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

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

Do we know if the school provides any access to, or provision of cycle training.

Can't see it on the school website. The county council definitely provides cycling training which the schools can take up. 

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

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.

Cars already have safety fixtures available instead of helmets, e.g. seat belts, rear-facing seats, airbags, the lack, or inappropriate use, of which is implicated in many child vehicle occupant deaths. Have a look at something like the French CASIMIR report from ~10 years ago, especially the proportion of the fatalities of correctly restrained children which were deemed unsurvivable by the occupant in any event. There are no such analogues for kids on bikes, so as an alternative a helmet can be useful in some circumstances. Not that that has any bearing on compulsion or what this school is trying to enforce - both of which are fucking ridiculous.

fukawitribe wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

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.

 

Cars already have safety fixtures available instead of helmets, e.g. seat belts, rear-facing seats, airbags, the lack, or inappropriate use, of which is implicated in many child vehicle occupant deaths. Have a look at something like the French CASIMIR report from ~10 years ago, especially the proportion of the fatalities of correctly restrained children which were deemed unsurvivable by the occupant in any event. There are no such analogues for kids on bikes, so as an alternative a helmet can be useful in some circumstances. Not that that has any bearing on compulsion or what this school is trying to enforce - both of which are fucking ridiculous.

And yet despite all those safety aids deaths of children in motorvehicles (mainly cars) solely down to head injury is  double that the total number of all child deaths of all injuries and in a smaller populated/geographic area of children riding often without any safety feature whatsoever, by definition if we suggest helmets for one group then we must suggest/enforce for the other, especially those on foot. If we actually bothered to curb motorists and make them think about safety that cycling death figure would be zero.

You also ignore that risk homeostasis is even greater in children (second worse group for risk homeostasis are competition riders hence why they crash much more and die in greater number than before helmet wearing became a thing), they push even further beyond their boundaries when they feel protected, again this is reflected not just in the UK with respect to cycling but all activities, and given the very real effect of adding up to 20% extra weight on a childs head and the feeble protective nature of helmets I 100% disagree with children wearing helmets, they cause more harm than they do good on an individual level and make a huge difference socially and healthwise nationally not to mention the removal of freedom of choice.

My son wore a helmet once and then it went in the loft, he cycled to high school down a NSL road for 7 years (2001-2008), cycled to the library in the town centre, his grandparents and generally riding around, he even had a spill or two including a minor head injury when he came off at 9 years old.  He became a very competent rider, able to deal with the knobjockeys in their cages, he even managed to control his bike when his crank snapped (thanks specialized!), I now instill that same way of thinking with my step daughters kids, learn how to handle a bike, find your boundaries, think about x, y & z (as much as kids can) and a helmet is not your friend nor ever will be! The oldest lad is fantastic, he has some mental health problems and ADHD but even he understands the concept of doing something to an extreme more so if he felt more protected than if he weren't and he's 8!

Here are a few quotes from child risk compensation studies.

"Results revealed that children engaged in significantly more risk taking when wearing safety gear, thereby demonstrating risk compensation, and this was significantly greater for the activity with which they had greater experience"

Another study "The responses suggest that children wearing PE were more likely to report increased risk-taking than those who did not wear PE. For most of the hypothetical questions, the majority also reported changes toward riskier behaviour when using PE"

Helmets for children is not the answer in the slightest, quite the opposite.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

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.

 

Cars already have safety fixtures available instead of helmets, e.g. seat belts, rear-facing seats, airbags, the lack, or inappropriate use, of which is implicated in many child vehicle occupant deaths. Have a look at something like the French CASIMIR report from ~10 years ago, especially the proportion of the fatalities of correctly restrained children which were deemed unsurvivable by the occupant in any event. There are no such analogues for kids on bikes, so as an alternative a helmet can be useful in some circumstances. Not that that has any bearing on compulsion or what this school is trying to enforce - both of which are fucking ridiculous.

And yet despite all those safety aids deaths of children in motorvehicles (mainly cars) solely down to head injury is  double that the total number of all child deaths of all injuries and in a smaller populated/geographic area of children riding often without any safety feature whatsoever,

The point was that the majority of the deaths were in cases which demonstrated a lack of use of the safety features, and that many of the cases where they were used the death was deemed unavoidable.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

by definition if we suggest helmets for one group then we must suggest/enforce for the other, especially those on foot.

No - you were suggesting a safety device should be used in one group because others (not me) said it should be used with cyclists. I was saying that there is already several alternatives to that, and that having them and using them correctly should correspond to a reduction in deaths. If there were no alternatives, I would agree with your argument more.

ClubSmed wrote:

There is a subbtle subtext that could lead you to assume that antisocial behaviour by cyclists has been reported on the school run.

IF this is happening and IF it is becoming an increasing issue but not yet police worthy, I can see the plates being one possible solution. IF the school do have a duty of care from when they leave the house, and IF they are wearing their uniform (but with face masks/buffs) they will be having a detrimental impact on the school reputation as are identifiable as students without being easily identifiable as individuals.

IF they have a problem with antisocial behaviour, it is not a big leap to assume that they may have issues with bike theft and/or cheap bike abandonment. Plates could again, in this scenario, help.

So I suppose I might be able to justify the plates in the right scenario, but they have not called these elements out specifically so for me there are far too many IFs to be able to support the move in the slightest.

And IF those problems exist, they won't be restricted to bikes, will they?

Not knowing the school, the kids, anything about the situation, or the headmaster, but fully booted up and jumping to a conclusion anyhow:

the headmaster struggles with cause and effect, basic science and logic. I'd be fucking pissed off if I saw this shit from a headmaster of my kids, even if it was on a topic that I don't care in the slightest about, and I'd want to discuss it with him in more detail to have confidence that the school wasn't being run as wrong-headedly as it seemed.

davel wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

There is a subbtle subtext that could lead you to assume that antisocial behaviour by cyclists has been reported on the school run.

IF this is happening and IF it is becoming an increasing issue but not yet police worthy, I can see the plates being one possible solution. IF the school do have a duty of care from when they leave the house, and IF they are wearing their uniform (but with face masks/buffs) they will be having a detrimental impact on the school reputation as are identifiable as students without being easily identifiable as individuals.

IF they have a problem with antisocial behaviour, it is not a big leap to assume that they may have issues with bike theft and/or cheap bike abandonment. Plates could again, in this scenario, help.

So I suppose I might be able to justify the plates in the right scenario, but they have not called these elements out specifically so for me there are far too many IFs to be able to support the move in the slightest.

And IF those problems exist, they won't be restricted to bikes, will they?

Not knowing the school, the kids, anything about the situation, or the headmaster, but fully booted up and jumping to a conclusion anyhow:

the headmaster struggles with cause and effect, basic science and logic. I'd be fucking pissed off if I saw this shit from a headmaster of my kids, even if it was on a topic that I don't care in the slightest about, and I'd want to discuss it with him in more detail to have confidence that the school wasn't being run as wrong-headedly as it seemed.

I see what you mean with your point about cause and effect, if the problem is with anti-social behaviour currently from children on bikes, forcing them to register would just end up with those same children displaying the same anti-social behaviour as pedestrians instead. Also if they are going to start reprimanding bad commuting behaviour they would need some form of cctv footage or similar as evidence wouldn't they? In which case they would probably not need plates on the bikes, I would assume that any footage detailed enough to show a plate would show other identifying characters needed.

The only element that I would argue is a bike specific issue is any possible bike abandonment taking up bike rack space that they may have. Again of course, that is not mentioned anywhere by the school as either an issue or a reason for the solution. It is just my thought based on knowing nothing about the school, just my thinking of issues I see at my daughters school and at my work on what could justify number plates to me.

ClubSmed wrote:

The only element that I would argue is a bike specific issue is any possible bike abandonment taking up bike rack space that they may have. Again of course, that is not mentioned anywhere by the school as either an issue or a reason for the solution. It is just my thought based on knowing nothing about the school, just my thinking of issues I see at my daughters school and at my work on what could justify number plates to me.

Most places I have seen put a note on the bike to say it will be removed in X days. We have had a couple of these at work which were subsequently removed.

ClubSmed wrote:

Training

Couldn't agree more that training is a good idea, it's hard to argue against it. In fact I do not think I can come up with a single reason not to do this. The only way they could mess this one up is if they made it extra-curricular and mandatory for all cyclists. That could stop a few people who would otherwise cycle.

Presumably those who don't ride a bike will require training on how not to open a car door and how to be pedestrian and how to cross the road, etc?

ChrisB200SX wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

Training

Couldn't agree more that training is a good idea, it's hard to argue against it. In fact I do not think I can come up with a single reason not to do this. The only way they could mess this one up is if they made it extra-curricular and mandatory for all cyclists. That could stop a few people who would otherwise cycle.

Presumably those who don't ride a bike will require training on how not to open a car door and how to be pedestrian and how to cross the road, etc?

I'd expect the majority of the pedestrian training of the highway code to have already been done at primary school, not so sure the bike side will have though. I can see benefit in a refresher on the pedestrian side of things too though.

fukawitribe wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

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.

 

Cars already have safety fixtures available instead of helmets, e.g. seat belts, rear-facing seats, airbags, the lack, or inappropriate use, of which is implicated in many child vehicle occupant deaths. Have a look at something like the French CASIMIR report from ~10 years ago, especially the proportion of the fatalities of correctly restrained children which were deemed unsurvivable by the occupant in any event. There are no such analogues for kids on bikes, so as an alternative a helmet can be useful in some circumstances. Not that that has any bearing on compulsion or what this school is trying to enforce - both of which are fucking ridiculous.

And yet despite all those safety aids deaths of children in motorvehicles (mainly cars) solely down to head injury is  double that the total number of all child deaths of all injuries and in a smaller populated/geographic area of children riding often without any safety feature whatsoever,

The point was that the majority of the deaths were in cases which demonstrated a lack of use of the safety features, and that many of the cases where they were used the death was deemed unavoidable.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

by definition if we suggest helmets for one group then we must suggest/enforce for the other, especially those on foot.

No - you were suggesting a safety device should be used in one group because others (not me) said it should be used with cyclists. I was saying that there is already several alternatives to that, and that having them and using them correctly should correspond to a reduction in deaths. If there were no alternatives, I would agree with your argument more.

You have evidence that properly worn helmets saves lives because the data does not add up to show that at all does it?

Please can you let us know of this new revelation that gives an extra massive reduction in forces in these new wonder helmets? They'll be such an improvement on current helmets that cannot by design reduce the forces enough in best case scenario in a lab on the strongest part of the helmet to prevent a serious TBI/death.

I presume you also think that strapping on a well fitted weight to your head circa 20% the total mass of your head 9in a childs case) has no effect either, you also ignore the risk compensation factor which is huge in children as i quoted earlier which makes wearers of helmets even more at risk when wearing.

Sorry but you are so, so wrong and in denial like many others about the efficacy of helmets.

hirsute wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

The only element that I would argue is a bike specific issue is any possible bike abandonment taking up bike rack space that they may have. Again of course, that is not mentioned anywhere by the school as either an issue or a reason for the solution. It is just my thought based on knowing nothing about the school, just my thinking of issues I see at my daughters school and at my work on what could justify number plates to me.

Most places I have seen put a note on the bike to say it will be removed in X days. We have had a couple of these at work which were subsequently removed.

That seems far too easy and far too workable.

However, I don't think it fits in with the headmaster's (anti-cycling) agenda.

hawkinspeter wrote:

hirsute wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

The only element that I would argue is a bike specific issue is any possible bike abandonment taking up bike rack space that they may have. Again of course, that is not mentioned anywhere by the school as either an issue or a reason for the solution. It is just my thought based on knowing nothing about the school, just my thinking of issues I see at my daughters school and at my work on what could justify number plates to me.

Most places I have seen put a note on the bike to say it will be removed in X days. We have had a couple of these at work which were subsequently removed.

That seems far too easy and far too workable.

However, I don't think it fits in with the headmaster's (anti-cycling) agenda.

They tried this method a few years ago where I used to work but due to elemental forces the notices didn't stay attached to the bike and/or legible for a reasonable enough duration so they gave up

Muddy Ford wrote:

If you have taken part in an organised cycling event you have no problem putting a number plate on your bike and wearing a skidlid. This however is oppression, targeting a minority group under a pretense of doing it for the safety of that minority. This is likely to encourage those more rebellious kids to put their safety at risk as a demonstration against this policy or maybe kids not from this school having a laugh and cycling dangerously but with false plates to get the schools students in trouble.

Isn't the whole point that not wearing a helmet is not "putting your safety at risk ".

Muddy Ford wrote:

If you have taken part in an organised cycling event you have no problem putting a number plate on your bike and wearing a skidlid...

I take it you have yet to sample the delights of an Audax ride. Or any CTC/Cycling UK organised event for that matter.  

FWIW I’ve done a few sportives. Personally, I’ve always felt that the little number I ziptie to my handlebars is there to help the photographer to organise their event photos more easily, and to stop passers-by from raiding the sausage rolls etc at each feed station. 

wknight wrote:

A teenager cycles past me regularly, no hands on the handlebars, head down using his mobile phone. When I yelled at him yesterday for not look where he was going, his reply ' what's your problem' .......

very soon he will be learning to drive and since he can ride his bike and use his phone, I am sure he will do it on the car

how do I tell his parents that what he is doing is very dangerous, oh great a number plate on his bike 

I think all cyclists, as in China, should have a plate on their bike 

firstly, how many no-handed cyclists have killed others/killed themselves?

Second, how many drivers with number plates have killed themselves/others?

Third, can you please share your crystal ball and tell us the lotto numbers for tonight, seeing as you can forsee this young mans future and how he will behave IF he decides he wants to drive?

What crime has he committed, none as far as you've described, I'd hazard he doesn't wear a helmet or hi-vis right? Does he cycle on the road zig-zagging amongst traffic and cutting up peds, cyclists and motorvehicles, does he run red lights constantly, has he mown someone down, has he killed himelf, you didn't mention any of that so I would presume what he is doing isn't harming anyone, you know seeing as cycling should be likened to walking, a normal every day activity.

You sticking your neb in is not required, go hassle someone actually posing harm to others, those who already have a license plate which does not do shit to stop that harm!

ClubSmed wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

hirsute wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

The only element that I would argue is a bike specific issue is any possible bike abandonment taking up bike rack space that they may have. Again of course, that is not mentioned anywhere by the school as either an issue or a reason for the solution. It is just my thought based on knowing nothing about the school, just my thinking of issues I see at my daughters school and at my work on what could justify number plates to me.

Most places I have seen put a note on the bike to say it will be removed in X days. We have had a couple of these at work which were subsequently removed.

That seems far too easy and far too workable.

However, I don't think it fits in with the headmaster's (anti-cycling) agenda.

They tried this method a few years ago where I used to work but due to elemental forces the notices didn't stay attached to the bike and/or legible for a reasonable enough duration so they gave up

There's a brand new, modern hi-tech way of securing things - cable ties. That and a set of generic plastic signs (e.g. "This bike will be removed on Friday evening if this notice is still attached") seem like a simple solution to me. Also, sellotape would probably work.

wknight wrote:

A teenager cycles past me regularly, no hands on the handlebars, head down using his mobile phone. When I yelled at him yesterday for not look where he was going, his reply ' what's your problem' .......

very soon he will be learning to drive and since he can ride his bike and use his phone, I am sure he will do it on the car

how do I tell his parents that what he is doing is very dangerous, oh great a number plate on his bike 

I think all cyclists, as in China, should have a plate on their bike 

Thanks for your opinion, but you'll find that you're in a minority in the world of cycling. And as we now know, we have to go with the flow.