Bikeability - Not to encourage children to cycle alone.

[Sara_H]

How depressing. A sheffield school has sent out a letter to parents about bikeability, but warned them that childrens shouldn't ride alone due to heavy traffic and parking problems.

https://twitter.com/EdaleSkyline/status/449268715906138112/photo/1

 

[Crackle]

Is your cup half empty or half full Sara: I reckon it's half empty at the moment.

 

[Sara_H]

Is your cup half empty or half full Sara: I reckon it's half empty at the moment.

Probably completely empty, to be frank.

At the minute I feel that money spent on bikeability is wasted given that road conditions and attitudes towards cyclists still mean that the vast majority are too afraid to ride a bike. Knowing how to turn right into a junction isn't the issue, the twat in the fast moving metal object behind you with his hand on the horn cos you're holding him up for a few seconds is the issue, if indeed he's stopped texting for long enough to notice that there's a squashy person in front of him.
If we had the right conditions, bikeability wouldn't be necessary anyway.

 

[Crackle]

So the letter is quite sensible in it's approach but you've presented it as a negative and Bikeability as a negative because of motorists attitudes, whereas I see it as a bigger picture of improving awareness of cyclists and kids being trained to ride bikes on the road as good, likewise bike awareness being taught to learner drivers and the AA chief backing cyclists to be treated as equals. So it's all good, provided we use some common sense.

 

[numbnuts]

My local school does the bikeability thing and when they pass they tell all the kids to ride on the pavement as the roads are too dangerous

 

[Dan B]

I love the "must wear a helmet" too. Let's bar children from doing something that will increase their cycling safety unless they conform to some arbitrary rule that has no proven effect on safety either way ...

 

[ufkacbln]

So the letter is quite sensible in it's approach but you've presented it as a negative and Bikeability as a negative because of motorists attitudes, whereas I see it as a bigger picture of improving awareness of cyclists and kids being trained to ride bikes on the road as good, likewise bike awareness being taught to learner drivers and the AA chief backing cyclists to be treated as equals. So it's all good, provided we use some common sense.

It is negative though...

It excludes many children from training, if they do not use a helmet, despite the proven benefits of training. Worst if the anecdotal evidence is true then children from deprived backgrounds are both at greater risk of accident, but also the ones less likely to fork out from a meager budget for a helmet that allows the child to take part

Exclusion of the most vulnerable is hardly a positive

Secondly - WHY are there parking problems?

Easily solved by a Police presence and a few tickets and verbal warnings - worked wonders around here

 

[MontyVeda]

....

...

Secondly - WHY are there parking problems?

Easily solved by a Police presence and a few tickets and verbal warnings - worked wonders around here

good point.

I suspect the helmets thing is part of their public liability insurance... no helmet clause = no insurance = no bikeability course. But why can't they just provide the helmets? I remember going for swimming lessons and we didn't have to bring our own floats.

 

[Sara_H]

So the letter is quite sensible in it's approach but you've presented it as a negative and Bikeability as a negative because of motorists attitudes, whereas I see it as a bigger picture of improving awareness of cyclists and kids being trained to ride bikes on the road as good, likewise bike awareness being taught to learner drivers and the AA chief backing cyclists to be treated as equals. So it's all good, provided we use some common sense.

If improving awareness of cyclists and cycling was happening in spades and was seen to be effective then I'd perhaps feel more positive. But I don't think that's the case, at least not where I am.

 

[Sara_H]

....


good point.

I suspect the helmets thing is part of their public liability insurance... no helmet clause = no insurance = no bikeability course. But why can't they just provide the helmets? I remember going for swimming lessons and we didn't have to bring our own floats.

I doubt it is to do with liability insurance. I recently spoke to a bikeability trainer in Sheffield - they don't stipulate that children wear helmets, it's the school that impose the helmets rule, but the liability insurance is held by the bikability trainer.

 

[Crackle]

If improving awareness of cyclists and cycling was happening in spades and was seen to be effective then I'd perhaps feel more positive. But I don't think that's the case, at least not where I am.

Perhaps you're expecting too much too fast or even, too much.

 

[ufkacbln]

....


good point.

I suspect the helmets thing is part of their public liability insurance... no helmet clause = no insurance = no bikeability course. But why can't they just provide the helmets? I remember going for swimming lessons and we didn't have to bring our own floats.

Because the evidence is that a poorly fitting helmet in children doubles the risk of head injury

Then there is the perceived risk of head lice and all other nasties that a used and poorly maintained helmet can pass on

Finally if you accept the use of helmets, then rule one is to have one that will be as effective as possible. Never ever use a second hand helmet or any helmet for which you don't know the provenance..... did little Johnnee or Kylee smack it on the ground two weeks ago in a temper tantrum irrevocably compromising it?

 

[Sara_H]

Perhaps you're expecting too much too fast or even, too much.

Too fast, perhaps. But not too much. Being able to safely navigate the streets without threat of death or serious injury caused by others is an absolute must.

 

[Crackle]

Too fast, perhaps. But not too much. Being able to safely navigate the streets without threat of death or serious injury caused by others is an absolute must.

Actually I'm not really interested in the Bikeability stuff, I was more responding to you. You've posted a few slightly negative threads recently, perhaps with good reason or perhaps my perception is off. You don't want to end up like Numbnuts, 6000 posts of abject farking misery.

 

[MontyVeda]

Because the evidence is that a poorly fitting helmet in children doubles the risk of head injury

Then there is the perceived risk of head lice and all other nasties that a used and poorly maintained helmet can pass on

Finally if you accept the use of helmets, then rule one is to have one that will be as effective as possible. Never ever use a second hand helmet or any helmet for which you don't know the provenance..... did little Johnnee or Kylee smack it on the ground two weeks ago in a temper tantrum irrevocably compromising it?

It just a suggestion that might help kids from families who can't/wont fork out for a helmet to actually take part in the course.