Kids safety & the "climate of fear" (warning: heavy stuff, some may not want to read this)



Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Mr [email protected] \ -Lsqco

Guest
/*CAUTION*: The two expectant mothers on this group and others of a sensitive disposition may not
want to read this post. Due to the nature of what I was dealing with I myself found investigating
the statistics behind my post heavy going, and at points felt *physically sick* and just wanted to
stop, but this is something I felt has to be publicised more./

Also I am *not* a professional statistician (although I do work with some), but what I saw in the
figures seems to match up with my own awareness of "society" today.

* several blank lines follow, those who wish to read please scroll down*.














Anyway, I thought I would compare some child safety stats from the NSPCC with those DfT provide on
KSI (killed/seriously injured) figures of children in road traffic collisions. It was just back of
an envelope calculations comparing the total figures and the figures are unfortunately from
different years (although this should hopefully not make much difference) but I came to the
following conclusions (which I admit are contentious ones)

1. the danger to kids from the roads (bad as they are) is only slightly more than the danger from
these kids *staying at home*, especially in households where various pressures lead to stress and
violent behaviour from parents (although more kids are killed on the roads, at least half of this
terrible toll occurs due to abuse from elders).

2. whilst parents worry about "stranger danger" and their kids safety - 78% of child deaths are *at
the hands of their own parents*.

3. I *hope* our society isn't that bad and that most of the parents, even those who commit terrible
crimes, do *not* produce children only to murder them later; but in many cases parents are driven
to these acts by stress triggering family breakdowns and underlying mental ilness - much of this
exacerbated by current social culture which champions "bigger! faster! NOW!"

4. Those who champion "car culture" to the point of advocating higher speed limits even in urban
areas (mostly childless single males in high-income brackets), are frankly, asking for the /right
to kill and injure children/ (or at least force them off the roads as "not strong enough to
handle it") - IMO they are /as bad as child abusers/ - although naturally they do not see
themselves in this manner - after all if their agressive driving is creating a climate of fear
amongst children (which it is in some areas) is it not as bad as the "stranger round the corner?"

5. Also IMO the "climate of fear" from RTCs and perceived "nonces round every corner" is maybe
keeping kids and parents crammed together leading to the very arguments that can lead to the
bulk of child abuse (I am discounting to an extent predatory sexual abuse, which AFAIK is still
thankfully rare despite what the media puts across). Family life *is* stressful these days,
especially with kids from 11-16 age group. I can still remember several times where myself and
my Dad could have come to blows had he not been too ill to fight - and we were otherwise a
traditional middle class family. A safe(r) environment for kids to play and give their parents
some space (or vice versa) could alleviate a lot of the domestic pressures. Cycling also gives
pre-teen and teenage children valuable lessons in independence and responsibility (road safety,
maintenance) as well as being good for them physically and mentally! I still remember the
wonderful sense of freedom I got in 1977 when my stabilisers were removed, and in 1981 when I
was allowed to cycle where there were busier roads, and I still get that childlike sense of
freedom *today*.

Perhaps If Mum and Dad can let the juniors go round the block on their pushbikes with their friends
without worrying [1] all the time to give them space after a stressful day at work ,or better still
they could ride to school every day as well without worrying they are also saving the stress of
getting the car ready for the morning school run, fighting for parking spaces with all the other
mums/dads and the cost of keeping the car running - instant lowered stress levels.

OK I know most of the parents on here do this anyway, but you would be surprised how many parents I
speak to who are worried to let their kids cycle because of the "climate of fear". As for stranger
danger, how many nonces could out-run a kid at 15-20mph (especially after he/she has just whacked a
bar end into their stomach...)

I know you can say anything with statistics and I admit my views are perhaps biased - perhaps those
with a strong mind could come up with something better/more accurate- but I have felt strongly about
this for some time.

Incidentally I am a single male with no children (nor do I particularly want any!) - but I *am*
prepared to make concessions, pay taxes and even suffer minor inconveniences if it makes life safer
for children and families. Isn't that what "society" is all about?

Alex
[6] OK, parents *will* always worry a bit - my Mum always says "be careful on your bike" - and I am
*30*. But I do think the climate of fear has got too much recently.....
 
M

Marc

Guest
Mr [email protected] (2.3 zulu-alpha) [comms room new build] <[email protected]> wrote:

> (I am discounting to an extent predatory sexual abuse, which AFAIK is still thankfully rare
> despite what the media puts across)

It's far less rare that you think, but in 97% of cases it's a close family member rather than the
"bogey man" :-(

To bring it back OT ,it was scarey last year when I took the my Cubs cycling. Of 25 cubs over half
thought that it was safer to cycle on the side facing traffic, 75% thought that pavements were safer
than roads, 3 thought it was illegal for a child to use the road with a bike. None of the bikes had
lights, one child had never ridden on the road or a pavement ( mum took him to the park in the car
if he wanted to ride) 100% of the bikes were set up so that the child could touch the floor whilst
seated, over 50% had brakes not working . But it's OK it was a "safe" event because the SA insists
on helmets being worn , in a backdoor move the advice has gone up from "should" to must in the
latest programme information for Cubs! :-(
 
J

Just Zis Guy

Guest
On Sun, 22 Dec 2002 10:32:16 +0000, John Mann <[email protected]> wrote:

>I wonder if that is what they are taught in cycling proficiency (do they still do that?)

No and (yes).

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.
 
M

Mr [email protected] \ -Lsqco

Guest
John Mann wrote:

|| As a Scout leader I can tell you it is no better with Scouts. I would say 100% cycle on the
|| pavement rather than the road, in fact I wonder if that is what they are taught in cycling
|| proficiency (do they still do that?).

They do - at least in Reading. I noticed an entire group of kids on their class a few weeks ago (and
felt guilty for not wearing a helmet!)

|| Among younger scouts (11 yr old) many have clearly never cycled further than the end of their
|| drive; this year for the first time I encountered a Scout who could not ride at all. The thing
|| that puzzles me most is their lack of interest in the bike mechanism.

Good heavens! Baden-Powell would turn in his grave!

It might be though that parents are not letting their kids ride bikes unsupervised until their
teenage years, whereas it was around age 9-11 in the late 70s/early 80s.

I think there is a general de-skilling of youngsters in the fields of mechanical engineering and
electronic engineering involving discrete components. People seem to consider software and computers
to be a universal panacea...

Alex (who is currently a database technician, although was a "real" engineer until the same thing
happened to my employers that happened to Johns).
 
J

John Mann

Guest
In message <[email protected]>, Marc
<[email protected]> writes
>Mr [email protected] (2.3 zulu-alpha) [comms room new build] <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> (I am discounting to an extent predatory sexual abuse, which AFAIK is still thankfully rare
>> despite what the media puts across)
>
>It's far less rare that you think, but in 97% of cases it's a close family member rather than the
>"bogey man" :-(
>
>To bring it back OT ,it was scarey last year when I took the my Cubs cycling. Of 25 cubs over half
>thought that it was safer to cycle on the side facing traffic, 75% thought that pavements were
>safer than roads, 3 thought it was illegal for a child to use the road with a bike. None of the
>bikes had lights, one child had never ridden on the road or a pavement ( mum took him to the park
>in the car if he wanted to ride) 100% of the bikes were set up so that the child could touch the
>floor whilst seated, over 50% had brakes not working . But it's OK it was a "safe" event because
>the SA insists on helmets being worn , in a backdoor move the advice has gone up from "should" to
>must in the latest programme information for Cubs! :-(

As a Scout leader I can tell you it is no better with Scouts. I would say 100% cycle on the
pavement rather than the road, in fact I wonder if that is what they are taught in cycling
proficiency (do they still do that?). Among younger scouts (11 yr old) many have clearly never
cycled further than the end of their drive; this year for the first time I encountered a Scout who
could not ride at all.

The thing that puzzles me most is their lack of interest in the bike mechanism. When I was a kid we
would always be playing about with the mechanics, however inexpertly. Many kids today seem
frightened to change gear, they will be stuck in top gear and in tears because they "can't pedal".
Show them how to change to a low gear and they will stay there throughout the ride, their feet
spinning madly on downhills!

--
**** [email protected] **** http://www.evenlode.demon.co.uk John Mann -- Hook Norton
-- Oxfordshire -- UK
 
A

Alison

Guest
"Mr [email protected] (2.3 zulu-alpha) [comms room new build]" wrote:

> John Mann wrote:
>
> || As a Scout leader I can tell you it is no better with Scouts. I would say 100% cycle on the
> || pavement rather than the road,

Local councillors round my way get uptight when they see kids cycling on pavements and claim that
pedestrians are at risk but that isn't half as hazardous to kids when they cycle on the road and are
hit by a SUV or an HGV with a maniac driver inside. There have been some quite nasty RTAs in my area
involving kids cycling on the road including two fatalities in the past 3 years. In some cases its
the driver at fault and in other cases it is the poor design of roads, bends and junctions or the
fact the road is genuinely dangerous for young children to cycle on and no suitable cycle path
exists so they are tempted to use the pavement. Of course the council doesn't give a damn for the
safety of children out and about and its the Lib-Dem councillors who make the biggest song and dance
about it when they see a 7 year old cycling on a pavement where not a single pedestrian is in sight.
To make matters worse I have even witnessed a local Lib-Dem councillor on rollerblades absolutely
zooming it through a paved area in a shopping centre that was filled with plenty of shoppers and
other pedestrians, racing with another rollerblader in the process.

Surely a kid aged betwen 5 and 10 cycling on a pavement is less likely to run into a pedestrian than
a driver of a large vehicle is likely to run into the same kid cycling on a road. All three of my
kids cycle and not once have they ever come close to hitting a pedestrian on a pavement or know of
any other kids who have. On the other hand two of them have had close shaves on the road with
careless and dangerous drivers and even know of classmates who have been hit and injured.

> in fact I
> || wonder if that is what they are taught in cycling proficiency (do they still do that?).

Gone from many schools, certainly in my area. Cost cutting ?

> They do - at least in Reading. I noticed an entire group of kids on their class a few weeks ago
> (and felt guilty for not wearing a helmet!)
>
> || Among younger scouts (11 yr old) many have clearly never cycled further than the end of their
> || drive; this year for the first time I encountered a Scout who could not ride at all. The thing
> || that puzzles me most is their lack of interest in the bike mechanism.

Probably explains the amount of kids bikes found at household waste sites that only have trivial
problems with them like badly adjusted gears and brakes or punctures.

> Good heavens! Baden-Powell would turn in his grave!
>
> It might be though that parents are not letting their kids ride bikes unsupervised until their
> teenage years, whereas it was around age 9-11 in the late 70s/early 80s.

> I think there is a general de-skilling of youngsters in the fields of mechanical engineering and
> electronic engineering involving discrete components.

Seems to be happening at schools now. My eldest son enjoys dabbling about with bits of machinery and
electronic components and my second son is mad on lego technic much to the chagrin of their
classmates who prefer game consoles and DVD players. Technical hobbies amongst the young seem so
unfashionable now in Cool Britannia filled with MTV and Playstations. My eldest son's secondary
school is revamping its technology department and the stories go that areas like metal fabrication
and electronics will be eliminated despite my son definitely wanting to do an electronics GCSE that
is currently offered. In their place will be more ICT type courses. At one time the school offered a
car mechanics course leading to a nationally recognised qualification but that was ditched ages ago
and the garage equipment auctioned off.

> People seem to consider software and computers to be a universal

I would be surprised if any youngsters could actually program nowadays. Back in the 1980s most home
computers had programming languages supplied with them even if they were just a crude interpreted
dialect of BASIC but it gave the kids the opportunity to write software for themselves. Modern
computers running Windows don't come with a programming language as standard so kids no longer have
the opportunity unless they buy a compiler or go the Linux route. Programming is not taught in most
schools either. Current ICT courses focus more on using computers for general officey tasks rather
than understanding how they work or writing programs for them.

ICT isn't particularly integrated into the rest of the secondary school curriculum apart from
wordprocessing reports and other documents but remains a subject in its own right. This is cynical
but I reckon that the government is so active at promoting ICT as a means to cover over deficiencies
in other subject areas as ICT is perceived by the lay person as trendy, modern and the way forwards.

Alison
 
G

Gary Knighton

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, wrote:
> And as an aside, having moved house recently(ish), my new area is near two schools (a primary and
> a secondary).
>
> I now regularly see kids being taught cycling on the road - in some pretty busy traffic for the
> more advanced ones as well (down Bishopthorpe Rd and over the bridge into town for those that know
> York - girl looked about 10-11).
>
> Numbers are small (2-5 kids), and the instructors seem to mainly be middle aged "normal" people -
> they ride standard bikes, no lycra, don't look super-fit and (very surprisingly to me) don't
> always wear helmets. The kids always wear helmets and everyone wears hi-vis gear. Gives them a
> very good impression of cylcing for the future I'd think ie it's just a mode of transport like any
> other, not something that you have to wear stupid clothes and be super fit for.
>
> Seems a very well run and very encouraging system.
>

Arthur,

This a local Council initiative when children from the age of 10 (year 5) are given cycling tuition
by trained cycling tutor (the Council officer in charge used to be, IIRC, Ken Spence) through the
schools, most of the practice is done on the road not in the sterile artificial environment of he
school playground, emphasis is given to ensuring that the children can use a route between home and
school and to be aware of likely dangers. An advanced form of the course is available for those at
secondary school (year 7) that gives confidence for children to handle most traffic situations, note
the way that many young cyclists handle Blossom Street at school arrival and leaving time, much
better the certain car drivers (York residents and some further afield will remember an incident in
December involving a H&R incident with an 11-year girl pedestrian using a light controlled crossing
after leaving school).

However, these courses are not compulsory, but schools can impose rules that state that children may
not ride to school unaccompanied unless they have been on such a course, as happens at the school my
elder children attend. The courses are a far cry from the Cycle Proficiency of decades ago which did
not introduce real road situations to the children.

Gary

--

The email address is for newsgroups purposes only and therefore unlikely to be read.

For contact via email use my real name with an underscore separator at the domain of CompuServe.
 
M

Marc

Guest
Gary Knighton <[email protected]> wrote:

> but schools can impose rules that state that children may not ride to school unaccompanied unless
> they have been on such a course, as happens at the school my elder children attend.

ROFL!

Schools can't even impose rules that state that children must wear uniform let alone the above. If
the above was even 1/2way true then why don't schools impose rules that state that children may not
be ferried in bloody great 4x4s that block the gates every morning?

--
Marc T Shirts, Sweatshirts, polo shirts, banners, signs,decals, stickers etc for clubs and
associations of all types http://www.jaceeprint.demon.co.uk/
 
J

Just Zis Guy

Guest
Gary Knighton wrote:

> , these courses are not compulsory, but schools can impose rules that state that children may not
> ride to school unaccompanied unless they have been on such a course

Popint of information, Mr Speaker: no they may *not* impose any such rule. The most they may do is
forbid the child to bring the cycle onto the premises, and they would then be on a sticky wicket if
it was stolen due to being placed in a less secure place than would otherwise have been the case.

> The courses are a far cry from the Cycle Proficiency of decades ago which did not introduce real
> road situations to the children.

As is the cycling proficiency scheme today - it now includes road cycling. At least it does at the
school where I'm a governor - and if it didn't before it would this year because I'm the
instructor :-D

--
Guy
===
I wonder if you wouldn't mind piecing out our imperfections with your thoughts; and while you're
about it perhaps you could think when we talk of bicycles, that you see them printing their proud
wheels i' the receiving earth; thanks awfully.

http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#103 http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#104
 
J

John B

Guest
"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote:

> Gary Knighton wrote:
>
> > , these courses are not compulsory, but schools can impose rules that state that children may
> > not ride to school unaccompanied unless they have been on such a course
>
> Popint of information, Mr Speaker: no they may *not* impose any such rule.

Unfortunately they can and they do. Whether they can insist on it is another matter.

Near me, the Primary School says no cycling to school is permitted - and when queried it is on the
ridiculous grounds that they would insist on helmets and there is nowhere to store them The
Secondary school says you must live more (yes 'more') than 1 mile away to be allowed to cycle -
utterly crazy. In their eyes is OK to ride 10 miles along a near motorway class road, but not one
mile along residential streets.

John B
 
P

Phil Bixby

Guest
Just to add to this, City of York Council will also do one-to-one training at reasonable cost, which
can take place on the roads and get the children thinking about real road conditions. I booked a
couple of hours for my 10yo daughter after deciding sometimes dad's aren't the best ones to teach
their kids (bit like spouses teaching driving - usually leads to axe murders) and I was well
impressed - trainer was very switched-on.

As for the schools' attitudes to cycling... don't get me started. I did some work for Sustrans on
local safe Routes to School and (most of) the schools concerned were supportive... but others really
just don't want the fuss. They'd infinitely prefer any number of 4x4's in the playground (sorry -
car park) than the hassle of bikes getting stolen. Ho Hum.

You a Yorkie too then Gary? Not a Good Food Shop customer by any chance?

Phil Bixby York UK

"Gary Knighton" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, wrote:
> > And as an aside, having moved house recently(ish), my new area is near two schools (a primary
> > and a secondary).
> >
> > I now regularly see kids being taught cycling on the road - in some pretty busy traffic for the
> > more advanced ones as well (down
Bishopthorpe
> > Rd and over the bridge into town for those that know York - girl looked about 10-11).
> >
> > Numbers are small (2-5 kids), and the instructors seem to mainly be middle aged "normal" people
> > - they ride standard bikes, no lycra, don't look super-fit and (very surprisingly to me) don't
> > always wear helmets. The kids always wear helmets and everyone wears hi-vis gear. Gives them a
> > very good impression of cylcing for the future I'd think ie it's just a mode of transport like
> > any other, not something that you have to wear stupid clothes and be super fit for.
> >
> > Seems a very well run and very encouraging system.
> >
>
> Arthur,
>
> This a local Council initiative when children from the age of 10 (year 5) are given cycling
> tuition by trained cycling tutor (the Council officer in charge used to be, IIRC, Ken Spence)
> through the schools, most of the practice is done on the road not in the sterile artificial
> environment of he school playground, emphasis is given to ensuring that the children can use a
> route between home and school and to be aware of likely dangers. An advanced form of the course is
> available for those at secondary school (year 7) that gives confidence for children to handle most
> traffic situations, note the way that many young cyclists handle Blossom Street at school arrival
> and leaving time, much better the certain car drivers (York residents and some further afield will
> remember an incident in December involving a H&R incident with an 11-year girl pedestrian using a
> light controlled crossing after leaving school).
>
> However, these courses are not compulsory, but schools can impose rules that state that children
> may not ride to school unaccompanied unless they have been on such a course, as happens at the
> school my elder children attend. The courses are a far cry from the Cycle Proficiency of decades
> ago which did not introduce real road situations to the children.
>
> Gary
>
> --
>
> The email address is for newsgroups purposes only and therefore unlikely to be read.
>
> For contact via email use my real name with an underscore separator at the domain of CompuServe.
 
J

John B

Guest
marc wrote:

> Gary Knighton <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > but schools can impose rules that state that children may not ride to school unaccompanied
> > unless they have been on such a course, as happens at the school my elder children attend.
>
> ROFL!
>
> Schools can't even impose rules that state that children must wear uniform let alone the above.

But they do. At the school my daughters attend the children are sent home if they do not wear
uniform. I'm sure whether such rules are introduced, or enforced, is up to the particular school.
Perhaps some Head Teachers or Governors just don't care.

> If the above was even 1/2way true then why don't schools impose rules that state that children may
> not be ferried in bloody great 4x4s that block the gates every morning?

Perhaps that should be recommended, specially where the school has a stupid no cycling rule.

John B
 
J

Just Zis Guy

Guest
John B wrote:

>>> , these courses are not compulsory, but schools can impose rules that state that children may
>>> not ride to school unaccompanied unless they have been on such a course

>> Point of information, Mr Speaker: no they may *not* impose any such rule.

> Unfortunately they can and they do. Whether they can insist on it is another matter.

They can, but they *may not* as they have been told explicitly by the Government. They are not
legally allowed to prevent children riding to school, accompanied or otherwise.

> Near me, the Primary School says no cycling to school is permitted - and when queried it is on the
> ridiculous grounds that they would insist on helmets and there is nowhere to store them

Their policy is not lawful. They may not insist on helmets, and they may not restrict cycling. They
have no legal basis for this action. They may prevent children from bringing cycles and helmets onto
school premises - that is the limit of their powers.

> The Secondary school says you must live more (yes 'more') than 1 mile away to be allowed to cycle
> - utterly crazy.

Again, they have no legal basis for that.

--
Guy
===
I wonder if you wouldn't mind piecing out our imperfections with your thoughts; and while you're
about it perhaps you could think when we talk of bicycles, that you see them printing their proud
wheels i' the receiving earth; thanks awfully.

http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#103 http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#104
 
J

John B

Guest
"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote:

> John B wrote:
>
> >> Point of information, Mr Speaker: no they may *not* impose any such rule.
>
> > Unfortunately they can and they do. Whether they can insist on it is another matter.
>
> They can, but they *may not* as they have been told explicitly by the Government. They are not
> legally allowed to prevent children riding to school, accompanied or otherwise.

I am aware that the requirement has no basis in law, but that does not stop them making such rules.
However I am very interested that you say "they have been told explicitly by the Government." Do you
have any reference for that as it would prove very helpful to me.

> > Near me, the Primary School says no cycling to school is permitted - and when queried it is on
> > the ridiculous grounds that they would insist on helmets and there is nowhere to store them
>
> Their policy is not lawful.

I am aware of that.

> They may not insist on helmets, and they may not restrict cycling. They have no legal basis for
> this action. They may prevent children from bringing cycles and helmets onto school premises -
> that is the limit of their powers.

That is true, but unfortunately most parents will accept that 'teacher knows best' and when such
rules are couched in terms that imply your child is wrong to even try, most parents will not even
consider questionning it. Remember these are often policies that have had parental involvement and
most parents drive there kids to school because the 'roads are too dangerous'.

>
> > The Secondary school says you must live more (yes 'more') than 1 mile away to be allowed to
> > cycle - utterly crazy.
>
> Again, they have no legal basis for that.

As above and it is a 'battle' I have had with the governors and the local county councillor who
backs the 'rules'. Hence any reference you can supply will be very useful.

One of my daughters (age 14) does sometimes cycle to school, but that is to a more enlightened
regime at a school a nine mile ride away. She still requires a note signed by myself to say she is
competent and has my permission.

John B
 
D

David Hansen

Guest
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 13:48:30 -0000 someone who may be "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>Popint of information, Mr Speaker: no they may *not* impose any such rule. The most they may do is
>forbid the child to bring the cycle onto the premises,

What about the school (in Derby IIRC) that banned two boys from cycling to school unless they wore
helmets? That seems like a far more stupid rule than one about cycling courses.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.
 
J

Just Zis Guy

Guest
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 22:16:55 +0000, David Hansen <[email protected]> wrote:

>What about the school (in Derby IIRC) that banned two boys from cycling to school unless they wore
>helmets? That seems like a far more stupid rule than one about cycling courses.

This is also unlawful. They may not do this. The correct course of action for these boys is to carry
on riding without helmets, and force the school to change its policy.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.
 
T

Tim Hall

Guest
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 15:08:26 +0000, John B <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
>marc wrote:
>
>> Gary Knighton <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > but schools can impose rules that state that children may not ride to school unaccompanied
>> > unless they have been on such a course, as happens at the school my elder children attend.
>>
>> ROFL!
>>
>> Schools can't even impose rules that state that children must wear uniform let alone the above.
>
>But they do. At the school my daughters attend the children are sent home if they do not wear
>uniform. I'm sure whether such rules are introduced, or enforced, is up to the particular school.
>Perhaps some Head Teachers or Governors just don't care.
>

Some difference though between a school uniforms rule and cycling to school - the first is something
done within the school , the second in the Rest of the World ie outside the school's jurisdiction.

Mind you when Head Teachers aren't getting grief over banning children from riding to school
they're getting grief for children in uniform smoking/snogging/smashing windows outside of school
but in uniform.

Tim
--
fast and gripping, non pompous, glossy and credible.
 
J

Just Zis Guy

Guest
John B wrote:

>>>> Point of information, Mr Speaker: no they may *not* impose any such rule.

>>> Unfortunately they can and they do. Whether they can insist on it is another matter.

>> They can, but they *may not* as they have been told explicitly by the Government. They are not
>> legally allowed to prevent children riding to school, accompanied or otherwise.

> I am aware that the requirement has no basis in law, but that does not stop them making
> such rules.

No indeed - but they may not do so, as we know.

> However I am very interested that you say "they have been told explicitly by the Government." Do
> you have any reference for that as it would prove very helpful to
> me.

Will post - I have it at home somewhere (it came from the DfT website, so if you search there you
may get it quicker)

>> They may not insist on helmets, and they may not restrict cycling. They have no legal basis for
>> this action. They may prevent children from bringing cycles and helmets onto school premises -
>> that is the limit of their powers.

> That is true, but unfortunately most parents will accept that 'teacher knows best' and when such
> rules are couched in terms that imply your child is wrong to even try, most parents will not even
> consider questionning it. Remember these are often policies that have had parental involvement and
> most parents drive there kids to school because the 'roads are too dangerous'.

Obviously they drive very carefully so as not to contribute to the problem ;-)

>>> The Secondary school says you must live more (yes 'more') than 1 mile away to be allowed to
>>> cycle - utterly crazy.
>> Again, they have no legal basis for that.
> As above and it is a 'battle' I have had with the governors and the local county councillor who
> backs the 'rules'.

You should ask for the name of the county school travel officer, who will be well aware of the real
position. Every school must now have a Travel Plan and these plans tend to be based on LEA
guidelines, so if the LEA has a policy which is wrong it's worth challenging as it will affect many
schools. I got some useful materials from the Sustrans website

> One of my daughters (age 14) does sometimes cycle to school, but that is to a more enlightened
> regime at a school a nine mile ride away. She still requires a note signed by myself to say she is
> competent and has my permission.

How times have changed - I didn't need a permission not to walk six miles home from school when my
Dad couldn't pick me up. I wonder if the school requires a note from the parents before allowing the
child to take the bus?

--
Guy
===
I wonder if you wouldn't mind piecing out our imperfections with your thoughts; and while you're
about it perhaps you could think when we talk of bicycles, that you see them printing their proud
wheels i' the receiving earth; thanks awfully.

http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#103 http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#104
 
A

Ambrose Nankive

Guest
David Hansen wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 13:48:30 -0000 someone who may be "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>> Popint of information, Mr Speaker: no they may *not* impose any such rule. The most they may do
>> is forbid the child to bring the cycle onto the premises,
>
> What about the school (in Derby IIRC) that banned two boys from cycling to school unless they wore
> helmets? That seems like a far more stupid rule than one about cycling courses.

IIRC they were suspended from school. Which is ridiculous
 
J

Just Zis Guy

Guest
Ambrose Nankivell wrote:

>> What about the school (in Derby IIRC) that banned two boys from cycling to school unless they
>> wore helmets? That seems like a far more stupid rule than one about cycling courses.

> IIRC they were suspended from school. Which is ridiculous

I'm not certain, but I believe the school may in that case have committed an offence. This would not
apply if it was a private school, but I don't think state schools are allowed to exclude pupils
based on behaviour outside school - this may well be wrong, of course, but what these boys did (as
stated) was legal, did not bring the school into disrepute, had no implications for public order and
infringed no road traffic regulations - so any school which excluded them on the basis of cycling to
school without a polystyrene yarmulke would undoubtedly face some searching questions at appeal.

IANAL, ICBW, YMMV, TGIAGOTOS, WTHKWATAM, etc.

--
Guy
===
I wonder if you wouldn't mind piecing out our imperfections with your thoughts; and while you're
about it perhaps you could think when we talk of bicycles, that you see them printing their proud
wheels i' the receiving earth; thanks awfully.

http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#103 http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#104
 
Status
Not open for further replies.