Surrey school says students can only cycle to school if they fit a number plate to their bikes

Curto80 wrote:

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.

ChrisB200SX wrote:

Must be Mad wrote:

Quote:

Should a student continue to cycle to school once permission has been revoked the school will lock the bicycle until a parent/carer is available to collect the bicycle.”

Is that not theft?

I think I would simply do a Jon Snow and bolt-crop the school's lock... and any others they had "enforced". If they did it a second time I would repeat, but then might buy a wheel clamp or big secure chain and secure the headmaster's vehicle.
If I had kids I certainly wouldn't stand for this illegal nonsense.

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.

dodgy wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

I wonder what kind of 4x4 tank Headteacher Keith Batchelor drives?  And does he have a rule for all pupils, whatever method of transport, to wear a helmet?  After all, pedestrians have the same risk per mile travelled as cyclists, and there are many more head injuries to car occupants than cyclists.

No?  Effing hypocrite.

He's a professional cyclist, rides for Sky. Maybe.

https://twitter.com/batchelor1666

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.

simplesimon99 wrote:

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.

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.

atgni wrote:

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!

simplesimon99 wrote:

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.

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.

atgni wrote:

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.

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.

simplesimon99 wrote:

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.

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.

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.

areyouallstupid wrote:

Well done Mr Batchelour. 

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 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?

areyouallstupid wrote:

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???

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?

areyouallstupid wrote:

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???

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).

don simon wrote:

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.

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.

wellsprop wrote:

wtf...

I know schools have a care of duty to students (that starts from as soon as they leave their house to go to school), but this isn't caring, it's controlling.

Next up, students need a permit to walk to school.

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. 

areyouallstupid wrote:

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???

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?

areyouallstupid wrote:

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???

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!

areyouallstupid wrote:

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???

Funny how the motoring-addicted are always hit-and-run in their posting habits.

areyouallstupid wrote:

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???

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.

areyouallstupid wrote:

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???

Congratulations. You have a 100% bullshit post success rate.  Keep up the good work.

areyouallstupid wrote:

Anything that makes cycling safer for children is a breath of fresh air.

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!

areyouallstupid wrote:

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. 

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.

areyouallstupid wrote:

Which parent of sane mind wouldn't want their children to ride safely???

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?