Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

news

School brings in detentions for children who don't wear a cycle helmet

Cambridge school head says he was shocked after a child was treated in intensive care

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.”

Add new comment

43 comments

Avatar
kitsunegari | 6 years ago
3 likes

Having commuted past Mr Elliots school every day for four years, I would have said that the danger lies in the 4x4 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.

Avatar
STiG911 | 6 years ago
5 likes

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.

Avatar
horizontal dropout | 6 years ago
1 like

"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.

Avatar
pjclinch | 6 years ago
5 likes

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. 

Avatar
PRSboy | 6 years ago
1 like

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.

Avatar
Jimmy Ray Will replied to PRSboy | 6 years ago
2 likes

PRSboy wrote:

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.

 

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. 

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to Jimmy Ray Will | 6 years ago
6 likes

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

PRSboy wrote:

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.

 

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. 

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?

Avatar
Jimmy Ray Will replied to hawkinspeter | 6 years ago
5 likes

hawkinspeter wrote:

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

PRSboy wrote:

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.

 

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. 

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?

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. 

 

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds replied to PRSboy | 6 years ago
3 likes

PRSboy wrote:

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.

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?

Avatar
the little onion | 6 years ago
8 likes

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.

Avatar
beezus fufoon | 6 years ago
6 likes

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

Avatar
escalinci | 6 years ago
2 likes

And how many of his pupils are overweight or lacking daily excercise?

Avatar
horizontal dropout | 6 years ago
3 likes

Useful article here:

https://www.cyclinguk.org/article/campaigns-guide/how-to-encourage-cycli...

"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..."

 

Avatar
alansmurphy | 6 years ago
7 likes

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...

Avatar
JeffB | 6 years ago
1 like

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.

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to JeffB | 6 years ago
8 likes

JeffB wrote:

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.

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.

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds replied to JeffB | 6 years ago
16 likes

JeffB wrote:

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.

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.

Avatar
Simon E replied to JeffB | 6 years ago
14 likes

JeffB wrote:

Not sure why so many negative comments.

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-co...

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 4x4 / 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.

Avatar
ChairRDRF replied to Simon E | 6 years ago
4 likes

Simon E wrote:

JeffB wrote:

Not sure why so many negative comments.

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-co...

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 4x4 / 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.

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)

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to JeffB | 6 years ago
5 likes

JeffB wrote:

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.

 

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.

Avatar
kitsunegari replied to JeffB | 6 years ago
2 likes

JeffB wrote:

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.

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.

Avatar
martib | 6 years ago
6 likes

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.

Avatar
DaveE128 | 6 years ago
11 likes

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.

Avatar
HarrogateSpa | 6 years ago
3 likes

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.

Avatar
mikeymustard | 6 years ago
7 likes

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.

Avatar
ChairRDRF replied to mikeymustard | 6 years ago
2 likes

mikeymustard wrote:

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.

 

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.

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... | 6 years ago
10 likes

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?

Avatar
Simon E | 6 years ago
8 likes

"I will be encouraging parents to consider buying cycle safety gear."

Yet another ignorant fuckwit abusing his position. It's like a religious cult!

Avatar
brooksby | 6 years ago
11 likes

And: how does young Mr Morris know that the helmet saved his life, if it was destroyed and he remembers nothing?

Avatar
don simon fbpe | 6 years ago
7 likes

Quote:

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.”

Are all cyclists thick twats?

Pages

Latest Comments