Oldjohnw wrote: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