A headteacher is taking drastic action to make cycling safer – with detentions for children who cycle dangerously.
Ed Elliott, headmaster of the Perse School in Cambridge, was dismayed to see his charges cycling to and from lessons on poorly maintained bikes in a less than orderly fashion.
Pupils at the independent school, where fees are £17,000 a year, have been told they must wear high-visibility clothing, helmets and no headphones.
Those found to be flouting the rules face a letter home to parents or a detention, and teachers can report transgressions on and off school grounds.
“Everyone who cycles to school must wear high-visibility clothing, correctly fitted cycle helmets, they must have working front and rear lights, brakes and pedal reflectors,” Elliott told the Times. “I tell children off when they are wearing headphones to listen to music when cycling; you can’t hear the reversing sirens on an HGV if you have headphones on.
“We spend a lot of time talking to pupils to make sure they stop at red lights. It is amazing how many cyclists run red lights in a place like Cambridge.
“In a teaching career you will sometimes see children who die. Early on in my career a child I knew well was killed in a cycle accident. That changed my behaviour.”
Elliott added: “Last year 309 children were seriously injured in cycle accidents reported to the police and there were eight deaths. Those aged 10 to 15 are most at risk, particularly between eight and nine in the morning and three and six in the evening and that risk increases in the winter months.”
This summer Ewan Morris, 16, a GCSE pupil at the Perse, who cycles a mile or so to and from school, was treated in intensive care at Addenbrooke’s Hospital after coming off a bike. He was wearing a borrowed cycle helmet.
“I can’t remember what happened,” he said. “I was put into a medically induced coma and released after a few days. My helmet was split open at the back — and I think that saved my life.”
Elliott, also a cyclist, has a festive message for parents wondering what to get their kids for Christmas. “I will be encouraging parents to consider buying cycle safety gear. Children think they are invincible; we are trying to create a different mindset.”
43 thoughts on “School brings in detentions for children who don’t wear a cycle helmet”
Unfortunately, this is pretty
Unfortunately, this is pretty much all this website has become. Endless footage of ‘near misses’ and articles about helmets. Chuck in the odd overpriced jacket and there you go. Everything joyless about cycling.
drosco wrote:
True, dat. And the worst of it is, I don’t choose to read this drip-drip of fear and misery, it comes free of charge or choice thanks to my Google news feed. It’s like having the Daily Mail read to me over breakfast. Make it stop!
drosco wrote:
I see your point – but that’s the same about all “news” – you have to mention the bad stuff.
On the plus side, I am hugely encouraged by the sensible comments of so many below who can see through the victim-blaming and non-evidence based red herring that is pushed by those who should know better.
drosco wrote:
On the plus side: your whinges always bring a smile to my lips and put a spring in my step.
If they require 17000 a year,
If they require 17000 a year, it is sensible that someone has to shoot about their customer’s safety. But for so much money they could hire somebody to drive a car behind each customer, do I have to do all the thinking?
cyclisto wrote:
Would prepare them in case they decide to be cycling politician as well.
Perhaps hgvs should be
Perhaps hgvs should be equipped with reversing lights and have a banksman.
£17k on school fees but the
£17k on school fees but the kids have shitly maintained bikes?
Either Ed Elliott doesn’t
Either Ed Elliott doesn’t understand unintended consequences or he is deliberately reducing the numbers of kids cycling to his school.
Either way, I wouldn’t be sending my kids to a school with such a chump in charge, even if it was free.
I was chatting to my sister
I was chatting to my sister in law yesterday. She’s a teacher in an academy, a state secondary school; head of department and has been a teacher for twenty odd years. I was telling her about the other recent story about a head wanting kids to wear cycle helmets and have number plates. She said it’s none of their business: staff are on site from an hour or so before and after the end of the school day, in case kids come in early or leave late, but that’s it. She said it is not the schools responsibility what the kids do outside of school hours and off the school site (unless on school-arranged buses etc). The school could mandate helmets on school property, but that’s the end of it.
brooksby wrote:
Lots of Academies seem to want to do stupid things there as if they were controlled by the local authority they wouldn’t be allowed to even suggest it.
With this independent school parents will vote with their feet, and I am aware in certain areas too many parents have been so many such schools have closed down.
Bluebug wrote:
Why would they? Would you risk your childs education at such a place (that the facilities seem second to none)? Or would you just get on with it, grumble a little on the internet and make your child wear a helmet? Changing schools over something like this would be silly, and so the anti-cycling idiots like Mr Ed Elliot win, motorists win, and our children grow up being scared of what should be a safe activity.
kitsunegari wrote:
Heads who put in one stupid rule tend to put in a lot more.
Quote:
Are all cyclists thick twats?
And: how does young Mr Morris
And: how does young Mr Morris know that the helmet saved his life, if it was destroyed and he remembers nothing?
“I will be encouraging
“I will be encouraging parents to consider buying cycle safety gear.”
Yet another ignorant fuckwit abusing his position. It’s like a religious cult!
Has he never been shocked at
Has he never been shocked at seeing the aftermath of a car hitting someone or something?
If he is, presumably he’ll also be demanding anyone travelling to school in a car should adopt a different mode of transport?
I don’t wish to be rude to Mr
I don’t wish to be rude to Mr Elliott as I’d like to think he is not doing this as a power kick, but as a genuine concern for his pupils safety. And, let’s face it, a properly maintained bike is important.
However, perhaps he should consider campaigning to make the roads around the school safer for his little darlings to cycle on.
mikeymustard wrote:
Yes of course. And if he is worried about improper cycling behaviour he could support high quality on-road cycle training which – if done properly – can breed confidence. And awareness of cyclists’ rights as well as responsibilities. If done propelry, which seems unlikely with him.
It’s amazing the contortions
It’s amazing the contortions of logic people get involved with where helmets are concerned. I think Ewan Morris has been seduced by the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. I’m pleased he’s back on his feet (and bike I hope) though.
In other news, an inner city
In other news, an inner city school head puts kids in detention for not wearing body armour after a stabbing puts a pupil in intensive care.
Muppet.
Perhaps the headmaster would
Perhaps the headmaster would like to take part in an experiment, he can wear hi-viz and a cycle helmet and I can drive an HGV over his head to show how affective they are
Maybe the head ought to aquaint himself with the law, instead of being a cockwomble making up his own laws. His remit ends at the school gates in which case it is then the reponsibility of the parents.
Not sure why so many negative
Not sure why so many negative comments. The headmaster is adopting the ‘should’ statements in the highway code. He is not going beyond that, and they are in line with the way Bikeability is taught. The kids cycling to Perse are way better than the other idiots in Cambridge riding no hands with headphones on that do not stop at red lights. True, his authority stops at the school gate, but anyone wanting to rack their bike at school has to follow his rules.
JeffB wrote:
He’s changing the ‘should’ and implementing it as a ‘must’ be punishing transgressions.
Why should anyone wanting to use the bike racks have to keep to his arbitrary rules about what they do outside the school?
The fact is that this policy WILL reduce the number of kids cycling if only because it is painting cycling as a dangerous activity. Unfortunately, those kids who get driven to school rather than cycling there will most likely have reduced activity levels which is a modern epidemic that should be fought against and not welcomed with unthinking rules.
JeffB wrote:
Aye well some of us are hoping to get the victim blaming shit in the HC removed or just ensure that the balance is addressed and motorists advised to wear same and hi-vis for their motors.
over 300,000 head injuries admitted into hospital from 1.4 million reported head injuries, and kids on bikes are a tiny, tiny fraction of this, the majority of these incidents are the fault of some cunt in a shit ton of metal and plastic, in fact more kids die of head injuries in motorvehicles, twice as many as the total number of child cycling deaths of all injuries in the UK If he bothered to do some research he would force all kids being dropped off to wear helmets too!
Yeah, ignoring facts and putting the onus of safety really works, not, never has. Again, if children are getting stabbed, shot and having head injuries in other aspects outside the school, or indeed in the school grounds you can bet your bottom dollar no-one is going to suggest the wear stab/bullet proof vests or a crash helmet as a safety device.
Kids cycling anywhere doing pretty much what they like don’t make a dent in the casualty stats of others, in a civil society we let children play, when we force helmets on them they do even more stupid stuff and get hurt more.
People who keep on ignoring the facts are dangerous morons, this moron who is supposed to be looking after the wealthfare of children (ON HIS PREMISES ONLY) cannot risk assess properly, hasn’t the capacity to understand victim blaming, hasn’t the capacity to grasp that helmets are not a solution to the problem he obviously seems to think it is and ignores head injuries in other facets of life including pupils in his own school. He hasn’t even bothered to look at the facts surrounding helmets and if he’s just gone off some mickey mouse ‘advice’ in the HC as his evidence to force this nonsense he shouldn’t be in charge of a pile of steaming shit never mind a school.
it’s not just lazy, it’s contemptable dangerous BS.
JeffB wrote:
He’s exceeding his powers, just as if an employer told you or me that you weren’t allowed to commute to work by x mode of transport or were not allowed eat a particular food after work on Fridays.
Another one from last week: http://road.cc/content/news/232962-academy-school-makes-cycle-helmets-compulsory-and-says-it-will-suspend-pupils
Kids riding with headphones or dicking about are not really the problem. And before you say “they can’t hear the traffic” I’ll say:
1. even if they can hear the 4×4 / van / truck about to make the close pass what are they supposed to do about it?
2. how do deaf people manage?
3. cars have great sound insulation (and powerful audio systems) but I bet you aren’t tut-tutting at them for driving around with the stereo on, parking on the pavement, dropping off their kids on the zig-zags, speeding, using mobiles…
Singling out RLJing or headphone-wearing cyclists is just scapegoating, deflecting attention from what is by far the greatest threat on the roads. And so is this headteacher. By all means make explain what good and bad behaviour is, how it impacts on the school and the people around it, perhaps even pay for Bikeability to be run on the school grounds, but FFS don’t ignore the elephant in the room.
Simon E wrote:
He’s exceeding his powers, just as if an employer told you or me that you weren’t allowed to commute to work by x mode of transport or were not allowed eat a particular food after work on Fridays.
Another one from last week: http://road.cc/content/news/232962-academy-school-makes-cycle-helmets-compulsory-and-says-it-will-suspend-pupils
Kids riding with headphones or dicking about are not really the problem. And before you say “they can’t hear the traffic” I’ll say:
1. even if they can hear the 4×4 / van / truck about to make the close pass what are they supposed to do about it?
2. how do deaf people manage?
3. cars have great sound insulation (and powerful audio systems) but I bet you aren’t tut-tutting at them for driving around with the stereo on, parking on the pavement, dropping off their kids on the zig-zags, speeding, using mobiles…
Singling out RLJing or headphone-wearing cyclists is just scapegoating, deflecting attention from what is by far the greatest threat on the roads. And so is this headteacher. By all means make explain what good and bad behaviour is, how it impacts on the school and the people around it, perhaps even pay for Bikeability to be run on the school grounds, but FFS don’t ignore the elephant in the room.— JeffB
Excellent points. Could also point out that there is no research which actually shows that headphones contribute to crashes (I don’t use them BTW)
JeffB wrote:
The highway code is a significantly-flawed document, it’s not the word of God. In any case it has a great many ‘should’ statements directed at motorists that are routinely ignored, yet I don’t see this headmaster imposing any sanctions on parents who have their children in their car when they ignore those ‘shoulds’.
And has he banned any parent from driving their child in a car that doesn’t, in reality not theory, meet NOx or particulates emissions standards? In fact, to be consistently concerned with childrens’ wellbeing, he should be banning parents from using any non-electric motorised vehicles.
I’m not 100% sure, but I don’t think, incidentally, that his authority does stop at the school gate. Legally I suspect he can impose all sorts of restrictions on out-of-school activities and expel pupils for breaking them. But at least it’s a private school, so parents have some element of choice as whether they want to be subject to his power-crazed whims. Not so with state-funded academies, which have the same problem of mini-Putins running amok but taxpayers have no choice about funding them.
JeffB wrote:
He’s taken the law into his own hands, and decided to issue punishments where non are warrented.
More importantly though – and far worse – he’s demonstrating that its ok for our children to grow up scared of cycling, and that the real killers on our roads are not what should be targeted.
Anyone that is driven to
Anyone that is driven to school in a car whereby all seats are not occupied or those inside aren’t wearing a beret will be given a detention…
Useful article here:
Useful article here:
https://www.cyclinguk.org/article/campaigns-guide/how-to-encourage-cycling-schools-anti-cycling-policies
“2. The law – what schools can and cannot do about cycling to school
Cycling ‘bans’
Schools do not have any legal right to ban cycling to and from their premises.
However, schools can discourage cycling…”
And how many of his pupils
And how many of his pupils are overweight or lacking daily excercise?
so the child was wearing a
so the child was wearing a cycle helmet and ends up in intensive care
and the head wants all the children who cycle to wear helmets
ergo – the head wants all the children who cycle to end up in intensive care
Our primary school has a
Our primary school has a problem with parents dropping off their kids, normally parking on the pavement and often narrowly missing hitting kids walking along. The school’s response has been to politely request that parents don’t park on the pavement. They refuse to lobby the council to ask for more double yellow lines or other measures outside the school. They will be very prescriptive about what kind of bag the kids use to transport their gym kit, lest it has loose straps that present a strangulation hazard.
In other words, they turn a blind eye to the heirarchy of risk, if a motor vehicle is involved. Just like the rest of society.
I suspect we are putting
I suspect we are putting adult standards on the effect of helmet use on children cycling. Generally children do what they are told and don’t worry about it if it means they can carry on doing something they want to do. Not saying its right or wrong, its the way it is.
I don’t get why its such an emotive issue.
There are parents who will not let their kids go out on their bikes without helmets, so arguably, having a rule on this might make some children more likely to be allowed to cycle to school.
PRSboy wrote:
its an emotive issue because, as mentioned its victom blaming from someone the majority see as stepping beyond their responsibilities. If you ignore this stuff, it grows and before you know it, we will all be forced to wear hi-viz, helmets and not enjoy toons in our ears.
But, you also raise a good point. OK, when they are older, and trying to be cool, they may rejec tthe helmet, but as kids, they generally don’t give a fudge about sticking a helmet on, so it probably won’t be the deterrent some are saying it is.
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:
The kids might not be fussed about wearing a helmet, but one of the issues about mandating helmet usage is the way that it makes cycling seem to be extremely dangerous. Some parents might now not allow their kids to cycle to school because they (wrongly) think that it’s too dangerous.
This is a big problem with victim blaming – it changes people’s risk evaluation without having a foundation in actual facts. e.g. Helmets would prevent more head injuries if motorists wore them, but that never seems to be discussed except on cycling forums.
This reminds me of a current Apple advert where a young kid is doing lots of kid stuff. At one point, she’s shown cycling around wearing a helmet, but at another point, she’s climbing a tree but not wearing the same helmet. Since when is tree climbing considered safer than riding a bike?
hawkinspeter wrote:
Great points. Deep down, I think this is why many of us get so frustrated by this stuff… its because deep down we believe cycling isn’t dangerous. We are having all this protective stuff thrust upon us, when there is little evidence of the need (statisitcally is there a higher real time risk from cycling than other activities), or indeed evidence that the prescribed solutions are effective.
If cycling was genuinely dangerous, I would give it up. I have too many responsibilities to be reckless with my life.
Every day I ride my bike I am faced with poor standards of driving, both due to incompetence and aggression, but still I am not really endangered. Inconvenienced, made to feel uncomfortable, but actually its all fine.
Now I am not saying that being inconvenienced and made to feel uncomfortable is fine, its not at all, and as a group we need to lobby hard for changes, but at the same time, we need to put the negatives in to perspective… cycling is actually very safe.
As I’ve said before, this website reports on every fatality it can get its grubby hands on… in a country of 60+ million, there really aren’t very many stories to report.
PRSboy wrote:
Putting helmets on someone who already has limited understanding of their boundaries to stay safe has the effect of making their environment less safe, a LOT less safe and all of their own doing.
Tests on kids have being done many times over with respect to risk compensation, each and every time the results are the same, make kids think they are more protected and they take a very significant increase in risk taking. Ergo, putting helmets on kids induces them to do more risky stuff so they get hurt more because the helmet isn’t anything like enough protection to compensate for that extra risk taking, that doesn’t even take into account any changes in how those presenting the harm are effected by same.
The average teenager in NL cycles 2000km per year, in the UK children aged 0-16 cycled 26miles per year on average, we have roughly the same number of child cycling deaths. Not quite a completely like for like comparison in terms of the age group but distance cycled in NL by kids is massively more than ours, by a much bigger factor than that of the adults.
Guess which country has the lowest rate of helmet wearing in children in the two countries, do you think the Dutch managed to achieve their level of safety by plonking plastic hats on their kids or did they address the real problem and continue to address the problems with circa €500M spent every year on infra?
As it says in the Get Britain
As it says in the Get Britain Cycling enquiry report:
Schools, colleges and employers alike should be incentivised to promote cycling for their pupils and work-forces respectively, e.g. through bike to school and bike to work initiatives (see also 4.6 and 4.9 – 4.10). They should be encouraged to work with local authorities and others to improve cycle access, cycle parking, and facilities such as lockers and showers – with funding made available to support this. They should not simply seek to ban or restrict cycle use, or to impose helmet rules – these are not only misguided in terms of health and safety, but may also be illegal.
“But, you also raise a good
“But, you also raise a good point. OK, when they are older, and trying to be cool, they may reject the helmet, but as kids, they generally don’t give a fudge about sticking a helmet on, so it probably won’t be the deterrent some are saying it is.”
You are right that primary school children are mostly not deterred by helmets. The Perse (my old school actually) and Sandridge School in St Albans which was also recently in the news for the same issue are both secondary schools. These kids are that much older and helmet compulsion would be an issue for some of them.
What a load of crap. A Head
What a load of crap. A Head Teacher can recommend how Children get to and from school but enforcing outside the school gates? Hell No.
I take it he’ll also be outside monitoring seatbelt use, checking tyre depths and asking for proof of licence, MOT and insurance while making sure parent’s don’t park illegally. No? Didn’t think so.
Having commuted past Mr
Having commuted past Mr Elliots school every day for four years, I would have said that the danger lies in the 4×4 drivers who park in the cycle and bus lanes, take no consideration of other road users, and are often on their mobile phones after having dropped off their little angel at one of the many schools along that road. That and the pollution of course.