Sandringham School in St Albans says it will suspend children if they’re caught riding to school on the pavement. It has also said that no child will be allowed to cycle to school without a helmet and promised that regular checks will be carried out to enforce the rule.
Current government guidance is that cyclists may ride on the footway, provided they do so considerately.
However, a letter to parents from headteacher Alan Gray states that cycling on pavements has been made a C5 offence – the same rating assigned to racially abusing another pupil.
Concerned father David Stacy tweeted the letter and has since written to the school to object.
Really disappointed with this @SandringhamSch1 – will lead to a) fewer children cycling b) reduced child safety c) more traffic congestion and d) worse pollution. Children should be taught to cycle safely and with care for pedestrians. School could be more robust with complaints pic.twitter.com/uk0cr3vLml
— David Stacey (@staceyzoo) November 9, 2017
Cycling UK Head of Campaigns, Duncan Dollimore said: “In March, this Academy published a School Travel Plan which acknowledged there was significant interest from both children and their parents in students cycling to school, that the school wanted to encourage this and should look at incentives to do so. The same document also referred to parents and residents parking on the road outside the school, blocking the cycling lanes, but that the school was wholly reliant on their goodwill to comply with parking restrictions.
“It really was not difficult. The school could have liaised with the local authority about parking restrictions and enforcement, so that children cycling to school didn’t have to negotiate parked cars on both sides of the road with both oncoming and following traffic in a narrowed lane, as described by parent David Stacy.
“Of course, that might have upset the grown-ups, so instead of applying his efforts to make it easier and safer for children to cycle to school, the headteacher has threatened to ban children from cycling to school, which he can’t do, make helmet wearing mandatory, when that is a matter of parental choice, and impose disciplinary sanctions for pupil’s actions outside of school.”
Surrey school says students can only cycle to school if they fit a number plate to their bikes
Stacy told The Hertfordshire Advertiser that teenagers should be taught to be respectful to walkers, getting off or slowing down when passing.
“A cyclist-motor vehicle conflict is significantly riskier than a cyclist-pedestrian one. And now, with fewer children cycling, there will be even more traffic on the road dealing with the resultant extra car journeys.
“Fewer, more dangerous cycling trips; more traffic; more pollution. This does not strike me as being a decision in the best interests of the health and wellbeing of the school’s pupils.”
Gray said: “The welfare of our students is of paramount importance to us and by enforcing these rules more robustly, we are ensuring that all of our students who cycle to and from school do so in a way that is both safe for them and for other travellers.”
Cycling UK is unimpressed. Dollimore said: “Rather than trying to tackle the problem outside his school gates he has implemented measures which are likely to lead children to decide that cycling to school is just too much hassle, because teachers will be checking what they are doing every day at the school gates.
“But at least he will look decisive in the eyes of the local residents, for whom an un-helmeted kid cycling on a footpath is a greater safety concern than the traffic congestion and chaos at school drop-off and collection time.
“Teenage girls who cycle to school are seven times more likely to meet the Government’s recommended levels of physical activity than girls who don’t, but helmet compulsion in Sydney Australia led to a 90% reduction in teenage girls cycling. That’s the sort of unintended consequence that this type of ill-thought out policy, placating local residents, can lead to.”






















65 thoughts on “Academy school makes cycle helmets compulsory and says it will suspend pupils who ride on the pavement”
Another one? Get @Chris
Another one? Get @Chris_Boardman on the case!!!
Cockwombles.
That is all.
Cockwombles.
That is all.
These schools need daily
These schools need daily Critical Mass style events until they get it. Idiotic and short-sighted from the headmaster. I’m guessing he knows that pavement cycling is considered appropriate for children when safety is at risk as per ACPO
What is a pathway?
What is a pathway?
DrJDog wrote:
It is like a stairway, but leadeth not to heaven.
We’ll see more of this as
We’ll see more of this as schools are unable to punish parents who, say, park irresponsibly so to be seen to be doing ‘something’ about traffic concerns pick on the kids they have direct control over. A robust group of parents might ask Ofsted if turning law-abiding students away from the school gates – or punishing them in some other ingenious way – is truly an example of ‘best practice’.
Woldsman wrote:
I’d prefer it if schools concentrated on educating the pupils. We employ councils and police to deal with traffic issues outside of schools.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Yes indeedy.
Why are the local authorities
Why are the local authorities not doing anything? Oh that’s right because they don’t give a fuck about safety, pollution and encouraging active travel options.
Laissez faire complicit cunts!
I’m pissed off enough about
I’m pissed off enough about the topic at face value.
But a school pushing such dogma is managing to trump that in my blood-pressure stakes.
I’d like to think teachers and governors, of all people, would maybe pause on their way to pulling policy out of their arses, and LOOK AT THE FUCKING EVIDENCE.
Quote:
Has Andy Gray considered making parking on the road outside the school a C5 offence for disobedience and threatening to ban parents from driving to school. He could maybe issue a letter asking the children to reinforce this with their father/mother.
On the basis the school feels they are in a position to identify pupils who are cycling on pavements, can they not just as easily identify just the students cycling fast or without due care and attention (whether on the pavement or on the road) and offer them further cycle training/education before going down the route of sanctions. This way there is no need to put those pupils cycling with consideration in unnecessary danger by forcing them on to the roads alongside the drivers who are only expected to follow the rules as an act of goodwill.
I see they are one of those
I see they are one of those cockwomble academies that make children wear ties and blazers. How can they expect children to run around, play football and generally be children at break times when they have to wear a suit and tie all day. And they wonder why kids are fat.
Don’t you just love how this
Don’t you just love how this cockwomble has become an expert in highways and usage cycling and helmet wearing and no doubt high visibility clothing to boot. It infuriates me beyond belief when folk utter such tripe without any evidence to support this.
It it also doesn’t take a rocket scientist to check it’s on the Google’s just enter and all will be revealed. Still as most posters have mentioned he’ll no doubt give himself a huge pat on the back and say what a great wise and wonderful sage he is to implement this crock of shit.
I wonder what he drives. And
I wonder what he drives. And what business interests he has outside school.
Am I the only one who is just
Am I the only one who is just grateful that the cockwomble of a head teacher hasn’t made number plates a requirement too?
Seriously, what will it teach the children to see that you don’t need evidence or data, you just need to impose your will because you’re bigger than them.
I thought cycling on the
I thought cycling on the pavement was made “legal” and was not enforced by the police any more.
If so, what message is given out by punishing kids for doing a legal thing?
Yorkshie Whippet wrote:
Not exactly legal but within guidelines for certain categories
https://news.npcc.police.uk/releases/support-for-police-discretion-when-responding-to-people-cycling-on-the-pavement
“Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required.”
More recent http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38688256
I’m sure the Headmaster knows best though and has show a good example of mastering facts and presenting them as a coherent argument.
Yorkshie Whippet wrote:
If so, what message is given out by punishing kids for doing a legal thing?— Yorkshie WhippetIt has not been made legal, but police have been instructed to use discretion and not enforce it in the case of, for example, children, or when the road is dangerous for cyclists and the cycles are not causing any problem for pedestrians.
Another autocratic (probably
Another autocratic (probably hypocritical aswell) headteacher telling children to do what isn’t even a legal requirement. If my kids went to this school, I would expect him to justify his personal made-up legislation to protect my kids and would then let him know that his sole responsibilty is their education and I call the shots on what they wear when they ride their bikes. If he spent more time and effort on education as opposed to “conditioning” kids they would be sufficiently informed to arrive at their own decisions.
Make it compulsory for
Make it compulsory for children to wear crash helmets when they travel in cars or are pedestrians going to /from school ?- I think not, there will be a nationwide protest.
kingleo wrote:
Never mind that, make it compulsory for them to be worn on school premises, including for all sport.
Wonder if the school plays full contact rugby/football/hockey?
This past week a friends
This past week a friends husband was in a serious collison with a car, he is alive, without a helmet he would be DEAD!!
Yes we do lots of things that are dangerous like climbing up ladders but I like to minmise my risk when I can.
wknight wrote:
I not sure how you can know that as a implied fact.
wknight wrote:
No he wouldn’t. Despite the thousands of “helmet saved my life” stories, the death rate of cyclists does not fall as helmet wearing rates increase, and the number of these stories is many times the annual death rate of cyclists. http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1209.html
“Yes we do lots of things that are dangerous like climbing up ladders but I like to minmise my risk when I can. “
So do you wear a helmet up a ladder? Or even walking in the street, which has the same risk per mile travelled as cycling? Or for travelling in a car, which causes many more head injuries than cycling? If not, you aren’t minimising risk when you can, only when you assume the risk is much greater than it is, because you’ve been fooled by the thirty year propaganda campaign for helmets. But you’re not alone, most people think that cycling is much riskier than it is, and that helmets are much more effective than they are, because of the outright lies and propaganda.
burtthebike wrote:
Oh really?
wknight wrote:
Was this proved scientifically with an exact forensic replication of the collision? I think we know the answer to that one, a big fat NO. Facts not speculation.
Oh really?
Oh really?
Rich_cb wrote:
Yes, really. Your own graphs support it. Despite the increase in helmet usage in graph one, the rate of injury has remained in line with that of pedestrians (graph 2) who are pretty much 100% non-helmet wearers. Therefore helmet use has had no impact on casualties.
CygnusX1 wrote:
Actually, over the same time frame as the helmet increase graph (1st graph), ped deaths per km have fallen more than cyclists (2nd graph).
So, purely from those two graphs, the only rational conclusion one can make is that pedestrians, with zero helmet use, saw a significantly larger fall (about twice the decrease as cyclists from 1994-2008) in deaths than cyclists, although cyclist helmet use doubled during that time.
Whatever those graphs are, they’re not an argument for the efficacy of helmets in death prevention, and if the argument is using peds as a control, you’re more likely to conclude that you’re safer NOT wearing a helmet.
TL;DR: apparently, doubling helmet use results in halving the decrease in death rates.
davel wrote:
You’ve failed to interpret the graphs properly.
The cyclist rate doesn’t start falling significantly until 1995.
It falls faster than the pedestrian rate for the next 10 years.
That accelerated fall correlates exactly with the increased use of helmets thus completely disproving the original point I was replying to.
Rich_cb]
I would argue the cyclist rate doesn’t have a statistically significant change until 2000, when by eyeball I think there may be the start of 3 points on the same side of the mean by more than 2 standard deviations, and it stays that way.
Any correlations are weak, and just on this data set it would be unwise to infer causality.
Doesn’t mean helmets aren’t useful, just this is not evidence of their usefulness.
A cautionary correlation tale: For example, there is a strong correlation between per capita cheese consumption, and death by beadsheet entanglement. I hypothesise this is because cheese causes strange dreams, hence writhing in sleep, hence deaths. We should campaign for the school to ban children from pizza in the afternoon.
Data source
[url]http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations[/url]
Drinfinity wrote:
I would argue the cyclist rate doesn’t have a statistically significant change until 2000, when by eyeball I think there may be the start of 3 points on the same side of the mean by more than 2 standard deviations, and it stays that way.
Any correlations are weak, and just on this data set it would be unwise to infer causality.
Doesn’t mean helmets aren’t useful, just this is not evidence of their usefulness.— davel
My minitab days are long behind me, and I don’t think I’ve ever been able to reliably eyeball deviations from graphs, hence my wordy post
(I think quotes have got messed up and it was rich_cb wot said that, not me)
Amen to all that though.
Rich_cb wrote:
We’re interpreting it differently… I think it’s your bias that’s making you think your view is correct.
By examining the statements you make that can be measured, I think we can decide that you’re interpreting it (or, just reading it) incorrectly.
The cyclist rate doesn’t start falling significantly until 1995.
Not true: between 1989 and 1992 over 10 fatalities per billion km are scrubbed off. There is a downward and sustained trend that you refer to after 1995, for the next decade. However, that is more than matched by the ped rate decrease. Which brings us to…
It falls faster than the pedestrian rate for the next 10 years.
No it doesn’t.
Cyclists
1995: 52
2005: 34
or 35%
Peds
1995: 56
2005: 36
or 36%
In fact – take cycling’s biggest dip, over the shortest timeframe: 95-03, a fall from 52 to 26ish, about 26 (50%) over 8 years – or halving. In the same timeframe, peds go from 56 to 35, a fall of about 21 (38%). ONLY if you focus on that spell do you fit your argument – and even then there’s only a 12% difference, which is nullified by the next few years.
But Peds fall from 75 in 1992 to 36 in 2004… More than halving, a decrease of 39 (52%) in 12 years. There is no absolute fall like that on the cyclist side, and proportionally, ped deaths also halve over the same decade.
It is safe, and correct, to say that from the early-mid 90s, over the next decade, cyclist and pedestrian death rates halved. Your interpretation of your second graph stems from your desire for it match your first graph – ie., to explain the cycling fall via helmets.
Roads got safer for peds and cyclists in that period: by the end of both graphs’ scales, around two thirds of cyclists, and 100% of pedestrians, were not wearing helmets. Inferring a measurable impact from helmet-wearing just cannot be done from these graphs.
davel wrote:
The rate pre 1995 is just showing normal variation. If you look at the trend for cyclists it’s basically static despite a significant fall in the pedestrian rate over the same period.
1989-92 is just part of the normal fluctuations.
Post 1995 the fall is sustained.
The fall in cyclist fatality rate correlates almost exactly with the increase in helmet use.
Thus disproving the original point.
Rich_cb]
And as any fule gnows, correlation is not causation. Drowning correlates with ice cream consumption, so do they cause drowning?
Are you claiming that helmets are entirely responsible for the decline in deaths and that no other factor was involved? If so, how do you explain the fall in pedestrian deaths?
burtthebike wrote:
The original point was that cycling deaths did not fall after an increase in helmet use. That point is proved wrong by the graph.
You can’t prove causation but you can say that the graphs strongly suggest a cyclist specific factor becoming significant post 1995.
Prior to that the pedestrian rate had already fallen markedly with no significant change in the cyclist rate. That suggests a pedestrian specific factor, would that factor disappear in 1995 or continue to exert an effect?
If we’re looking for a cyclist specific factor that becomes significant post 1995 then helmet use fits.
It doesn’t prove causation but I don’t know of any other cycling specific factors that fit the timescale?
Rich_cb wrote:
We’re interpreting it differently… I think it’s your bias that’s making you think your view is correct.
By examining the statements you make that can be measured, I think we can decide that you’re interpreting it (or, just reading it) incorrectly.
The cyclist rate doesn’t start falling significantly until 1995.
Not true: between 1989 and 1992 over 10 fatalities per billion km are scrubbed off. There is a downward and sustained trend that you refer to after 1995, for the next decade. However, that is more than matched by the ped rate decrease. Which brings us to…
It falls faster than the pedestrian rate for the next 10 years.
No it doesn’t.
Cyclists
1995: 52
2005: 34
or 35%
Peds
1995: 56
2005: 36
or 36%
— Rich_cb The rate pre 1995 is just showing normal variation. If you look at the trend for cyclists it’s basically static despite a significant fall in the pedestrian rate over the same period. 1989-92 is just part of the normal fluctuations. Post 1995 the fall is sustained. The fall in cyclist fatality rate correlates almost exactly with the increase in helmet use. Thus disproving the original point.— davel
You really are a bit dense (from Davels post): –
Cyclists Peds
1995: 52 56
2005: 34 36
Death rate decrease: 35% 36%
THEREFORE decrease in death rate is greater for group NOT wearing helmets. IF helemets made a statistically greater impact (other than general road safety methods) then the death rate decrease (for cyclists) would have to be circa 40%.
Dropped wrote:
Let’s not start throwing insults around.
Look at the pedestrian rate.
When does it start to decline?
Is there a corresponding fall in the cyclist rate?
If there is no corresponding fall (there isn’t) that suggests a factor specific to pedestrians is the cause.
When the cyclist rate begins its decline in 1995 there is no corresponding increase in the rate of decline for pedestrians, this suggests that the new factor is cyclist specific.
Helmets fit that criteria, they are cyclist specific and the time frame fits almost exactly.
You can’t prove causation but I can’t think of any other cycling specific factors that fit that timescale.
Can you?
Rich_cb wrote:
Chris Boardman’s career.
Rich_cb wrote:
Lies, damn lies and statistics
The two graphs are not comparable as they contain different sets of data.
One has details on changes on helmet rate wearing by % of cyclists
One has reported fatalities of cyclists per billion KM travelled
If you wanted to compare statistics you would need to have:
Statistics on changes on helmet rate wearing by % of cyclists
Statistics on reported fatalities of cyclists by % of cyclists
or
Statistics on changes on helmet rate wearing per billion KM travelled
Statistics on reported fatalities of cyclists per billion KM travelled
Without the above similar data sets to compare no meaningful conclusions can be made as we do not know if hemlet wearers are more or less likely to do longer journeys (or if so by how much or if they wear their helmet at all times on all journeys etc, etc) which would be needed to even begin to get close to being able to draw a conclusion.
ClubSmed wrote:
You can’t prove causation but I didn’t say you could.
You can say that the data suggests a cycling specific factor post 1995 and that increased helmet use is a cyclist specific factor that changed significantly over the same period.
Rich_cb wrote:
Lies, damn lies and statistics
The two graphs are not comparable as they contain different sets of data.
One has details on changes on helmet rate wearing by % of cyclists
One has reported fatalities of cyclists per billion KM travelled
If you wanted to compare statistics you would need to have:
Statistics on changes on helmet rate wearing by % of cyclists
Statistics on reported fatalities of cyclists by % of cyclists
or
Statistics on changes on helmet rate wearing per billion KM travelled
Statistics on reported fatalities of cyclists per billion KM travelled
Without the above similar data sets to compare no meaningful conclusions can be made as we do not know if hemlet wearers are more or less likely to do longer journeys (or if so by how much or if they wear their helmet at all times on all journeys etc, etc) which would be needed to even begin to get close to being able to draw a conclusion.
— Rich_cb You can’t prove causation but I didn’t say you could. You can say that the data suggests a cycling specific factor post 1995 and that increased helmet use is a cyclist specific factor that changed significantly over the same period.— ClubSmed
You could say that the data of increased sales of ice-cream at the beach during summer months and the increase of shark attacks during the same period suggests that sharks are attracted to ice-cream. You would be wrong to draw such a conclusion though as the two sets of data are not connected to each other.
ClubSmed wrote:
Correlation isn’t always causation but it is sometimes.
There is a clear correlation between increased helmet use and decreasing cyclist deaths.
Do you know of any other correlations that are more likely to be causative?
Rich_cb wrote:
You could say that the data of increased sales of ice-cream at the beach during summer months and the increase of shark attacks during the same period means that sharks are attracted to ice-cream. You would be a fool to draw such a conclusion though as the two sets of data are not connected to each other.
— Rich_cb Correlation isn’t always causation but it is sometimes. There is a clear correlation between increased helmet use and decreasing cyclist deaths. Do you know of any other correlations that are more likely to be causative?— ClubSmed
Increase in the number of cyclists resulting in more driver awareness that they exist so more likely to look out for them?
ClubSmed wrote:
I don’t think that fits the timeline.
Rich_cb wrote:
Increase in the number of cyclists resulting in more driver awareness that they exist so more likely to look out for them?
— Rich_cb I don’t think that fits the timeline.— ClubSmed
ClubSmed wrote:
Difficult to be sure at that scale but doesn’t look like that fits either.
Rich_cb wrote:
You could say that the data of increased sales of ice-cream at the beach during summer months and the increase of shark attacks during the same period means that sharks are attracted to ice-cream. You would be a fool to draw such a conclusion though as the two sets of data are not connected to each other.
— Rich_cb Correlation isn’t always causation but it is sometimes. There is a clear correlation between increased helmet use and decreasing cyclist deaths. Do you know of any other correlations that are more likely to be causative?— ClubSmed
The fall in cost and rise in adoptation of LED lights
ClubSmed wrote:
So show the data that supports your idea.
I don’t think this fits the timeline either.
Rich_cb wrote:
The fall in cost and rise in adoptation of LED lights
— Rich_cb So show the data that supports your idea. I don’t think this fits the timeline either.— ClubSmed
ClubSmed wrote:
So it doesn’t fit the timeline at all.
Rich_cb wrote:
You could say that the data of increased sales of ice-cream at the beach during summer months and the increase of shark attacks during the same period means that sharks are attracted to ice-cream. You would be a fool to draw such a conclusion though as the two sets of data are not connected to each other.
— Rich_cb Correlation isn’t always causation but it is sometimes. There is a clear correlation between increased helmet use and decreasing cyclist deaths. Do you know of any other correlations that are more likely to be causative?— ClubSmed
Rise in mobile phone usage and coverage resulting in quicker response from emergency services to incidents in less populated areas.
ClubSmed wrote:
That’s not cycling specific.
CygnusX1 wrote:
You’ve just failed to interpret the graph correctly.
The pedestrian rate starts falling earlier and approaches parity in the early 90s.
From 1995 onwards the cycling rate starts to fall faster than the pedestrian rate.
So there is clearly a cycling specific factor that becomes significant after 1995.
The pattern fits perfectly with the increasing use of helmets disproving the initial point I was replying to.
I wonder what Mr Gray’s
I wonder what Mr Gray’s position would be if the unthinkable happened, and a child who previously rode slowly and carefully along the pavement to school as they weren’t confident in riding on the road, was involved in a collision with a car because he / she was following the demands of the school?
Tommytrucker wrote:
Well, the kid would be less likely to be cycling to school, anyway – and this is the crux, for me (I pull rich_cb’s yarn about those graphs, but I know there are studies and metastudies that show helmets prevent certain types of injury. I also know that when you throw in risk compensation/offsetting behaviour and cycling rates, the overall picture is very quickly muddied).
The ‘unintended consequences’ with mandated helmet use in NZ and Australia are so well-documented that they surely fall out of the realm of ‘unintended consequences’. They are well known. They are easily found via Google. They’re written about in the MSM. If you mandate helmets, you might save some lives, but how many, and how, will be the subject of debate. But you sure as shit WILL significantly decrease cycling, with an imperial fuckton of other unintended consequences.
This is a clearer correlation than any injury reduction. So forget Gray’s weasel words and let’s give him the credit he probably thinks he deserves as a headteacher. He has set out to reduce cycling rates by 30-50%. I predict he’ll be successful.
Nice response from Cycling UK
Nice response from Cycling UK to that story. I hope they’ve sent the same to the Head direct.
Kendo wrote:
+1.
“instead of applying his efforts to make it easier and safer for children to cycle to school, the headteacher has threatened to ban children from cycling to school”
What a complete and utter knob! And he’s in charge of a secondary school?!?
I wouldn’t trust him to operate a fountain pen properly.
To a certain extent I
To a certain extent I sympathise with the headmaster in question, although I don’t agree with the solutions that he has imposed. There is a general concensus by the public at large that all educational establishments are responsible for the actions of their pupils/students even when these pupils/students are outside school/Uni premises. To a certain extent they are, and should be seen to encourage appropriate behaviour, but there is a line that needs to be drawn between this ‘pastoral care’ and saying this is not our responsibility. I think this line has been crossed in this case, especially as there is no law being broken in either the instance of not wearing a helmet, and (considerately) riding on a pavement.
I suspect this headmaster is getting grief from the locals, and this is his ham-fisted attempt at placating them.
Helmets provide safety in
Helmets provide safety in SOME accidents.
SOME helmets do not comply to safety standards, but look the part.
Helmets provoke injuries in SOME accidents.
There is no conclusive evidence either way.
It’s a pointless debate.
This academy is wrong to introduce this rule until it becomes legislation. I would expect more from our learned headteacher.
I was saved by not wearing a helmet. A swinging branch would have got caught in one of the vents and ripped my head off. Fortunately I was wearing my trusted wooly hat.
@Rich_cb
@Rich_cb
We’re going to have to agree to disagree on whether helmets save lives once an accident occurs, life is too short for yet another helmet debate.
Would you agree that
1) A helmet is ‘treatment’ for the symptom (busted skull), not the cause (road traffic collision)?
2) Pavement cycling on the way to this school is also a symptom, whereas the cause is (a) cars blocking the cycle lanes, (b) fear/risk of a child on a bike being involved in an RTC if they cycled on the road?
The headteacher needs to focus on treating the cause not the symptoms. Or at least stop meddling in areas that are not his remit.
CygnusX1 wrote:
Indeed, so let’s keep it to personal choice. The Netherlands has the lowest rate of cycling deaths due to head injury and very few Cyclists wear helmets there, it’s down to better driving attitudes by drivers
Moreu live could be saved by improving passing distances, and introducing presumed liability.
It’s a sad state of affairs when schools are introducing these rules, as when I was a lad, loads of us cycled to school and there was big bike sheds. No one got lifts to school.
At my daughter’s academy, quite a few kids cycle to school, most of them quite sensibly, at lot ride on the pavement, but it’s quite a busy road. I’d be in favour of some sort of training to educate them about this and other road craft, rather than impose rules that discourage cycling to school.
maviczap wrote:
At my daughter’s academy, quite a few kids cycle to school, most of them quite sensibly, at lot ride on the pavement, but it’s quite a busy road. I’d be in favour of some sort of training to educate them about this and other road craft, rather than impose rules that discourage cycling to school.
— maviczapEspecially when there is no legal requirement and another example of a head exceeding their powers and being totally inconsistent in applying alleged health and safety.
CygnusX1 wrote:
Yes we can agree on all those points.
I would love to see headteachers concentrating on curbing the huge amounts of dangerous driving and parking that accompany the school run everyday rather than harassing the small number of pupils not contributing to pollution/congestion/obesity.
Isn’t there an easy response
Isn’t there an easy response to undermine the helmet policy?: tell your child to dismount just outside the school, and wheel the bike through the gates – they’re now no longer ‘cycling to school’, so no need for a helmet.