Cycling to the gym is a "stroke of genius"

permajeo

I regularly take 12 to 18 year olds away sailing and the risk assessments / briefings take longer that the sailing does. They do wash up and cook and clean the loo, they also get to sail too. Luckily the last lot didn’t steal anything, unlike the previous lot who raided the cellar of the local bar and my kit. I’m really looking forward to this weekend!



I blame too much freedom and not enough responsibility

Daniel Barlow

Neil Williams <pacer142@gmail.com> writes:

> I went flying off my bike (admittedly at lowish speed, while making a
> sharp turn) on a wet gravel path on Friday. Once again, my head
> didn't end up anywhere near the floor, and the damage was limited to
> some nasty gravel burns and cuts in my hands, wrists and arms.

I hit the ground rather hard last Wednesday when a car overtaking too
close clipped me. My head hit the floor, but only after my shoulder
had absorbed enough of the impact to dislocate my clavice and my neck
had tensed enough that I had whiplash symptoms for the two days
following. Actual injury to head was no more than a graze, and
clotted of its own accord while I was waiting in A&E to have the
shoulder seen to.

That said, there was enough blood around the place for a PG rating,
and I can quite see the advantage of helmets for six year olds if you
can't rely on them all (and all their parents) to be stoical when
there's red stuff dripping all about. Fight one battle at a time.


-dan

Neil Williams

Daniel Barlow wrote:

> That said, there was enough blood around the place for a PG rating,
> and I can quite see the advantage of helmets for six year olds if you
> can't rely on them all (and all their parents) to be stoical when
> there's red stuff dripping all about. Fight one battle at a time.

I think if I was teaching a child to ride a bike without stabilisers I
would certainly have them use a helmet (as it protects quite well
against a straight saddle-to-ground fall which is quite often in that
situation, especially as a young child may not know "how to fall",
IYSWIM) - and maybe also knee/elbow pads. Whether they wore one once
experienced would be up to them, though.

Neil

Peter Clinch

Neil Williams wrote:

> I think if I was teaching a child to ride a bike without stabilisers I
> would certainly have them use a helmet (as it protects quite well
> against a straight saddle-to-ground fall which is quite often in that
> situation, especially as a young child may not know "how to fall",
> IYSWIM) - and maybe also knee/elbow pads. Whether they wore one once
> experienced would be up to them, though.

But people learned without stabilisers for decades before helmets were
about, and there was no particular problem of "learner cyclist head
scar" in those generations.

Today in the NL the vast majority of children learning to ride won't be
using helmets. Can't say I've ever noticed Dutch children have a much
greater to sticking plaster on their heads than Brits.

So why the need to "certainly" fix something that isn't broken?

Children learning to use stairs have a greater chance of falling down
them than others. So why is nobody urging helmet use for stairs?
Because, I would suggest, we know it's over reaction to the dangers,
even though serious injuries and even fatalities do occur. Unlike the
more typical Dutch parent, we haven't dialled into the fact that cycling
is actually a reasonably safe everyday thing, just as staircases are.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Dave

"Tony B" <tony@thebramahs.plus.com> wrote in message
news:cdSdnSL9juN_Ks3VnZ2dnUVZ8v-dnZ2d@posted.plusnet...
> Tom Crispin wrote:
>
>> Here's the full set.
>
> I was thinking of mentioning how odd it seems that all your riders have
> h£lmuts but none wear gloves or mitts.. but then I realised where that
> could end up, so decided not to bother :-0
>

Many /most parents will quite happily buy a helmet as there has been so much
publicity about them. They will rarely spend even more on gloves though
unless the kid gets a bit more serious about riding.

What you have also to remember is no matter what we as individual adults may
believe that organisations like schools, youth organisations and many clubs
insist on helmets for kids as they fear that they could be held liable in
the event of an accident.

Until the government stops pushing the issue organisations will continue to
insist.

Dave

Neil Williams

Peter Clinch wrote:

> So why the need to "certainly" fix something that isn't broken?

This might be where we have to agree to disagree. My view on helmets
is that there is no harm in them existing, and that they do provide a
useful protection against falls from the bike to the ground at or near
0mph for those who aren't experienced in knowing how to fall properly
(e.g. very young children), though not for a lot more than that.

What I do resent, though, is any idea that I should be compelled to
wear one by law. I choose not to buy a product available on the free
market. Others choose to buy it. Why shouldn't I/they?

The reason people didn't wear them before is that they weren't easily
and affordably available. They now are, in the same way as people
didn't have car airbags because they weren't easily and affordably
available.

Neil

Mark

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 11:59:19 +0100, Daniel Barlow <dan@telent.net>
wrote:

>Neil Williams <pacer142@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> I went flying off my bike (admittedly at lowish speed, while making a
>> sharp turn) on a wet gravel path on Friday. Once again, my head
>> didn't end up anywhere near the floor, and the damage was limited to
>> some nasty gravel burns and cuts in my hands, wrists and arms.
>
>I hit the ground rather hard last Wednesday when a car overtaking too
>close clipped me. My head hit the floor, but only after my shoulder
>had absorbed enough of the impact to dislocate my clavice and my neck
>had tensed enough that I had whiplash symptoms for the two days
>following. Actual injury to head was no more than a graze, and
>clotted of its own accord while I was waiting in A&E to have the
>shoulder seen to.

Condolences. I hope you reported the incident to the police?

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org

Peter Clinch

Neil Williams wrote:

> This might be where we have to agree to disagree. My view on helmets
> is that there is no harm in them existing, and that they do provide a
> useful protection against falls from the bike to the ground at or near
> 0mph for those who aren't experienced in knowing how to fall properly
> (e.g. very young children), though not for a lot more than that.

They provide as much protection from falls from feet to the ground at or
near 0 mph for those not experienced in falling.

Do children ever fall over when running and playing, not on a bike? of
course they do! So how come we don't think anything about helmets
there, yet we should "certainly" use them on a bike.

It is a simple case of double standards, and only exists because of the
existence and promotion of helmets specifically for cycling. That
existence and promotion suggests the falsehood that cycling is
especially dangerous and needs (or at least especially benefits from)
protective clothing. That is simply not the case.

> What I do resent, though, is any idea that I should be compelled to
> wear one by law.

But the reason people are trying to compel you is based on their
existence, and just up there you didn't see any harm in that. But it
turns out there is harm in that, because their existence causes people
to try and do something you resent.

It's not that simple as your first paragraph makes out, because your
stated case of usefulness is not actually limited to cycling, and
because there is harm from helmets existing (attempts to promote helmet
wearing reduce cycling levels).

> I choose not to buy a product available on the free
> market. Others choose to buy it. Why shouldn't I/they?

Not in all cases but in many the choice is based on misinformation. I
wore a helmet every trip I made for over a decade, but I had it because
I was misinformed about their usefulness, especially the usefullness
realtive to had I been making the same journeys on foot.

> The reason people didn't wear them before is that they weren't easily
> and affordably available. They now are, in the same way as people
> didn't have car airbags because they weren't easily and affordably
> available.

But the constant pressure to wear them because it's seen as
irresponsible and daft not to is a significant point in why people wear
them. I wore one because I thought it might save my life and I was
setting a good example. Turns out it seems I was wrong. I still get
told it's setting a good example to wear one though... Implying that
cycling is so especially dangerous that it demands special protective
headgear to take part in is not my idea of a good example.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Dave Larrington

In news:6bcgm4F3bd6k2U1@mid.individual.net,
Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell
us:

> But people learned without stabilisers for decades before helmets were
> about, and there was no particular problem of "learner cyclist head
> scar" in those generations.

I've got one :-)

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Me, I wanna be an anglepoise lamp, yeah!

David Damerell

Quoting Neil Williams <pacer142@gmail.com>:
>I went flying off my bike (admittedly at lowish speed, while making a
>sharp turn) on a wet gravel path on Friday. Once again, my head
>didn't end up anywhere near the floor, and the damage was limited to
>some nasty gravel burns and cuts in my hands, wrists and arms.

I had a spill in Surbiton a week ago - much the same, sharp turn at low
speed, just dumped the Brompton in the road. Knee, elbow and the palm of a
leather glove were the casualties - none serious.

The good news is that other railway pax get out of your way when you're
dripping claret from one knee.
--
David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Distortion Field!
Today is Second Gloucesterday, June.

Ian Smith

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008, Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
> Ian Smith wrote:
>
> > Yes, but you've had slightly more experience than Tom's six-year-olds
> > (or however old they are - eight?). I would disagree that riding a
> > bike in convoy "is not actually that hard" for a young beginner - I've
> > had way more near misses riding in a 'group' of two with my (5 year
> > old) daughter than in all the other group riding I've ever done.
>
> Yet Dutch kids learn to deal with convoy conditions on fietspads without
> helmets.

The difference being that dutch parents probably already taught their
children to ride, and know how terribly undangerous cycling is.

> Did your near misses with your daughter make you feel you needed a lid?

No. Interestingly, my daughter thinks she needs a lid - she learnt
without, but once she started riding to school the reaction of the
other children made her decide she wanted one. My wife was also
getting fed up of the sharp intakes of breath and tutting at the
school gate when daughter rode without a hat, so eventually I gave up
resisting (but I did resist the combined efforts of a daughter and a
wife for some months, so I think I did well).

I don't wear a helmet. I do what I can to discourage other adult
road-going cyclists from assuming that they need a helmet, but I am
more neutral wrt children and helmets. Some of the arguments against
helmets are less convincing applied to children (equally, one or two
are more convincing). I would not dream of criticising anyone who has
got a large group of school-kids onto bikes used as real and actual
transport getting from A to B, even if they did mandate those children
wore hats.

OTOH, if my daughter's school tries any funny-business mandating hats
for when she's riding to & from, I'll be round there like a shot.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Ian Smith

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008, Neil Williams <pacer142@gmail.com> wrote:

> The reason people didn't wear them before is that they weren't easily
> and affordably available.

I don't think that can be the reason, actually.

They could easily and affordably be available in Holland, but there
does not seem to be any demand.

regarsd, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Neil Williams

Ian Smith wrote:

> I don't wear a helmet. I do what I can to discourage other adult
> road-going cyclists from assuming that they need a helmet, but I am
> more neutral wrt children and helmets.

I'm fairly neutral with regards to adults and helmets - if anyone else
chooses to wear one, that's their business - so long as they don't
start telling me whether I should or not.

Neil

Peter Clinch

Ian Smith wrote:

> The difference being that dutch parents probably already taught their
> children to ride, and know how terribly undangerous cycling is.

But they can't have taught them to ride before they taught them to
ride... There must be some point at which they're learning!

> I don't wear a helmet. I do what I can to discourage other adult
> road-going cyclists from assuming that they need a helmet, but I am
> more neutral wrt children and helmets. Some of the arguments against
> helmets are less convincing applied to children (equally, one or two
> are more convincing). I would not dream of criticising anyone who has
> got a large group of school-kids onto bikes used as real and actual
> transport getting from A to B, even if they did mandate those children
> wore hats.

I don't want to be in the business of blaming people and getting at
them, but I am in the business of shedding a bit of light on why reasons
cited might need a bit more work. And "it is more likely they will
fall" is one such reason.

I agree that if they are to wear hats for reasons including "I just want
to, okay", and "it makes a difference betweeen cycling and not" then by
all means wear them for exactly those reasons, but wearing them because
they are relatively more likely to fall in a situation than another is
not in itself a good reason: it is the absolute risk that is important,
not the relative one.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/