to think that the focus on bicycle helmets, rather than safe riding, is actively dangerous

[AgaPanthers]

There seems to be this mantra that cycle helmets are the first and last thing with bicycle safety. Lots of schools won't let you ride to school if you don't wear a helmet. They don't give a shit if the bike has functioning brakes, or the fork is the wrong way round (both pretty common faults), but they'll go crazy if a child comes in with no helmet.

Here's a video:

Young boy, nearly gets killed by a lorry. He obviously has no idea about safe riding. His parents have bought him a helmet, he's wearing it even, and it looks like reflectors on his trousers as well. So they obviously are concerned about his safety on his bike.

But his riding style is incredibly dangerous. And this kind of riding is pretty common.

If you get run over by a lorry, a helmet will do fuck all for you.

There is a regular stream of teenagers who get killed riding on roads.

AIBU to think that the idea that you just buy your child a helmet and it's off he goes, is actively dangerous, and that the first priority should not be 'are you wearing a helmet?' but 'Can you ride safely?' (which in this case would either be a shoulder check and hand signal, or simply crossing the road on foot at a gap in the traffic.)

Although I have to say the £30 FPNs for cycling offences aren't much of a deterrent, given the low risk of getting caught and the lack of any further consequences.

Ds (13) is a keen cyclist and started cycling to school when he was in P5 (accompanied), to school unaccompnaied in P6 and to and from school in P7 (=Y6). This is in inner city Glasgow - but a quiet part IFYSWIM. (there was a right hand turn coming home which I wasn't comfortable with, hence the delay cycling home unaccompanied - about a 7 minute cycle).

I'm not even sure if his school ever did Bikeability - they may well have done but by that point, he was already doing so much other cycling, their efforts were better focussed on kids who didn't know how to ride.

Wearing a helmet was/is non-negotiable. However what he has had drummed in to him is that the helmet will only really protect him if he falls off the bike and that it is up to him to stay safe and out of cars'/buses'/lorries' way as he won't win in a "fight" with them.

I've also drummed in to him that he must cycle out from the edge of the road - doesn't matter who is in the right or wrong, he needs to have an "in" and an "out" direction to swerve if required.

He does a lot of youth cycling and the speeds that they go at are scary - and in close formation so the slightest mistake ahead can result in a pile up . Added to that, he goes out a lot on his own to train (even though we agree in advance with him the quiet areas we are happy for him to go) and he says that he shocks a few drivers who don't expect to see a kid on a bike going at 25+mph .

He's currently working on a 1000 word essay for English about helmet wearing in which he has to put forward the pros and cons. He can come up with a number of "cons" (drivers pass closer to cyclists wearing helmets, cyclists feel more invulnerable wearing helmets and possibly cycle with less due care and attention) but is struggling to find more than one argument in favour - even though that is a big one: that it can save your life

His granny had a serious accident in India falling off a bike going downhill at about 25mph, bouncing on and shattering her pelvis and then onto the front of her head. Even though she was wearing a helmet, she sustained fronto-teporal head injuries. She made a partial recovery for 2 years but then the injury triggered a related dementia and she died 5 years after the accident .

For that reason, he is happy to wear a helmet. But it is not and was not his highest priority in being "road safe" - more importantly, he knows to be aware of, and wary of, other road users.

There are areas round me where its against local bye laws. I still do it. I don't do it if its just me, that'd be daft. But I do let my 6 year old cycle on the pavement. I make damn sure she's considerate and knows pedestrians come first and have right of way.

I really, really would hope that the police have better things to do than fine a 6 year old for cycling along an empty pavement

That sounds pretty sensible.

IME club cyclists going out in a pack do all wear helmets, it's part of the gear, along with the condom body suit and so on. I'm not sure what the proper stats are on accident rates, as I said more deaths in pro races now than before mandatory helmet usage, but there is probably more cycling now (?)

Death is not necessarily the worst thing that can happen though, life long brain damage it could be argued is worse (at least in terms that a teenager understands - death is final, but living unable to do things can seem worse).

prettybird I posted a link to an evidence review produced by the Dept of Transport upthread. It might be of use to your son.

I think a helmet an absolute must...its not the running over by a lorry..its the falls that can happen even on cycle tracks. Someone stepping out in front of you, another bike colliding with you. The helmet will protect your head..not having a helmet wont.

Its just ONE aspect of safety, but yes you are right in that its not the only thing that should be taught

The wearing of helmets should go hand in hand with teaching children to cycle safely, to be aware of their surroundings, etc.

Having known a young teen die because he wasn't wearing a helmet I think the wearing of a cycle helmet is essential. He was a boy at the school I first taught at. The police and the paramedics were insistent that he would still be alive had he been wearing a helmet.

I have also seen the helmets of 2 children and 3 adults (all isolated incidents) who have fallen from their bikes and the helmet has taken most of the impact. Very scary to see the damage - I know they do crumple more easily due to the way they are designed but even so. Had that been their head it would be very worrying.

I know the above is only hearsay and only a few such examples, and others have probably got others saying the opposite.

But why take the risk?

They're introducing cycling classes to all 4 year olds in Glasgow "Kids in Glasgow to get free cycling lessons - but one of the guys in ds' cycling club is ambivalent: ^"More tinkering... If they want more kids cycling build infrastructure, like segregated cycle lanes make schools a car exclusion zone, introduce strict liability, enforce the 1metre rule, introduce 20 mph speed limits and make it normal for kids to be seen on roads cycling... They could also build some closed road circuits... Giving money to the CTC is wholly pointless if parents don't feel it's safe to let their kids ride bikes
The answers on how to increase cycling are all out there what lacks is the political will if they can spend £500m building a pointless motorway like the M74 then surely they can spend the same amount on revolutionising transport in our cities"^

I can understand his frustration: a number of the cycle lanes and junctions in Glasgow are just not safe. There is one traffic light junction near where I used to work where the only safe option for a cyclist is to wait ahead of the solid white line and break the Highway Code - even though it is part of an official cycle route.

SirChenkin - thanks for that. Ds is still struggling to find more positive reasons to wear helmets - 'cos he has added in the negative of compulsion putting people off cycling. He is now thinking of changing his discursive essay to the wider benefits of cycling, but adding in things like infrastrucutre will make it difficult to stay within 1,000 words (his English teacher is giving them a presumably mock Nat 5 assessment, even though they are only in S2 )

Safe riding doesn't insulate you against bloody stupid drivers..........like the lorry driver that killed my SIL. She'd still be alive if she had been wearing a helmet.

My cousin was run over as a pedestrian schoolboy crossing the road and suffered traumatic head injuries. A helmet may well have reduced the severity of his injuries. It doesn't mean that I campaign for walking helmets. In fact most benefit would come from driving helmets as front car seat drivers and passengers suffer more head injuries than do cyclists. I am not sure I want to live in a future world where they are compulsory but the logic is more compelling than for cycle helmets. Sirchenjin your exact same logic prevails so will you increase your chances of survival in future by wearing a helmet when walking and driving? (Honestly, I am not trying to be rude or funny. Just logical. Why do people pick on cyclists for this nonsense?)

OP, YANBU, most important of all is cycling, and driving, safely.

Out of interest, in that video, why ON EARTH did the lorry driver hoot? The only possible result of an earblasting on that poor kid might have been to make him lose control as he was in front of the lorry. Perhaps it was just reflex but it was the wrong thing to do.

oh, I also broke a couple of bones in my face once falling on ice when running. I would have probably been fine if I had been wearing a full face helmet (wish I had been actually). Even so, I still run with no helmet.

The point is that you go much faster as a cyclist than you do as a pedestrian and velocity at point of impact directly affects the severity of injuries.

Not really. The point is that both groups have a risk of head injuries, which helmets might reduce. Lots of pedestrians are hurt in accidents. Head injuries are the highest risk.

That's only the point if you don't understand that velocity increases injury and cyclists travel faster than pedestrians. [Hmm]

It's a shame this isn't more affordable!

The invisible helmet

That's only the point if you don't understand that velocity increases injury and cyclists travel faster than pedestrians

^

This, prof. Rocket science it ain't - and it's hardly 'nonsense'.

If you are looking at the Netherlands etc I think it's a case of the authorities there taking responsibility for the basic provisions - cycle lanes/traffic lights for cyclists etc. Here we are responsible for the basic provisions - and the only things that we reasonably have access to are personal protective items. It's a real mixed message - if there is a genuine desire to change the attitude/take up of cycling then it needs to be far more in depth - and with a much larger budget. In my home town there has been funding to set up a cycling promotion office next to the station - which is sandwiched between busy roads with no cycle lanes and has minimal provision for leaving a bicycle and taking the train.

Just in case anyone is interested - re cycling on the pavement

FPNs can only be issued to those over 16 and the age of criminal responsibility is 10, technically only children below 10 years of age can cycle on footways without fear of any legal redress. The police are, however, encouraged to show discretion towards younger children cycling on the pavement for whom cycling on the road would not be a safe option. Home Office guidance to police, traffic wardens and community support officers has also indicated that discretion should also be shown and FPNs only used where a cyclist of any age is riding in a manner that may endanger others.

I don't agree with you OP. The wearing of helmets and teaching good road sense are 2 aspects of equal importance when learning to ride. Helmets will make the difference between a serious head injury or not in some cases. Even the most experienced and safe cyclist can be hit by a car/bus/lorry if the drivers don't look out for cyclists and in those cases, a helmet may save your life.

Also, you said earlier that they are aren't well made but I disagree. there are quite stringent laws such as a cycle shop is not allowed to sell second hand helmets in case they have fractures which can weaken the structure in a crash. People should also avoid dropping helmets as these can cause small fractures reducing their strength. They are designed to be strong yet lightweight to make them suitable for children.

My DD's school has an annual visit from bikebility (or something like that) where they take their bikes in to get checked over (brakes etc) plus security tagged. In years 5 or 6 they do their cycling proficiency.

The boy in the video was probably doing what teenagers do best ..... NOT BLOODY DOING WHAT HE KNOWS HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DOING.

Sir Chenjin : it is driving helmets that would save most lives. Racing drivers wear them but otherwise they don't seem to have caught on because they have not (yet) had the marketing initiative (plus drivers are harder to bully as they are not a minority). I know it seems daft but it is exactly the same logic as people saying "X cyclist would have had his life saved if he had been wearing a helmet" as it is to say the same about a driver Y who was killed by a head injury which is a much more frequent event.

In any case (and I actually do happen to be a retired rocket scientist oddly), cycle helmets only afford protection in low impact situations so are ideal for children learning to ride, and for pedestrians ;-) but not much use for most cyclists. Learning roadcraft OTOH is vital.

Prof - there is no one single thing which will make cycling safer. Learning safe cycling/roadcraft from an early age, plus wearing a helmet, plus a change in the road infrastructure, plus changes to the law surrounding fault all play their part. If you look at the evidence review upthread that I posted you will see which injury they can prevent/reduce, so not at all true that they are just for children learning to ride and pedestrians.

They aren't of equal importance. If you don't learn road craft, you will die. It's pretty simple IMO. Enough time on the road cycling like that OP, you will be killed.

OTOH a helmet might reduce the impact of a given accident, but it won't prevent it.

It is a ridiculous thing to say, like saying that having airbags in your car is as important as learning how to drive.

Actually there aren't particularly stringent cycle helmet standards in the UK, they are actually quite old and nothing has changed in years. Throwing away a damaged helmet doesn't tell you that the helmet itself is well designed.

I don't agree that the boy knew what he should be doing, he seems nicely kitted up with helmet and cycling trousers, I think he doesn't know better.

That kind of incident should be cause for serious self examination, you always always do a lifesaver check, but I don't think at that age you'd necessarily have the self awareness. That's why training is so vital. I don't think he's had any....

There's plenty of car drivers who've had driving but still drive like idiots, however I agree with the training obviously but just saying all the training in the world will not necessarily stop a teenager riding stupidly.

I find your argument about the helmets odd - why couldn't you just criticise his riding rather than the fact he is wearing a helmet. I'd rather they had helmets, training, some decent cycle lanes and educate car drivers to make them more aware of cyclists and so on.

I may be wrong but I thought most primary schools offering cycling profiency? I certainly remember doing it (sometime back in the 70's) and i've seen the kids out locally doing it and I know my DD's school do it.

Because it's clear to me that he doesn't know how to ride. Which is understandable, but like I said he hasn't just been sent out there in his shorts & t-shirt, he's got various specialist items so obviously his parents have taken some care with it.

Some kinds of riding - jumping red lights, going and off pavements - that sort of thing - I think is stupid, but here I think he literally has no idea. He needs to look over his shoulder, signal and move out when safe, and he needs to do it much earlier in the manoeuvre. It's not so much stupid as completely clueless.