The head teacher of a North London primary school is using traffic cones to block a cycleway that runs past it, claiming that cyclists are putting children’s lives in danger. However, London Cycling Campaign has pointed out that by blocking the route, the head is endangering cyclists – including parents and children who choose to ride to and from the school.
Completed in May this year, the northern section of Cycleway 38 runs from Finsbury Park to Highbury Fields.
A four-week consultation by Islington Council in autumn 2019 found that 83 per cent of local residents were in favour of the scheme.
A fully segregated section of the route passes Drayton Park Primary School, a couple of hundred metres from Arsenal FC’s Emirates Stadium.
However, the Islington Gazette reports that the school’s headmaster, Damien Parrott, has started blocking the route during school run times.
In a letter sent to parents of pupils at the school, he said: “A number of near misses between cyclists and children, have caused aggressive confrontations in front of our children.”
He said that he “came to the conclusion that the situation is a very dangerous one” after going to look at the cycle lane himself.
“I watched someone cycle down the lane sitting up, not holding onto their handlebars and thus with no quick access to their brakes,” he continued.
“As the cycle lane is curved before our gate, with cars parked on the road side, visibility for both pedestrians and cyclists is limited.
“The consequences of a single mistake, in which a cyclist hit one of our children, could be disastrous. Cycling accidents lead to serious injury and death.”
He added: “I want to stop putting the cones out as soon as possible, because a better solution has been put in place by the appropriate authorities.”
The head teacher will be meeting with council officials shortly to highlight his concerns and try and resolve the situation.
A spokesperson for Islington Council told the newspaper: “We’re determined to create a fairer, greener, healthier Islington for everyone, with more pleasant, safer spaces for people to walk and cycle.
“The safety of children is absolutely vital to this, and we’re meeting with the executive head of Drayton Park School this week to discuss the concerns that have been raised.
“The cycleway offers a route for people, including families with children, to travel more safely in our borough, and will help to improve air quality and reduce emissions.”
LCC Senior Infrastructure Campaigner Simon Munk welcomed the fact that the head teacher and council will be meeting to discuss the issue – but pointed out that blocking the lane would endanger cyclists, including parents and children travelling to and from the school.
He said: “It is obviously right that Islington Council and the school work to mitigate any specific issues around the design of the track and car parking next to it. But it is dangerous for this cycle track to be blockaded with cones – this poses serious risks for children and parents cycling to and from the school, as well as everyone else.
“More, we need schools to work with councils to reduce the climate emissions and road danger of the school run – that primarily comes from cars and driving, not people cycling,” he added.
When the route, which was designed by the council and funded by Transport for London, was opened in May, Councillor Rowena Champion, Islington’s Executive Member for Environment and Transport, said: “We are determined to create a fairer, greener and healthier future for Islington, where everyone is able to travel easily around the borough and incorporate exercise into their daily routine.
“This new route will help make it safer to walk and cycle as we move out of lockdown, enabling local people to enjoy our borough in a way that cuts down on air pollution and congestion by reducing unnecessary car journeys.
“Walking, cycling and wheeling are convenient, inexpensive and fun ways to travel around the borough, and we look forward to seeing local people enjoy the benefits of the new Cycleway.”
Will Norman, London’s Walking and Cycling Commissioner, added: “Enabling people to walk and cycle around London is absolutely vital to ensuring a green recovery from the pandemic, and I’m thrilled to see this innovative new cycle route open in Islington.
“New infrastructure is being delivered at record pace across the capital and new routes such as Cycleway 38 mean more people are able to leave their cars at home and get on their bikes instead.
“We’ll continue to work closely with Islington Council to make the borough an even better place for walking and cycling for all.”
98 thoughts on “North London school head blocks new cycleway with cones, claiming cyclists endanger pupils”
First of all, if cyclists are
First of all, if cyclists are cycling along outside the school dangerously then they do need to stop and be more considerate. Especially as the pictures show a lollipop man on a crossing section where the cones are which they should respect as much as the cars should.
However what rights does the Head have blocking off a public right of way outside of his school. Surely if he is so concerned, he would have coned off the whole road as cyclists will still be dangerous like the cars already are anyway. And again, the same picture showing the lollipop man also shows several cars parked directly outside the school gates which I assume is school drop off hours.
There is a zebra crossing
The head seems very coy about how cyclists and pupils are coming into conflict…
Unless children are in the cycleway or cyclists are on the pavement, or ignoring the zebra and the lollipop, I don’t see how any conflict can arise between the two.
There is a zebra crossing with attendant lollipop person – a very safe way to cross the road. Are the cyclists heedless of both, or are the children not making use of them?
Or maybe – feckless parents deliver kerbside yards from the school gate, so now find their treasures are alighting directly into the cycle lane. And at pick-up time I guess the same children throng the cycle lane in anticipation of the car’s arrival.
Cyclists have had several
Cyclists have had several near misses, so despite clearly stating that parked cars are reducing the visibility for both parties, he want’s to have a go at – cyclists.
Twattery of the highest order, that.
The feigned concern from Jo
The feigned concern from Jo Cardow “Some of the cyclists are going faster than the 20mph speed limit being imposed on cars, and some of them are on e-bikes as well.”….. does someone want to tell her that around 85% of motor cars drive faster than the posted 20mph speed limits? And that a car travelling at that speed hitting a child will do far more damage than a cyclist.
I wonder how much of this is down to the drivers of cars who now find that they are blocking the roads when they are dropping their children off and as a result are claiming the cycle paths are a danger to have them removed so they no longer block the roads with their Chelsea Tractors?
I think she gave herself away
I think she gave herself away when when she described the speed limit as “being imposed on cars”. Very loaded language – she’s clearly upset by the speed limit. Maybe it slows down her genuine child-killing mode of transport by a few seconds and she resents the flowing cycle lane.
But what made me laugh was “It’s literally like the M25. Bikes are bombing down there at a rate of knots unaware there are children coming out of the school.”
It’s literally nothing like the M25, where there are no bikes, no bombing and no schools for children to be coming out of.
Illegal ebikes too zooming
Illegal ebikes too zooming along at > 25kph
hirsute wrote:
It isn’t illegal for ebikes to go faster than 25kph, it is only illegal for there to be power assistance over that speed.
I know, but I rather suspect
I know, but I rather suspect the person quoted does not. Unless they are equally in favour of banning fatties from normal bikes due to their excess mass.
STiG911 wrote:
Logically, he should be blocking the parking spaces so that there’s a clear line of sight. That also wouldn’t be obstructing traffic and would inconvenience only a small number of motorists (i.e. who would otherwise have parked there).
Well he did see one person on
Well he did see one person on a bicycle cycling no handed, therefore they are all wrong uns.
Would you be doing anything
Would you be doing anything illegal by stopping, picking up said traffic cones and moving them (picking them up and launching them) into school grounds before you go back on your way on the segregated cycle path?
Or at the very least contact the police to report a private institution is blocking access to a public right of way?
TriTaxMan wrote:
Or at the very least contact the police to report a private institution is blocking access to a public right of way?
— TriTaxManIf I rode that route, those cones wouldn’t be there long, and I’m not sure why local cyclists tolerate them.
Sounds to me like someone is
Sounds to me like someone is wilfully obstructing free passage along a highway…
Presumably the council have
Presumably the council have immediately advised him that he’s committing a Highways Act offence and to remove the obstruction immediately?
I can’t see what the
I can’t see what the installation looks like, so I imagine the cars are parked between the main carriageway and the cycle lane.
Interesting that near misses between cyclists and children has resulted in confrontations in front of the children. Children alighting from parked cars and strolling across the cycle lane without looking, (which parents would never consider acceptable for crossing the road) leading to confrontation between parents/drivers and the cyclists?
I assume he also puts cones out on the road blocking it before and after school, as this is where his children are more likely to be injured. I’m sure if I went there I could detect drivers on drugs (Since I smell cannabis from vehicles about every other bike ride, and I can’t believe the people of Fiinsbury park are less inclined that those local to me) and also drivers distracted by phones. Or is the road no a risk because the children only have to go as far as the parking bays between the cycle lane and the road?
Also riding no hands is not appropriate in such a location either.
wycombewheeler wrote:
Ah, but those parents probably don’t think that the cycle lane is a real traffic way…
Click the newspaper link to
This is the area now.
Then compare to how it used to be here. The school gates are right where all the cars are parked in both pictures. I have never seen a school without no parking zigzags outside the gates before. Why isn’t he as animated about that?
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
Those cones made all teh difference….
Is that drain cover
Is that drain cover deliberately set that way to catch cyclists?
bikeman01 wrote:
best leave the left hand cone in place all the time.
bikeman01 wrote:
If that drain cover is as pictured, then it is illegal. It is illegal to have drains with slots in the line of travel.
It’s like a criss-cross one
It’s like a criss-cross one rather than just slotted. Maybe the light is only catching the lines in one direction.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
I can’t see any issue with the infrastructure here, clearly marked as a crossing and with a crossing guard. No reason for anyone not to stop. Are cyclists assuming the road crossing and cycle lane crossing are seperate, or is there something i can’t see restricting their view of the crossing guard?
Also those cones don’t really block cyclists, I’d ride through there without stopping, but would slow them down, which may be his intent.
Perhaps the cones could be
Perhaps the cones could be more effectively deployed along the edge of the main carriageway, until more permanent markings to stop parking can be put in place.
A stretch of yellow zig-zags
A stretch of yellow zig-zags would get rid of the designed-in dooring zone too. (See the parked car behind Mr. Lollipop.) As Badger says, every other school has them.
Perhaps railings between road and cycle lane would dissuade drop-offs into the bike lane, protecting children and cyclists alike.
I think I could squeeze between those cones anyway, what does ‘Whacko’ do then, cane in the spokes?
pockstone wrote:
No doubt he still has a suitable collection.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
— AlsoSomniloquism
The entrance is around the corner, with this nice bike parking outside.
inicholson wrote:
LOL at the thought of leaving bikes locked up all day on the pavement in finsbury park. Only useful for parents while picking up their kids.
If thats intended for the children it should be inside the fence.
Literally every day that I
Literally every day that I cycle my children into school, I am having to warn them to beware of cars pulling in or out of the kerbside or onto the pavement without paying attention to who or what might be there. It’s a complete jungle.
Can you imagine the uproar if the head ( or I ) just coned off the road and demanded the council make it safer before I let cars in again?
Sack him for behaviour
Sack him for behaviour unbecoming of a head teacher ?
maenchi wrote:
That is a high bar indeed…..
Quote:
Do what?
But you’re ok with a road outside your school????????*&%^$£
Poor Mr Parrott is going to
Poor Mr Parrott is going to have an absolute meltdown if he sees the official stats for what injures and kills child pedestrians on their way to and from school.
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/442236/child-casualties-2013-data.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjCksqUsdHxAhUzJMUKHeaxC6IQFjAJegQIGBAC&usg=AOvVaw29JREmRmeOyTZT8nQS5NVw
In the meantime he is surely leaving himself liable to significant criminal and civil litigation should his cones result in injury to a member of the public.
Radical idea for the head
Radical idea for the head teacher….. make sure your pupils knos how to cross a road safely, by not looking at their phone, looking both ways properly and ensurinb if is safe before crossing. Might also want to look into injury and death statistics between motor vehicles hitting a pedestrian and cycles doing so.
Don’t even need that – just
Don’t even need that – just use the provided zebra crossing overseen by lollipop person. And TBH most school kids do exactly that, so I think something else is going on here, like being dropped off (and collected) by car right into the cycle lane, as if it were the pavement.
Most heads of schools are
Most heads of schools are educated, intelligent people, able to analyse a problem and reach a sensible solution, but there is always the exception to the rule. This head has not logically analysed the problem and as a result has reached a bizarre solution, which endangers people and doesn’t solve the problem.
Schools are now supposed to be part of the community, but when the head objects and takes illegal action against a decision supported by 83% of the community, it certainly isn’t part of the community. The head must have been consulted on this scheme, which will reduce risk to his pupils, and blocking the road for bicycles but not cars is absurd and illogical. Surely any reasonable person would be in favour of measures to reduce car use and to allow his pupils to ride to school, rather than be driven?
One is left wondering whether he is one of those cycle-haters who literally can’t abide proper cycle provision; perhaps his brother drives a taxi.
As others have pointed out, he is leaving the school and himself open to being sued by any cyclist who suffers injury as a result of his illegal, stupid decision. The Police Bill going through parliament now, voted for by every tory MP, would of course make his actions illegal, if they aren’t already.
eburtthebike wrote:
Ever worked in a school Eburt?
I note the comments but it’s
I note the comments but it’s hard to understand the head’s predicament without having experienced it firsthand, or had parental feedback that the cyclepath is dangerous to children leaving school, who aren’t expecting fast moving yet silent traffic.
I happen to live very close to a secondary school, and it’s a reality that children frequently don’t look prior to stepping out into the road. Luckily my road is very quiet and motorists are well attuned to the danger, but I can see why this could cause serious issue on a main road.
Hopefully the head will explain the situation to the council and reach a sensible conclusion – perhaps cyclists could be compelled to slow to walking pace at those very busy time around school leaving and arrival times? However, no doubt there would be those who ignore the rules and allow top lawyer Nick Freeman to discuss registration tabards again.
Nigel Garrage wrote:
You surprise me Nige. You’re normally a stickler for following rules regardless of context*. Y’know, rules like not obstructing the public highway…
*Obvs apart from rules about not deliberately running down cyclists with cars. They’re more guidelines than rules, and it depends how you’re feeling at the time anyway. And whether the cyclist showed proper respect…
If you reread what I wrote
If you reread what I wrote you’ll see at no point did I agree with the head’s actions, but wanted to give some context.
Clearly the head isn’t being polite or even law-abiding, but if there is a clear and present danger to the health of his pupils it’s hard to describe his actions as anything other than proportionate. Once the outcome of discussions with the council are known, hopefully a permanent solution can be found.
As an aside, in Taiwan every single school pupil wears a uniform with a clearly identifiable registration number so that errant behaviour can be reported, and perhaps that is where top lawyer Nick Freeman has borrowed his tabard idea from.
Nige is so transparent.
Nige is so transparent.
Common tactic is to distract a thread by making a reference to the subject as he has done here and then throw in one of his pet references looking for a reaction.
‘Top lawyer’ reference is just looking to hi-jack the story once more.
Obvious, but tiresome.
Sniffer wrote:
Quite
Is Nigel and Nick the same
Is Nigel and Nick the same person? He keeps referring to that solicitor whose main line of work is bottom feeding defence of traffic offences as a ‘top lawyer’.
Muddy Ford wrote:
Who cares. He just posts random drivel to try and get some attention from people. Ignore him and he’ll get tired and move on.
Nigel Garrage wrote:
He would have had to conduct a formal risk assessment for that, and so would need to have accounted for the risk posed by cars too.
As he was not part of the design team for the cycleway he is in no place to access that data. (Although of course, he is clearly entitled to raise concerns via proper channels)
What he is really not justified in doing is breaking the law by obstructing the public highway to vulnerable road users. Neither is it in any way an acceptable risk mitigation measure.
Best you leave the H&S stuff to folk who actually understand it. What am I saying, it’s never stopped you opining before…
Edit, did you really just suggest that we follow Taiwan’s lead in marking kids out as potential perps..?♂️
Captain Badger wrote:
Why stop at children ?
hirsute wrote:
Why stop at children ?— Captain Badger
Quite, as the bulk of serious crimes are caused by adults, why indeed…..
Captain Badger wrote:
Barcodes on the forehead. It’s the only way to be sure…
brooksby wrote:
No, the only real way to be sure is to take off and nuke the entire site from orbit…..
Captain Badger wrote:
No, Cap’n! Don’t be giving him ideas…!
Nigel Garrage wrote:
I think it’s more likey dangerous to children alighting from cars directly into the cycle lane. as there is great visibility on approach to the crossing due to crossing a side street, which ensures no parked cars obstruct the view of the crossing for a reasonable distance.
What is not so clear to see is cildren alighting cars as the cycle lane bends left then right before passing the parking bays. The issue is people generally treating cycle lanes as pavements, parents will discharge their children directly into them without checking, and even the lollipop man in the photo uses the cycle lane as a waiting area, until the next crossing event.
Removing the parking would likely remove all the risk, but that would probably upsegt the parents of the school children so he can’t suggest that.
wycombewheeler wrote:
— wycombewheelerSo yet again, the perceived rights of drivers trump the actual rights of cyclists.
Another craking joke, keep it
Another craking joke, keep it up.
“I watched someone cycle down
“I watched someone cycle down the lane sitting up, not holding onto their handlebars and thus with no quick access to their brakes.”
unless the hands are occupied with something else, I don’t think it takes any longer to reach the bars and apply the brakes, than it takes to lift the right foot from the accelerator and move to the brake pedal. Does he expect drivers to drive around with their left foot alsways on the brake pedal? This is not approved driver training.
It’s not a good look though,
It’s not a good look though, and it will add to your braking/collision avoidance times in an emergency situation, I’m not sure I’d be too pleased to see people cycling no hands on handlebars next to a primary school however in control they seem.
And regardless of how others drive, they shouldn’t be the benchmark we as cyclists aim to match.
If he applied the principle
If he applied the principle that blocking the path of all users because he saw one bad user, then he should block off every road to car traffic in London. Those cars blocking the view of pedestrians and cyclists are the real problem.
And that is the main point.
And that is the main point. If he had blocked off the whole road because of one person speeding outside of the school, fine. However he decided one person represents all cyclists and did the exact same thing as closing a road by illegally blocking the cycle lane, with the added item of pushing more cyclists into the road AND as they are in the road, they might actually go past faster.
Oh and hyperbole from a parent as well. Knows how fast every vehicle is going andm, considering most of London see empty cycle paths everywhere else, are they just cycling past that school in one big loop?
Just because I think riding
Just because I think riding hands free next to a primary school is bad form for a responsible cyclist, doesnt mean I remotely support the actions taken by the headmaster here.
Awavey wrote:
I agree riding no hands should definitely not be done around children, animals or even other roads users, but a minor time delay in applying brakes is neither here nor there.
I think my point was that it is explicit inthe highway code that there is a reaction time of 2s to apply brakes, drivers are not expected to cover the brakes at all times but cyclists are expected to be ninjas able to apply them within milliseconds.
riding no hands should definitely not be done around children, animals or even other roads users, but a minor time delay in applying brakes is neither here nor there.
Not sure that’s a direct or
Not sure that’s a direct or helpful equivalence. Drivers may not be expected to cover the brakes at all times, but (a) cars and bikes have different controls – it is easier to cover the brakes on a bike; and (b) drivers are expected to remain in control of the car’s steering. Riding no-hands affects not only your ability to brake, but also your ability to steer. (Obvs this doesn’t justify coning off the cycle lane though)
wycombewheeler wrote:
I agree riding no hands should definitely not be done around children, animals or even other roads users, but a minor time delay in applying brakes is neither here nor there.
I think my point was that it is explicit inthe highway code that there is a reaction time of 2s to apply brakes, drivers are not expected to cover the brakes at all times but cyclists are expected to be ninjas able to apply them within milliseconds.
riding no hands should definitely not be done around children, animals or even other roads users, but a minor time delay in applying brakes is neither here nor there.— Awavey
Wasn’t that all something that was discussed during the Alliston
lynchingcase?brooksby wrote:
Indeed they pointed at the lack of brakes, but never considered that he had less than a second which is less time that it would take to decide to apply the brakes in response to something unexpected. With the police demonstrating how they could stop within x metres in response to a signal they were expecting 100%.
wycombewheeler wrote:
I’m not saying that he wasn’t stitched up, but as I understand it, Alliston did begin “braking”, but then decided to give up on that to instead aim for a gap that the pedestrian then tragically stepped back into.
It’s similar in a way with the London cyclist/pedestrian collision where the judge awarded 50/50 liability – the cyclist used his IIRC air-horn to try to get pedestrians to move out of his way and didn’t instead slow down to avoid a collision.
What’s important is that avoiding a collision by braking is far more important than whether you think you have priority or not.
hawkinspeter wrote:
agree with this, avoiding a collision through steering can be effective, except that pedestrians are flighty creatures prone to panic. Especially when they are crossing without looking and then someone makes them aware of you at the last second, once a clear line has been selected.
wycombewheeler wrote:
Exactly. Braking early has the advantage that any collision is going to have less impact and it also gives you more time to steer around them. My personal favourite is to also shout “Oi!” to get them to pay attention.
People deliberately cycling
People deliberately cycling no-handed near other people are annoying pillocks. The headmaster is right to try and do something about it, and these cones cannot reasonably be described as a danger to cyclists. I am personally irritated at the outrage at cyclists endangering children, which the annoying pillocks are doing, contrasting with the resigned acceptance of cars endangering children- more parking restrictions should be installed near this school as an urgent measure. These expletive-deleted parents are a hazard near most schools and need sorting out- sitting there with the engines of their monstrous guzzlers running even in midsummer- not that there’s an excuse for keeping them running in winter!
People deliberately cycling no-handed near other people are annoying pillocks.
I was aware that was coming,
I was aware that was coming, and you complied!
Glad to be of service !
Glad to be of service !
But riders have crashed
But riders have crashed whilst celebrating a win just like that because they couldnt then control their bike quickly enough.
So do you think in the court of public opinion if a primary school kid was hit/injured by a cyclist riding with no hands on the bars, showing a picture of pro rider winning a stage would count in their favour ?
If follow the posts, it was
If follow the posts, it was an expected bit of response; it wasn’t to be taken literally.
it wasn’t to be taken
it wasn’t to be taken literally
People become familiar with the response of others because we’re all saying the same things all the time. I, for instance, am averse to people trying to kill me (and undoubtedly get away with a suspended sentence and community service carried out online at home) and the police trying to help them because they ‘didn’t mean to do it‘ and ‘penalising the driver won’t bring him back‘….and also to ebikes
wtjs wrote:
The cones themselves might not directly be a danger, but being forced by them to use the road rather than the segregated cycle way is, especially as the remaining carriageway is now narrower. And we all know how much motorists (who may not have noticed the cones) like it when cyclists use the road instead of the cycle lane…..
i managed to collide with a
i managed to collide with a cone on a contraflow on the (back then) newly built Frimly Bridges, I was concentrating a bit too much on the tailgating motorist who was desperate to get past, in a very tight lane. My front wheel crumpled immediately. Slightly bigger and heavier Traffic cone, but those things are built strong and heavy.
wtjs wrote:
Re cones, from a risk assessment perspective, they are obstacles, they reduce options for the rider, they are not secure and will be moved or knocked over.
If the head can provide his analysis for the reasons for using them, placing them in this particular location, how this affects the dynamic of the road way, whether other risks become apparent with their use, and whether they will actually be effective in their intended use (he would have to state what he intends with them and demonstrate that that is achieved), then,…..
…he should forward his report to to the relevant people via the proper channels.
His illogical actions have actually opened himself (possibly the school if considered acting in his leadership capacity) to legal action should anyone be injured, and be able to demonstrate that the unlawful obstruction of the highway was a material factor.
It was a facking stupid thing to do, an act borne out of arrogance and prejudice against those on 2 wheels. His motivation was certainly nothing as lofty as the safety of his students.
Has this headmaster been
Has this headmaster been charged for wilful obstruction of a carriageway? Don’t argue about whether or not the claims made have merit or the “won’t you think of the children” excuse, just look at the offence this person committed. By all means he should raise his concerns with the appropriate authorities, but what amount of arrogance does the man have that he thinks he’s in charge of all before him?
Philh68 wrote:
Exactly. He’s committed the offence, and publicly pleaded guilty (to all intents and purposes): it’s now up to him to offer mitigation for committing the offence in the hope that the Powers That Be won’t be too hard on him…
The head’s first and most
The head’s first and most immediate duty is the safety of his pupils, not the highway code. If he had a well founded belief that the situation presented a risk of serious injury or worse he would be in dereliction of his duty if he did not avert the danger first, and worry about the niceties of his actions later. Obviously in the longer term a better solution must be found, but that is for another day.
I’d love it, LOVE IT, if the
I’d love it, LOVE IT, if the head at our school took the safety of my kids and other pupils seriously, as their immediate duty, and stuck out cones to stop people parking on the pavements and generally driving like pillocks. Yet that hasn’t happened.
Also, check out the stats for the road outside that high school – one bike collision in recent years (no other road user involved, so might be a black ice crash) but LOADS of driving crashes. Including one fatality. But yeah, cyclists with no hands on handlebars….
the little onion wrote:
So I take it you have no problem when another head does what you’d so love yours to have done?
Sriracha wrote:
But surely his duty of care only extends as far as the school gate?
If his duty of care goes further than that, then maybe he should be campaigning to stop polluting traffic outside his school as I’d expect that to have far greater health impact than some cyclists going close (no-handed) to students.
Or is it more that he’s only concerned with their immediate safety and doesn’t care about long-term health effects to the students as they’ll be long gone when they’re suffering from obesity, asthma, heart conditions etc.
Sriracha wrote:
No he wouldn’t. He has absolutely no excuse, entitlement, right, authority or competency to obstruct the public highway. IF this were not the case all heads would be in dereliction, as none of them (including him) block roads with cones during drop-off time without authorisation.
He has actually deliberately caused a hazard and has interfered with the designed layout of a dedicated cycleway. He has not referred to the risk assessments conducted by the designers, and I doubt very much that he has conducted and verified a suitable risk assessment himself (he couldn’t have, as that would have to be verified by stakeholders, one of which would have been the LA who are responsible for that stretch of the public highway).
His duty, in this case, is satisfied by escalating his concerns to the LA, otherwise known as “following due process”.
As a temporary measure, a suitable way of addressing his own concerns would be to post staff outside the gates – many schools do this at drop off and pick up time, and is a perfectly reasonable policy.
I don’t for a moment imagine
I don’t for a moment imagine this is intended as more than a very temporary, and imperfect, response to an immediate problem. But those of you arguing for paperwork and bureaucracy as the first response to an immediate danger, get over yourselves.
As you will see elsewhere I have questions about why there is a problem to begin with and who or what is at fault (I doubt it’s the cyclists) but since the head has been out and seen it at first hand I’ll accept his word that his pupils were at risk, immediate action, not paperwork, was needed.
Sriracha wrote:
I don’t call for paperwork and bureaucracy – the head has neither the capacity, resource or expertise to fulfil that role. I call for a public figure to act appropriately and within proper channels
IF the head has questions about this then he should escalate them. If he acts unlawfully then he, and possibly the school, are potentially liable for any adverse outcome.
That’s aside from the leadership he is showing – “don’t like something? don’t worry about understanding it, or obeying the law. Just do what you feel, regardless of the risk you impose on others.”
It’s almost as if there is a parallel with other people who claim that impeding, changing, vandalising LTNs is the right thing to do…..
“If he acts unlawfully then
“If he acts unlawfully then he, and possibly the school, are potentially liable for any adverse outcome.”
You do understand that he would be acting unlawfully if, knowing of a risk to life/limb of his pupils, he either failed to act or he placed other, lesser, concerns before the safety of his pupils?
Sriracha wrote:
Of course. And his duty is discharged by escalating. He may if he chooses take other appropriate, lawful action too, for example ensuring staff supervise drop off (as said before, this is typical for schools). That’s just one example, I’m sure as an illustrious leader of pedagogy he can exercise that prodigious intellect of his to come up with other ingenious lawful things to do.
However, unauthorised obstruction or alteration of part of the public highway (why only to bikes when cars are clearly far more of a hazard to his students?) is not within his remit, or field of professional expertise.
I may say, in this at least, he should stay in his lane.
Sriracha wrote:
You do understand that the above is a textbook “Won’t somebody think of the children response?”
Captain Badgers got more patience with you than I would have. He deserves a promotion to Commodore.
Secret_squirrel wrote:
Oh behave…..
Sriracha wrote:
In fact a school and its staff have no duty of care in terms of health and safety of pupils once they have vacated school premises unless pupils are under the direct care of staff for external activities such as sports events or educational trips. Of course most schools take measures to ensure safety in the immediate environs of the school, but they have no legal obligation to do this and the head in this instance would certainly not be acting unlawfully if he took no action.
Ofsted take a different view,
Ofsted take a different view, whether it’s a legal position or not.
Captain Badger wrote:
Yes it’s not like the council democraticlly agred a policy, and had a public consultation, then used trained professionals to design the scheme after all. Anyone with a hunch something is dangerous should just restrict access to it immediately.
wycombewheeler wrote:
I do wonder whether he was invited to consult as a stakeholder- me, I certainly would have identified him as a stakeholder in this design, if only in his capacity as head of a large institution with lots of students on the route.
I find some of the loudest critics of designs that have already been implemented are often the ones who
couldn’t be arsedwere far too busy and important to respond to invitation to design sessions, or to turn up even if they said they were going to.The issue is more that his
The issue is more that his response is to introduce additional hazards rather than the speed of his response.
If his immediate response was to educate the children, or have additional staff acting as lollipop people, then we wouldn’t really have an issue with it, but putting cones in the cycle lane is poorly thought out and also illegal.
Sriracha wrote:
But if he isn’t held responsible for breaking the law and endangering perfectly legal road users, then the floodgates will be opened for anyone who objects to anything on whatever grounds they like. LTN objectors who drag aside barriers would not fear the law, nor drivers who speed because driving at 20mph is dangerous, nor yet drivers who deliberately pass cyclists dangerously close because there is an adjacent, not fit for purpose, cycle facility; all would be safe because their view is justifiable.
As others have said, for his actions to be valid, he would have to demonstrate an immediate, credible, significant danger to his pupils. He has not done so and cannot do so, and is merely demonstrating his absurd, irrational fear of bicycles, when he ignores the actual threat from drivers.
Look at it this way Sriracha.
Look at it this way Sriracha. The head has been out and saw in his words one cyclist travelling no handed. He ALSO states that it is dangerous because of all the parked cars along the road. So his action is to cone of a perfectly reasonable bit of protected cycle lane used by adults AND children (his schools and others) and forcing them to be out in the road where we know car dooring, sudden stops or starts (it is during the school run) and close passes can occur, especially as the road carriageway is now significantly narrowed. So his actions to protect his pupils over a percieved threat has actually just moved the danger to more people.
The best way to have helped was to cordon off the parking he also stated as leading to this state of affairs. That way visibility for all was helped. But no, lets just target the second most vulnerable people on that route.
You’re assuming there
You’re assuming there actually is a problem with pedestrian safety. You are assuming the person concerned is justified in the action they have taken. You are assuming that this person is telling the truth. You are assuming he has any responsibility at all for children when outside of school grounds.
But where is the evidence for any of that? Public policy and infrastructure decisions cannot be made based on assumptions. Which is why we can’t have people taking matters into their own hands based on their personal perceptions.
Not just a Head Teacher but
Not just a Head Teacher but an ‘Executive’ Head Teacher… says it all really.
I still believe the danger to
I still believe the danger to children is not children using the zebra crossing with the lollipop person but children getting in and out of cars.
Solution is to remind parents of the cycle lane and advise they treat exciting the vehicle to the cycle lens side the same as exciting to the road side. Not many parents would expect their u10 children to open their own door and step out into the road, but that is probably what is happening with the cycle lane.
Then when there are near collisions there is no reflection on what the car users could do differently, just that cyclists should make allowances