Young cyclists

Until the arrival of the safety bicycle hardly any children cycled. The few who did rode specially made reduced size high wheel machines or children’s’ tricycles. However, manufacturers of safety bicycles began to produce children’s models as a report on the Edinburgh cycle trade in 1897 highlighted: ‘Another new feature is the sale of children's and juvenile machines. This promises to become, unless some such accident as would cause a scare should occur, a valuable adjunct to the ordinary trade. The children's machines are intended for the use of little tots of from seven to ten or eleven years of age, while cyclists are juveniles in the cycle dealer's eyes from the age of eleven till fourteen or fifteen. The machines in question are anything but toys. They are constructed with as great care as is paid to the manufacture of adults' cycles, carry the same guarantee, and are proportionately dear, special tyres having to be fitted. As Christmas and birthday gifts they are in great request.’[1] The copy in the advert from that period for Elfin, Midget and Juvenile cycles proclaimed: ‘Rosy-cheeked Boys and Girls are those whom Dame Nature rewards with the hue of health as a result of outdoor exercise. Cycling is more than exercise, it is a pleasure.’[2] Of course, until well after the First World War children’s bicycles were only for the well-off.

The increased number of children cycling brought anxiety among parents. Two questions often raised in the early days were whether there were health hazards to girls from riding a bicycle and at what age a child should be allowed to begin cycling. The third concern, still relevant today, was the risk from cycling from other road users. When Professor Matthew Hay, Medical Officer of Health for Aberdeen, gave evidence before the Physical Culture Commission in London in 1902 he was asked for his view on cycling by young girls: ‘Hay said that cycling by girls was very much a matter of fashion, and its popularity was diminishing. He knew that some medical men condemned the bicycle for girls, but he had noticed no evil effects. For girls who did not take much exercise it was better than nothing. It improved their development and general health, although did not improve their deportment. It tended rather to give them round shoulders and a stooping gait, even although they sat very much better than boys.’[3] At the Sanitary Congress in Glasgow in 1938, even Elizabeth Pace, a Scottish doctor, suffragist and advocate for women's health, was unwilling to reject the notion that cycling was a risk to the health of girls: ‘The question of cycling for girls was a vexed one. It was very good rule not to allow much cycling so long as a girl was growing and still at school. (Applause.) As an exercise it was defective in that the lower limbs were chiefly used, and it did not develop the upper limbs to anything like the same extent. She was of opinion that every schoolgirl should be seen by a doctor at once a year. (Applause.)’[4]

The view of Dr E. Turner, a doctor associated with the Cyclists’ Touring Club, and considered ‘the greatest medical authority matters of the wheel’[5] advised against any child under six years of age cycling, and thought ten the minimum. ‘Cycling is exercise with unusual strains, the effect of which upon their frame may be permanently injurious. Above the age of ten cycling becomes distinctly beneficial, and for all normally-constituted children a thing to recommended.’[6] Professor Hay had a different concern relating to potential strain among young cyclists: ‘The use of cycles among children is so rapidly extending that I feel it my duty to call attention to a danger which appears to be often overlooked. There is evidently a temptation to parents in purchasing a somewhat costly article, and one which may with care last for years, to provide their children with bicycles which are built for older persons. It is common to see boys as young as 12 or 13 years of age riding bicycles intended for adults. Probably the boys themselves prefer the larger bicycles in the belief that they will be able to get along more quickly on them; and so they may on roads which are practically level, as the effort of driving a cycle on such roads is exceedingly little, whatever the gearing the machine. But it is quite different when hills have to be climbed. There the size of the bicycle, and especially the degree of the gearing, are all important in determining the ease with which the hill may be mounted. It stands to reason that a gearing which is suitable for an adult will be much too high for a young boy. The result is that, as young people, from a spirit of emulation, will attempt what they see older people doing, and are disinclined to dismount in climbing hills, even when they feel their strength over-taxed, they are apt to subject their bodies, and especially the heart to excessive strain, with results which, although not greatly felt or complained of at the time, may permanently weaken one of the most important organs of the body. Cycling is now generally admitted to be one of the most exhilarating and health-giving of physical exercises, but it is essential to obviate its possible bad effects avoiding excessive strain, and this is specially applicable to young and immature.'[7]

While fears of medical complaints arising through children cycling faded away, the legitimate concern that they risked potential injury or death from accidents did not. The first cyclist to die in a motor accident in Scotland was a thirteen-year-old girl and newspaper reports of children being seriously injured or killed when cycling regularly appeared, and a large percentage involved a motor vehicle. In 1948 it was reported that each year in Britain ‘nearly 200 child cyclists are killed on the road and about 7,000 are injured.’[8] To help reduce the risk cycle training schemes were introduced and many youth organisations awarded cycling proficiency badges. To gain one Girl Guides: ‘must be able to cycle well and to repair punctures.’[9] For younger children mock roads with traffic signs were created as was the case in 1956 for the Cubs of Broughty Ferry. ‘The ground was laid out with traffic lanes, halt signs, and all manner of directions which should be observed by road users. Assisted by two constables, Inspector Smith put the Cub cyclists through a gruelling road test. Out of a large number of Cubs entered for the test, 27 passed with flying colours.’[10]

In 1947 the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents inaugurated a national Cycling Safety League and Cycling Proficiency Test and in the first year over 37,000 children joined the League and around 2,500 passed the test. The scheme was coordinated by local authorities: ‘Over 800 schoolchildren have entered for Dundee Road Safety Committee's cycling proficiency test that will be spread over two Saturdays. Competitors will be divided into two groups 8 to 11 years, and 12 to 15 years. Examiners and stewards are being provided by the Scottish National Cyclists' Union and the Cyclists' Touring Club. They will inspect all cycles before the start and disqualify competitors whose machines are defective.’[11] Such tests assessed the rider’s ability to control the cycle and avoid wobbling. The main part was devoted to starting, stopping and signalling correctly. In the last part of the test, riders had to weave in and out of a standard pattern of cones placed 5-feet apart to demonstrate control during manoeuvring. Of course, there were many children, principally boys, who shunned such training, self-confidently believing their cycling skills to be superior, and such were often a hazard to both themselves and other road users. Delivery boys were often mentioned as riding their machines in a reckless manner as one Edinburgh resident pointed out in 1913: ‘Further to the report that a city gentleman has been seriously injured by a tricycle carriage, an almost similar accident happened to me last month on Morningside near the foot of the decline from Churchill. A delivery tricycle carriage, driven by two youths, and favoured by the steep declivity came down at a terrific pace, and coming suddenly from among the traffic just touched my side injuring my clothes and running over my dog. Such was the pace that any attempt at stopping would have meant capsize for a vehicle of that kind, which is intended for only moderate speeds. Such machines in charge of youths who make a practice of racing down declines at the utmost possible speed are not only dangerous to the public but to the youths themselves, and such machines should be entrusted to older persons.’[12] A letter in 1939 proposed a tax on bicycles as this ‘might reduce accidents caused by children, message boys especially, cycling with their hands in pockets.’[13]

In the mid-1930s and early ‘40s a number of local authorities provided free bicycles to children who lived at a distance from their school, although one Scottish council confirmed the reputation for Scots being tight-fisted: ‘The Fife Finance Committee today decided to purchase 28 bicycles for children in those parts of Fife where it was too expensive to send buses specially to bring one child from an isolated part. The question of whether the cycles should be sold to the pupils caused lengthy debate but it was decided that it should be left to the Education Committee to sell these to the children where possible, either in cash or by hire purchase, or to hire the bicycles to the pupils.’[14] There were schools that discouraged children from cycling to school given the risk of an accident and in 1939 the National Committee on Cycling challenged such actions. ‘Certain elementary schoolmasters have lately attempted to invest themselves with authority to forbid children cycling to school. The National Committee on Cycling, representing Britain's organised cyclists, would be grateful if you would permit us to indicate to parents that no schoolmaster has authority to instruct them on the subject of cycling by children. The law of the land, deeply rooted in the instincts of the people, gives parents, and parents alone, the right to decide whether their child should or should not cycle. If, however, a schoolmaster feels that a child cyclist may make the public high-way unsafe for himself or others, he will be wise to report the fact to the parents, who can be relied upon to guard not only their own child but all other road users. Further, two Government Committees, when dealing with safety for school children, have already forcibly declared themselves in favour of cycling for children. Finally, the various organisations forming the National Committee on Cycling will be glad to co-operate most earnestly in any educational work to make young cyclists good cyclists.’[15] As more pupils took to cycling to school, bicycle sheds began to be provided. Perthshire Academy had one by 1898. While the provision of bicycle sheds encouraged children to take healthy exercise the buildings also had a less healthy use: ‘An Aberdeen doctor is trying to stop smoking before it starts among North-east youngsters. The sight of pubescent teenagers having a sly puff behind the school bicycle sheds is nothing new.’[16]

Following the Second World War teenagers began to use waste sites left over from the bombing for cycle racing that initially aped motorcycle speedway racing and this developed into a sport in its own right. Although many established amateur cycle clubs created youth sections and organised track and road races for juvenile members, that trend for young people to be drawn to alternative forms of cycling and racing increased.

NEXT SECTION - CYCLING FOR PLEASURE