Helmets are compulsory

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

Quoted message said:

But it was a close thing.

[ snip ]

Quoted message said:

Helmet use is compulsory for school cycle training.

Is it compulsory for the Trainer?

Under 10's not allowed on the road? Are they serious? My 4yo will be
begging to cycle the five miles to school tomorrow morning. The 7yo can
ride on his own after crossing a main road. not a cycle path in sight,
but apparently they will be 30+ times more likely to be killed than me
driving them.

As for passing a 'cycling proficiency test'. This must have more to do
with allowing bikes on the school premesis surely. Can schools really
specify what the children do outside of school hours? I'm not aware of
them having that right at our school.

daren

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 21:48:13 GMT, [email hidden] (Steven)

Quoted message said:

Tilly said:

But it was a close thing.

At a governors' meeting last term the school governors agreed a cycle
training policy where cycle helmet were subject to parental choice,
but they insisted that the matter be reviewed in a governors' meeting
before the end of term.

After much debate, mostly avoiding the subject of the effectiveness or
otherwise of helmets, instead dealing with the responsibility of the
school, and the rights of the parent to make decisions about the
safety of their child, and the matter of informed choice, the question
was put to a vote. Do you want cycle helmets to be compulsory for
cycle training or do you want the choice to be left to an agreement
negotiated between parent and child with the parent informing the
school of their decision?

The vote was a 5 - 5 split.

In such cases the decision rests with the chair of governors, who
after voting for parental choice, switched sides saying that with such
a tight vote he'd prefer a 6 - 4 vote to decide the matter.

Helmet use is compulsory for school cycle training.

Write to the school and tell them that if your child is injured and there is any
evidence that the extra weight of a helmet could have worsened the injury, you
will be certain to take any and evey legal recourse available to you. And that
you will be advising any other parent who finds themselves in that position to
do likewise.

I am a teacher, cycling instructor and governor. I asked for approval
of the cycle training policy in April, it was approved as a draft, and
a review of helmet use after three months. That review took place
last night. The discussion and vote were fair and I will respect
that.

Quoted message said:

Point out to them that if they put the facts before the parents of children
undergoing cycle training so that they can come to an informed decision, they
are pretty much watertight, but if they wish to dictate matters that are really
none of their business, then they must be prepared to take any consequences.

That would be untrue. A rational discussion has taken place at the
highest level within the school and a majority decision taken of the
view that while the school has responsibility for the child it must do
all it can to minimise risk of injury. It would not be usual for a
parent to be asked if they want their child to wear a seat belt on a
coach trip.

I would prefer children to wear helmets or seat belts as part of an
informed choice, but am not going to sulk over not getting my way.

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 08:14:58 +0100, John Hearns <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Guys and girls,
let's not get too worked up about this.
And BTW, Tilly is a teacher...

All I can add is that the way Cycletraining UK operates is
they ask parents to sign a form stating their preference re. helmets.
CTUK have done an excellent job in the schools projects in Greenwich
and Southwark. With the disclaimer that I have nothing to do with them,
would you consider using them for training at the school?

CTUK would abide by the policy of the school. AFAIK they only refuse
to go to schools if the policy of compulsion extends to the
instructor.

jtaylor said:

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

Quoted message said:

But it was a close thing.

[ snip ]

Quoted message said:

Helmet use is compulsory for school cycle training.

Is it compulsory for the Trainer?

No.

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 10:24:29 GMT, [email hidden] (Steven)

Quoted message said:

That was not at all clear from the OP which almost seems as if it was part of an
on-going thread.

Apologies. I have posted on this matter here before, but quite
possibly under a different nom de net.

Robert said:

Watertight? you live in a fantasy world. As I said above it is people like
you that force Schools to introduce helmet compulsion in order to protect
themselves from prosecution.

Prosecution or liability was not mentioned.

It was generally accepted that overall it was beneficial for young
people to wear helmets. The safety of the children was central to the
vote.

I would argue that it was the short term safety, rather than longer
term safety considerations. In other words, if a child is wearing a
helmet it is preferable that they wear a helmet as the result of an
informed discussion between parent and child than as the result of
compulsion by the school.

Tilly said:

CTUK would abide by the policy of the school. AFAIK they only refuse to
go to schools if the policy of compulsion extends to the instructor.

I stand corrected.
As I say, I have no connection with CTUK

Tilly said:

That would be untrue. A rational discussion has taken place at the
highest level within the school and a majority decision taken of the
view that while the school has responsibility for the child it must do
all it can to minimise risk of injury.

But there is no compelling evidence that cycling helmets *do* reduce the risk of
injury.

All you (as a school) are doing is meddling in a matter that should be left to
the parents of the children involved.

Quoted message said:

It would not be usual for a
parent to be asked if they want their child to wear a seat belt on a
coach trip.

The comment about seat belts is invalid, because there is *no* evidence that
seatbelts do not save *vastly* more lives than they ever cost.

Quoted message said:

I would prefer children to wear helmets or seat belts as part of an
informed choice, but am not going to sulk over not getting my way.

Sorry, I was not aware of your status. My advice was aimed at a parent who
objected to the school usurping their right to decide what was best for their
child in a matter where there is no compelling evidence either way.

Tilly said:

But it was a close thing.

At a governors' meeting last term the school governors agreed a cycle
training policy where cycle helmet were subject to parental choice,
but they insisted that the matter be reviewed in a governors' meeting
before the end of term.

After much debate, mostly avoiding the subject of the effectiveness or
otherwise of helmets, instead dealing with the responsibility of the
school, and the rights of the parent to make decisions about the
safety of their child, and the matter of informed choice, the question
was put to a vote. Do you want cycle helmets to be compulsory for
cycle training or do you want the choice to be left to an agreement
negotiated between parent and child with the parent informing the
school of their decision?

The vote was a 5 - 5 split.

In such cases the decision rests with the chair of governors, who
after voting for parental choice, switched sides saying that with such
a tight vote he'd prefer a 6 - 4 vote to decide the matter.

Helmet use is compulsory for school cycle training.

The school I help at with cycle training has had a compulsory helmet
policy for many years. Whilst I don't agree with compulsory helmet use
for everybody, some of these children do benefit form them, having seen
them fall to the side off their bikes from wobbling.
One thing comulsory helmets doesn't avoid is the wearing of them either
as a fashion accessory (high up the head/down the neck) or on backwards
(some don't realise which way around they should be)
In 18 years of helping, I've not seen any damage to a child due to
falling, but that doesn't mean to say they are safe to use, just that
they didn't cause a head/neck injury.
Some of them would be safer without one, as they can get their hair out
of the way better, etc

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 16:38:52 GMT, [email hidden] (Steven)

Quoted message said:

All you (as a school) are doing is meddling in a matter that should be left to
the parents of the children involved.

It is not meddling. During school time the school, not the parent,
has to make the decision. The rule only applies to the school's cycle
training.

If a parent was to write to the HT specifically stating that they did
not want their child to wear a helmet, that would almost certainly be
respected. The difference now is that parents won't be given a yes/no
consent form for helmets: they will be told that helmets must be worn
and to contact the HT if there are any cultural, physical or other
reason for their child not wearing a helmet.

Pete Whelan said:

Quoted message said:

Helmet use is compulsory for school cycle training.

The school I help at with cycle training has had a compulsory helmet
policy for many years. Whilst I don't agree with compulsory helmet use
for everybody, some of these children do benefit form them, having seen
them fall to the side off their bikes from wobbling.
One thing comulsory helmets doesn't avoid is the wearing of them either
as a fashion accessory (high up the head/down the neck) or on backwards
(some don't realise which way around they should be)
In 18 years of helping, I've not seen any damage to a child due to
falling, but that doesn't mean to say they are safe to use, just that
they didn't cause a head/neck injury.
Some of them would be safer without one, as they can get their hair out
of the way better, etc

In the meeting, I stated that for initial cycle training helmet
wearing *should* be compulsory. The school's cycle training policy,
which I wrote, states that from September 2005 all children age 4+ who
cannot cycle without support are entitled to learn to cycle at school
if a parent requests it.

It is for the more experienced cyclists that I'd have preferred to
develop a sense of informed choice and personal responsibility.

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 17:28:37 +0100, Tilly <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

It was generally accepted that overall it was beneficial for young
people to wear helmets. The safety of the children was central to the
vote.

And I know you will have put the pragmatic line well, so this is not
to get at you at all, but isn't it funny how even when helmet use
rises to nearly 100%, those children still seem not to be any safer?

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 said:

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 16:38:52 GMT, [email hidden] (Steven)

Quoted message said:

All you (as a school) are doing is meddling in a matter that should be left to
the parents of the children involved.

It is not meddling. During school time the school, not the parent,
has to make the decision. The rule only applies to the school's cycle
training.

If a parent was to write to the HT specifically stating that they did
not want their child to wear a helmet, that would almost certainly be
respected. The difference now is that parents won't be given a yes/no
consent form for helmets: they will be told that helmets must be worn
and to contact the HT if there are any cultural, physical or other
reason for their child not wearing a helmet.

Well, so long as you are prepared to respect the parents wishes, it's no more
than a very strongly stated piece of advice.

daren said:

Under 10's not allowed on the road? Are they serious?

Unfortunately that is what they promote, but they cannot of course
enforce it.
The argument put to me is that they need to reduce child cycling
casualties and if children are not on the road then their targets will
be more easily met.
They will not permit under 10's to take their (very limited) cycle
training course as it includes a small road element. Under 10's have
seperate playground/cone based sessions.

Of course several parents want 'proper' training for their children and
now are starting to make other arrangements :-)
For example last weeek I had a group to train who had pulled out of the
school training just because it did *not* include any road content.

Quoted message said:

As for passing a 'cycling proficiency test'. This must have more to do
with allowing bikes on the school premesis surely. Can schools really
specify what the children do outside of school hours?

No they can't, but they have do control over whether or not bikes are
allowed on their premises.

Quoted message said:

I'm not aware of
them having that right at our school.

See above.

John B

Just zis Guy said:

JohnB said:

Quoted message said:

I would be more concerned about it creeping into "if you cycle to school
you must wear a helmet" etc.

Quoted message said:

That *is* the case around here.

Here being New Zealand? ;-)

Well it is some miles further south than you Northerners ;-)

John B

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 17:09:49 +0100 someone who may be Tilly
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

A rational discussion has taken place at the
highest level within the school and a majority decision taken of the
view that while the school has responsibility for the child it must do
all it can to minimise risk of injury.

I look forward to the school insisting that all children are taken
to and from the school by car to minimise the risk of injury.

I do hope the school doesn't take the children anywhere by foot? If
it does I trust it minimises the risk of injury by insisting they
are wearing helmets.

Lastly, if the school really is interested in minimising the risk of
injury, I assume it insists that gloves, elbow pads and thick
clothes are worn.

--
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.

Jeremy Collins said:

JohnB said:

And some secondary schools insist that cyclists must have passed a
'cycling proficiency test' before they can ride to school. This is
despite the fact that there is only very limited training in primary
schools.

That's a shame (I don't have kids so I'm out of touch with schools).

I was at primary school in the 70's, and we had to take cycling
proficiency before we were allowed to ride to school (I've still got
the little metal badge somewhere!). But as I remember it CP training
was readily available, and almost all of my class turned up for it
even though it wasn't compulsory.

In my area, training in schools has dropped by 50% over ten years.

John B

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 18:51:22 +0100 someone who may be JohnB
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

For example last weeek I had a group to train who had pulled out of the
school training just because it did *not* include any road content.

I hope they made this clear to the school.

Of course schools tend to be examples of producer interests, so they
may not pay any attention.

--
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.

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 17:42:11 GMT someone who may be
[email hidden] (Steven) wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Well, so long as you are prepared to respect the parents wishes, it's no more
than a very strongly stated piece of advice.

A strongly stated piece of advice would be just that. This sounds
rather different.

Has an actual wording been decided yet?

--
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.