Students attending the Beacon School in Banstead were this week informed that they will need number plates on their bikes if they wish to cycle to school.
A letter dated November 13 states that from Monday December 11, all students of the academy school for 11-18 year olds, “will require a cycling permit in the form of a number plate.”
The permit is obtained and issued after students and parents/carers sign a cycling agreement. “The number plate must be attached to the student’s bicycle underneath the seat so that all students can be identified cycling to and from school.”
Students are asked to follow the Highway Code; to take responsibility for the roadworthiness of their bikes; to behave “in a manner which shows them and the school in the best possible light”; and to use bike lights and hi-vis clothing “as appropriate”.
Parents are also advised: “Please note that should a student not ride safely to school or wear a helmet, the school will inform parents and may refuse the student permission to cycle to school in the future. Should a student continue to cycle to school once permission has been revoked the school will lock the bicycle until a parent/carer is available to collect the bicycle.”
The letter begins by listing some of the benefits of cycling to school.
- Improving health through physical activity
- Establishing positive active travel behaviour
- Promoting independence and improving safety awareness
- Reducing congestion, noise and pollution in the community
- Reducing environmental impact of the journey to school
Headteacher Keith Batchelor, who described himself as “a very slow recreational cyclist,” told road.cc:
“I am extremely positive about the role of cycling and the health and wellbeing benefits of cycling. I have seen number plate systems be highly effective in a number of schools which support students to cycle safely to school.
“The system will allow us to target cycle training and safety awareness sessions to our students, to reward good and safe cycling by giving members of the community a way to give us feedback about how our students are using the roads locally. As well as helping us to discuss with students any occasions where their cycling may not meet our expectations.
“Alongside this we are also expecting students to wear helmets, be visible, use lights and ride bikes that are road safe.
“We live in a beautiful area for cycling but also the roads are extremely busy, with the school being next to the A217 which links the M25 with south London. Our refined policy is there to promote safe cycling so that our students can be active lifelong riders.”
Add new comment
138 comments
I'd be inclined to tell them to get fu**ed.
I brought this to the attention of Chris Boardman via his twitter and he's picked up on it. Think the school's social media accounts might be getting some attention...
just seen that and retweeted it to Cycling UK and British Cycling.
The headmasters of Academies (and the unaccountable 'chains' that control many of them) are turning into wanna-be Russian oligarchs. They need to be reined-in and taught their place. They are funded by the state, and should be democratically accountable to the electorate as a whole. Instead they are all building mini-empires at tax-payers expense.
So if a child has 'K13TH 15 4 TW4T' printed on a yellow plate and attached to the back of a bike they can be permitted to ride to school, and has the school created it's own bike DVLA, taking 'road tax' off its pupils? I suppose it's prepares them for the realness of adulthood.
Not sure what the law is if the bike is on the school's grounds. Probably they are legally allowed to lock it up and if you break their lock you would be committing criminal damage.
But it would certainly be a morally-justiifed response to in return immobilise any teacher's vehicle that emits any kind of pollution that endangers children's health, so if one is going to ignore the law might as well just jump straight to that.
Well there's a picture of how to wear a helmet, but not one of his bike, so we don't know if it's got number plates. Bet it hasn't.
I think it is covered under Section 91 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 which gives schools the power to discipline pupils which enables a member of staff to confiscate, keep or dispose of pupil’s property as a disciplinary measure where it is reasonable to do so. Staff have a defence to any complaint provided they act within their legal powers. The law protects members of staff from liability for any loss of or damage to any confiscated item, provided that they have acted lawfully.
If it is within the school's policy that bikes without the 'necessary' number plate etc. are seized then that is likely to be deemed 'lawful'.
The Principal of the school MUST inform parents and pupils at least once per year of the school's policy. Unfortunately the school's policy doesn't seem to be avaiable online.
Why do these twats always manage to describe themselves as "cyclists" (always "recreational", never as an alternative to pouring their lardy arse into a car seat) while promoting their latest piece of anti-cycling bollocks? It's the equivalent of saying "I've got black friends, but..."
They act within their legal powers if they prove that the confiscation is reasonable. I, sir, say it is not reasonable. Even in the school's policy, it's still unreasonable.
From 'ask the police'
Private land
It is a criminal offence to clamp/block/tow away a vehicle on private land without lawful authority. Lawful authority to immobilise or move a vehicle is restricted to a number of organisation such as the police, DVLA and local authorities.
Privately owned land includes car parks, such as those at retail parks, whether or not there a fee is payable in order to park there (not local authority run car parks).
To commit this offence a person must intend to prevent the owner/driver from moving their vehicle.
I would suggest it is unlawful for the school to lock the bikes.
Let's just hope that Mr Batchelor isn't a recreational lawyer, or we're all fucked!
There are a few legislative documents
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/fil...
The Schools (Specification and Disposal of Articles) Regulations 2012
Education and Inspections Act 2006
As with all these things, they have to be justified and proportionate. Given the previous post earlier that cycling uk consider:
"Schools do not have any legal right to ban cycling to and from their premises."
I would say it fails the test of justified and proportionate and consequently the schools remedy is unlawful.
Unfortunately under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 this only applies to 'motor vehicles', bikes are not covered.
[/quote]
They act within their legal powers if they prove that the confiscation is reasonable. I, sir, say it is not reasonable. Even in the school's policy, it's still unreasonable.
[/quote]
The Act itselfs determines what is reasonable, it states that any confiscation must be proportionate to the 'offence'. The failure to follow the school's policy would result in the seizure of the bike and is likely to be a proportionate penalty.
I don't agree with the school's approach as it is likely to be counter-productive but what they are doing is likely to be lawful.
Various legislation comes into it
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/fil...
The Schools (Specification and Disposal of Articles) Regulations 2012
Education and Inspections Act 2006
As with all these things, they have to be justified and proportionate. Given the previous post earlier that cycling uk consider:
"Schools do not have any legal right to ban cycling to and from their premises."
I would say it fails the test of justified and proportionate and consequently the schools remedy is unlawful. the fact that it is in a Policy is not relevant as the policy has to be justified and proportionate. You can write any terms you want into a contract, but they have to be supported by law to be enforced.
You say that what is reasonable then fill the rest of the post with ifs, buts and maybes. I imagine that the school, during a court session, would be demonstrating to the judge that their action is reasonable, while the accused would be trying to demonstrate, with equal verve, that the action is unreasonable. That's how I understand that the law would work. It isn't as black and white as you would have us believe.
Well done Mr Batchelor.
Anything that makes cycling safer for children is a breath of fresh air.
Ensuring children ride safely with correct attitude, clothing and helmets (compulsory in some of countries penalised by on the spot fine by police officers) is a great idea.
Which parent of sane mind wouldn't want their children to ride safely???
Nice first post.
What bike have you got?
As you're here, have a search for helmet debate threads to see who's really stupid, nice name by the way, I don't suspect we'll see you on any other threads though.
Surely the adults who are driving are the ones who should be setting examples by driving with the correct attitude.
Cycling is not dangerous, cycling while being harrangued by dangerous drivers is. Parking outside the schools on cycle paths makes cycling dangerous.
Have a look at the close pass featured videos, they might educate a stupid person.
I've got a nice big gas guzzling 4x4 and pay a lot of VED. What do you drive?
what evidence do you have that these measures make cycling safer for children?
In what ways does a number plate on their bike make cycling safer for children?
Sadly, fresh air is in short supply in most places due to high polluting cars running their engines outside schools. But that's a subject for a different time.
I think parents would prefer safer roads than onerous and unnecessary regulation (although I'm sure many parents and their driving are part of the problem).
Precisely. Otherwise you could have a policy that penalised Red Heads or Spectacle Wearers. A defence of 'in the Policy' would not be justified or proportionate.
Don't joke. Some schools - ok they are mostly primary schools - have taken my friends' who are parents to task over allowing their 9, 10 and 11 year olds walk to and from school on their own. The thing is the kids are walking in a minimum of pairs and frequently walk with another parent just because they are all going the same way.
Having a number plate will not make the children safer.
What will make the children safer is having dedicated properly segrated cycle paths to school. I suggest you campaign for that as there are both a child obesity problem and child mental health problems related to body issues in this country, or have you not noticed?
Jog on troll, clearly you're another clueless type, if you think helmets are needed for children then by definition you must force your own children if you have any to wear a helmet whilst in your car, after all there are double the number of child deaths solely from head injury whilst inside motorvehicles in England and Wales than there were total child cycling deaths in the whole of the UK.
What about when they walk, I mean they are at greater risk per mile than children on bikes, what, you don't force special clothing and helmets on them then either? You should make sure you contact your local schools to tell them to get ALL kids helmetted up and have ID tags at all times to enter school, no, that's right because you're a fucking no-nowt hypocrite!
Funny how the motoring-addicted are always hit-and-run in their posting habits.
Riding safely is *not* the same thing as dressing up like a highlighter pen, or even wearing a helmet.
Non-wearing of these is not an offence in the UK, and it's kind of irrelevant whether it's an offence in any other country.
And finally: troll troll troll troll, troll troll troll troll, troll troll troll troll &c.
Congratulations. You have a 100% bullshit post success rate. Keep up the good work.
Agreed! So you're all in favour of building high quality, segregated infrastructure and television campaigns to stop people driving like pricks around cyclists so that they can get to the back of the next queue a few seconds more quickly! Brilliant!
Oh. But I thought you said things that make cycling safer, rather than things that morons with zero experience of riding a bike on public roads think will make people safer, like hi-viz and cycling proficiency tests.
Oh, there I was thinking that you were just a one-post wonder from the bottom half of the DM comments pages, when actually it's just me being insane.
For your second post, have you considered posting at length about your fantastic experience buying from Race View Cycles?
Woah, I am late to this party.
"Down with this sort of thing!
Careful Now"
Pages