Cycling UK Forum

All students at Worthing High School who cycle to school are required to wear a cycle helmet. This is to ensure that all students who cycle to and from school do so in a safe manner.

From here (with my bold). Sigh... (From what I recall of John Adams' work, helmets can be associated with increased risk taking by the wearer. But you know all that: I just needed to get it off my chest, AKA 'vent' )

Which same "students" (I think they mean pupils) are probably being preached at re the amount of plastic in the environment.

Since when did "scholar" turn into "pupil" and then into "student"?

When I was a "student" at primary school in the 50s, we were scholars. I fact when filling in application forms even in secondary school in the 60s we wrote scholar in the occupation box. Also when joining the RN in 1969 I was described as scholar as my previous occupation.

At least it's still a school. One school in a nearby town is actually a "learning centre". In actual fact it is a pretty regular school, but one with a poncey name and senior management with too much time on their hands.

As for the OP, this is miraculous news indeed. All we need to to make sure motorists drive in a safe manner is to make them wear a cycle helmet.

Lance Dopestrong wrote: All we need to to make sure motorists drive in a safe manner is to make them wear a cycle helmet.

Mick F wrote:

Lance Dopestrong wrote: All we need to to make sure motorists drive in a safe manner is to make them wear a cycle helmet.

I seem to recall that stats suggest that head-injuries are more common and more lethal in cars than on bikes, so motorists should all wear helmets.

WRT scholar/pupil/student, when I was at school, also in the 50s, I was a pupil. I think the difference is probably that pupils are taught, but scholars learn.

Audax67 wrote:I seem to recall that stats suggest that head-injuries are more common and more lethal in cars than on bikes, so motorists should all wear helmets.

IIRC the proportion of head injuries on the roads is around 40% car occupants & 30% pedestrians compared to less than 5% cyclists.

Audax67 wrote:

Mick F wrote:

Lance Dopestrong wrote: All we need to to make sure motorists drive in a safe manner is to make them wear a cycle helmet.

I seem to recall that stats suggest that head-injuries are more common and more lethal in cars than on bikes, so motorists should all wear helmets.

Yes, but it's important to remember the exposure rate is much higher (i.e., far more people in cars than on bikes, so you'd expect it to be higher). Not that that invalidates the point though.

In practice people rationalise their existing behaviour to fit with what is "reasonable", whatever the actual number is. In other words it's down to culture, psychology, gut-feelings etc. far more than quantifiable numbers. A bit like it's really dangerous to text at the wheel, but according to Bloggs it's okay for Bloggs because he is immune to that effect. And you can't confuse Bloggs with facts, 'cause his mind is made up.

Pete.

pjclinch wrote:

Audax67 wrote:

Mick F wrote:

I seem to recall that stats suggest that head-injuries are more common and more lethal in cars than on bikes, so motorists should all wear helmets.

Yes, but it's important to remember the exposure rate is much higher (i.e., far more people in cars than on bikes, so you'd expect it to be higher). Not that that invalidates the point though.

In practice people rationalise their existing behaviour to fit with what is "reasonable", whatever the actual number is. In other words it's down to culture, psychology, gut-feelings etc. far more than quantifiable numbers. A bit like it's really dangerous to text at the wheel, but according to Bloggs it's okay for Bloggs because he is immune to that effect. And you can't confuse Bloggs with facts, 'cause his mind is made up.

Pete.

Aye, but few motorists (and few cyclists, come to that) will realize it, so you can still use that argument to set them back on their heels. <evil grin>