Interesting report

[Tom Crispin]

www.bikebiz.com/news/29519/Lets-get-kids-back-on-bikes-urges-Cycling-England

Striking new evidence of a generational decline in cycling has been
revealed by Cycling England. A study - which coincides with the launch
of Bike to School Week (6-9 May) - reveals that parents are clamping
down on the freedoms they took for granted as children, limiting when,
where and how their children cycle.

The most common age at which parents were able to cycle on the roads
was 10. Today it has gone up to 12, almost at the onset of the teenage
years.

One in three parents (35 percent) were allowed to cycle to school, but
today, only one in five (18 percent) allow their children to do so.
Just 4 percent of children cycle to school regularly.

Parents are no longer giving their children the run of local roads. 81
percent of parents ban their children from cycling independently, or
limit their children's cycling to such a degree that Britain is seeing
an emerging breed of "Cul-de-sac Kids" – children restricted to
cycling circuits of their immediate road or neighbourhood streets.

When asked what would make them feel more reassured about their child
cycling without adult supervision on the roads, the most popular
measure was cycle training (52 percent). And two-thirds (64 percenbt)
of parents felt that their child did not have the confidence and
skills to ride on the road. The biggest reason as to why parents did
not let their child cycle was safety (36 percent) yet just 3 percent
said they knew someone who'd had an accident.

This fear has resulted in over a quarter of children (29 percent) only
allowed to cycle with adult supervision. While three quarters (75
percent) of children are allowed to cycle for recreation at the
weekend or after school, only one in five (19 percent) are allowed to
use their bicycle as a way of getting from A to B during the week.

Phillip Darnton, Chairman of Cycling England, said: "This research
underlines the important role of cycling training in giving children
the skills and confidence they need to cycle on the roads - and in
giving parents the reassurance that their child is well equipped to do
so.

"Concern about safety is understandable, but we need to remember that
on-road accidents are in long term decline. Every parent will want to
ensure their children are kept safe, but they can't live out their
lives within the shadows of the cul-de-sac, never able to venture
further away from home.
This is particularly important, as we know that cycling to school, to
friends, or just as a fun activity in its own right, can play a hugely
positive role in the development of a child's independence. I urge
schools to come forward and offer Bikeability training as part of the
push to get children cycling."

To help promote the benefits of children cycling more often, Cycling
England has recruited a nationwide 'Mums Panel' that uses parent power
to promote the benefits of cycling and encourage take up of
Bikeability – the new cycling proficiency scheme for the 21st century.
Mums Panellist Emma Calloway, from Bristol, said:

"Completing Bikeability training as a parent not only gave me a
confidence that I can pass onto my children, but also reinforced the
notion that bikes have the same right to be on the roads as other
vehicles.

"Since my children started cycling to school they have benefited in
all sorts of ways – they are healthier, more alert and more
confident."

Children, Schools and Families Minister, Kevin Brennan, said:

"Cycling to school is a great way for children to keep fit and develop
their independence. 'Bike to School Week' is a really good way of
encouraging children and their parents to get on their bikes, and
develop a habit that promotes health and fitness for life. Staying
safe while cycling is also very important and that is why I'm
delighted to support the Bikeability cycling proficiency test to give
the next generation the skills and confidence to ride their bikes on
today's roads."

The research report was conducted online for Cycling England by
Populus, who interviewed a random sample of 1,079 parents, whose
children had bikes and were aged between 7 and 15.

[Daniel Barlow]

Tom Crispin > writes:

> When asked what would make them feel more reassured about their child
> cycling without adult supervision on the roads, the most popular
> measure was cycle training (52 percent)

And if their kids have no previous cycle training, an entirely
resonable concern. But why is this a new thing? Is cycle training so
much more difficult to find than it was in the olden days of Cycling
Proficiency, or is it that parents are much less likely to cycle
themselves and therefore assume they won't be able to teach their kids?

I wasn't allowed to ride to school until I'd passed CP, but that was
the school's rule not my parents. By the time I was old enough for
that my Dad had already taught me everything covered in the official
course (and a rather more sensible attitude to road positioning than
the "50cm - 1 metre from the kerb" approach that I remember from CP,
too).


-dan

[POHB]

On 14 May, 16:53, Tom Crispin >
wrote:
> This fear has resulted in over a quarter of children (29 percent) only
> allowed to cycle with adult supervision.

> The research report was conducted online for Cycling England by
> Populus, who interviewed a random sample of 1,079 parents, whose
> children had bikes and were aged between 7 and 15.

So the kids are aged 7 to 15 and a quarter of them are only allowed to
cycle with adult supervision. That can be because 7 to 8 year olds
aren't allowed to cycle on the road on their own? Seems fair enough.

[PK]

"Tom Crispin" > wrote in message
...
> www.bikebiz.com/news/29519/Lets-get-kids-back-on-bikes-urges-Cycling-England
>
> Striking new evidence of a generational decline in cycling has been
> revealed by Cycling England. A study - which coincides with the launch
> of Bike to School Week (6-9 May) - reveals that parents are clamping
> down on the freedoms they took for granted as children, limiting when,
> where and how their children cycle.
>
> The most common age at which parents were able to cycle on the roads
> was 10. Today it has gone up to 12, almost at the onset of the teenage
> years.
>
> One in three parents (35 percent) were allowed to cycle to school, but
> today, only one in five (18 percent) allow their children to do so.
> Just 4 percent of children cycle to school regularly.
>
> Parents are no longer giving their children the run of local roads.

It seems to me wrong to view this as a cycling issue independent from other
inter-generational changes:

Between the same generations has there been a change in the age at which
parents will let kids go to the local park/playground/cinema on their own?

Between the same generations has there been a change in the level of
"safety" of play equipment in the local park/playground?

Between the same generations has there been a general change in the amount
of freedom parents allow children to roam around town on their own?

I think the answer to each of those is "Yes" and that in that context the
cycling freedom/age issue is simply a reflection of wider societal changes.

I used to disappear into the countryside at the age of 9/10 (on foot) after
breakfast and possibly come back for lunch or sometimes not reappear till
dusk - never was there any concern or restriction on that behaviour. and
that was the pattern for most of my contemporaries. Few children would have
that freedom now!

pk

[Peter Fox[_4_]]

PK wrote:
> I used to disappear into the countryside at the age of 9/10 (on foot)
> after breakfast and possibly come back for lunch or sometimes not
> reappear till dusk - never was there any concern or restriction on that
> behaviour. and that was the pattern for most of my contemporaries. Few
> children would have that freedom now!

Err.. Yes that's the point. Progress or return to the swamp?

FWIW You can't develop _responsibility_ in people without _taking the risk of
trusting them_. Good to do it at an early age as you found out. Bloody
important to do it today when every other opportunity to be independent and
explore is closed off by scaremongering and political correctness.



--
Peter (Prof) Fox
Multitude of things for beer, cycling, Morris and curiosities at
<http://vulpeculox.net>
2 Tees Close, Witham, Essex 01376 517206

[Alex Potter]

On Wed, 14 May 2008 09:29:42 -0700, POHB wrote:

> That can be because 7 to 8 year olds
> aren't allowed to cycle on the road on their own? Seems fair enough.

Fair enough that they're not allowed? In my day, we were riding all over
Birmingham by the time we were 8.

--
Regards
Alex
http://www.ap-consulting.co.uk
http://www.badphorm.co.uk/

[Tom Crispin]

On Wed, 14 May 2008 09:29:42 -0700 (PDT), POHB >
wrote:

>On 14 May, 16:53, Tom Crispin >
>wrote:
>> This fear has resulted in over a quarter of children (29 percent) only
>> allowed to cycle with adult supervision.
>
>> The research report was conducted online for Cycling England by
>> Populus, who interviewed a random sample of 1,079 parents, whose
>> children had bikes and were aged between 7 and 15.
>
>So the kids are aged 7 to 15 and a quarter of them are only allowed to
>cycle with adult supervision. That can be because 7 to 8 year olds
>aren't allowed to cycle on the road on their own? Seems fair enough.

===QUOTE===

81 percent of parents ban their children from cycling independently,
or limit their children's cycling to such a degree that Britain is
seeing an emerging breed of "Cul-de-sac Kids" – children restricted to
cycling circuits of their immediate road or neighbourhood streets.

===========

It is not until they are nearly 15 that the average bike-owning child
is allowed to make an independent journey by bicycle.

[Pob]

"Alex Potter" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 14 May 2008 09:29:42 -0700, POHB wrote:
>
>> That can be because 7 to 8 year olds
>> aren't allowed to cycle on the road on their own? Seems fair enough.
>
> Fair enough that they're not allowed? In my day, we were riding all over
> Birmingham by the time we were 8.
>
In my day there were less than half the number of cars on the road.

pOB

[Lee]

"Tom Crispin" > wrote in message
...
> www.bikebiz.com/news/29519/Lets-get-kids-back-on-bikes-urges-Cycling-England
>
> Striking new evidence of a generational decline in cycling has been
> revealed by Cycling England. A study - which coincides with the launch
> of Bike to School Week (6-9 May) - reveals that parents are clamping
> down on the freedoms they took for granted as children, limiting when,
> where and how their children cycle.
>
> The most common age at which parents were able to cycle on the roads
> was 10. Today it has gone up to 12, almost at the onset of the teenage
> years.
>
> One in three parents (35 percent) were allowed to cycle to school, but
> today, only one in five (18 percent) allow their children to do so.
> Just 4 percent of children cycle to school regularly.
>
> Parents are no longer giving their children the run of local roads. 81
> percent of parents ban their children from cycling independently, or
> limit their children's cycling to such a degree that Britain is seeing
> an emerging breed of "Cul-de-sac Kids" - children restricted to
> cycling circuits of their immediate road or neighbourhood streets.
>
> When asked what would make them feel more reassured about their child
> cycling without adult supervision on the roads, the most popular
> measure was cycle training (52 percent). And two-thirds (64 percenbt)
> of parents felt that their child did not have the confidence and
> skills to ride on the road. The biggest reason as to why parents did
> not let their child cycle was safety (36 percent) yet just 3 percent
> said they knew someone who'd had an accident.
>
> This fear has resulted in over a quarter of children (29 percent) only
> allowed to cycle with adult supervision. While three quarters (75
> percent) of children are allowed to cycle for recreation at the
> weekend or after school, only one in five (19 percent) are allowed to
> use their bicycle as a way of getting from A to B during the week.
>

And these kids are to be our future driving licence holders !!! .. Heaven
protect us, because a H**LM*T isn`t much use !!!

I understand now why it is getting harder to pass a driving test as the kids
have no idea of road sense ... and it shows with most young motorists ..
and cyclists !!!

Lee...

[Alex Potter]

On Thu, 15 May 2008 06:58:17 +0000, Pob wrote:

> "Alex Potter" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Wed, 14 May 2008 09:29:42 -0700, POHB wrote:
>>
>>> That can be because 7 to 8 year olds
>>> aren't allowed to cycle on the road on their own? Seems fair enough.
>>
>> Fair enough that they're not allowed? In my day, we were riding all
>> over Birmingham by the time we were 8.
>>
> In my day there were less than half the number of cars on the road.
>
> pOB

I was 8 in 1954.

I really do not believe that the number of cars in towns has much to do
with whether or not it is safe to cycle.

In my view, cycling safety is more to do with a rider's competence at
bike handling and having been trained to ride safely on the roads.

As an aside, probably totally irrelevant, I've always been "just another
vehicle", and the only accident I've ever had involved a loose dog, not a
car.

--
Regards
Alex
http://www.ap-consulting.co.uk
http://www.badphorm.co.uk/

[David Damerell]

Quoting Alex Potter >:
>I really do not believe that the number of cars in towns has much to do
>with whether or not it is safe to cycle.

What? If there were no motor vehicles, what would a few hundred cyclists
die of every year? Lightning strikes?
--
David Damerell > Kill the tomato!
Today is Leicesterday, May.

[Alex Potter]

On Fri, 16 May 2008 17:03:18 +0100, David Damerell wrote:

> Quoting Alex Potter >:
>>I really do not believe that the number of cars in towns has much to do
>>with whether or not it is safe to cycle.
>
> What? If there were no motor vehicles, what would a few hundred cyclists
> die of every year? Lightning strikes?

Cycling is somewhat dangerous, I agree, but is not, as far as I can tell,
very dangerous at all, by any reasonable measure, for a competent,
vehicular cyclist.

If that danger is not caused by incompetence on the part of the cyclist,
most of it does indeed come from other traffic.

Yes, if there is more traffic the odds on being injured shorten, but, I
suspect, not by a significant amount, for the aforementioned competent
cyclist, in towns, which is where most of the under-privileged children
that sparked this sub-thread live.

I am aware that children mature at different speeds (I'm a father of four
and a grandfather), but, IMHO, of course, they need to be encouraged from
an early age to develop independence and questing spirits, and forbidding
cycling on the grounds that there is so much traffic does them a great
disservice.

--
Regards
Alex
http://www.ap-consulting.co.uk
http://www.badphorm.co.uk/

[_[_2_]]

On 16 May 2008 17:03:18 +0100 (BST), David Damerell wrote:

> Quoting Alex Potter >:
>>I really do not believe that the number of cars in towns has much to do
>>with whether or not it is safe to cycle.
>
> What? If there were no motor vehicles, what would a few hundred cyclists
> die of every year? Lightning strikes?

Old age.

[Tom Crispin]

On 16 May 2008 17:03:18 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
> wrote:

>Quoting Alex Potter >:
>>I really do not believe that the number of cars in towns has much to do
>>with whether or not it is safe to cycle.
>
>What? If there were no motor vehicles, what would a few hundred cyclists
>die of every year? Lightning strikes?

Don't pneumatic tyres make lightning strikes on cyclists particularly
unlikely?

[Rob Morley]

On Sat, 17 May 2008 14:18:25 +0100
Tom Crispin > wrote:

> On 16 May 2008 17:03:18 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
> > wrote:
>
> >Quoting Alex Potter >:
> >>I really do not believe that the number of cars in towns has much
> >>to do with whether or not it is safe to cycle.
> >
> >What? If there were no motor vehicles, what would a few hundred
> >cyclists die of every year? Lightning strikes?
>
> Don't pneumatic tyres make lightning strikes on cyclists particularly
> unlikely?

If the lightning can jump hundreds of feet out of the sky I doubt it
will be discouraged by an inch or two of rubber.

[Tom Crispin]

On Sat, 17 May 2008 19:58:42 +0100, Rob Morley >
wrote:

>On Sat, 17 May 2008 14:18:25 +0100
>Tom Crispin > wrote:
>
>> On 16 May 2008 17:03:18 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >Quoting Alex Potter >:
>> >>I really do not believe that the number of cars in towns has much
>> >>to do with whether or not it is safe to cycle.
>> >
>> >What? If there were no motor vehicles, what would a few hundred
>> >cyclists die of every year? Lightning strikes?
>>
>> Don't pneumatic tyres make lightning strikes on cyclists particularly
>> unlikely?
>
>If the lightning can jump hundreds of feet out of the sky I doubt it
>will be discouraged by an inch or two of rubber.

OK - I'm proved wrong...

www.crh.noaa.gov/pub/?n=ltg/ltg_060621_westminster_cycle.php

www.crh.noaa.gov/pub/ltg/ltg_24aug03_parkcnty_biker_fatal.php

www.bbc.co.uk/weather/features/understanding/1911_derby.shtml
"A policeman was cycling across Mitcham common was struck by lightning
and killed."

www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/08/27/america/NA-GEN-US-Lightning-Death.php

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9803EFDA1E31E033A25753C1A9639C946197D6CF&oref=slogin

And the list could go on...