A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Cycling and your child leaflet - update?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 13th 08, 11:45 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Colin McKenzie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 517
Default Cycling and your child leaflet - update?

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 to:
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 (as at March 2008).

[National stats - slight deterioration in cycling figures compared to
walking; latest TfL stats on deaths, updated to March 08.]

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

[Standover height, in my view, should include a little clearance at the
crotch.]

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

[A more stringent test - it's easy to get the wheel to skid.]

What does the panel think?

NB: suggestions for changes to helmet wording will not be entertained!

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.
Ads
  #2  
Old December 14th 08, 04:13 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Tom Crispin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,229
Default Cycling and your child leaflet - update?

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 22:45:01 +0000, 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 to:
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 (as at March 2008).


Fine

[National stats - slight deterioration in cycling figures compared to
walking; latest TfL stats on deaths, updated to March 08.]

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


Fine - but perhaps better still:
The child should be able to stand astride the bike *comfortably* with
both feet flat on the ground...

(I'm not sure that it is necessary to be able to touch the ground with
the toes of both feet when sitting on the saddle, but it is probably a
good idea for child cyclists.)

[Standover height, in my view, should include a little clearance at the
crotch.]

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


Much better. That is the test I have taught children to use for the
past year or so..

[A more stringent test - it's easy to get the wheel to skid.]

What does the panel think?

NB: suggestions for changes to helmet wording will not be entertained!


I use this wording on my website:

No special clothing or safety equipment is necessary or required to
ride a bicycle, but cycling can be made more comfortable by your
clothing choices.

Wear comfortable clothing in layers so it can be removed or put on.
Any loose clothing or laces should be tucked away so it cannot be
caught in moving parts. Hands get cold and cannot go in pockets while
cycling - bring gloves, padded ones reduce strain on the wrist when
cycling on uneven road surfaces. Shorts or leggings allow the legs to
move freely, padded cycle shorts or padded cycle tights make sitting
in a saddle for long periods more comfortable and can help reduce
chaffing. Light coloured or high visibility clothing can make you
more visible to other road users. Wearing a correctly fitted helmet
cannot reduce the risk of a fall or collision, but may reduce the
severity of a direct impact to the top part of the head. Full face
helmets reduce a cyclist’s field of vision and should be avoided.

Bring a spare inner tube (two spare tubes are recommended) and the
tools to fix a puncture; on family rides and youth cycle rides the
ride leader will bring spare tubes suitable for most sizes of
children’s bikes. Pack some spare clothing and be prepared to remove
some clothing, even in cold weather cycling can be hot work! Pack a
waterproof if a shower is likely, sunglasses, a hat or sun tan lotion
if it is sunny. Bring water, snacks and lunch unless buying at a café
and some emergency money (£5 in coins is recommended for unaccompanied
children and young people). Bring a good lock - D locks are the most
secure type. The best place to store equipment, food and spare
clothing is on the bike in a pannier bag or a bar bag, otherwise a
rucksack or drawstring bag will do but will make cycling less
comfortable.

http://www.britishschoolofcycling.com/home/bring.htm
  #3  
Old December 14th 08, 11:18 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Peter Clinch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,852
Default Cycling and your child leaflet - update?

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 22:45:01 +0000, Colin McKenzie


The changes I propose a
Page 2, grey background, para 2. Reword sentences 2 and 3 to:
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 (as at March 2008).


Fine


Looks good to me too.

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


Fine - but perhaps better still:
The child should be able to stand astride the bike *comfortably* with
both feet flat on the ground...


I like Tom's here, it amounts to about the same thing but is much
more concise and easy to understand.

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/
  #4  
Old December 14th 08, 01:34 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Tom Crispin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,229
Default Cycling and your child leaflet - update?

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 10:18:11 +0000, Peter Clinch
wrote:

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 22:45:01 +0000, Colin McKenzie


The changes I propose a
Page 2, grey background, para 2. Reword sentences 2 and 3 to:
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 (as at March 2008).


Fine


Looks good to me too.


I've had second thoughts...

Is the (as at March 2008) bit necessary: it sounds a bit like we are
waiting for a child cyclist to be killed. I am convinced that there
have been no child cyclists killed on London's roads since March (I
would probably hear of such a case within hours of such a tragic
event) and it doesn't need to be said "at the time of going to print"
as that is obvious.

Veena, at TfL's Centre of Cycling Excellence, advised me not even to
mention the word 'death' or 'fatality' as it only has negative images.
'Safe', 'healthy' and 'fun' are the words to use.
  #5  
Old December 14th 08, 01:45 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Colin McKenzie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 517
Default Cycling and your child leaflet - update?

Peter Clinch wrote:
Tom Crispin wrote:
On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 22:45:01 +0000, Colin McKenzie
Page 4, green background, para 1. Reword to:
The child should be able to stand astride the bike with both feet
flat on the ground and the knees slightly bent, and when sitting on
the saddle should be able to touch the ground with toes of both feet.


Fine - but perhaps better still:
The child should be able to stand astride the bike *comfortably* with
both feet flat on the ground...


I like Tom's here, it amounts to about the same thing but is much more
concise and easy to understand.

Me too! I knew my version wasn't too concise.

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.
  #6  
Old December 14th 08, 01:58 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Colin McKenzie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 517
Default Cycling and your child leaflet - update?

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 22:45:01 +0000, Colin McKenzie
The changes I propose a
Page 2, grey background, para 2. Reword sentences 2 and 3 to:
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 (as at March 2008).


I've had second thoughts...

Is the (as at March 2008) bit necessary: it sounds a bit like we are
waiting for a child cyclist to be killed. I am convinced that there
have been no child cyclists killed on London's roads since March (I
would probably hear of such a case within hours of such a tragic
event) and it doesn't need to be said "at the time of going to print"
as that is obvious.


I would be happy to leave it out. But the date of printing would have to
go on, somewhere reasonably prominent.

Veena, at TfL's Centre of Cycling Excellence, advised me not even to
mention the word 'death' or 'fatality' as it only has negative images.
'Safe', 'healthy' and 'fun' are the words to use.


Generally I would agree, but this statistic is worth proclaiming even
though it does use the F word.

How about adding on page 2, yellow background, as the last item,
Be fun!

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.
  #7  
Old December 14th 08, 02:00 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Just zis Guy, you know?[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,166
Default Cycling and your child leaflet - update?

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 12:34:13 +0000, Tom Crispin
said in
:

Is the (as at March 2008) bit necessary: it sounds a bit like we are
waiting for a child cyclist to be killed. I am convinced that there
have been no child cyclists killed on London's roads since March (I
would probably hear of such a case within hours of such a tragic
event) and it doesn't need to be said "at the time of going to print"
as that is obvious.


Agreed. Of course there may be a tragedy between now and Jan 1, but
we are nearly at the end of term and the chances of such an event
escaping the notice of you, the TfL cycling people, CTC and Bob
Davis' contacts in the RSO network is indeed slim.

Veena, at TfL's Centre of Cycling Excellence, advised me not even to
mention the word 'death' or 'fatality' as it only has negative images.
'Safe', 'healthy' and 'fun' are the words to use.


Agreed doubleplus.

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
  #8  
Old December 14th 08, 02:25 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Phil Armstrong
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 74
Default Cycling and your child leaflet - update?

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 12:34:13 +0000, Tom Crispin
Veena, at TfL's Centre of Cycling Excellence, advised me not even to
mention the word 'death' or 'fatality' as it only has negative images.
'Safe', 'healthy' and 'fun' are the words to use.


Agreed doubleplus.


Absolutely. There's no need to quote any accident figures at
all. *Any* mention of accidents will simply concentrate people's minds
on the downside risks.

"About as safe as walking" is honest, and lets people make their own
judgements as to whether that's an acceptable level of risk for them
or not.

Phil

--
http://www.kantaka.co.uk/ .oOo. public key: http://www.kantaka.co.uk/gpg.txt
  #9  
Old December 14th 08, 04:58 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Tom Crispin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,229
Default Cycling and your child leaflet - update?

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 12:58:50 +0000, Colin McKenzie
wrote:

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 22:45:01 +0000, Colin McKenzie
The changes I propose a
Page 2, grey background, para 2. Reword sentences 2 and 3 to:
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 (as at March 2008).


I've had second thoughts...

Is the (as at March 2008) bit necessary: it sounds a bit like we are
waiting for a child cyclist to be killed. I am convinced that there
have been no child cyclists killed on London's roads since March (I
would probably hear of such a case within hours of such a tragic
event) and it doesn't need to be said "at the time of going to print"
as that is obvious.


I would be happy to leave it out. But the date of printing would have to
go on, somewhere reasonably prominent.

Veena, at TfL's Centre of Cycling Excellence, advised me not even to
mention the word 'death' or 'fatality' as it only has negative images.
'Safe', 'healthy' and 'fun' are the words to use.


Generally I would agree, but this statistic is worth proclaiming even
though it does use the F word.


OK - I realise why I've been a little confused.

The version of the leaflet printed by TfL is slightly different to the
version on Peter Clinch's website:
Page 2 Grey background
Para 1 - same
Para 2 - 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.
Para 3 - same
Para 4 - There is no legal requirement to wear a cycle helmet, but it
may be a condition of your child's cycle trainer's insurance. Please
note that helmets are not designed to withstand high speed impacts and
it is important that they are fitted correctly.

(I hate the wording of that final paragraph.)

How about adding on page 2, yellow background, as the last item,
Be fun!


Good.
  #10  
Old December 14th 08, 08:45 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Toom Tabard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 523
Default Cycling and your child leaflet - update?

On 13 Dec, 22:45, 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 to:
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 (as at March 2008).

[National stats - slight deterioration in cycling figures compared to
walking; latest TfL stats on deaths, updated to March 08.]

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

[Standover height, in my view, should include a little clearance at the
crotch.]

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

[A more stringent test - it's easy to get the wheel to skid.]

What does the panel think?

NB: suggestions for changes to helmet wording will not be entertained!

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 - visitwww.cyclehelmets.org.


All road users are aware of the ability of some cyclists to achieve
perfection in camouflage, particularly in the current dull weather and
dark evenings. Whilst 'no special clothing' is correct per se, high
visibility, including in clothing, and particularly fluorescent/
reflective jackets, and advisabilty and low cost of these should be
emphasised in terms of use of a bike on the open road.
In addition the use of a helmet should be a positive recommendation.

On both topics there is too much condescension in the leaflet to our
'I'm a cyclist everybody should see me brigade' prevalent here, at the
expense of the need in the real world to take basic prudent action on
safety issues. These are self-evident to everyone else and need only
be presented as positive and reasonable to avoid the charge of
deterring from cycling because of danger.

And no, I'm not entering into discussion on it: I'll leave our usual
contributors to their amazingly predictable attacks of the vapours.

Toom
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ping: whomever produced the cycling for children leaflet Tim Hall UK 8 September 17th 08 07:51 AM
Cycling and Your Child Peter Clinch UK 4 February 7th 07 09:12 AM
Cycling and Your Child leaflets Tom Crispin UK 19 October 13th 06 10:30 AM
Cycling and Your Child, correspondence from Tom Peter Clinch UK 10 August 5th 06 09:38 AM
Cycling and your child feedback: IMPORTANT! Peter Clinch UK 129 July 11th 06 06:18 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.