Ten percent of the sample had been involved in an accident whilst travelling to or from school. Of these, 3.4% were walking, 2.9% on the bus, 2.6% in a car and 0.6% on bicycles. It is interesting to note the relatively high figures, especially for car users and cyclists, given their lesser significance as modes of transport. This may be due to children counting minor accidents not reported to police and insurance companies who would normally supply such data. No trained cyclist reports being involved in an accident. The bus figure may relate to only a few incidents in which a large number of pupils were involved, since the majority of those reporting a bus accident attend one of three schools. (Boston Spa, Ralph Thoresby, St Michael's)
It is evident that many pupils own bikes (84%), but do not use them for the school journey. One of the concerns of the Road Safety Unit is that there is little value in teaching cycle skills if these are not being used. Do pupils use their bikes outside school hours?
Asked where they cycle most often, 50% ride on roads near home, and a further 24% ride off road near home. Four percent use purpose built cycle paths whilst 2% said that the journey to school was where they most often cycled.
Just under 50% of children normally cycle with friends their own age, whilst 29.8% normally cycle alone. Only 3% normally ride with an adult whilst 3.8% ride with someone else, frequently an older sibling. Eighteen percent use their bikes daily, and a further 17% use a bike 2/3 times per week. Only 10% never use their bikes.
The main reason given for using a bike was that it is good for health (60%), and quick (54%). A further 29% answered because it does not damage the environment.
This shows that there is a high level of cycle use outside school hours and that the bicycle is being used on the road as an important part of children's recreation. Indeed, many specified "to visit friends" or simply "fun", when asked why they use a bike
The provision of cycle training is an important element in any coherent strategy to promote cycling as a form of utility transport. It is recommended as such in the National Cycling Strategy. As local and national efforts to curb car traffic increase, accessibility to quality cycle training will be essential, if cycling is to become a realistic transport alternative.
A child cyclist is often perceived by adult decision makers (in this instance family and schools) to be vulnerable, either to personal attack or to the risk of an accident caused by volume and speed of traffic. 36% of all reported bicycle accidents in Leeds involve children in the 4 -16 year age range.(Leeds City Council 1996) In many cases, the "cause" of the accident is assumed to be a result of the actions of the child cyclist. (in contrast to accidents involving adult cyclists where the cyclist is rarely to blame (BMA 1992)) This may be because children defer to adult drivers who are discouraged from admitting liability by insurance companies and the law. They may not also feel able to argue their point of view. Certainly it may be more difficult for a child to argue as effectively as an adult. Whatever the facts of the matter, too many accidents happen to child cyclists .This reinforces adult concerns about the dangers of cycling and makes effective realistic cycle training an issue. Although a trained cyclist is not guaranteed to be a safe cyclist, training cyclists goes some way to alleviating concerns about a child's safety on a bicycle in traffic. A trained cyclist is more likely to be able to recognise mechanical problems, handle a bicycle effectively, give clear signals and understand road conditions.(TRRL report 1996)
A wide range of people deliver cycle training to children in Leeds. Some, like Leeds City Council's Cycle Training Teams and the Police are professionals concerned with road safety. Other groups providing training include school teachers, family and friends.
Despite the apparent accessibility of potential trainers, professional or non professional, only 54% of children questioned felt they had received something they could identify as cycle training.
Family and voluntary organisations, such as youth groups, train 34% of child cyclists, delivering training at various levels. This is often but not exclusively run on an informal basis. Obviously the effectiveness of this depends upon the individual expertise and experience of the trainer(s). However, it appears that most cover only basic topics, such as balance, steering and braking and take place in an artificial environment like a garden or park.
Of the two main professional organisations who train child cyclists, the Road Safety Promotion Unit Cycle Training team trained 19% and the Police 17%.
Leeds City Council's trainers deliver non prescriptive courses to both individuals and groups. This training is aimed at children aged 8-14 and is delivered mainly to year 6 primary school children, during the summer term, in school time. Additional courses are run in leisure centres in the summer vacation. The training may last either for a full day or consist of 10 hours spread across a week. It is designed to equip trainees with suitable bike handling skills and an understanding of appropriate road behaviour. Training takes place mainly on road as it is more realistic than playground or off road sessions, and has been proven more effective. (TRRL 1996)
Some police officers and public volunteers teach the Cycling Proficiency Test course to their local Primary schools, and other organisations such as Scouts. This is usually on a weekly basis for five weeks. The training and the test associated with the course normally takes place outside school hours. Training is almost exclusively playground based (although some on-road training is now taking place) and covers moving off, turning left and right, traffic lights, and the Highway Code. At the end of the course there is a written and a practical test which pupils must pass to be awarded with a badge and certificate.
It is not always clear at what age training is normally delivered. We assume a range of 4-11 years, with the more advanced training, including professional training, targeted at an 8-11 age range.
Many children receive training from more than one source. This is usually a combination of family and one of the two professional organisations.
This apparent overlap often actually represents a combination of basic training e.g. balance, steering and braking, taught largely by family members, and more advanced cycle craft e.g. signalling, junctions, roundabouts, delivered largely by professionals.
graph
Despite their training only 3.49% of trained cyclists ride to school, even on an irregular basis. In 19% of cases this is because they are not allowed to by their school or family. Eighty per cent of those who ride to school every day have been trained, suggesting greater utility cycle use amongst trained cyclists, albeit on a small scale. Twenty one percent of trained children use their bikes everyday on the road, and 17% off road. This compares with figures of 18% and 14% overall.
Trained cyclists are more likely to use a helmet. Only 11% of all cyclists always wear one, whilst 15% of all trained cyclists always do. Thirty six percent of trained cyclists sometimes wear a helmet whilst the figure is 30% overall. Those trained by the council on road are twice as likely to wear a helmet than the overall figures. This could be because the council do not allow children to participate in cycle training without a helmet whilst other trainers are not bound by the same health and safety regulations to insist upon this.
Sixty three percent of all trained cyclists report that they feel safer on the road, whilst 14% do not, and 19% were unsure. Sixty eight percent of those trained on the road (mainly by the council) feel safer as a result of their training. This, though welcome, must be treated with some caution. In all cases, training involves an investment of time and effort, sometimes even money. This may influence trainees perceptions about the value of the training. At present only 19% of training courses in the city are done on-road.
Only 11% of all children have been trained on the road in realistic road conditions. The vast majority receive training in a simulated environment. Playground based training can be effective in teaching the principles of road use .This may contribute to a feeling of increased safety on the road. However, it is difficult to promote traffic awareness effectively in a simulated environment.(TRRL 1990)
The demand amongst secondary school children for on road cycle training reveals some interesting data. Twenty two percent of all those sampled would like more on-road training. Twenty three percent of children who have been trained perceive a need for further on road training, and 26% of those trained by the council would like more. Those who have had no training so far have least demand for more, only 18% said that they would like more training. It would seem that the people who have had most exposure to on road training perceive the need for further training, probably because they are more aware of the danger and more likely to cycle frequently. It may also reflect the council's policy of not presenting pupils with a pass/fail type certificate, but a report highlighting pupils good points and those which need to be practised.
It is important that cycle training for children is part of a coherent transport strategy as 42% of trained children use bikes regularly and probably do so more safely than their untrained counterparts. (TRRL 1996) There is some evidence to suggest that trained children are using their bikes more than untrained ones, especially for the school journey. However, the trained children are still put off by the lack of safe storage at schools, and are more aware of traffic danger than the untrained, and some are possibly more discouraged from cycling as a result.
Anecdotally, a number of our respondents, added commentaries on their replies along the lines of " I don't feel safer on the road because I don't put into practice what I was taught" which needs to be addressed. However, most of the trained children report that they feel safer on the road after their training, regardless of what they covered in their training, where they did it and with whom they trained. A proportion felt that they did not need any further training.
Consequently, all training, professional and non professional currently accessible to children should be encouraged, as it helps children cycle safely on road. Nonetheless, studies (TRRL 1990 and 1996) have shown that some forms of training are more effective at embedding an appropriate approach to relevant road manoeuvres and general traffic awareness.
On road training increases the effectiveness and relevance of cycle training and plays a significant role in danger reduction. All trainers, possessing the confidence and insurance, if appropriate, should aim to increase the proportion of on road training in their existing training programmes.
Until the real and perceived dangers, highlighted by children and adults, of fast moving traffic, theft and personal attack are addressed, provision of cycle training, in itself, does not and will not significantly increase cycle use on the essential week day journey of most children.
A significant increase in the use of cycles for the school run could be achieved if children are not prevented by adult decision makers from being able to cycle to and from school. This may require a city wide implementation of a Safe Routes to School plan which would address many of the major points of concern. However as many children use the same roads in their leisure time either for fun or on paper rounds, a relatively cost effective way forward is to encourage schools to develop a pro cycling policy using the best practice guide being developed by the Road Safety Promotion Unit. But, many schools do not wish to encourage cycling in present conditions, fearing that they will be held responsible for any accidents in the vicinity of the school.
Nine percent of respondents feel that their health would preclude them from cycling and so travel to school by car or bus. Out of all children, 19.8% use an inhaler. It is astonishing to see that almost one in five of the city's children use an inhaler on a regular basis. There has been much publicity recently about the link between vehicle pollution and respiratory disease. Encouraging cycling may help to reduce traffic and counter the effects of the fumes. The health benefits of cycling have been proven to outweigh the risks. (BMA 1992) Providing for cycling would possibly save money if it was to result in a reduction in inhaler use, and a long term improvement in the health of future generations.
Contrary to the conclusions of the National Transport Survey, cycle use amongst children is high, reflecting the high levels of ownership. The paradox in the repeatedly low figures recorded for cycle use is explained by the fact that the bicycle is being used mainly for leisure on short local trips with no other purpose but fun. Studies do not normally attempt to quantify such use, concentrating instead on the use of the bicycle in comparison with other modes of travel, which are not usually undertaken just for pleasure. There is some utility cycling for trips to the shops, paper rounds and of course the daily school journey, but this is minimal at present. Since young people have fewer responsibilities than their adult counterparts it is unsurprising that their journeys have less specific purpose. Nevertheless, they are still road users and are particularly vulnerable and as such should be included when considering transport planning and road design.
Almost half of the pupils surveyed expressed a desire to cycle to school and yet very few do so. There would appear to be two broad reasons that prevent the use of the bicycle for the school journey:
One is that children are prevented from doing so by parents or the school, who have made the decision that it is too dangerous to allow children to cycle. Cycling is therefore not available as a travel mode. Similarly, some are unable to cycle to school due to ill health, disability or simply because they live too far away.
The second is that the children themselves, especially girls, have made the choice not to cycle. Where this is the case, fear of road danger is a major factor, together with a lack of provision for cyclists within schools. Only a few schools have secure indoor cycle parking, whilst in many cases cycle stands and sheds have been removed in recent years. Many schools that allow cycling insist that children wear helmets and use lights when appropriate, but may not have a place set aside to store such bulky items safely during the day.
Lack of provision makes it more inconvenient to cycle when compared to other modes such as walking or taking the bus, and as such acts as a deterrent.
There is a question of the equity of transport provision. Many schools have large areas devoted to car parking, and are under pressure from staff to provide more. Many are located on or near to main roads, e.g. Lawnswood, Allerton High, Garforth. This makes them highly accessible by car and bus, but causes problems to those travelling on foot or by bicycle. Even those travelling by bus may have to cross a major road without the benefit of a pelican crossing. At home time, pupils may spill out onto narrow pavements and staff attempt to negotiate crowded drives. Since the majority of high school pupils are too young to drive and most do not have access to a lift it would be more fair to concentrate on pedestrian and cycle facilities together with traffic calming measures, particularly speed restrictions on all roads adjacent to schools. This would benefit the child pedestrians and cyclists whose chance of being killed by a car has doubled since 1955. (Road Danger Reduction Forum 1996)
Unless schools adopt a flexi-time approach to the school day it is likely that school opening times will continue to coincide with the rush hour, and as such the only practical way to reduce road danger around schools is through on-road measures. Since our accident figures show high levels even amongst car users, these would benefit the entire school population as well as other road users in the area. Traffic calming may also move some traffic to other roads away from the school. It is estimated that up to 20% of rush-hour traffic is generated by the school run. (Sustrans 1994) Removing some of these vehicles by making it safe to cycle or walk would benefit other motorised road users by easing congestion. Even a small reduction in volume has a significant effect in reducing delay at peak times.(Cleary 1995)
Provision of secure cycle parking would be a prerequisite to enabling children to cycle to school. This need not be expensive. Corpus Christi school have recently installed simple brackets to which pupils lock their bikes. These are directly outside the school office and so a thief or vandal would easily be spotted. Cheap, simple, well thought out provision such as this is likely to be more popular with schools than elaborate indoor storage requiring capital investment and staff time.
Whilst fear of abduction and abuse continues to be of concern for parents, such incidents are still rare. Removing children from the danger by escorting them in cars is increasingly seen as a solution. (National Travel Survey 1996) But it is only available to a few and increases traffic volume and therefore road danger. Children walking or cycling to school can still be escorted by concerned parents who may then choose to cycle to work or the shops.
Whilst providing for cycling through training and secure facilities can go some way to increasing the levels of cycle use in schools, the major factor that would generate high levels of cycle use would be a reduction in the speed and volume of traffic in the area close to the school. This would alleviate parental and staff worries about allowing children to cycle. The experience in mainland Europe has been that cycling only increases when restrictions are placed upon the movement of cars in an area.(Tolley 1990) It would be foolish to invest large amounts of money on cycle provision without taking some measures to make the roads more safe. In the short term however, secure storage or racks on school premises coupled with an enthusiastic member of staff can have an effect in increasing cycle use on a small scale as seen in Garforth Community College, Wetherby High School, and Corpus Christi School. The next stage is to take the lessons learned from these schools and the more extensive schemes on the continent and apply them to the city of Leeds.
Possible modal shifts from bus 3% of total sample group (i.e. 10% of bus users), from car 1.3% (i.e. 9% of those brought by car) of total sample, from walking 20% (i.e. 38% of walkers). All these children have bike, would be allowed, and have no health problems. This gives a total minimum achievable shift of 27.3%.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|