"I understand that bicycling is a hazardous activity."

[MikeF]

This is what participants in the Dorset Gravel Dash need to agree to!
And CUK writes in Cycleclips "Ahead of the award-winning Dorest Gravel Dash this weekend we’re putting some exceptional gravel bikes to the test."

CUK is indirectly promoting cycling as a dangerous activity!
Mixed messages are extremely bad.

[Ellieb]

Probably better than being sued by someone who says they didn't realise the hazards inherent in off road riding.

[Si]

With this kind of off road riding, if you dont stack it now and then you aint trying.

As opposed to just riding down to the shops where you shouldn't expect to come to harm.

[pjclinch]

It's a shame there isn't a bit more context. So the difference between "gravel adventure biking" (or whatever) and trundling to the nearest spa for a paper and a pint of milk is a bit plainer. If we just say "bicycling" with no qualifiers it does suggest that even climbing aboard a bike is fraught with peril. It isn't, even if some of the things one might choose to do once you're on it are.

I've abandoned teaching Bikeability because all the local authorities around here insist on delivering a message that even climbing aboard a bike is fraught with peril. After all, with only several decades experience of a bike as my primary transport I have to wear a crash helmet to show kids how to get on and off a bike in the safety of their school playground. Suggesting that bicycling is a hazardous activity with no context is an own-goal.

Pete.

[Vorpal]

I think that riding off-road on cliffside tracks could be classified as a hazardous activity, and I would say the same for hiking them, even if it is less hazardous at the slower speed. At least, it is likely more hazardous than cycling in traffic, even if the hazards are mostly natural, rather than made and driven by humans.

They certainly could have phrased it better. Something like, "I understand that this ride includes hazards...." or something like that, instead of making it sound as though cycling is inherently hazardous.

[Vorpal]

I've abandoned teaching Bikeability because all the local authorities around here insist on delivering a message that even climbing aboard a bike is fraught with peril. After all, with only several decades experience of a bike as my primary transport I have to wear a crash helmet to show kids how to get on and off a bike in the safety of their school playground.

[thirdcrank]

AFAIK, most of these disclaimers are a waste of space as they cannot remove a duty of care. Their only legitimate purpose is to make clear that no extra responsibility is being accepted. An often-seen example is in car parks. A disclaimer can be displayed to make clear that parked vehicles are not being looked after. ie Park at your own risk, so if another car park user damages your car, any claim is only against the person causing the damage. OTOH, if an employee of the car park provider were to cause the damage, then the disclaimer would be irrelevant.

[Si]

I've abandoned teaching Bikeability because all the local authorities around here insist on delivering a message that even climbing aboard a bike is fraught with peril. After all, with only several decades experience of a bike as my primary transport I have to wear a crash helmet to show kids how to get on and off a bike in the safety of their school playground.

Waste of time? ......I've just finished doing L3 with a load of Y7s that I did L2 with then they were Y6s. None of them could remember anything about L2 (and a lot of them were very good when they did L2....we don't give out L2 badges for fun), so we had to redo L2 before moving onto L3. When questioned only one of the group admitted that her parents ever let her ride on the road. We are now looking for ways of getting them to use their new found knowledge so that it stays with them, but given the lack of funding, plus the parents' terror of the children being on road unsupervised*, it's not easy.

*after all "bicycling is a hazardous activity."

Doing bikeability with adults seems more worthwhile as many go out and use it straight away.

[pjclinch]

I've abandoned teaching Bikeability because all the local authorities around here insist on delivering a message that even climbing aboard a bike is fraught with peril. After all, with only several decades experience of a bike as my primary transport I have to wear a crash helmet to show kids how to get on and off a bike in the safety of their school playground.

Waste of time? ......I've just finished doing L3 with a load of Y7s that I did L2 with then they were Y6s. None of them could remember anything about L2 (and a lot of them were very good when they did L2....we don't give out L2 badges for fun), so we had to redo L2 before moving onto L3. When questioned only one of the group admitted that her parents ever let her ride on the road. We are now looking for ways of getting them to use their new found knowledge so that it stays with them, but given the lack of funding, plus the parents' terror of the children being on road unsupervised, it's not easy.

I've long held that the main point of Bikeability in schools as far as skills goes is giving a leg up to the kids that were going to be among the 2% modal share group in any case, who in all honesty could probably work it out for themselves just as I did back in the day. But why I carried on doing it was so I could show by example that you can get about by bike without needing special kit in whatever clothes you happened to be wearing and safety is mostly about what you do and how, in contrast to the Magic Coats & Hats stories they're generally sold at school.
The various Powers That Be for schools around here aren't happy with me cycling in front of kids in normal clothes any more, so rather than give up my time to dangerise cycling I've told them they can find someone else to do it (in Scotland most Bikeability is mainly delivered by volunteers, so since they're not paying the piper I'm calling the tune... I had started earning a bit training volunteer trainers which was a nice bonus, but at the end of the day it's not my day job. If it was I suppose I'd just have to get on with it despite my misgivings, or learn to eat less well).

Doing bikeability with adults seems more worthwhile as many go out and use it straight away.

I'm still doing that, for the NHS Tayside Healthy Working Lives folk. In fact my next session is getting two complete non-cyclists going tomorrow evening. The local public health experts seem happy enough for me to ride around without dayglo and crash hats, but what would they know?

Pete.

[Sum]

They certainly could have phrased it better. Something like, "I understand that this ride includes hazards...." or something like that, instead of making it sound as though cycling is inherently hazardous.

+1

[fastpedaller]

I consider the 'Pub in a field' should also have the health warnings spelt out!

[Cyril Haearn]

The event is fully booked and there is a *joke* about places becoming free if people break their legs

A bit sick IMHO

[Ellieb]

When it comes down to it, anyone likey to be interested in this event is hardly likely to be put off by the fact it is dangerous. You aren't going to be getting people who are thinking about riding a bike for the first time entering it. I doubt that, in this context, it is ever likely to discourage someone from riding a bike.

[pjclinch]

When it comes down to it, anyone likey to be interested in this event is hardly likely to be put off by the fact it is dangerous. You aren't going to be getting people who are thinking about riding a bike for the first time entering it. I doubt that, in this context, it is ever likely to discourage someone from riding a bike.

That's a fair point, but on the other hand this is the sort of cut-and-paste boilerplate that finds its way from one thing to another because there is little general public understanding of context for cycling in the UK. So it would still be good if they bothered to give it some qualification, before it's copied on to a flyer for a balance bike session.

Pete.

[MikeF]

Probably better than being sued by someone who says they didn't realise the hazards inherent in off road riding.

Depends how you define off road riding. Many people think it's safer, and for some it definitely is.