Big Bike revival ... yet more helmet normalising!

[The utility cyclist]

I am surprised nobody from CUK HQ or a Trustee has come on here to defend BBR position

Last time someone from the then CTC came on here that I recall was to defend their backing/support of the horrendous Bedford 'turbo' roundabout viewtopic.php?f=6&t=84180&hilit=Bedford+turbo&start=30

[The utility cyclist]

I'm from Northumberland but am unaware of this. But the, I don't watch telly.

Skilled training is more important, IMV. I see kids just charging straight into main roads or straight on to pavements without any awareness of their surroundings, or any traffic sense.

So as adults in charge of a lethal weapon we should take account of the well known actions of children when they play freely. The whole way of thinking is wrong, as I said previously, we 'train' children to abide try o adult motoring rules and if they don't then it's their own fault and they get hurt.
more children die solely of head injuries in motorvehicles in just E&W than total child cycling deaths of all injury types in the whole of UK (2016 numbers). This suggests: Children in motors need helmets more than those on cycles, the risk to children cycling is very low despite the general driving standard and the low helmet wearing rates and low numbers of those children being cycle trained.

The linked ROSPA pdf citing three times less chance of child cycled trained being involved in an 'accident' Is for results from 30 years ago, contra to that on the same off.

"A Study of Cycle Training Methodology in Great Britain", Hertfordshire County Council, 1993

A questionnaire survey of Road Safety Units of County Councils and London Borough Councils in Great Britain found that those authorities who responded used either off-road training or on-road training. Counties were more likely to train on public roads. There was no variation in pass rates regardless of whether the training was on or off road. On road training required 50% more instructors than playground training. Whether on or off road, training had little effect on child accident casualty statistics in the 61% of authorities who supplied relevant statistics."

[The utility cyclist]

I am afraid that I cannot find the link(s) to verify all of this, but it is something that I remember from a few years ago when helmets became compulsory for cycle training in schools...and I know this is 20 years ago

There were three linked items

One was helmet use and it showed that children from deprived areas were less likely to own or use a helmet and that parents could not afford or did not prioritise buying a helmet just to access the training

The second was a paper that showed that the children from deprived areas were suffering more cycle-related cycling injuries.

The third was proof that cycle training in children was effective and reduced the number of accidents these children were experiencing

A parental questionnaire survey concerning children's cycling accident involvement and exposure to traffic. A control group of children who had not been trained had 3 to 4 times as many casualties as the trained group.

The outcome was that training was far more effective in that it reduced accidents by a greater factor than helmets mitigated injuries when they occurred

However as always, logic was not a feature and the far greater benefit of the training was denied to the most vulnerable group on the Altar of Compulsion

from the same pdf, that's the whole of GB not just Herts.

"A Study of Cycle Training Methodology in Great Britain", Hertfordshire County Council, 1993

A questionnaire survey of Road Safety Units of County Councils and London Borough Councils in Great Britain found that those authorities who responded used either off-road training or on-road training. Counties were more likely to train on public roads. There was no variation in pass rates regardless of whether the training was on or off road. On road training required 50% more instructors than playground training. Whether on or off road, training had little effect on child accident casualty statistics in the 61% of authorities who supplied relevant statistics.

[The utility cyclist]

and same in Australia
“School based Bicycle Safety Education and Bicycle Injuries in Children: A Case-Control Study”, John Carlin, Injury Prevention, 1998

This study compared 148 children between 9 and 14 years old who attended an Accident and Emergency Department in Melbourne following a bicycle accident, with a control group of 130 children who cycled. The objective was to assess the effectiveness of “Bike Ed”, the Australian cyclist training scheme which was launched in 1980 and is run in around one third of schools in Victoria. It comprises three stages:

1. basic traffic rules taught in the classroom 2. off-road cycling training to improve control skills 3. on-road cycle training.

This study involved interviewing the children and their parents to explore bicycle knowledge and practice, riding exposure, whether they had taken a “Bike Ed” course and what limits parents set on their children‟s cycling. Twothirds of the accidents examined did not involve a motor vehicle. Almost half (42%) occurred when the children were playing on their bicycles. Most of the injuries were minor, although 16% required hospital admission. A higher proportion (36%) of children who had been trained had accidents than those who had not been trained (25%).

The report concludes that there is no evidence that the Bike Ed course results in a lower accident risk, and some evidence that children who have taken a course face a higher risk, possibly because some parents believed the “Bike Ed” course “immunised” their children against road safety risks

[fastpedaller]

and same in Australia
“School based Bicycle Safety Education and Bicycle Injuries in Children: A Case-Control Study”, John Carlin, Injury Prevention, 1998

This study compared 148 children between 9 and 14 years old who attended an Accident and Emergency Department in Melbourne following a bicycle accident, with a control group of 130 children who cycled. The objective was to assess the effectiveness of “Bike Ed”, the Australian cyclist training scheme which was launched in 1980 and is run in around one third of schools in Victoria. It comprises three stages:

1. basic traffic rules taught in the classroom 2. off-road cycling training to improve control skills 3. on-road cycle training.

This study involved interviewing the children and their parents to explore bicycle knowledge and practice, riding exposure, whether they had taken a “Bike Ed” course and what limits parents set on their children‟s cycling. Twothirds of the accidents examined did not involve a motor vehicle. Almost half (42%) occurred when the children were playing on their bicycles. Most of the injuries were minor, although 16% required hospital admission. A higher proportion (36%) of children who had been trained had accidents than those who had not been trained (25%).

The report concludes that there is no evidence that the Bike Ed course results in a lower accident risk, and some evidence that children who have taken a course face a higher risk, possibly because some parents believed the “Bike Ed” course “immunised” their children against road safety risks

I don't disagree with the above, and indeed consider your posts to be constructive (if only those 'in control of our roads' would take heed). What I would add, is that if children/youths are trained in basis road safety that training may make them better drivers when (note I didn't say if) they take to motorised vehicles.

[Mike Sales]

What I would add, is that if children/youths are trained in basis road safety that training may make them better drivers when (note I didn't say if) they take to motorised vehicles.

And if they are taught that they should always defer to motors, and that the first duty of the non-motorised is to avoid making a motor vehicle slow down, then that is what they will expect when they get behind the wheel.

[pjclinch]

and same in Australia
“School based Bicycle Safety Education and Bicycle Injuries in Children: A Case-Control Study”, John Carlin, Injury Prevention, 1998"

If you're going to quote "case-control" studies that are using methodologies that don't really fit with case-control best practice (e.g., not randomised and blind) but that happen to fit your favoured results then you're going to have to take those that don't come up with stuff you like (i.e., most of the stuff that says bike helmets are Wondrous) at face value too.

The report concludes that there is no evidence that the Bike Ed course results in a lower accident risk, and some evidence that children who have taken a course face a higher risk[/b], possibly because some parents believed the “Bike Ed” course “immunised” their children against road safety risks

Or quite possibly they faced higher exposure because they rode their bikes more often? A pretty sure way of cutting your absolute risk of a bike accident is to cycle much less (ideally, stop altogether).

The literature is full of howlers. Unless you're reading the whole paper, with the analytical skills to do that and probably following up a lot of the references, it's skating on very, very thin ice just taking the conclusions and abstracts at face value. After all, that's what has led to so many people thinking helmets are 85% effective at reducing serious head injury.

Pete.

[pjclinch]

What I would add, is that if children/youths are trained in basis road safety that training may make them better drivers when (note I didn't say if) they take to motorised vehicles.

And if they are taught that they should always defer to motors, and that the first duty of the non-motorised is to avoid making a motor vehicle slow down, then that is what they will expect when they get behind the wheel.

That's a pretty big "if"! Who's teaching that? Certainly not UK National Standards for Cycle Training.

[Mike Sales]

That's a pretty big "if"! Who's teaching that? Certainly not UK National Standards for Cycle Training.

I am sorry if I have clumsily stood on your toe. Attacking Cycle Training was far from my mind.
I was thinking more of child pedestrian training which understandable lays great emphasis on the dangers of getting in front of a moving car.
And also, of the general public's conventional ideas of correct cyclist and pedestrian behaviour. We all have stories of drivers who hoot when we take the road. I have been hooted at (on crutches!) on a zebra when moving too slowly for the driver.
I would hope you agree that drivers' sense of entitlement and superior rights on the road must come from somewhere. I think a large part of it is by that process of learning by osmosis and teaching by example by which most people gain their idea of correct road behaviour.
A lot of the erratic and illegal cycling we see seems to be prompted by a desire to stay out of the way of motors. These people don't seem to believe they have a right to occupy road space, if a driver wants it.
Again, I did not mean to upset you, I trust and believe that Cycle Training standards are excellent (except for the bloody helmets).

[pjclinch]

<snip>
I would hope you agree that drivers' sense of entitlement and superior rights on the road must come from somewhere.

Ah yes, all fair comment.
The sheer sense of entitlement that goes with being in a car in the UK is breath-taking in all of the wrong ways.

Again, I did not mean to upset you, I trust and believe that Cycle Training standards are excellent (except for the bloody helmets).

As regards helmets and National Standards, the only mention of them is that if trainees wear the they need to know how to fit them correctly (yeah, right... as it happens at a Pedal on Parliament PoP Up event earlier today I taught an on-duty policeman how to fit his helmet properly).

For what the The Association of Bikeability Schemes think of their "essentialness", check out the pictures on the front of their web site...

[fastpedaller]

What I would add, is that if children/youths are trained in basis road safety that training may make them better drivers when (note I didn't say if) they take to motorised vehicles.

And if they are taught that they should always defer to motors, and that the first duty of the non-motorised is to avoid making a motor vehicle slow down, then that is what they will expect when they get behind the wheel.

That's a good point - I was thinking more that proper signals, stopping at red lights etc. I hadn't considered that they as cyclists would be conditioned to being inferior from an early age. A difficult one........ putting them on bikes (whether given bad advice or not) is probably preferable to children being told 'keep off bikes they're dangerous' though.

[The utility cyclist]

and same in Australia
“School based Bicycle Safety Education and Bicycle Injuries in Children: A Case-Control Study”, John Carlin, Injury Prevention, 1998"

If you're going to quote "case-control" studies that are using methodologies that don't really fit with case-control best practice (e.g., not randomised and blind) but that happen to fit your favoured results then you're going to have to take those that don't come up with stuff you like (i.e., most of the stuff that says bike helmets are Wondrous) at face value too.

The report concludes that there is no evidence that the Bike Ed course results in a lower accident risk, and some evidence that children who have taken a course face a higher risk[/b], possibly because some parents believed the “Bike Ed” course “immunised” their children against road safety risks

Or quite possibly they faced higher exposure because they rode their bikes more often? A pretty sure way of cutting your absolute risk of a bike accident is to cycle much less (ideally, stop altogether).

The literature is full of howlers. Unless you're reading the whole paper, with the analytical skills to do that and probably following up a lot of the references, it's skating on very, very thin ice just taking the conclusions and abstracts at face value. After all, that's what has led to so many people thinking helmets are 85% effective at reducing serious head injury.

Pete.

So you ignored the whole of GB study by Hertfordshire CC that said 61% of cycle trained kids had no difference to casualties? This was actually a few years after the report that said cycle trained kids had three times less the risk of untrained kids, a study fom THIRTY years ago.
Believe what you want but teaching kids to wear hi-vis and helmets, normalising it, teaching them to take all the responsibility to be safe or supposedly die as opposed to more stringent rules for the adults/those in killing machines is simply not working, never has worked and will continue not to work except to continue to blame kids for their injuries or even death and will continue to deflect away from the real issues.
If kids without training are not having as many injuries or same level in some areas then this is very telling indeed and not entirely unsurprising.

I wonder what the hat wearing % is of cycle trained kids (outside of the cycle training programme) and how much more risk they will take compared to those without training who are less likely to wear a plastic hat?

[pwa]

Only a sample of one, I know, but when I was a kid I took horrendous risks every day on my bike and I had no lid to give me a protected feeling. What I had was a disregard for danger. Kids don't need PPE to take risks. They do it anyway.

[Mike Sales]

Only a sample of one, I know, but when I was a kid I took horrendous risks every day on my bike and I had no lid to give me a protected feeling. What I had was a disregard for danger. Kids don't need PPE to take risks. They do it anyway.

And yet you lived. As do most children. I think you underestimate the nous of the young, as well as their toughness.
I remember a photograph in my psychology text book showing a child refusing to crawl out from a solid floor onto its glass continuation. The infant could see through the glass to the drop below and clearly did not trust its sense of touch enough to take the risk.
Helmets have been marketed and bought for toddlers learning to walk, though children have survived this part of their education for millennia.

[pwa]

Only a sample of one, I know, but when I was a kid I took horrendous risks every day on my bike and I had no lid to give me a protected feeling. What I had was a disregard for danger. Kids don't need PPE to take risks. They do it anyway.

And yet you lived. As do most children. I think you underestimate the nous of the young, as well as their toughness.
I remember a photograph in my psychology text book showing a child refusing to crawl out from a solid floor onto its glass continuation. The infant could see through the glass to the drop below and clearly did not trust its sense of touch enough to take the risk.
Helmets have been marketed and bought for toddlers learning to walk, though children have survived this part of their education for millennia.

The only point i was making was that, if my own youth was anything to go by, not wearing a helmet did not make me careful. I could hardly have been more reckless on a bike if I had tried. I survived two head injuries, one resulting in a cut scalp and the other saw me waking up in the ambulance. My wife disputes my assertion that it did me no harm.