The UK's most up-to-date social housing and public sector news website
Great to hear Tom Mullarkey, RoSPA’s chief executive, saying that children should be encouraged to cycle with more freedom in order to gain life experience skills. I agree with him that children should be 'as safe as necessary, not as safe as possible.' This is a principle we promote at Safeside, where we aim to give children the skills to be safe whilst having more freedom not less.
Unfortunately, when children cycle in many UK towns and cities they are far from being even as safe as necessary. My home town of Hereford is a case in point. Although both my children do cycle, we have to be very careful to plan the route they can safely take. I don't want them sharing road space with juggernauts across nightmare junctions. There are lots of gaps in the pitiful cycle route provision where legally they have to dismount and walk. Imagine telling car drivers to get out and push along certain streets!
Children won't be able to become more independent cyclists and learn those crucial life skills unless we make our urban streets much safer for them. This means, for example, blanket 20mph restrictions in urban areas that are enforced, backed up by cycle lanes and safe routes where use of the existing street is not possible.
It's great for RoSPA to encourage children to cycle, and for organisations like Safeside to encourage children to wear cycle helmets and cycle safely, but councils like Herefordshire and elsewhere are still not meeting their side of the bargain. Children can see through this adult hypocrisy - and won't be granted cycling freedom until safer and more comprehensive cycle networks are a feature of all our urban areas.
Pickles blasts prayers ban ruling - 'worship is hard-fought British liberty' 
Roddons achieves TPAS Landlord Accreditation 
Fact or Fiction? Tower blocks 
Jaef
Commented 82 weeks ago
Whilst on a ramble in the backs of nowhere my wife was almost run (cycled) down by a cycle being pedalled quickly by an adult on a tow path.
If she had been hit and suffered inury and consequential monetary loss would she have been covered by a compulsory cyclist's insurance?
These are the questions of a curious mind that mulls over the policies of the government, other elected public authorities and quangos. It seems that freedoms to cycle are making life more hazardous for ordinary pedestrian citizens. However, I have recently been left a cycle so my thought processes may change if I take up cycling. If I do I shall, of course, seek third party insurance cover!