It always amazes me to see kids with helmets and parents bare-headed. IF THERE'S AN ACCIDENT, THEY'RE ORPHANS.
I know I may be castigated for this, but surely the logical approach is the other way round. If you can't afford helmets for everyone, buy them for those that can provide for the others!
|
Sometimes I despair about the nanny state and some of the posts here aren't helping!
Kids on bikes is a good thing - gets them used to being outside, when they get bikes of their own it'll keep them fit and experiencing traffic a bit closer up will make them realise how it moves on the road.
As for "One accident and the kids are orphans!" - how dangerous do you think cycling is? I've had a few crashes on the road and I'm still here. If I wear a helmet and leave it at the railway station with my bicycle it'll be (a) Stolen or (b) Urinated in. I'll take my chances with not having a bad crash, thanks.
|
Kids on bikes is a good thing - gets them used to being outside when they get bikes of their own it'll keep them fit and experiencing traffic a bit closer up will make them realise how it moves on the road.>>
Better get used to having more bikes on the roads ..... the way petrol prices are going! I'm certainly using my bike more.
|
Is the real problem that as there are small children on the bike then you have to give them a wide berth, whereas if an adult was riding alone then you can treat them as if they don't exist.
I'm all for people using their bikes more and if this gets kids more aware of the dangers on the road then thats fine.
I'm sure if these bike trailers were that lethal they would have been banned by now.
|
|
|
|
We live about a mile from the centre of our market town. I freely admit that due mainly to laziness and usually some time pressure that I would normally jump in the car to run an errand. Now, whether it is due to the recent spell of fine weather or some subliminal awareness of the current fuel situation or just coincidence but I have started to use my bike more. Lo and behold it's quicker, costs nothing to park, you don't queue in traffic and you can also feel a bit smug! Must get one of those hoodie things.
|
|
|
|
As for "One accident and the kids are orphans!" - how dangerous do you think cycling is? I've had a few crashes on the road and I'm still here. >>
As a 15K mile a year driver, and on occassions an over 5K mile a year cyclist, I've had more accidents on a bike than on a car. I wear an Altura Night Vision hi-vis cycling jacket at all times, but even then, I've had drivers pull out in front of me and say "I didn't see you". I had one guy only last week, after pulling out as I passed him, and me actually contacting the side of his car, tell me that I shouldn't have been going so fast. (20mph on a level road).
As to helmets saving lives, I've had four significant 'offs' in 35 years of road cycling / off-road & downhill. Only once did I strike my head, but the damage to the helmet (top end 'Specialized' ) was such that had I not been wearing it, a fractured skull in the area above my left ear would have been a likelihood. I'm glad I had my helmet on that day. NB - I was on the road when that accident happened.
|
|
|
|
|
bathtub tom, I think the logic here is that kids tend to fall down much more. They are not as good at avoiding dangers like: potholes, too near the kerb and losing balance. And when falling they are not as good at protecting their heads.
|
|
Seem to remember that when I was a child there were "cycling proficiency" courses. May have been through school.
|
Stil are, Shoespy.
I've been a parent-helper on school-based cycling proficiency training for both my kids. (Most recently in 2006) Usually done in last year of Primary School (11/12 year olds) here in Scotland. Includes safe riding skills and safety training.
|
|
|
Seem to remember that when I was a child there were "cycling proficiency" courses. May have been through school.
we had to pass the test to use a bike to go to and from school but many pupils stopped when idiots at the school would tamper with wheel nuts and steering bolts.... ahh the good old days
|
|
|
|
|
It always amazes me to see kids with helmets and parents bare-headed. IF THERE'S AN ACCIDENT THEY'RE ORPHANS.
My sentiments entirely. Often think that when I see families out for a cycle ride. Kids with helmets, parents without. Just silly.
|
|
|
It always amazes me to see kids with helmets and parents bare-headed.
Children's heads are disproportionately heavy and uncontrollable. The helmet is to help stop damage from their heads hitting the deck. Cycling helmets are basically expanded polystyrene, with a flimsy shell of shiny stuff on it - very little mechanical strength indeed. Cycling helmets are not designed to do anything but absorb the impact produced by a person's head hitting the tarmac when they fall off their bicycle onto a flat surface. Hitting things like kerbs, which are of course angular, reduces protection a lot.
>> If you can't afford helmets for everyone buy them for those thatcan provide for the others!
Cycling helmets are available at less than a tenner. Cost is not the issue.
|
|
|
|
"The child was leaning heavily to one side." Probably asleep. >>
Both our kids were used to trips in the child seat on the back of my touring bike. Used it for commuting, and dropping them off at nursery on the way to work. Both would be asleep in no time. However, the child seat was a well designed piece of kit with protection on three sides, and a lock-in hand bar (c.f. fairground rides). They started in it at 12 months with a properly designed, age graded helmet. Fist helmet was from Bell, who also make motorcycle helmets, 'Li'l Bell Shell', it was called. They then got a bigger helmet as time progressed.
At 17 and 14 respectively, they now are both competent and safe cyclists, and fit. If only they would cycle to school. Why not? because the NEDS (Chavs) trash any bikes left in the bike racks.
|
|
How sad drivewell. As it happens I went to school in central Edinburgh. What a difference 30 or so years make. Many of us used to cycle to school and there was a bike rack. Can't remember many bothering to lock their bikes either and they were quite safe. If anyone had tried to interfere with them they would have at least been cuffed by a janitor or publicly "belted" by a teacher.
|
|
|
>because the NEDS (Chavs) trash any bikes left in the bike racks.
What can be done about that? CCTV?
|
Can't remember many bothering to lock their bikes either and they were quite safe. If anyone had tried to interfere with them they would have at least been cuffed by a janitor or publicly "belted" by a teacher. >>
What about the human rights of the bike trashers to, er, trash bikes? Any janitor or teacher behaving like that now knows only too well that one or both of the unlovely, outraged parents will appear and cause merry hell.
|
|
|
|
Castration would help :-)
|
|
|
|
Re cycle helmets: they are almost completely useless if a rider is struck by a car, mainly because they are easily displaced, not able to take impacts they are not designed for. Basically about as strong as an egg box. In Holland you can instantly tell the British: they're the only wearers of helmets. A link to a study: preview.tinyurl.com/6zn5so
An excerpt: "A cycling culture exists in France. There is mutual respect
and toleration between cyclists and drivers. Perceived danger
when cycling is low, since drivers may be relied on to com-
pensate near cyclists. A cycling culture requires that cyclists
ride skilfully, obey the law, co-operate with nearby motor
traffic and use good lights at night. In their turn, drivers must
give plenty of room in passing, slow near cyclists on country
roads and be patient at large urban junctions. There are bene-
fits for both parties. Cyclists may use the roads with confi-
dence. Drivers will find urban congestion eased and less pres-
sure on parking."
|
>In Holland you can instantly tell the British: they're the only wearers of helmets.
That is simply not true!
Edited to add that looks like an interesting study. Thanks.
Edited by Billy Whizz on 10/05/2008 at 11:47
|
|
|
Re cycle helmets: they are almost completely useless if a rider is struck by a car mainly because they are easily displaced not able to take impacts they are not designed for. Basically about as strong as an egg box. In Holland you can instantly tell the British: they're the only wearers of helmets. A link to a study: preview.tinyurl.com/6zn5so
SNIPQUOTE!
OK, just read the paper. An interesting bit of research. Don't know what 'Traffic Engineering + Control' have as a peer-review policy, but back to the point:
What does the paper say about cycle helmets? I can't find any reference.
My issue is not, "do cycle helmets help if you are knocked off your bike?". I'm simply suggesting that wearing one makes sense, because if you come off your bike, for whatever reason, you may strike your head.
And two comments:
1. A properly fitted and adjusted helmet is not easily displaced.
2. My £50 Specialized helmet will, I believe, offer significantly better protection than an 'egg box'. I have already proved this.
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 10/05/2008 at 17:14
|
|
Interestingly the word "helmet" is not found in that 5-page report from 2002 entitled "Assessing the actual risks faced by cyclists"
|
|
|
The causes of death are not just from head injuries, and I wanted to refer to a study looking at overall safety. Most helmets are not worn correctly, it seems to me. By the way, the rate wearing of helmets is indicated in the following study as 0.1%, in the Netherlands. www.cyclehelmets.org/index.html
|
>0.1%, in the Netherlands
I would suggest this data is from 1996 and is out of date.
From the same website: "So far as can be determined, nowhere in the world has an increase in helmet use resulted in a fall in head injuries relative to cycle use."
www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1139
|
Professional cyclists crash far more often than any other group of riders, and at much higher speeds. Yet in the 100+ years before helmets were introduced the number of riders who suffered serious or fatal head injuries would not even make a statistic.
A very much over-rated piece of kit, justified by the logic of "Well, it must be safer, stands to reason". No reserch has ever found any evidence that helmet use has made the slightest reduction in cycling fatalities.
|
|
|
|
Purely by observation, BW, in Amsterdam 2 years ago, crowded with cyclists, I saw only 2 helmet wearers in a week. It may be true that other parts of Holland are different, and other uses e.g. recreational at higher speed, but helmets seem to be rarely worn. And scarcely needed! I wear mine, but I don't expect it to do more than deal with low speed falls, of my own volition:)
|
|
|
|
I do not know how effective helmets are, but each Christmas we attend a carol service on a children's oncology ward which is also attended by children in a specialized re-hab centre. Every year there are at least two boys with serious head injuries caused by falling from bikes - seldom girls. The staff told me they have a procession of young lads between 8 and 17 throughout the year who they are trying to get back to some form of normal life.
If a helmet just lessens the impact as they hit the kerb, it must be better than nothing.
Back to the original post, if you come to the New Forest you will find these trailers very popular, as are the second half bike attached to the parents bike, often on the school run.
|
If a helmet just lessens the impact as they hit the kerb it must be better than nothing.
Sounds reasonable, but doesn't bear up to scrutiny, I'm afraid.
In Australia they made helmets compulsory and found two effects: number of cyclists decreased and the number of injuries did not decrease at all, this despite the fact there were 30% less cyclists on the road. (www.cycle-helmets.com)
Therefore, the number of injuries per cyclist actually increased after the wearing of helmets became law!
There appear to be two reasons for this, promoting cycle helmets, especially via compulsion makes cycling seem much more dangerous than it really is and wearing a helmet can lead to "Volvo" syndrome. i.e. the wearer feels they are protected by the helmet, and so takes less care.
There is also the disturbing effect from cycle helmets called a rotational injury. Basically, if one comes off the bike at higher speeds and rolls along the ground, the shape of the cycle helmet (being bigger than the head) causes the head to roll faster than it otherwise would. This can cause the brain stem to detach, causing instant death in an accident where an injury (other than scrapes and bruises) might not have otherwise occured.
Cycle helmets are not the obvious safety aids they might otherwise appear.
My personal opinion is that all cyclists should make themselves as visible as possible and treat all drivers and traffic laws with respect. It's served me well over the years, I don't get into arguments with drivers and I haven't been knocked off, yet!
The flip side is that I expect and appreciate the same levels of respect from motorists too, and to be fair, I usually get it from the majority of people.
|
|
Well said Oilburner. On the Volvo effect, there was an experiment recently to see how drivers responded to helmet-free cyclists. Apparently gave them a wider berth. An inverse Volvo effect is applied if a helmet is donned: drivers get closer.
|
I'm just going to read the Bike mag suggested by JBJ, but before I do, an amusing look from a US perspective at the odd things the Dutch get up to in Amsterdam: tinyurl.com/2gvyjt
Golly gosh: no helmets on the kiddies or dogs:)
|
Some cracking photos, though the photographer seems to be preoccupied with women in skirts on bicycles (no condemnation, just observation and tacit concensus).
It goes some way to showing the vast cultural distance between Norwich and Amsterdam despite the geographical proximity (the assumption being that CGNorwich is an East Anglian).
|
And significantly no road markings. I guess it that cycle accidents can't be much of a problem
there or they'd have legislated. Long live freedom....a freedom we once knew.
|
|
Nice link, nortones2! Yes, Amsterdam is quite a bit different from where my in-laws live in a Rotterdam dormitory village, cycling-wise and in fact, everything-wise. :-)
|
|
Billy: Re Holland, we intend to explore other parts, as the style of life appeals, at least in short doses:)
|
And significantly no road markings.
Deliberate policy in many parts of northern europe to remove road markings. The theory is that people (whatever their mode of transport) are more careful when there are no road markings. Introduces a level of uncertainty which is supposed to increase caution.
Not quite convinced personally, although we have a resident who regularly wants the road marrkings in our village removed for this reason.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"The child was leaning heavily to one side." Probably asleep.
Agreed. It is not a good thing to carry babies in child seats because of this. They haven't the neck muscles to control their floppy heads!
|
The problem is there are not enough cyclists of all kinds, and this has allowed car drivers arrogantly to think that the roads belong to them alone. Pedestrians, cyclists, horses, flocks of sheep, etc have as much right to the road as an impatient motorist.
If your thought as you pass a child on a bike is that it is dangerous, then it means YOU are going too fast and passing too close.
|
the child 'leaning heavily to one side' may have simply been trying to see where they where going.
I saw what I consider to be worse than any of the above yesterday: a guy on a sports motorbike (aka tupperware bullet) with a small child on the back. The child was barely touching the foot-pegs on 'tippy-toe' and grasping the drivers leathers in his fists, there is no way this could possible be considered sensible let alone safe. And yes he was wearing a helmet but it looked huge compared to the rest of him.
|
|
How many people here wear a stab proof vest, and also make their children wear them? Afterall, there are far more deaths and serious injuries as a result of stabbings than there are head injuries to pedal cyclists.
|
I wouldn't carry my kids on a pushbike in busy city traffic. Absolutely no way. My 3yr old is currently learning to ride a bike, and when she's proficient, we'll go out on quiet residential roads, or preferably off-road altogether. It's not cotton wool, it's common sense. If she falls off the bike and cuts her knee or hands open (as I did countless times as a kid), that's part of learning. If she's nudged by a passing car, that's a whole different kettle of fish.
I don't think comparisons with what we did as kids 20, 30 or 50 years ago have any relevance.
1) Road surfaces are the worst they've ever been, particularly at the edges.
2) Traffic conditions are dreadful
3) Far more uninsured, unlicensed, mobile phone wielding idiots on the road.
I am not a new age cotton wool parent. I believe my kids should learn through experience, and falling and tumbling (and minor injuries) are part and parcel of that. But a pushbike vs a car in a congested environment is just asking for it. It would be safer to strap the kids on the back of a motorcycle, but that's (quite rightly) illegal!
Cheers
DP
|
I wouldn't carry my kids on a pushbike in busy city traffic
Exactly the point I was trying to make in my original post DP.
Of course cylists have a right to be on the road; of course drivers should give cyclists and other road users more considereration than they often do, but in reality it seems to me to be foolish in the extreme to ignore the very real dangers and subject young children to risk of injury or worse by carrying them in this way on busy urban roads.
|
|
|
It would be safer to strap the kids on the back of a motorcycle but that's (quite rightly) illegal!
Why?
|
>>Why?
Because on a motorcycle you can at least keep up with the flow of traffic.
|
What?
> DP wrote:It would be safer to strap the kids on the back of a motorcycle but that's (quite rightly) illegal!
I asked why it was illegal.
|
I asked why it was illegal.
Sorry, my misunderstanding.
It is illegal to carry a pillion passenger who is too young to reach the footpegs.
It is certainly illegal to strap any form of child carrier on the back.
|
It is illegal to carry a pillion passenger who is too young to reach the footpegs.
OK. I wonder whether I could attach footrests higher up than the "adult" ones.
It is certainly illegal to strap any form of child carrier on the back.
I wonder, for very small children, whether a rucksack-type carrier would be legitimate. The child would not actually be riding the machine..
|
|
I was going to put an entry on this thread myself...but there's no need to. DP's entry sums up my thoughts entirely.
When i ride my m/c on a road, there's plenty of things i ought to be able to do...eg. ride down a main road with the right of way...but in reality i have to adjust to stay alive. It's the same principle with kids on bikes.
Off road..................................yes
Very quiet residential street......yes
Busy road...............................you must be stark raving bonkers
|
|
|
|
|
Get your head down Cliff! Theres an army of non-cycling motorists charging over the horizon with banners saying "we pay road tax", "we pay insurance" "We have to pass a test to go on the roads" & "our cars have to pass a test of roadworthyness(M.O.T)"
|
Cyclists don't damage the road surface.
Cyclists don't need ever more road construction
Cyclists only have minor accidents between themselves, not multi-death pile ups.
Bikes are cheap to repair or replace
Cyclists don't cause environmental damage
Cyclists were there first.
|
|
|
I've two cars which are both taxed, tested and insured. I've a full licence.
I'm about to walk to the shops, and tomorrow I'll cycle to work. Both cars will stay where they are, because I choose not to use them.
Not that I'll get any thanks for using less space on the roads ;>)
|
Five children on two bicycles wobbled down the pavement briefly preventing me from entering the house the other day. They were boys aged between twelve and fifteen, some black some white, who might be described as 'hoodies'. The two on the second bike, grinning with innocent devilishness, saw me looking benevolent, and after a very short pause the white kid on the handlebars gave a sort of grandad-scaring 'YAH!' as they passed.
I must have been in a good mood because I thought they were awfully sweet. But my old Trinidadian pal Larry said later that he was down on pavement cycling and also thought they weren't necessarily as innocent as they looked. We had yet another long rambling conversation about role models, discipline in the home, parental example, etc. etc.
|
"pavement cycling"
Which is still illegal(?) I assume children started doing it when parents stopped telling them not to, or perhaps when parents, teachers and policemen were no longer allowed to administer swift summary justice around the ear...
Edited by J Bonington Jagworth on 12/05/2008 at 16:28
|
|
Those were the days JBJ. I'm not that keen on pavement cycling - some people go too fast and silently, it can be dangerous with the elderly and the very drunk or stoned snaking about a bit as they waddle along - but most people do it carefully, and quite honestly there are places in this town where you have to be a very efficient cyclist to mix it with the traffic. Plenty do of course. But I don't blame others for chickening out.
|
Our town centre which has medieval origins and therefore narrow streets, is mainly pedestrianised. This is by and large a good thing. Cycling on the pedestrianised areas is however, permitted. This is also a good thing. It seems to operate harmoniously.
Pavement cycling would be fine and the most sensible safety solution if it was permitted and subject to some sensible regulations. If people on foot or cycles are aware that each other are likely to be about they will hopefully take more care.
|
|
|
"some people go too fast and silently"
Time to revive the fashion for sticking bits of cigarette packet so they ratchet against the spokes, perhaps!
|
|
Or revive the traditional bicycle bell. They seem to have gone out of fashion. For a while people had silly little tooters, until the rubber bulbs perished.
|
Bells went out when the general traffic noise levels drowned them out.Its not a problem. You can buy a marine horn powered by an aerosol can which will drown most motor Hooters out completely. Guaranteed to annoy both pedestrians and motordrivers.
Happy Cycling Days of yore. (alas no more) Phil I
|
|
The bike SWMBO uses has got chamois-faced brake pads on chromed steel rims. The screech they make has to be heard to be believed. It does get the pedestrians out of the way if they ignore the bell (why do they have to walk on cycle lanes?).
|
|
My 17 year old daughter has just bought a new bike from the Hawk factory outlet in Cradely, when we went round every bike was fitted with a bell - I think that all bikes have to have some sort of warning device (not sqeaky brakes!) fitted?
|
I think that all bikes have to have some sort of warning device (not sqeaky brakes!) fitted?
When sold (new, AFAIK). It's up to the rider whether they retain it.
|
|
There was a change in the law a couple of years ago making them compulsory to fit them. There is a specific offence of not having one anyway.
|
All new bicycles must have a bell and reflectors fitted when sold as new. However, most bikes over about £500 are aimed at the enthusiast market and are sold without pedals, as the modern clipless pedals from different manufacturers require different types of cleat on the shoe. Cyclists all have there favourite pedal system and their shoes will be set up for these, so they buy the pedals seperately. Bikes sold like this are not classed as complete bicycles, and are therefore exempt from the law.
BY the way PU, I am certain you are wrong about bells being a legal requirement. As far as I know, they can be removed after the point of sale.
Edited by Robin Reliant on 13/05/2008 at 00:55
|
It does get the pedestrians out of the way if they ignore the bell (why do they have to walk on cycle lanes?).
Presumably for a similar reason for why cyclists cycle on pavements.
|
|
I remember cycling my three-wheeler on the pavement from about the age of six. Also a pedal car. It wasn't illegal then, and I don't think it is now. There must be an age limit involved, surely? Or do you have to move onto the road when you take your stabilisers off?
|
cycling ... on the pavement ... There must be an age limit involved surely?
Not AFAIK. It's just Not Allowed At All!
|
>> cycling ... on the pavement ... There >> must be an age limit involved surely?
When I was about 12 I upgraded to a 5-speed racer, and was told off by a policeman for riding on the pavement, he told me that my wheels were too large, they needed to be smaller than xx? diameter to be allowed to ride on the pavement.
This incident has always stuck in my mind, but it appears he was wrong with the wheel diameter criteria.
This site: snipurl.com/29y23 says:
"...Section 72 Highways Act 1835... ...makes no exceptions for small wheeled or children's cycles, so even a child riding on a footway is breaking the law. However, if they are under the age of criminal responsibility they cannot, of course, face prosecution..."
"...On 1st August 1999, new legislation came into force to allow a fixed penalty notice to be served on anyone who is guilty of cycling on a footway. However the Home Office issued guidance on how the new legislation should be applied, indicating that they should only be used where a cyclist is riding in a manner that may endanger others..."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
