The Dutch have thicker skulls (to cope with the higher gravity on their different planet).
On a more serious note, if only 1 in a thousand child -floor interactions resulted in brain injury we could make 100 such films before having to bury a single helmetless child. Though as there are more than 100 Dutch kids learning to ride in this way and the hospitals and morgues are not doing a roaring trade, we can safely estimate that the chances of a child-floor interaction resulting in brain injury are nowhere near 1 in a thousand.
I am not sure what level of risk it is and what level justifies helmet. I have just got by with "kissing my children better".
I have posted before that I have a theory (or merely a speculation) that children learn how not to bang their heads by falling over. If we encase them at that age in Thudguards or helmets, this teaches them that it's okay to get a banged head. Hence they won't gain the life-saving instinct.
The proportion of badly adjusted and ill-fitting helmets on kids is remarkably high. I imagine quite a lot of them have discovered that if the chin-strap is done up properly they're a lot less comfortable than if they''re very loose, and having them well back on the head rather than flat and level just seems to be the way a lot of them "fit". So I suspect there are a lot of kids out there getting the Bad Stuff (greater tendency to take risks, greater chance of hitting head in a fall) without much chance of the good stuff. I've not seen even the most rabid helmet proponent suggest they're likely to do much if they're not fitted properly (and in fact the only mention of helmets iin the DfT's National Standards cycle training outcomes is that those trainees using helmets need to understand how to fit them properly).
snibgo wrote:I have posted before that I have a theory (or merely a speculation) that children learn how not to bang their heads by falling over. If we encase them at that age in Thudguards or helmets, this teaches them that it's okay to get a banged head. Hence they won't gain the life-saving instinct.
It's just a theory. I have no evidence.
I agree with you. In fact what was amazing about that video is that it shows a child falling over (on concrete) and what happens when they do - a social/scientific experiment which if called such probably wouldn't be allowed. Seeing the child raising their head each time as they fell says more about child helmets than any amount of pro-helmet argument. I just wonder if pro-helmet campaigners have actually ever seen such a video.
When the pestilence strikes from the East, go far and breathe the cold air deeply. Ignore the sage, stay not indoors. Ho Ri Zon 12th Century Chinese philosopher
That is what happens in 99 or even 99.9% of crashes and what has happened in 100% of my crashes including a lot of motorcycle crashes (and apparently for Kwackers as well).
However there are crashes where the head would hit something and could do with a bit of protection.
It is perfectly valid to wear protection against the less likely outcome, despite it not being necessary for the most likely one.
meic wrote:That is what happens in 99 or even 99.9% of crashes and what has happened in 100% of my crashes including a lot of motorcycle crashes (and apparently for Kwackers as well).
However there are crashes where the head would hit something and could do with a bit of protection.
It is perfectly valid to wear protection against the less likely outcome, despite it not being necessary for the most likely one.
Unless it makes the less likely outcome MORE likely... By say increasing the mass and radius of the head in question.
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way.No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse. There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
Talking of dehumanising children (as I'm sure someone somewhere was). It occurred to me the other day that when standing with a group of kids out side a school, preparing to start the third bikeability session of the week, I had absolutely no idea of their names....or rather I knew their names, but I couldn't tell you which was which. As soon as the helmets were on I knew exactly which was which. Sad but true.
As for the bin man jackets....well, I suppose that using them for cycling is just the tip of the ice berg......seems that whenever children go out of school under teachers' control they have to wear the hi-viz.....as I have related before, I've been working at the museum and seen them being made to wear hiviz to go around a museum that had only six rooms and one entrance that they could use, and was closed to the public...they were allowed to take coats off but had to put the hiviz back on.
The bin-men jackets outside of school is fairly pervasive these days, but the example in the museum is particularly daft...
But of course in the school playground for Bikeability lots of kids have to wear them too. Duh.
My sister is a primary teacher, and the "best" school trip injury they've had was not in any way cycling related when a lad tripped over and hit his head on some metal railings. One thing about very dark skin is you can be pretty sure when you're looking at a bone... A hospital job, but I understand he was okay. But if he'd been wearing a crash-helmet to walk around on his school outing, of course...
So not only is cycling not especially productive of minor head injuries, it isn't especially productive of nasty ones either. No more so than just doing your day to day thing.
While I do not blame people who give in to the peer pressure (it's been pretty unpleasant for me, and I have a thick skin, relish arguments and have a library of evidence), if you can resist the pressure and are happy for your child to cycle without one it may just strike a blow against the "Dangerisation" of cycling. They might be more inclined to carry on cycling too, when not ruining their look is more important than intelligent transport solutions.
pjclinch wrote: CTC's own info pack (see http://www.ctc.org.uk/campaigning/views-and-briefings/cycle-helmets), as well as Tim Gill's piece I already highlighted, are good sources which account for the fact that it's children involved if you need evidence to back up a moan to a school. Cyclecraft's helmet section is a good matter-of-fact piece too, and it's the basic manual for the training course most schools run.
Thanks for the link. I'm sufficiently contrarian not to worry what others think but ultimately it came down to not wanting a showdown with my partner.
I was outside the house, strapping my daughter into her child seat, when someone at the bus stop (a lady with whom I have a passing acquaintance) shouted across: "Where's her helmet? And where's your helmet?" . I replied that I read a lot about the subject and I can't see any reason why a helmet would be necessary. Her parting shot was "I'm sure of it!", which I took to mean that she is sure about her opinion rather than she is sure that I know more about the subject than she does.
As it happens, this lady is very overweight. Would it have been rude of me to tell her to lose weight for the sake of her health, which after all is a statistically supportable opinion? I really don't mind what she thinks, but it is the epitome of wilfull ignorance to express an unsolicited opinion informed by nothing more than a feeling, and then refuse to engage with any opposing view.
A few minutes earlier my daughter had been watching Kipper the Dog (you all know about that, I suppose). In that episode Kipper rides around wearing a cycle helmet. I asked my daughter why he is wearing it, and her reply was: "Because it's purple!". It's as good a reason as any.
I was looking at the Nationwide Building Society information, helmet on the cover and inside the back page. Possibly a new car should also be supplied with one.
'Mind your own business' may be one suitable reply to well intentioned ladies with advice.
overweight people who can't be confused with facts as their mind is made up going on about the importance of cycle helmets... wasn't Angela Lee of BHIT by any chance?
pjclinch wrote:overweight people who can't be confused with facts as their mind is made up going on about the importance of cycle helmets... wasn't Angela Lee of BHIT by any chance?
The same thought had crossed my mind.
Perhaps overweight people, fed up with being the recipients of frequent unsolicited health advice, are taking revenge.
I wonder if I can persuade her to read 13 pages of D L Robinson. Even if I can't, perhaps I can wave it at her each time I see her at the bus stop. At least it might make her think twice before offering advice in the future.
