junctions where drivers 'look and fail to see'. RoSPA has completed a free downloadable presentation, which looks at where and when cyclists are most at risk and considers what actions both drivers and cyclists can take to help make cycling safer. This can be found at: http://www.rospa.com/road-safety/resources/free/drivers/
Helmets do have a role to play, however they must be regarded as a secondary safety feature. Preventing the collision happening in the first place should be paramount.

My stated position on this thread is in essence contained in the first paragraph. I agree with ROSPAs position entirely hence my previous link.

 

[Joker 1299]

i get that cyclists don’t want compulsion, neither did motorcyclists. And I am not advocating compulsion. Just think about your own and your children’s risk profile. I respect Tom’s position. He has done that. Each family should do their own. Just remember that the people at the other end of the statistics are real people too. So one in a million is still a tragedy for that one.

 

[kave]

I agree on the value of those Islabikes. We have imported three to Sweden now and they have been great. The first Cnoc bike our kids ride on before three years old. We got more fore it then what we payed.
On the helmet argument, I cannot agree. Here it is mandatory under 15yo to wear bicycle helmet. My kids are always using them and so do I. My oldest son have destroyed three helmets (is a more daring type, when three years old looking sideways riding in to lamp posts etc). Our youngest have almost never crashed at all on the bike.
If you don’t like wearing one, fine, but I don’t understand the reasoning with the kids.
In the early days when Volvo have developed the seat belts, lots of german manufacturers where against it with similar arguments as well.
My kids are now wearing MIPS helmets that also protects the brain from the twisting that occurs when falling.