School trying to make helmets compulsory

[meic]

Here it is Council Transport Policy.
Due to an incident when children were delivered to and left at a primary school, which was closed for the day, by the school buses, they made it policy that the buses can only ever let the child go into the hands of another responsible person.
No such requirement has been put on the secondary school pupils.

[bovlomov]

I think you will find the age of 13 is the watershed.

Even so, who here didn't make their own way to and from primary school? I don't recall the school taking any interest, as long as we were on the premises by a certain time, and we left by a certain time.

I'm not sure that the roads were safer then, or that there were fewer murderers, perverts and kidnappers lurking about.

[meic]

I don't recall the school taking any interest

I do.
Like a previous poster, I was punished (the slipper during assembly) for having strayed on my way home from primary school. There was a major fire in town which we were ordered to go nowhere near.

[Cunobelin]

I think you will find the age of 13 is the watershed.

Even so, who here didn't make their own way to and from primary school? I don't recall the school taking any interest, as long as we were on the premises by a certain time, and we left by a certain time.

I'm not sure that the roads were safer then, or that there were fewer murderers, perverts and kidnappers lurking about.

One of my colleagues has just moved house, slightly closer her daughter's School. On the first morning she had a phone call saying her daughter was not at School

She texted daughter, who was at School

Apparently because she arrived at 08:47 not 08:45 ... those two minutes had initiated the disciplinary process, the phone call and a detention.

[Cunobelin]

I think you will find the age of 13 is the watershed.

Even so, who here didn't make their own way to and from primary school? I don't recall the school taking any interest, as long as we were on the premises by a certain time, and we left by a certain time.

I'm not sure that the roads were safer then, or that there were fewer murderers, perverts and kidnappers lurking about.

We were very lucky and had the St Ivo Entomology and Natural History Society.

This was one of the biggest private collections of animals and certainly the largest of any school. At 12 and 13 years old we were exhibiting at Cambridge University, the Natural History Museum and even guests at London Zoo.

Of course this meant caring for the animals through the holidays.

We spent much of our time with friends actually in the School, on our own and with no teachers present

It never did us any harm, and sent many of us on our career routes

[thirdcrank]

... Even so, who here didn't make their own way to and from primary school? I don't recall the school taking any interest, as long as we were on the premises by a certain time, and we left by a certain time.

I'm not sure that the roads were safer then, or that there were fewer murderers, perverts and kidnappers lurking about.

It's a matter of perception and accountability. The reason we have people like head teachers covering their own backsides like this is that if anything does go wrong, they'll be pilloried.

[bovlomov]

It's a matter of perception and accountability.

I agree. But it''s a weird kind of accountability. You only have to show that you've done something; not that you have done anything effective.

Usually accountability is something to be passed on (by ticking a box, or signing a bit of paper), but schools are doing the opposite by claiming more responsibility than they should reasonably be expected to have. They are making a rod for their own backs.

[Steady rider]

I think the school is infringing on the human right of the children.(long post)

Parts of a report listed, A, B, C and D are from;
'Weaknesses with a meta-analysis approach to assessing cycle helmets'. Feb 2017
http://worldtransportjournal.com/wp-con ... eb-opt.pdf

pages 28/29 refers to;
A)
In New Zealand, from 1989 to 2011, average time spent cycling (on roads and footpaths) fell by 79% for children aged 5-12 (from 28 to 6 minutes per person per week) and 81% for 13-17 year olds (52 to 10 mins/person/week).
Adult cycling declined from 8 to 5 minutes/person/week then trended back up to 8 minutes. Graphs of cycle use over time provide strong evidence that the requirement to wear a helmet discouraged cycling. The reductions in cycling were accompanied by increased injury rates. Between 1989 and 2012, fatal or serious injuries per million hours of cycling increased by 86% for children (from 49 to 91), 181% for teenagers (from 18 to 51) and 64% for adults (from 23 to 38).[i]

page 29 refers to;
B)
Robinson 1996 also refers to the incidence of hitting their head/helmet in a cycling accident was "significantly higher for helmet wearers (8/40 vs 13/476, i.e. 20% vs 2.7%, p 0.00001)". A bare head width of approximately 150mm may avoid contact compared to a helmeted head at approximately 200mm width. Helmet wearers often report hitting their helmets and the 7 fold increase may have long term effects that may not show up in a meta–analysis.

The above figures (8/40 and 13/476), came from a questionnaire of interviewing 516 cyclists, reported by Wasserman 1988. The 516 were asked if they had fallen and struck their heads in the previous 18 months. Out of 21 who reported such falls, 8 were helmeted at the time of their fall and 13 were not. For helmeted riders this represented 20% (8 from 40) of their group and for non-helmeted 2.7% of their group (13 from 476). Comparing the 20% to the 2.7% shows a
ratio of 7 to 1 (700%) of helmeted riders being more involved in hitting their head from falls.

page 29 refers to;
C)
Erke and Elvik 2007[i] examined research from Australia and New Zealand and stated: "There is evidence of increased accident risk per cycling-km for cyclists wearing a helmet. In Australia and New Zealand, the increase is estimated to be around 14 per cent." The findings were based on six reports, four from when legislation was in place.

page 29 refers to;
D)
A recent report detailed that cyclists wearing helmets had more than twice the odds of suffering an injury than cyclists not wearing helmets, (104) with an OR value 2.81, 95% CL =1.14, 6.94.

104 Porter AK, Salvo D, Kohl HW, Correlates of Helmet Use Among Recreation and Transportation Bicyclists, AJPM 2016. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27866599

E)
Another evaluation, published by the New Zealand Medical Journal, detailed;
Injury data11 for 2006–09 compared to 1998/90 shows an average reduction of approximately 18.5% (858/1052), compared to cycling reducing by 38.5% (24/39 million hours). The approximate risk per million hours cycling therefore increased from 27 to 35.7 or by 32%.

Refer to https://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/read-th ... cle-clarke

F)
A 2015 report, ‘Overestimation of the effectiveness of the bicycle helmet by the use of odds ratios’ details;
Three cases could be found in the literature with sufficient data to assess both risk ratios and odds ratios: the Netherlands, Victoria (Australia) and Seattle (U.S.A). In all three cases, the problem of overestimation of the effectiveness of the helmet by using odds ratios did occur. The effect ranges from small (+ 8 % ) to extremely large ( > + 400 %). Contrary to the original claim of these studies, in two out of three cases the risk of getting a head injury proved not to be lower for helmeted cyclists. Moreover, in all three cases the risk of getting a non-head injury proved to be higher for cyclists with a helmet.
Refer;
http://www.fietsberaad.nl/?lang=nl&repo ... dds+ratios

G)
Page 20 of ‘Evaluation of Australia's bicycle helmet laws, The Sports Science Summit, O2 venue London UK http://www.cycle-helmets.com/au-assessment-2015.pdf Presented 14 January 2015, details;
4) Robinson's 1996 report provided injury data for children. In Victoria, the equivalent number of injuries for pre law levels of number of cyclists increased by 15% from 1990 to 1992. Robinson provides data in Table 2 for children in NSW. The equivalent number of injuries increased from 1310 (384 head + 926 other injuries) pre law in 1991 to 2083 (488 head + 1595 other injuries) in 1993. The relative injury rate increased by 59% from 1310 to 2083. The relative increase in 'other' injuries of 72% and 27% for 'head' raises serious concerns. The proportion of head injuries decreased from 29.3% to 23.4% and would give the impression of a benefit if viewed in isolation.

H)
The report, ‘The Case against bicycle helmets and legislation’, Velo City Confernece paper, Munich, 2007.
http://www.ta.org.br/site/Banco/7manuai ... helmet.pdf
Details some of the potential positive and potential negative aspects of wearing a helmet, two potential benefits are listed compared with 13 potential disadvantages. A number of reports are listed A1 to A14 indicating a higher accident rate associated with wearing helmets.

The above information, listed A to H, provides evidence of helmet wearers incurring a higher accident rate, per cycling kilometre or in comparison to non-wearers or as helmet use increased or in comparison to hitting their head.

Cost of accidents for helmet wearers v non-wearers
One report provided hospital costs associated with bicyclists and motorcyclists, who had incurred head injuries and been admitted. On average for bicyclists the medium costs for helmeted were $6500 v $5600 for non-helmeted.
For motorcyclists the medium costs for helmeted were $7700 v $11400 for non-helmeted.
Bicyclists not wearing helmets had a lower cost than those helmeted.
Refer to; https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... ntre_study

‘The effectiveness of helmets in reducing head injuries and hospital treatment costs: A multicentre study’ Dinh et al, MJA, 6 May, 2013

An article in the BMJ, ‘Canadian legislation had minimal effect on serious head injuries’ states;

With regard to the use of bicycle helmets, science broadly tries to answer two main questions. At a societal level, “what is the effect of a public health policy that requires or promotes helmets?” and at an individual level, “what is the effect of wearing a helmet?” Both questions are methodologically challenging and contentious.

The UK's National Children's Bureau (NCB) provided a detailed review in 2005 stating "the case for helmets is far from sound", "the benefits of helmets need further investigation before even a policy supporting promotion can be unequivocally supported" and "the case has not yet been convincingly made for compulsory use or promotion of cycle helmets". Refer; 2005 report by T Gill.

Cycling UK reports;
‘Cycle helmets: An overview of the evidence’ see Cycling UK web site

The Cyclist Touring Club (Cycling UK national cycling charity) states that "Individuals should be free to make their own decisions about whether or not to wear helmets, with parents making these decisions in the case of younger children. Their decisions should be informed by clear information about the uncertainties over the benefits or otherwise of helmets. ' and "it is therefore entirely possible that helmet wearing might have a net disbenefit even in safety terms (a point also suggested by some of the empirical evidence), not to mention the health and other disbenefits identified above".

Cycling UK state;
“Cycling UK is opposed to both cycle helmet laws and to helmet promotion campaigns because these are almost certainly detrimental to public health. Evidence shows that the health benefits of cycling are so much greater than the relatively low risks involved, that even if these measures caused only a very small reduction in cycle use, this would still almost certainly mean far more lives being lost through physical inactivity than helmets could possibly save, however effective”.
and
“In any case, there are serious doubts about the effectiveness of helmets. They are, and can only be, designed to withstand minor knocks and falls, not serious traffic collisions. Some evidence suggests they may in fact increase the risk of cyclists having falls or collisions in the first place, or suffering neck injuries.”

Refer
Cycle helmets: An overview of the evidence
http://www.ctc.org.uk/sites/default/fil ... ncebrf.pdf

In the UK, some 8,000 years of average cycling will produce one clinically severe head injury*. For the average person cycling for 60 years, this relates to one severe head injury per 133 lifetimes of cycling, less than 1% risk per average lifetime. This overall small relative risk of a serious head injury (less than 1% risk per average lifetime) is much lower than the higher relative risk of having extra accidents due to helmet use, reported as 14% (see part ‘C’ above).

* Wardlaw MJ. Three lessons for a better cycling future. BMJ : British Medical Journal. 2000;321(7276):1582-1585. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1119262/

The science is not conclusive in showing that cycle helmets provide a net safety benefit. The known science shows that cycle helmet use increases the accident rate per km cycled. Advice in the Highway Code to wear a helmet goes back to 1993, prior to much of the above information. It is questionable advice and not a requirement. Even if helmet use reduces the proportion of head injuries, net overall safety is reduced due to a higher accident risk, according to know research based on per km travelled when helmeted. So there is no sound safety reason to insist helmets be worn as part of an insurance policy for normal cycling or for children cycling, because research shows they result in a higher accident rate.

Where a reasonable doubt exists about a product’s safety outcome the public, including children, should not be subjected to requirements insisting the product be used. The school is disregarding the law and are not taking due regard to the available evidence and in respecting human rights. They are not taking full account of the information provided by Cycling UK that state;

Individuals should be free to make their own decisions about whether or not to wear helmets, with parents making these decisions in the case of younger children. Their decisions should be informed by clear information about the uncertainties over the benefits or otherwise of helmets

The school provides no details regarding ‘the uncertainties over the benefits or otherwise of helmets’.

[Psamathe]

I would ride with your child, and challenge the school to stop your child riding with you from school helmetless.

The school's responsibility lasts up until you take the responsibility back from them. If you have taken the child from the school by foot, car, helicopter or cycle then they have relinquished responsibility at that point.
They wouldnt interfere for just as long as you are willing to come and collect the child, it is only if you dont collect the child that they will exert their authority up until you take it back.
My council (rather than school) will only accept that by having your physical presence and not a letter etc saying that you allow your child to leave the institution's responsibility before being physically with you or your representative.

In which case I assume that, parent absent, the school is deciding to take responsibility for the child until they arrive home - which would mean the school has a responsibility of adequately supervising the child (if they chose to take responsibility). And to me, waving goodbye to them at the school gates is not adequately supervising a child under their care (with or without a helmet). And if the child goes off to play with friends rather than go home, I'd assume the school would retain responsibility as the child has not yet got home and the school would be ensuring nothing untoward is smoked/inhaled/jumped-off/etc.

If school decides to take responsibility, forcing a child to wear a magic hat would not (in my opinion) constitute adequate supervision of a child under their care.

Ian

[Paulatic]

Here’s another case pointed out to CUK this morning

[Vorpal]

10 children? That's shocking. Maybe they should limit driving to 10 motor vehicles, instead.

[The utility cyclist]

Here’s another case pointed out to CUK this morning
4C110E2E-98BB-4E98-8FDC-66A3EC0C2CBD.jpeg

Yet more discrimination against kids wanting to ride to school. Does the head force parents to ask permission to drive their kids to school, if not why not?

[landsurfer]

Can I just point out that I have actually engaged with the schools deputy head teacher. Rather than getting all "human rights" about it I hope your all sending the staff at the school your input to their decision.

[bovlomov]

Can I just point out that I have actually engaged with the schools deputy head teacher. Rather than getting all "human rights" about it I hope your all sending the staff at the school your input to their decision.

Do we know which school this is? It's in London, so when I have a moment, I'll write to TfL (as a concerned Londoner) to ask if they mind that such conditions are attached to something that TfL funded.

And while I'm at it, I may ask why they are funding shelters for only 10 bikes. I think funding should be dependent on matched funding from the school, to provide a realistic number of cycle places.

[landsurfer]

So you've not actually read the post.
Its in Coventry.
That's a place where people who are not from London live.
North of Watford.

I have posted conversations with the deputy head up post.
The school has had a number of problems, especially with the conviction of a PE teacher for abuse of pupils last year.
Deputy Head teacher, Miss Beckenham, was happy to chat ...
Then suddenly went quiet.