Cycling and your child leaflet - update?

OK, this is where I think we've got to. Thanks for all responses.

Colin McKenzie wrote:
In happier times, this group produced this leaflet for parents. Main
production was by Simon Bennett, who has indicated willingness to do
updates but doesn't read this group any more.

I want to get some printed, but would like to suggest some minor changes
first. I hope the group will concur or suggest improvements.

The leaflet is available at
www.personal.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/cyclingchild.htm

The changes I propose a
Page 2, grey background, para 2. Reword sentences 2 and 3 ...

Still no consensus on this: some say not to mention fatalities at all; I
think zero since 2004 is so much better than people think that it may be
worth it.

The TfL version which doesn't mention fatalities is:
"Cycling is a safe healthy activity which mile for mile is
every bit as safe as walking. The long term health benefits of
regular exercise, especially among children, are well proven by health
professionals, and cycling to school is an excellent way to ensure
your child has that regular exercise. Young children can be
accompanied on their bikes to school by parents or carers; older
children can cycle with friends or independently."

I would replace 'every bit' with 'about'.

The version that does mention fatalities would be:
"Cycling is a healthy everyday activity. National records show it to be,
mile for mile, about as safe as walking. While accidents can happen,
they are ra there have been no child cyclist fatalities in the whole
of London since 2004." [Plus date of printing somewhere to avoid a
hostage to fortune.]

Votes, please, for these two alternatives.

Page 4, green background, para 1. Reword to:
The child should be able to stand astride the bike *comfortably* with
both feet flat on the ground, and when sitting on the
saddle should be able to touch the ground with toes of both feet.

Page 4, yellow background, para 3. Reword para 5 to:
When the rear brake is applied and the bike pulled back, the front wheel
should rise

And page 2, yellow background, add:
Be fun!
after the last line.


NB: suggestions for changes to helmet wording will not be entertained!
I mean it.

So only one issue to resolve before doing the update.

Colin McKenzie

--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at the
population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 22:44:54 +0000, Colin McKenzie
wrote:

The TfL version which doesn't mention fatalities is:
"Cycling is a safe healthy activity which mile for mile is
every bit as safe as walking. The long term health benefits of
regular exercise, especially among children, are well proven by health
professionals, and cycling to school is an excellent way to ensure
your child has that regular exercise. Young children can be
accompanied on their bikes to school by parents or carers; older
children can cycle with friends or independently."

I would replace 'every bit' with 'about'.

The version that does mention fatalities would be:
"Cycling is a healthy everyday activity. National records show it to be,
mile for mile, about as safe as walking. While accidents can happen,
they are ra there have been no child cyclist fatalities in the whole
of London since 2004." [Plus date of printing somewhere to avoid a
hostage to fortune.]

Votes, please, for these two alternatives.

TfL's version with your minor change.

Page 4, green background, para 1. Reword to:
The child should be able to stand astride the bike *comfortably* with
both feet flat on the ground, and when sitting on the
saddle should be able to touch the ground with toes of both feet.

Yes.

Page 4, yellow background, para 3. Reword para 5 to:
When the rear brake is applied and the bike pulled back, the front wheel
should rise

Yes.

And page 2, yellow background, add:
Be fun!
after the last line.

Yes.

NB: suggestions for changes to helmet wording will not be entertained!
I mean it.

So only one issue to resolve before doing the update.

I've had two leaflets printed: Cycling and Your Child and Lewisham and
Greenwich Youth Cyclists.

CaYC was printed on good quality paper, probably 160 gsm. LaGYC was
printed on 130 gsm paper. The quality of the latter is poor.

LaGYC leaflet can be seen at:
http://www.britishschoolofcycling.co...s/downleaf.htm

For those interested in such things, it was designed using MS
Publisher.

On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 15:34:02 -0000, "Clive George"
said in
:

I do wonder if your long standing experience and interest is also proving a
barrier. Many facets of road safety aren't necessarily obvious - eg the
effects of such things as bike helmets and bike lanes. If you're talking
about 40 years, that means the more widespread knowledge of the problems is
relatively recent, and it's not entirely surprising that you're struggling
to accept the ideas this new knowledge presents.

True. Like the business of being seen being more about placing
yourself where people are looking than about the colour of your
clothing.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
GPG sig #3FA3BCDE http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt

On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 18:07:06 GMT, _
said in
:

Interesting how you declare the above both as FACT and as only possible
("...may reduce...").

Correct use of English, I'd say. And the contrast between the
honesty of this and the "BIKE DANGER!!!! WEAR A HELMET!!!!"
propaganda is stark.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
GPG sig #3FA3BCDE http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt

On 16 Dec, 17:59, Tom Crispin
wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 04:11:30 -0800 (PST), Toom Tabard

wrote:
It amazing that some people either can't recognise, or think it
wothwhile to take issue with, the use of modest hyperbole commonly
used to emphasise a point.

Try answering the questions on this web page. *I'd appreciate your
opinion and your reasoning to each of the points.

http://www.britishschoolofcycling.com/images/hiviz.htm

"Is the bare headed lady wearing a skirt and blouse more at risk than
the girl in Lycra shorts, high visibility top and wearing a helmet?"

Opinion: It seems a very badly designed question. Is it intended the
informant balance the age differences and all the implied factors of
experience, attitude to risk, bike type, cycling speed etc, etc, etc?
Or, is it a question about the hi-vis clothing and helmet? if so why
have the age and style differences, rather than two girls equipped and
dressed differently. Is it all factors? if so, why not just ask
whether the lady is at more risk than the girl? Mentioning the
clothing and the helmet factors loads the question and distracts from
all the other factors.

Reasoning: As a professional survey and questionnaire designer, I'm
defeated by it. I'd be genuinely interested in knowing the purpose of
this question, what the answer is, and why. Either it's a very subtle
design, or it's a classic of amateur questionnaires eliciting useless
information.

"Would you recommend that the lady wear a helmet?"

Opinion(?): I'd make no recommendation.

Reasoning: She looks mature enough to make her own informed choice.

"Do you think that mandatory helmet laws would discourage the lady
from cycling?"

Opinion: If you wanted to know, why didn't someone stop her and ask
her;-)

Reasoning: The experience is that mandatory requirements would
discourage some from cycling. That, however, is to be expected because
the issue is weighted only one way and would have only the effect of
discouraging some existing or intending cyclists who do not wish to
wear one

"Do you think that regular cycling will shorten or lengthen the lady’s
life expectancy?"

Opinion: If she has a fatal accident when cycling, then it will
shorten it. If she has a serious accident when cycling, than it may
shorten it. Otherwise, on balance it is likely to improve her
cardiovascular health which would be factor in prolonging life,
particularly if combined with impact exercise for bone health.

Reasoning: I'd have to check any available data, but my expectation
would be, on balance, that the positive health factors, would far
outweigh the accident risk factors.

Toom

On 16 Dec, 23:20, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 15:34:02 -0000, "Clive George"
said in
:

I do wonder if your long standing experience and interest is also proving a
barrier. Many facets of road safety aren't necessarily obvious - eg the
effects of such things as bike helmets and bike lanes. If you're talking
about 40 years, that means the more widespread knowledge of the problems is
relatively recent, and it's not entirely surprising that you're struggling
to accept the ideas this new knowledge presents.

True. *Like the business of being seen being more about placing
yourself where people are looking than about the colour of your
clothing.


Or, as I've clarified, not true. I'm well aware of positioning as a
visibility issue, but the issue under discussion was whether high
visibility clothing was a significant factor. Nothing in that
precludes the importance of other factors.

All you need to grasp is that 40 year's experience (good) is different
from experience that is 40 years out of date (bad).

Toom

"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 18:07:06 GMT, _
said in
:

Interesting how you declare the above both as FACT and as only possible
("...may reduce...").

Correct use of English, I'd say.


In general I don't really like "may" ... it's makes things more or less
meaningless.

It *may* be that the moon in made of green cheese... It *may* be that
the universe was sneezed out of the nose of a being called the Great
Green Arkleseizure.

If you have something to say then say it... if you need to qualify it
with "may" then you're more or less saying that you don't really know
one way or the other and you might as well omit it.

On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 08:20:11 +0000, Paul Rudin
said in :

In general I don't really like "may" ... it's makes things more or less
meaningless.
It *may* be that the moon in made of green cheese... It *may* be that
the universe was sneezed out of the nose of a being called the Great
Green Arkleseizure.

I don't think that is right. There is no evidenced to support
either of those propositions, but the evidence does support use of
the word "may" in this context.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
GPG sig #3FA3BCDE http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt

Toom Tabard wrote:

Based on the current space/wording, I'd suggest the two relevant
paragraphs be replaced by:-

' No special clothes are needed but, as for all road use, bright high-
visibility colours are best.

The problem with "x is best" above is it puts colour/brightness above
other things which may be more relevant. I'd much rather a child was
wearing something suitably warm and weatherproof in nasty cold dreich
than wearing something bright if it was one or the other, but since
"bright is /best/", that's apparently a second choice.

It's more important IMHO to say what is /needed/ (nothing, a slong as
what you do have doesn't get in the way) than to make artificial priorities.

The leaflet shows a child in hi-viz. I think we can leave it up to
parents' discretion as to if that's wirth having, based on what they can
/see/ in the leaflet, having reassured them that it is up to them.

The use of an approved, properly-fitting cycle helmet is recommended.'

Once I see a proven track record for them being any use I'll be happy to
put that in, until then it's speculation based on faith. In the
meantime check Hewson's 2005 work which specifically relates to children
in the UK, finding no obvious benefit against serious injuries for
children on the roads from wearing helmets.

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 http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Tom Crispin wrote:

The wording was deliberate. To use the would *will* instead of *may*
suggests a zero fatality rate for cyclists wearing a helmet.

Up to a point: being cracked into 100 pieces is less severe than
"vapourised", neither implies survival...

But as you say, it's what is suggested to the impressionable reader that
is important.

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 http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/