arguing against compulsion for training

[Vorpal]

My local authority says that helmets are required for insurance reasons. Apparently a child with a medical reason (and a note from the parent or GP) is not required to wear a helmet. Children are permitted with poorly fitting helmets, but not with no helmets.

I agree that cycle training should be offered to any child with a bicycle who wants it, but I've not had any success getting the local authority to believe that, nor have numerous other cycle campaigners.

[pwward]

I wrote to 20 councils at random asking them this question:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am a medical Dr researching the topic of helmet compulsion and cycle training. I hope you may be able to tell me whether participants in cycle training events in xxxxx are told they must wear helmets. It may be there is no policy on this matter or it's unclear. If so this information would be useful to me too.

I may have emailed the wrong person about this and if so I hope you might forward it to someone who can answer.

Yours thankfully

Dr Peter Ward

I got 18 replies; half the councils make helmet wearing for children compulsory, half do not. No councils made it compulsory for adult cycling training. My suspicion is that the 'insurance' reason is bogus. It wasn't a factor in any of the councils I approached. When I challenged my local council to show me the paragraph about this in their insurance policy (Newcastle did claim it was for insurance reasons) they backed down and have since agreed to a meeting to allow me to present on the issue, promising an open mind. They still have not shown me the policy, I suspect such a clause doesn't exist and it was just bluster.

If anyone wants the responses I received, I can email it out if you contact me.

[broadway]

When I challenged my local council to show me the paragraph about this in their insurance policy (Newcastle did claim it was for insurance reasons) they backed down and have since agreed to a meeting to allow me to present on the issue, promising an open mind.

I expect one of the main worries is compensation, if a child sustains a head injured while taking training the provided will need to ensure that any compensation cannot be claimed due to the child not wearing a helmet. However, just stating a helmet must be worn will not solve the compensation issue. By having a compulsory helmet rule the provider would also have to ensure that any helmet worn is in good condition, fits correctly and the child refused training if this was not the case.

[pjclinch]

The various bits of paranoia are reasonably well covered in various bits of Tim Gill's work.

For example, the litigation worries are looked at in Nothing Ventured... (http://www.englishoutdoorcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/Nothing-Ventured.pdf), a report for the English Outdoor Council which has a set of myths and misconceptions including "Teachers face a serious risk of prosecution", "Litigation is rampant" & "The courts are systematically making bad judgements".

I also found in his "No Fear" booklet a section of typical excessive risk-averse behaviour and the compulsory lids for training ticks the boxes very nicely (if that's the word).

One thing I did find was that the decision was taken a long time ago (in Tayside's case 1996) and these days folk currently in post seem to make quite a lot of assumptions about why the rule is there and who is responsible. One thing I'm seeking to get is a clear map of who expects what from whom. Good QA should include systematic review of procedures at set intervals. I wonder if that concept is applied to decisions like this? (I suspect not...)