Cycle training in schools and big hair

[Philip Benstead]

So they can either squash the hairdo or walk. No problem.

squashing does not work, also some children even primary school children have very large heads.

Yeah, corn rows & so forth. So what? If they want to ride and helmets are obligatory they either find one that fits or lose the hairdo. There's no legal obligation to square the circle.

For instance, schools may have particular policies or rules related to hair or hairstyles that could result in unlawful indirect discrimination against pupils with certain protected characteristics.

[axel_knutt]

Given the current state of public opinion regarding cycling and cyclists, if society's asked to choose between no hairdo, no helmet, or no cycling, I don't think it's difficult to foresee the result.

[Audax67]

squashing does not work, also some children even primary school children have very large heads.

Yeah, corn rows & so forth. So what? If they want to ride and helmets are obligatory they either find one that fits or lose the hairdo. There's no legal obligation to square the circle.

For instance, schools may have particular policies or rules related to hair or hairstyles that could result in unlawful indirect discrimination against pupils with certain protected characteristics.

That has nothing to do with cycling. And if parents want their over-coiffured offspring to cycle then they can sign a helmet waiver - which might not have any legal value, of course, but that might be a subject for legislation. After all, why should the schools lay themselves open to litigation in case of accident or perceived discrimination when making rules in such cases is beyond their legal ambit?

[pjclinch]

Yeah, corn rows & so forth. So what? If they want to ride and helmets are obligatory they either find one that fits or lose the hairdo. There's no legal obligation to square the circle.

For instance, schools may have particular policies or rules related to hair or hairstyles that could result in unlawful indirect discrimination against pupils with certain protected characteristics.

That has nothing to do with cycling. And if parents want their over-coiffured offspring to cycle then they can sign a helmet waiver - which might not have any legal value, of course, but that might be a subject for legislation. After all, why should the schools lay themselves open to litigation in case of accident or perceived discrimination when making rules in such cases is beyond their legal ambit?

But at least part of the point here is it's entirely typically the case that they can't sign a helmet waiver.

I suggested it be up to parents in Dundee, local head of outdoor ed who was responsible for Bikeability said that wouldn't work because parents might make the "wrong choice"

Pete.

[Bmblbzzz]

Moving on from hair to turbans, British Cycling's Go Ride clubs have a mandatory helmet requirement, but with religious and medical exemptions allowed, specifically noting Sikh riders wearing turbans being allowed. Should a turbanned Sikh rider show up at one of my sessions I would have to do a risk assessment and based on the outcome I'd give a yae or nae. I asked BC why I can't do such a risk assessment on any other rider, since we've established that cycling without a helmet is not necessarily too dangerous or there wouldn't be such a loophole for Sikhs? No answer beyond I can't was forthcoming.

Probably this can be indirectly blamed on whoever was Minister of Transport circa 1976 and gave turbanned Sikhs an exemption from the then-new motorcycle helmet law, but none for dreaded Rastas, mohicanned punks, or even beehived dolly birds. There is at least (AFAIK) evidence that m/c helmets work.

[pjclinch]

Moving on from hair to turbans, British Cycling's Go Ride clubs have a mandatory helmet requirement, but with religious and medical exemptions allowed, specifically noting Sikh riders wearing turbans being allowed. Should a turbanned Sikh rider show up at one of my sessions I would have to do a risk assessment and based on the outcome I'd give a yae or nae. I asked BC why I can't do such a risk assessment on any other rider, since we've established that cycling without a helmet is not necessarily too dangerous or there wouldn't be such a loophole for Sikhs? No answer beyond I can't was forthcoming.

Probably this can be indirectly blamed on whoever was Minister of Transport circa 1976 and gave turbanned Sikhs an exemption from the then-new motorcycle helmet law, but none for dreaded Rastas, mohicanned punks, or even beehived dolly birds. There is at least (AFAIK) evidence that m/c helmets work.

Someone did some work recently on the protective effect of turbans... Far from useless as it turns out, but I don't think they'll have legions of folks saying they saved their lives (possibly as they don't crack leaving people to misconstrue that they have surely avoided a fractured skull).

Pete.

[Bmblbzzz]

Moving on from hair to turbans, British Cycling's Go Ride clubs have a mandatory helmet requirement, but with religious and medical exemptions allowed, specifically noting Sikh riders wearing turbans being allowed. Should a turbanned Sikh rider show up at one of my sessions I would have to do a risk assessment and based on the outcome I'd give a yae or nae. I asked BC why I can't do such a risk assessment on any other rider, since we've established that cycling without a helmet is not necessarily too dangerous or there wouldn't be such a loophole for Sikhs? No answer beyond I can't was forthcoming.

Probably this can be indirectly blamed on whoever was Minister of Transport circa 1976 and gave turbanned Sikhs an exemption from the then-new motorcycle helmet law, but none for dreaded Rastas, mohicanned punks, or even beehived dolly birds. There is at least (AFAIK) evidence that m/c helmets work.

Someone did some work recently on the protective effect of turbans... Far from useless as it turns out, but I don't think they'll have legions of folks saying they saved their lives (possibly as they don't crack leaving people to misconstrue that they have surely avoided a fractured skull).

Pete.

Given Sikh history, and taken in context with the religiously prescribed dagger and trousers*, it's no surprise that a turban is useful at absorbing impacts. I see now that my last sentence might be taken to imply that m/c helmets work, unlike turbans; I actually meant unlike cycle helmets!

*Often translated into English as "underwear" but it actually means Sikhs should wear shorts not the wrap-around lunghi or dhoti common in the Punjab. The idea is to be always ready for combat if necessary (as well as being easier for farming work).

[pjclinch]

Given Sikh history, and taken in context with the religiously prescribed dagger and trousers*, it's no surprise that a turban is useful at absorbing impacts. I see now that my last sentence might be taken to imply that m/c helmets work, unlike turbans; I actually meant unlike cycle helmets!

That's what I thought you meant, though of course the game is really not whether they "work", but to carefully define what we mean by "work". The term "safe" is similar, often taken as a binary black and white is/isn't or does/doesn't, but actually a rather blobby grey zone. Jonathan has often pointed out that good answers require careful questions (careful questions don't mean there are good answers, but at least they give you a fighting chance if good answers are possible), and "does a cycle helmet work?" doesn't really qualify IMHO.

An EN1078 helmet works... at passing the tests required for EN1078 certification. Whether that's useful to a particular rider overall or in a particular incident is a whole different can of worms.
In a schools training context I think it would be fair to assume that a child falling off their bike and hitting a protected bit of their head from e.g. overcooking a tight turn would likely benefit from a helmet... but then the same child in the same playground during free play at break time would be more likely to fall, less supervised when doing so, and we know from free play trip/fall head-strike events happening every day in schools that the almost universal response is a bit of TLC, a sticker and a form note home.
In my lessons only one person has managed to hit their head, actually one of the adult helpers and they took it on the chin anyway so their helmet didn't help them (and it wasn't that bad). I have seen a fairly nasty hand injury once, and that was straight to the school office for attention there. Nobody seems worried about mandatory gloves.

Pete.

[Vorpal]

I'm pretty sure that branches the current laws of diversity - indeed I'm surprised that bikeability haven't been threatened with legal action.

Bikeability doesn't require helmets, though.

It's mainly the schools & local authorities that do.

And I doubt that it has been challenged. It should be. It absolutely should be.

The folks who teach Bikeability largely accept the requirement for helmets. Those that don't often aren't allowed to work for the local authorities / schools who require helmets.

So, it's probably going to take a case of some parent being put out enough that their kid is being discriminated against to bring a legal challenge. I donæt know what the chances are of that occurring, but I imagine that they are small.

[Vorpal]

squashing does not work, also some children even primary school children have very large heads.

Yeah, corn rows & so forth. So what? If they want to ride and helmets are obligatory they either find one that fits or lose the hairdo. There's no legal obligation to square the circle.

For instance, schools may have particular policies or rules related to hair or hairstyles that could result in unlawful indirect discrimination against pupils with certain protected characteristics.

This is an important point, and should be raised with schools / local authorities who are too inflexible on the helmets requirement.

[pjclinch]

I'm pretty sure that branches the current laws of diversity - indeed I'm surprised that bikeability haven't been threatened with legal action.

Bikeability doesn't require helmets, though.

It's mainly the schools & local authorities that do.

This is, indeed, the case.

And I doubt that it has been challenged. It should be. It absolutely should be.

I know for a fact I've challenged it, but despite coming at it with evidence and bloody-mindedness it's really slow progress. When I put it to Cycling Scotland over a decade ago that they ought to emphasise that their Bikeability Scotland course didn't require helmets I had a good conversation with Christopher Johnson of CS where he said he was broadly in agreement with all my points but what he was being paid to do was to create a course that would have maximum uptake across Scotland, and if it specifically stated helmets were an optional extra then various LAs where delivery was in the hands of ex Police old-school RSOs wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot bargepole. So his remit required him to avoid the issue, and in the circumstances I think that was a reasonable choice.

But things have progressed a bit. For example, the Bikeability Scotland resources now feature kids riding in just their normal clothes/school uniforms rather than dayglo tabards for everything, and looking at pictures of actual delivery this has spilled over in to standard practice. That's quite significant as a culture change. And the last time we had a resource update and call for comments I penned my usual essay on helmets, this time majoring on inclusiveness, and on the back of that was a call for images of unhelmeted riding. That would have been unthinkable back when I started chipping away at it.

The folks who teach Bikeability largely accept the requirement for helmets. Those that don't often aren't allowed to work for the local authorities / schools who require helmets.

Again on point. As cycle training isn't my day-job I have the luxury of being fussy so I can say I'll only teach if I don't have to wear a helmet to do so. And as a result of that (and I've been told to my face it is exactly that) I can't even give my time away for free any more, despite good feedback from before I was dropped as a "bad example".

So, it's probably going to take a case of some parent being put out enough that their kid is being discriminated against to bring a legal challenge. I donæt know what the chances are of that occurring, but I imagine that they are small.

Infinitesimal, I'd say. The end point of cycle training is learning to ride a bike, and anyone well informed enough about helmets to be bothered about being forced to wear them is almost certainly more than capable of teaching their children to ride better than a general school course will manage (larger groups, mixed ability, time limited all mean that personal tuition by an experienced rider will generally be better). So it wouldn't be about the kids' cycle training, and it would be expensive, long winded, frustrating, and in the face of a society that by and large would think you're mad. Not a very long queue for that, and I certainly could never face it.

Pete.

[pjclinch]

This is the level of LA "safety" groupthink we're up against, setting up the idea that cycling is intrinsically dangerous from the word go.
(this is a promotional shot for the Play on Pedals programme, it's meant to be aspirational but I find it deeply depressing that 3 supervised kids on a soft play surface are felt to need hi-viz and crash helmets on balance bikes)

[Vorpal]

I'm pretty sure that branches the current laws of diversity - indeed I'm surprised that bikeability haven't been threatened with legal action.

Bikeability doesn't require helmets, though.

It's mainly the schools & local authorities that do.

This is, indeed, the case.

And I doubt that it has been challenged. It should be. It absolutely should be.

I know for a fact I've challenged it, but despite coming at it with evidence and bloody-mindedness it's really slow progress. When I put it to Cycling Scotland over a decade ago that they ought to emphasise that their Bikeability Scotland course didn't require helmets I had a good conversation with Christopher Johnson of CS where he said he was broadly in agreement with all my points but what he was being paid to do was to create a course that would have maximum uptake across Scotland, and if it specifically stated helmets were an optional extra then various LAs where delivery was in the hands of ex Police old-school RSOs wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot bargepole. So his remit required him to avoid the issue, and in the circumstances I think that was a reasonable choice.

But things have progressed a bit. For example, the Bikeability Scotland resources now feature kids riding in just their normal clothes/school uniforms rather than dayglo tabards for everything, and looking at pictures of actual delivery this has spilled over in to standard practice. That's quite significant as a culture change. And the last time we had a resource update and call for comments I penned my usual essay on helmets, this time majoring on inclusiveness, and on the back of that was a call for images of unhelmeted riding. That would have been unthinkable back when I started chipping away at it.

I meant legally challenged. I challenged it myself when I was teaching Bikeability, but I was told (albeit more politely) to put up or shut up. I was aware of a couple of people who had been told that they were not allowed to teach Bikeability for the local authority because of their refusal to wear a helmet or enforce helmet-wearing. One of them started their own company, and had just gotten round to hiring other teachers when I moved.

I'm glad that things have progressed in Scotland. They don't seem to have where I used to live.

[axel_knutt]

There is at least (AFAIK) evidence that m/c helmets work.

In the late 1970s there was a big experiment conducted in the USA: half the states repealed the compulsory motorcycle helmet laws and half retained them. The report that followed proclaimed the benefit of helmets, and had a graph on the cover that showed how motorcyclist deaths had soared in the wake of the law change. However, what they had done was to aggregate the experiment and control groups together, and by coincidence the number of people riding motorcycles also increased dramatically as the fuel crisis began to bite.

This is what the graph looks like when you disaggregate the two cohorts, and compare them separately:

As you can see, there were fewer deaths among those who weren't compelled to wear helmets.

[Bmblbzzz]

This is the level of LA "safety" groupthink we're up against, setting up the idea that cycling is intrinsically dangerous from the word go.
(this is a promotional shot for the Play on Pedals programme, it's meant to be aspirational but I find it deeply depressing that 3 supervised kids on a soft play surface are felt to need hi-viz and crash helmets on balance bikes)

I think "cycling = danger" is only the second loudest message from that image. The very loudest is that it's a specific activity, for which you need to prepare and use special equipment, rather than a thing you do in conjunction with the rest of life. But that's the same message given by any out-of-school activity: class visit to the library, park, museum, etc? Put on your hi-viz and form a crocodile!