Free Bikes Instead of School Bus (long)



N

[Not Responding]

Guest
The Nottingham local rag carries the article, below.

The interesting paras say

"Parents and pupils would get to chose bus pass or bike.

Many schools and parents are horrified at the proposals, questioning
whether the children would be safe cycling or catching a public bus to
and from school."

Seems a pretty good idea to me. On the one hand it encourages cycling
(which can never be bad) and on the other it moves the money for buses
into mainstream public buses rather than dedicated school runs.

There are, of course, the usual horrified cries of "cycling! you mean
you want us to murder our children". And outrage at children actually
having to find out what their legs are for.

Full article:

Nottingham's school buses could be axed to save money. The city
council is considering ditching them in favour of pupil bus passes and
cycling to school. But where will it leave the children and how safe
will they be? STEPHANIE BUNGAY reports

School buses have been in use across the country for 60 years,
providing a reassuring service delivering children right to the
schoolgates and back home at night.

Parents have been able to relax in the knowledge their children are
dropped off and picked up safely each day, and that they are excused
the dreaded school run.

But in Nottingham, school buses might soon be a thing of the past.

The city council says they cost too much to run. The bill this year is
£2.8m, £800,000 over budget.

It wants to scrap the service, saving £600,000 a year that could be
ploughed back into education.

Under plans being considered by the council, pupils - both primary and
secondary - would instead either be given bus passes or free bikes.

The council's preferred option is to buy youngsters from the age of
nine bikes, the cost of which would be capped. The bikes would then be
returned when the child left school.

Parents and pupils would get to chose bus pass or bike.

Many schools and parents are horrified at the proposals, questioning
whether the children would be safe cycling or catching a public bus to
and from school.

But Coun Graham Chapman, cabinet member for education, said: "Of
course there are going to be people out there who don't like this;
people who say they are going to be worse off or that their kids will
be in danger.

"But what people have to understand is we need to do this. We are
spending too much on our school buses. There is an over-provision."

There are currently 20 school buses carrying 700 pupils attending 15
schools. Of those, 500 are not even entitled to free school transport
and could lose out under the proposals.

A further 1,000 pupils travel by bus using a pass paid for by the
council, though 400 of those are not legally entitled to them and also
could lose out.

Coun Chapman said it was yet to decided whether those pupils not
legally entitled to free transport but who get in anyway would lose it
should the changes be introduced.

He added: "It costs us over £1,000 per pupil a year on a school bus. A
bus pass for the year costs £190. That is a significant saving which
we can put into education in the areas we want."

Free school transport was introduced after the 1944 Education Act
entered the statute books, making it a legal responsibility that
parents made sure their children went to school - and some parents
complained they lived too far from their nearest school.

It is enshrined in law for primary youngsters who live more than two
miles from their local school and secondary pupils who live more than
three miles away.

The council said that the bill for providing school buses had
spiralled since it took over control of education in the city from the
county council in 1998 because of higher fuel costs. The cost is
expected to rise by a further 25% to 30% this year.

Many of the buses are travelling to and from schools half empty.

A council spokesman said: "We had to put a halt to that. It just could
not go on."

But what about the safety of the children and impact on adult bus
users?

Head teachers contacted by the Post were concerned about the plans.

Mike McKeever, deputy head at Trinity School, Aspley, said: "Getting
all our pupils to use public transport would not be acceptable to us
at all.

"To even consider it there would have to be significant improvements
in the provision. I would imagine all the schools would agree with
that."

Mr McKeever added: "Can you imagine large groups of children all
having to walk to one bus stop from different schools?

"We have no problem with our pupils on public buses, but it is not the
same for other schools and there could be all sorts of trouble."

Steve Clarke, schools transport project manager for the council, said:
"I don't forsee us having massive problems. The majority of youngsters
who already get on public transport are well-behaved. Yes, they are
boisterous, but that is all and most people appreciate that."

But he said the council would consider city-centre patrols to make
sure children were getting on buses safely and behaving themselves.

Head of St Patrick's Catholic Primary, Wilford, Nick Benzie said that
he would prefer that school bus service was kept running.

"The good thing about school buses is that they pick children up from
the school gates and drop them off there," he said.

Mr McKeever said he was also concerned about the free bike scheme.
There had already been a number of bikes stolen at his school - but
his biggest worry was safety.

"We just don't have the infrastructure for this. There are no proper
safety routes and we would have children having to take the A610.

"It would be dangerous for many children. We need to look at this
sensibly and think of the safety."

The changes have been drawn up in three stages.

Stage one, which will happen, starts this September, when the number
of school buses will be cut from 20 to 14. The remaining 14 buses will
be changed from double to single deckers.

Stage two, only under consideration, would be to persuade Nottingham
City Transport to put more buses on routes serving schools in the
morning and at going home time.

Barrie Burch, head of NCT, said: "I really can't say what we are going
to do. I have just spoken with the council and need to consider all
the implications.

"This is a serious issue. We can't just put a bus on. They cost over
£100,000 and we need to make sure it will be used."

Coun Chapman said: "Stage three would be getting rid of school buses
and issuing bus passes instead and giving out free bikes.

"I like the bikes option. Children need to keep fit and this would be
a great way of doing that."

The council says that though it is considering the stages two and
three changes, nothing is set in stone. But Mr Chapman said that if
they were approved everything would hopefully be in place by September
next year.

Coun Chapman said the council would keep to guidelines set by the
Royal Society of Prevention of Accidents restricting the free bikes to
children over nine, and all safety issues would be considered.

A spokesman for the RoSPA said: "A bike scheme can have a lot of
positive benefits but everything must be done correctly and all the
road safety issues have to be in place. There needs to be safe,
dedicated cycle routes. That is going to be the real test."

On that, Coun Chapman said: "We would look at cycle routes and that is
something we would introduce by working with the schools.

"We would also have to look at providing helmets and reflective pads."

Under the plans children would be given security locks and bike sheds
would be built at schools.

The council is also to appoint a transport plan co-ordinator to work
with schools.

Road safety groups have urged the council to consider pupils' safety.

Simon Collister, from Brake, a road safety charity, which works to
reduce death and injuries on roads, said: "School buses pick up
children at school gates. If these changes mean pupils, particularly
younger ones, had to walk or cross roads to get a bus, it is worrying.

"We would want to make sure that there were proper road safety lessons
for all students

"And we would also press for all roads around schools be a 20mph
zone."

School bus changes: Stage one

From September, the number of school buses serving 15 primary and
secondary schools in Nottingham will be cut from 20 to 14.

The cuts will see:


Two double-decker buses serving St Augustine's Catholic Primary,
Mapperley, reduced to two single deckers


Two double deckers serving Elliot Durham Comprehensive, Mapperley,
replaced by one double decker


Two single deckers serving Bramcote Park Comprehensive and Alderman
White Comprehensive cut to one single decker


Two double deckers serving St Patrick's Catholic Primary and South
Wilford Primary, both Wilford, reduced to two single deckers


Three double deckers serving Bluecoat Comprehensive, Manning
Comprehensive and Trinity School, Aspley, replaced by three single
deckers


Two single deckers serving Emmanuel School, Wilford, replaced by one
double decker


Two double deckers serving St Margaret Clitherow, Bestwood Park,
replaced by one double decker


A double decker serving St Teresa's, Aspley, replaced by a single
decker


A double decker serving St Edwards, St Ann's, replaced by a single
decker


A double decker serving Christ the King, Arnold, replaced by a single
decker


Two buses serving Fairham College, Clifton, axed altogether.

Pointing out potential problems

The council certainly has its work cut out to win over parents and
pupils going by those the Post talked to.

While school buses are expensive, most people think they are the best
option.

Lewis Slater, 15, from Wollaton, rides to school, but he does not
think it is for everyone.

"The good thing about a school bus is it takes you to your home. If
you live far from school you can't get a bike or public transport. It
is too inconvenient. I also think it could lead to fights between
pupils from different schools, and there would be more bullying."

Charlotte Howldsworth, 14, from Bilborough, walks to school. She said:
"I would rather walk than use a bike because I wear a skirt. I don't
think the plans are good at all. If you live far away it is going to
make it difficult to get to school.

"It is not going to be safe for pupils and there will be trouble. You
are better getting on just with kids from your school."

Jennifer Cairney, a mother-of-six from Arnold, said: "I'd like to see
something like the US system of yellow buses dropping kids off at the
end of their streets. My three eldest are having to walk about two
miles to school because there isn't a bus to take them.

"I think it's silly getting kids that young to go on public transport.
What do they do if there's no room on the bus?
 
[Not Responding] wrote:

> The Nottingham local rag carries the article, below.
>
> The interesting paras say
>
> "Parents and pupils would get to chose bus pass or bike.
>
> Many schools and parents are horrified at the proposals, questioning
> whether the children would be safe cycling or catching a public bus to
> and from school."
>
> Seems a pretty good idea to me. On the one hand it encourages cycling
> (which can never be bad) and on the other it moves the money for buses
> into mainstream public buses rather than dedicated school runs.
>
> There are, of course, the usual horrified cries of "cycling! you mean
> you want us to murder our children". And outrage at children actually
> having to find out what their legs are for.
>
> Full article:
>
> Nottingham's school buses could be axed to save money. The city
> council is considering ditching them in favour of pupil bus passes and
> cycling to school. But where will it leave the children and how safe
> will they be? STEPHANIE BUNGAY reports
>
> School buses have been in use across the country for 60 years,
> providing a reassuring service delivering children right to the
> schoolgates and back home at night.
>
> Parents have been able to relax in the knowledge their children are
> dropped off and picked up safely each day, and that they are excused
> the dreaded school run.
>
> But in Nottingham, school buses might soon be a thing of the past.
>
> The city council says they cost too much to run. The bill this year is
> £2.8m, £800,000 over budget.
>
> It wants to scrap the service, saving £600,000 a year that could be
> ploughed back into education.
>
> Under plans being considered by the council, pupils - both primary and
> secondary - would instead either be given bus passes or free bikes.
>
> The council's preferred option is to buy youngsters from the age of
> nine bikes, the cost of which would be capped. The bikes would then be
> returned when the child left school.
>
> Parents and pupils would get to chose bus pass or bike.
>
> Many schools and parents are horrified at the proposals, questioning
> whether the children would be safe cycling or catching a public bus to
> and from school.
>
> But Coun Graham Chapman, cabinet member for education, said: "Of
> course there are going to be people out there who don't like this;
> people who say they are going to be worse off or that their kids will
> be in danger.
>
> "But what people have to understand is we need to do this. We are
> spending too much on our school buses. There is an over-provision."
>
> There are currently 20 school buses carrying 700 pupils attending 15
> schools. Of those, 500 are not even entitled to free school transport
> and could lose out under the proposals.
>
> A further 1,000 pupils travel by bus using a pass paid for by the
> council, though 400 of those are not legally entitled to them and also
> could lose out.
>
> Coun Chapman said it was yet to decided whether those pupils not
> legally entitled to free transport but who get in anyway would lose it
> should the changes be introduced.
>
> He added: "It costs us over £1,000 per pupil a year on a school bus. A
> bus pass for the year costs £190. That is a significant saving which
> we can put into education in the areas we want."
>
> Free school transport was introduced after the 1944 Education Act
> entered the statute books, making it a legal responsibility that
> parents made sure their children went to school - and some parents
> complained they lived too far from their nearest school.
>
> It is enshrined in law for primary youngsters who live more than two
> miles from their local school and secondary pupils who live more than
> three miles away.
>
> The council said that the bill for providing school buses had
> spiralled since it took over control of education in the city from the
> county council in 1998 because of higher fuel costs. The cost is
> expected to rise by a further 25% to 30% this year.
>
> Many of the buses are travelling to and from schools half empty.
>
> A council spokesman said: "We had to put a halt to that. It just could
> not go on."
>
> But what about the safety of the children and impact on adult bus
> users?
>
> Head teachers contacted by the Post were concerned about the plans.
>
> Mike McKeever, deputy head at Trinity School, Aspley, said: "Getting
> all our pupils to use public transport would not be acceptable to us
> at all.
>
> "To even consider it there would have to be significant improvements
> in the provision. I would imagine all the schools would agree with
> that."
>
> Mr McKeever added: "Can you imagine large groups of children all
> having to walk to one bus stop from different schools?
>
> "We have no problem with our pupils on public buses, but it is not the
> same for other schools and there could be all sorts of trouble."
>
> Steve Clarke, schools transport project manager for the council, said:
> "I don't forsee us having massive problems. The majority of youngsters
> who already get on public transport are well-behaved. Yes, they are
> boisterous, but that is all and most people appreciate that."
>
> But he said the council would consider city-centre patrols to make
> sure children were getting on buses safely and behaving themselves.
>
> Head of St Patrick's Catholic Primary, Wilford, Nick Benzie said that
> he would prefer that school bus service was kept running.
>
> "The good thing about school buses is that they pick children up from
> the school gates and drop them off there," he said.
>
> Mr McKeever said he was also concerned about the free bike scheme.
> There had already been a number of bikes stolen at his school - but
> his biggest worry was safety.
>
> "We just don't have the infrastructure for this. There are no proper
> safety routes and we would have children having to take the A610.
>
> "It would be dangerous for many children. We need to look at this
> sensibly and think of the safety."
>
> The changes have been drawn up in three stages.
>
> Stage one, which will happen, starts this September, when the number
> of school buses will be cut from 20 to 14. The remaining 14 buses will
> be changed from double to single deckers.
>
> Stage two, only under consideration, would be to persuade Nottingham
> City Transport to put more buses on routes serving schools in the
> morning and at going home time.
>
> Barrie Burch, head of NCT, said: "I really can't say what we are going
> to do. I have just spoken with the council and need to consider all
> the implications.
>
> "This is a serious issue. We can't just put a bus on. They cost over
> £100,000 and we need to make sure it will be used."
>
> Coun Chapman said: "Stage three would be getting rid of school buses
> and issuing bus passes instead and giving out free bikes.
>
> "I like the bikes option. Children need to keep fit and this would be
> a great way of doing that."
>
> The council says that though it is considering the stages two and
> three changes, nothing is set in stone. But Mr Chapman said that if
> they were approved everything would hopefully be in place by September
> next year.
>
> Coun Chapman said the council would keep to guidelines set by the
> Royal Society of Prevention of Accidents restricting the free bikes to
> children over nine, and all safety issues would be considered.
>
> A spokesman for the RoSPA said: "A bike scheme can have a lot of
> positive benefits but everything must be done correctly and all the
> road safety issues have to be in place. There needs to be safe,
> dedicated cycle routes. That is going to be the real test."
>
> On that, Coun Chapman said: "We would look at cycle routes and that is
> something we would introduce by working with the schools.
>
> "We would also have to look at providing helmets and reflective pads."
>
> Under the plans children would be given security locks and bike sheds
> would be built at schools.
>
> The council is also to appoint a transport plan co-ordinator to work
> with schools.
>
> Road safety groups have urged the council to consider pupils' safety.
>
> Simon Collister, from Brake, a road safety charity, which works to
> reduce death and injuries on roads, said: "School buses pick up
> children at school gates. If these changes mean pupils, particularly
> younger ones, had to walk or cross roads to get a bus, it is worrying.
>
> "We would want to make sure that there were proper road safety lessons
> for all students
>
> "And we would also press for all roads around schools be a 20mph
> zone."
>
> School bus changes: Stage one
>
> From September, the number of school buses serving 15 primary and
> secondary schools in Nottingham will be cut from 20 to 14.
>
> The cuts will see:
>
>
> Two double-decker buses serving St Augustine's Catholic Primary,
> Mapperley, reduced to two single deckers
>
>
> Two double deckers serving Elliot Durham Comprehensive, Mapperley,
> replaced by one double decker
>
>
> Two single deckers serving Bramcote Park Comprehensive and Alderman
> White Comprehensive cut to one single decker
>
>
> Two double deckers serving St Patrick's Catholic Primary and South
> Wilford Primary, both Wilford, reduced to two single deckers
>
>
> Three double deckers serving Bluecoat Comprehensive, Manning
> Comprehensive and Trinity School, Aspley, replaced by three single
> deckers
>
>
> Two single deckers serving Emmanuel School, Wilford, replaced by one
> double decker
>
>
> Two double deckers serving St Margaret Clitherow, Bestwood Park,
> replaced by one double decker
>
>
> A double decker serving St Teresa's, Aspley, replaced by a single
> decker
>
>
> A double decker serving St Edwards, St Ann's, replaced by a single
> decker
>
>
> A double decker serving Christ the King, Arnold, replaced by a single
> decker
>
>
> Two buses serving Fairham College, Clifton, axed altogether.
>
> Pointing out potential problems
>
> The council certainly has its work cut out to win over parents and
> pupils going by those the Post talked to.
>
> While school buses are expensive, most people think they are the best
> option.
>
> Lewis Slater, 15, from Wollaton, rides to school, but he does not
> think it is for everyone.
>
> "The good thing about a school bus is it takes you to your home. If
> you live far from school you can't get a bike or public transport. It
> is too inconvenient. I also think it could lead to fights between
> pupils from different schools, and there would be more bullying."
>
> Charlotte Howldsworth, 14, from Bilborough, walks to school. She said:
> "I would rather walk than use a bike because I wear a skirt. I don't
> think the plans are good at all. If you live far away it is going to
> make it difficult to get to school.
>
> "It is not going to be safe for pupils and there will be trouble. You
> are better getting on just with kids from your school."
>
> Jennifer Cairney, a mother-of-six from Arnold, said: "I'd like to see
> something like the US system of yellow buses dropping kids off at the
> end of their streets. My three eldest are having to walk about two
> miles to school because there isn't a bus to take them.
 
I must admit, I would not have been a happy bunny with Nathan cycling to school
at age nine. Indeed, he didn't cycle to school unaccompanied until the last
year or so. This may be a rural area, but we have a large number of HGVs (most
of which are courteous to cyclists) and being narrow country lanes, you do get
the berks (often yoof behind the wheel of a Nova 1.0, or twit in large 4x4) who
view such roads as their own private rally tracks. Vernon or I cycled with
Nathan until we were satisfied he had developed enough road sense to be able to
cope with cycling alone and be safe with regard to himself and other road
users.

Norfolk, being a rural county, has a large number of kids transported to school
by school bus, as often schools are over 3 miles from home and rural roads have
no footpaths and no lighting to make walking an option to reasonably consider.
I would not have allowed Nathan to walk to & from school - I still wouldn't. I
wouldn't do it myself to his current school.

So I can understand school & parental reluctance to welcome Nottingham's plans
with open arms.

Saying the above - I grew up in a town. I walked to school every day (about a
mile there & a mile back I suppose to grammar school & possibly double that to
junior school). I only had to cross one road en route and that was a quiet
estate road, plus there were footpaths the entire way). Kids who were bussed in
didn't have school buses laid on, they had a local authority school bus pass,
which they had to show to the driver/conductor and were limited to certain
buses at certain times of day. That was the normal way of doing things. This
couldn't happen in my current rural locality as there simply aren't the bus
services to do it. IT has to be LA-provided school bus in this area.

No simple answer to this one, perhaps. Kids need to learn what their legs are
for, yes, but I can completely understand the reluctance of parents too.

Cheers, helen s


















--This is an invalid email address to avoid spam--
to get correct one remove fame & fortune
h*$el*$$e*nd**$o$ts**i*$*$m*m$o*n*s@$*a$o*l.c**$om$

--Due to financial crisis the light at the end of the tunnel is switched off--
 
> He added: "It costs us over £1,000 per pupil a year on a school bus. A
> bus pass for the year costs £190. That is a significant saving which
> we can put into education in the areas we want."


Assuming 40 weeks in school and five days in the school week, then that works out at
about £5 a day. Methinks that its more than the cost of fuel that is making it so
expensive...

> Charlotte Howldsworth, 14, from Bilborough, walks to school. She said:
> "I would rather walk than use a bike because I wear a skirt. I don't
> think the plans are good at all. If you live far away it is going to
> make it difficult to get to school.


No love, that's a belt not a skirt.

> Jennifer Cairney, a mother-of-six from Arnold, said: "I'd like to see
> something like the US system of yellow buses dropping kids off at the
> end of their streets. My three eldest are having to walk about two
> miles to school because there isn't a bus to take them.


2 miiles! That's ridiculous - it'll take 'em at least 10, more like 15 minutes on the
bike, and if they walked it the poor darlings would be battling against the elements for
an entire 40 minutes! Next the schools will be insisting they do some form of physical
exercise in PE!
 
in message <[email protected]>,
dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers ('[email protected]') wrote:

> I must admit, I would not have been a happy bunny with Nathan cycling
> to school at age nine. Indeed, he didn't cycle to school unaccompanied
> until the last year or so. This may be a rural area, but we have a
> large number of HGVs (most of which are courteous to cyclists) and
> being narrow country lanes, you do get the berks (often yoof behind
> the wheel of a Nova 1.0, or twit in large 4x4) who view such roads as
> their own private rally tracks. Vernon or I cycled with Nathan until
> we were satisfied he had developed enough road sense to be able to
> cope with cycling alone and be safe with regard to himself and other
> road users.
>
> Norfolk, being a rural county, has a large number of kids transported
> to school by school bus, as often schools are over 3 miles from home
> and rural roads have no footpaths and no lighting to make walking an
> option to reasonably consider. I would not have allowed Nathan to walk
> to & from school - I still wouldn't. I wouldn't do it myself to his
> current school.


When I was six, I was accompanied on my walk to school at least
sometimes. I know this because I can remember asking my mother a
question on one occasion. But I can equally clearly remember that I was
not met at the end of the school day - I was expected to walk home by
myself. Mind you, that was only about a mile. By the age of eight I was
travelling five miles across Edinburgh by public transport, and the
very idea of being accompanied would have revolted me - let alone the
bullying I'd have got in consequence!

Around here, children as young as seven cycle by themselves more than
two miles to and from the village school; one child of six also cycles
but is accompanied.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

The trouble with Simon is that he only opens his mouth to change feet.
;; of me, by a 'friend'
 
On Sat, 15 May 2004 15:35:46 +0100, Zog The Undeniable
<[email protected]> wrote in message <40a62b7d.0@entanet>:

>I suppose it depends on the route your child would have to take to
>school. I'm big, ugly and aggressive and I would be wary of cycling to
>work every day. I do so occasionally but I feel the risk of being wiped
>out on the roads I have to use is pretty high - traffic is very heavy


And I bet you that much of that traffic is made up of parents of the
sort who are complaining about this policy. The idea of driving more
carefully as a solution to the danger cars pose to their children
simply never occurs to a lot of people. Probably because they are
"above average" drivers, like all the others...

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
 
On 15 May 2004 15:20:59 GMT, [email protected]omcom
(dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers) wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>I must admit, I would not have been a happy bunny with Nathan cycling to school
>at age nine. Indeed, he didn't cycle to school unaccompanied until the last
>year or so.


Michael cycled to school for the first time aged seven, though he has
never ridden more than a short distance unaccompanied. Perhaps
someone shoudl suggest to the parents that they accompany thier
children. On second thoughts, they'd probably drive along behind in
the car...

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
 
>When I was six, I was accompanied on my walk to school at least
>sometimes. I know this because I can remember asking my mother a
>question on one occasion. But I can equally clearly remember that I was
>not met at the end of the school day - I was expected to walk home by
>myself. Mind you, that was only about a mile.


Yup - I walked to & from school unaccompanied from a fairly young age. Life
isn't like that these days. Whether that's a good thing is entirely a different
matter. Back then there was, at least, safety in numbers as most kids walked to
school - now the kid who walks or cycles can stick out like a sore thumb -
especially in a rural area.


>By the age of eight I was
>travelling five miles across Edinburgh by public transport, and the
>very idea of being accompanied would have revolted me - let alone the
>bullying I'd have got in consequence!


Different now, kids are unlikely to be bullied because their parents take them
to school I would suggest, as in many a school it's the norm for kids to be
taken & met by parents. Kids get bullied for all sorts of reasons, but I doubt
that being taken to school by parents figures high on the list these days.

>Around here, children as young as seven cycle by themselves more than
>two miles to and from the village school; one child of six also cycles
>but is accompanied.


When Nathan was that age, his school was in Norwich - 20+ miles away by car. I
wouldn't have let him walk or cycle that distance anyhow. Even a bit older -
there's no way, no how, I'd have allowed him to cycle the 11 mile round trip to
& from school unaccompanied along narrow country lanes with heavy HGV traffic
and cars with drivers who can think it's their own personal rally tracks. Now
he's older, and I'm certain I've instilled in him "road sense", I am happy to
allow him to cycle unaccompanied. And I still get parents thinking I'm nuts to
allow him to do so as a teenager...

Cheers, helen s




--This is an invalid email address to avoid spam--
to get correct one remove fame & fortune
h*$el*$$e*nd**$o$ts**i*$*$m*m$o*n*s@$*a$o*l.c**$om$

--Due to financial crisis the light at the end of the tunnel is switched off--
 
dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers wrote:
> I must admit, I would not have been a happy bunny with Nathan cycling to school
> at age nine. Indeed, he didn't cycle to school unaccompanied until the last
> year or so. This may be a rural area, but we have a large number of HGVs (most
> of which are courteous to cyclists) and being narrow country lanes, you do get
> the berks (often yoof behind the wheel of a Nova 1.0, or twit in large 4x4) who
> view such roads as their own private rally tracks. Vernon or I cycled with
> Nathan until we were satisfied he had developed enough road sense to be able to
> cope with cycling alone and be safe with regard to himself and other road
> users.
>

Isn't Nottingham the city where no-one speeds any more because of
blanket speed camera coverage? That would make their roads a good bit
safer and less frightening to cycle on than average.

I cycled to school from 11. There were no cyclepaths at all, and one
narrow, congested main road. I reckon I'd have been OK at 9, with
training.

And Nottingham won't force anyone to cycle - there'll still be a bus
option.

Colin McKenzie

--
Why believe statistics?
Ignore them and you can believe the damned lies instead!
 
in message <[email protected]>,
dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers ('[email protected]') wrote:

>>When I was six, I was accompanied on my walk to school at least
>>sometimes. I know this because I can remember asking my mother a
>>question on one occasion. But I can equally clearly remember that I
>>was not met at the end of the school day - I was expected to walk home
>>by myself. Mind you, that was only about a mile.

>
> Yup - I walked to & from school unaccompanied from a fairly young age.
> Life isn't like that these days. Whether that's a good thing is
> entirely a different matter.


Yebbut - both the road danger and the 'stranger danger' were,
statistically, considerably worse forty years ago. By which I mean,
more kids got killed then than do now.

So the difference is that parents are more paranoid and children are
more mollycoddled, and neither of these things is good.

Viva Nottingham, I say. I think they're taking a courageous and positive
position which will be very good for public health, for the
independence and self-confidence of their children, for the urban
environment and for the atmosphere.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; When your hammer is C++, everything begins to look like a thumb.
 
>Yebbut - both the road danger and the 'stranger danger' were,
>statistically, considerably worse forty years ago. By which I mean,
>more kids got killed then than do now.
>
>So the difference is that parents are more paranoid and children are
>more mollycoddled, and neither of these things is good.


Being a devil's advocate here - perhaps fewer children are killed now, on the
logic that more parents are ferrying them to & from school.

It's not a simple situation at all, as a parent quite determined that her
offspring should grow up to be independent, I allow him a certain amount of
freedom, which includes me no longer acting as ever available taxi - yet I can
quite understand parents' fears about allowing their kids to cycle or walk
unaccompanied.

Cheers, helen s


--This is an invalid email address to avoid spam--
to get correct one remove fame & fortune
h*$el*$$e*nd**$o$ts**i*$*$m*m$o*n*s@$*a$o*l.c**$om$

--Due to financial crisis the light at the end of the tunnel is switched off--
 
dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers wrote:
>
> Being a devil's advocate here - perhaps fewer children are killed now, on
> the logic that more parents are ferrying them to & from school.
>
> It's not a simple situation at all, as a parent quite determined that her
> offspring should grow up to be independent, I allow him a certain amount of
> freedom, which includes me no longer acting as ever available taxi - yet I
> can quite understand parents' fears about allowing their kids to cycle or
> walk unaccompanied.
>


Yet its self defeating. The biggest factor in cycling safety is numbers. Not
letting kids cycle makes it more dangerous for those that do. Get lots of them
out on the road and the safety will rocket, not only because of the numbers
cycling but also because of the reduction of frustrated mums in a hurry on the
school run.

Tony
 
On Sat, 15 May 2004 21:35:03 GMT, Simon Brooke <[email protected]>
wrote in message <[email protected]>:

>Yebbut - both the road danger and the 'stranger danger' were,
>statistically, considerably worse forty years ago. By which I mean,
>more kids got killed then than do now.


YA Meyer Hillman & ICMFP ;-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
 
On 15 May 2004 21:39:24 GMT, [email protected]omcom
(dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers) wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>Being a devil's advocate here - perhaps fewer children are killed now, on the
>logic that more parents are ferrying them to & from school.


I recommend "One False Move" by Meyer Hillman and John Whitelegg,
which discusses the issue in considerable detail.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
 
in message <[email protected]>, Tony Raven
('[email protected]') wrote:

> dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers wrote:
>>
>> Being a devil's advocate here - perhaps fewer children are killed
>> now, on the logic that more parents are ferrying them to & from
>> school.
>>
>> It's not a simple situation at all, as a parent quite determined that
>> her offspring should grow up to be independent, I allow him a certain
>> amount of freedom, which includes me no longer acting as ever
>> available taxi - yet I can quite understand parents' fears about
>> allowing their kids to cycle or walk unaccompanied.

>
> Yet its self defeating. The biggest factor in cycling safety is
> numbers. Not letting kids cycle makes it more dangerous for those
> that do. Get lots of them out on the road and the safety will rocket,
> not only because of the numbers cycling but also because of the
> reduction of frustrated mums in a hurry on the school run.


....and that's exactly what the Nottingham policy should achieve. Lots of
kids on bikes, regularly, making all road users (except the kids!)
habitually more careful, and consequently making the roads safer and
more pleasant for everyone.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

my other car is #<Subr-Car: #5d480>
;; This joke is not funny in emacs.
 
Simon Brooke wrote:
>
> in message <[email protected]>,
> dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
> >>When I was six, I was accompanied on my walk to school at least
> >>sometimes. I know this because I can remember asking my mother a
> >>question on one occasion. But I can equally clearly remember that I
> >>was not met at the end of the school day - I was expected to walk home
> >>by myself. Mind you, that was only about a mile.

> >
> > Yup - I walked to & from school unaccompanied from a fairly young age.
> > Life isn't like that these days. Whether that's a good thing is
> > entirely a different matter.

>
> Yebbut - both the road danger and the 'stranger danger' were,
> statistically, considerably worse forty years ago. By which I mean,
> more kids got killed then than do now.


> So the difference is that parents are more paranoid and children are
> more mollycoddled, and neither of these things is good.


I suspect that many of today's parents have been conditioned by scare
stories put about by the do-good industries which have sprouted up over
the last 30 - 40 years.
That coupled with sitting in front of the box watching numerous
fictional TV cop shows and soaps which repeatedly broadcast stories of
danger and terror.

> Viva Nottingham, I say. I think they're taking a courageous and positive
> position which will be very good for public health, for the
> independence and self-confidence of their children, for the urban
> environment and for the atmosphere.


Agreed. But it won't stop parents making excuses as to why they cannot
or have not allowed their children independence.

John B
 
in message <[email protected]>, JohnB ('[email protected]')
wrote:

> Simon Brooke wrote:
>>
>> Yebbut - both the road danger and the 'stranger danger' were,
>> statistically, considerably worse forty years ago. By which I mean,
>> more kids got killed then than do now.

>
>> So the difference is that parents are more paranoid and children are
>> more mollycoddled, and neither of these things is good.

>
> I suspect that many of today's parents have been conditioned by scare
> stories put about by the do-good industries which have sprouted up
> over the last 30 - 40 years.
> That coupled with sitting in front of the box watching numerous
> fictional TV cop shows and soaps which repeatedly broadcast stories of
> danger and terror.


I don't really know how unusual my childhood was. But at age ten I
sometimes (I can't say how often) left the house before anyone else was
awake and just roamed the hills until teatime. There were specific
places I was not allowed to go for specific reasons, and I respected
those (I wasn't allowed to cross the lands of one farm whose owner was
hostile, and I wasn't allowed to go into an area where there were
abandoned mine shafts).

I have wonderful memories of those days. Walking into a wood and finding
myself literally face to face with, and no more than a yard away from,
a young long eared owl, and both of us too startled to react. Or on
another occasion sitting for over an hour watching (from a discreet
distance!) a heavily pregnant adder in the hope she'd give birth.
Usually I'd be alone all day. Later, I sometimes took my little sister.

By the time I was thirteen I sometimes (again, I can't really say how
often - certainly not regularly but I can remember several different
occasions) took my boat down river alone on the morning tide and came
back up again on the evening. And again, I have some cracking memories
of those expeditions.

OK, so this probably was a very privileged childhood. And I know
(because much later she told me) how much allowing me that degree of
liberty cost my mother. But it strikes me that very few kids these days
have a tithe of that liberty, and it strikes me that over-protecting
them must be far more damaging - in damage to confidence, to
independence, self reliance, to assessment of risk, to appreciation of
the natural world - than allowing them a reasonable degree of freedom.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
; gif ye hes forget our auld plane Scottis quhilk your mother lerit you,
; in tymes cuming I sall wryte to you my mind in Latin, for I am nocht
; acquyntit with your Southeron
;; Letter frae Ninian Winyet tae John Knox datit 27t October 1563
 
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> On 15 May 2004 15:20:59 GMT, [email protected]omcom
> (dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers) wrote in message
> <[email protected]>:
>
>
>>I must admit, I would not have been a happy bunny with Nathan cycling to school
>>at age nine. Indeed, he didn't cycle to school unaccompanied until the last
>>year or so.

>
>
> Michael cycled to school for the first time aged seven, though he has
> never ridden more than a short distance unaccompanied. Perhaps
> someone shoudl suggest to the parents that they accompany thier
> children. On second thoughts, they'd probably drive along behind in
> the car...


My elder one started riding to school accompanied aged 5 or so in
Belgium (about 1 km of moderate pavé with a bit of a mur at each end)
and now he is 8 and doing a rather shorter and flatter ride in the
Nottingham metropolis (but not the CoN itself). He's mostly
unaccompanied now due to the difficulties of persuading him to wait for
me to sort his smaller, Down's Syndrome brother onto the trailer bike in
the usual morning rush. The whole ride is in a 20 mph limit zone
although part of it carries a fair amount of (usually clogged-up)
traffic at 08.55. Not had any major problems, even though he has all the
common sense of a woodlouse, and is generally getting better at it.
 
On Sun, 16 May 2004 21:08:03 GMT, Simon Brooke <[email protected]>
wrote:


>
>I don't really know how unusual my childhood was. But at age ten I
>sometimes (I can't say how often) left the house before anyone else was
>awake and just roamed the hills until teatime. There were specific
>places I was not allowed to go for specific reasons, and I respected
>those (I wasn't allowed to cross the lands of one farm whose owner was
>hostile, and I wasn't allowed to go into an area where there were
>abandoned mine shafts).
>
>I have wonderful memories of those days. Walking into a wood and finding
>myself literally face to face with, and no more than a yard away from,
>a young long eared owl, and both of us too startled to react. Or on
>another occasion sitting for over an hour watching (from a discreet
>distance!) a heavily pregnant adder in the hope she'd give birth.
>Usually I'd be alone all day. Later, I sometimes took my little sister.
>
>By the time I was thirteen I sometimes (again, I can't really say how
>often - certainly not regularly but I can remember several different
>occasions) took my boat down river alone on the morning tide and came
>back up again on the evening. And again, I have some cracking memories
>of those expeditions.
>
>OK, so this probably was a very privileged childhood. And I know
>(because much later she told me) how much allowing me that degree of
>liberty cost my mother. But it strikes me that very few kids these days
>have a tithe of that liberty, and it strikes me that over-protecting
>them must be far more damaging - in damage to confidence, to
>independence, self reliance, to assessment of risk, to appreciation of
>the natural world - than allowing them a reasonable degree of freedom.


Sometimes I think my brothers and I were the last of an era. We had
similar freedom and regarded it as normal. The other children near us
did too. I'm talking 1977-1984 ish when I as the eldest was between
7ish and 14ish.

During term we made our own way to the bus stop (half a mile away).
During holidays and at weekends we were just out.

The only out of bounds areas I recall were the farm (slurry pits, big
machinery etc), the cliffs (avoid the top to avoid falling off and the
bottom to avoid stuff falling onto you) and that was about it.

Everything else was fair game. I spent whole days in the woods; in
groups building frighteningly high treehouses, lighting fires and
catching rabbits; or on my own just watching and exploring. There was
a lake for fishing and rudimentary naval architecture. Used to spend
hours on the beach trying to get things out from under rocks in
rockpools.

[back on topic] Of course bikes were standard issue in those days and
we could take them anywhere. From riding the two or three miles to the
village or setting up cross country races.

Bringing up children of my own today and in a different part of the
country I am stunned and shocked at the imprisonment of children. As I
mentioned before, the school I attended (which my neices do now) runs
a sort of prisoner style transfer system at the start and end of the
day. I have been virtually accused of neglect because I suggested my 7
year old walk half a mile to the river to fish.

We are creating a generation that will reach the age of 16 or 18
having never had the slightest freedom and independance.