Children caught cycling anti-socially in a suburb of Birmingham face being excluded from school following complaints from local residents.
Responding to concerns raised by members of Streetly Neighbourhood Watch on Facebook, Billy Downie, the head teacher of The Streetly Academy said that he was prepared to take tough action against students found breaking the law or behaving in an anti-social manner.
In a post on the group’s Facebook page one member, Chantelle Birtwistle, called for action to be taken against children pulling wheelies while riding in groups on the road.
She wrote: “I’ve nearly gone into a young lad attempting one and he lost balance on Ferndale Road!
“It’s unsafe for drivers too what if my baby was in her car seat and I’d knocked him off?”
In response, Mr Downie wrote: “We share your concern over the conduct of a minority of our students on bikes outside of school hours.
“In the past three months every student has had a hard hitting assembly on the dangers of thoughtless behaviour on bikes.
“Road traffic accidents are the number one cause of death in the UK for 14-to-25-year-olds and we have driven home this point to our students.
“In addition to this, we have run the national Bikeability scheme with over 50 students, mainly boys. This course entails a day working with cycling officers on road conduct and awareness.
He said that pupils would also be required to wear a cycle helmet when riding a bike to school, although given there is no mandatory helmet law in the UK the legality of that, or how it could be enforced, is questionable.
“We have also introduced a ruling that no student will be allowed to cycle to school without wearing a helmet or on a bike that is not roadworthy,” he said.
“Unfortunately, we are still seeing many of our students on the roads without a helmet.
“From a personal perspective, I believe this should be the law, but in the absence of that I believe the onus should lay with parents to encourage their child to wear a helmet when out on their bike, irrespective of their age.”
As for anti-social riding, he said: “Where we have any reports of anti-social behaviour and where we can identify the culprits, we always take action.
“This can include warnings, engaging with parents and even exclusions from school.
“Sadly, whatever advice and guidance we offer or consequences we implement, we cannot take full control of every child at every moment beyond the school gates,” he added, urging parents to take responsibility for the behaviour of their children.
In response. one mother of a child at the school wrote on Facebook: “Thanks Mr Downie. As a parent of a Y7 boy who is keen on wheelying I’m very keen to work together with the school and local community on this, and have spoken already with Mr Wood and Y7 parents. I’m keen to help prevent any further incidents if I can in any way?”
Another member of the Neighbourhood Watch group on Facebook said: “I absolutely agree with Mr Downie. PARENTS AND PARENTS ONLY are responsible for their childrens’ behaviour.
“What Streetly school is doing is admirable but it is NOT their responsibility so to the parents of these kids I say GET A GRIP ! I saw a lad of about 9 or 10 doing wheelies on his bike on Lowlands Avenue and he nearly hit a parked car. He wasn’t wearing a helmet either.”
She added: “I have to say that if a child on a bike doing wheelies on the road damaged my car and I was not at fault I would be claiming the repair bill from the parents.”




















75 thoughts on “Kids caught cycling anti-socially face exclusion from Birmingham school”
Struggling to understand how
Struggling to understand how popping a wheelie could possibly endanger the occupants of a car. I wonder if the Head will take similar action against children whose parents park illegally outside the school?
kil0ran wrote:
easy… driver trying to avoid hitting cyclist who didn’t manage wheelie can change his path and crash into another car, wall etc. and consequently injure itself or passenger.. for example… it’s rare, but it happens
mookie wrote:
easy… driver trying to avoid hitting cyclist who didn’t manage wheelie can change his path and crash into another car, wall etc. and consequently injure itself or passenger.. for example… it’s rare, but it happens
— kil0ran
But drivers need to keep a minimum of 1.5m from cyclist when overtaking, so shouldn’t happen.
Sounds more like killjoy car drivers to me.
VonPinkhoffen wrote:
you mean cyclist can’t fall further than 1,5 m? when he falls just before you start overtake him, than you don’t have much to do with that… i just thing that everyone on public road should have some sort of responsibility… eveyrone, not only drivers
mookie wrote:
Really very seriously.
If, as the driver of a motor vehicle, you observe (you are observing properly, right?) children in the road and you have any anticpation (you are able to anticipate, having observed properly, right?) that some sort of incident is likely, then you do realise that you have the option to slow down or even stop. You do know that is an option, right?
[quote=Mungecrundle
[quote=Mungecrundle
Really very seriously.
If, as the driver of a motor vehicle, you observe (you are observing properly, right?) children in the road and you have any anticpation (you are able to anticipate, having observed properly, right?) that some sort of incident is likely, then you do realise that you have the option to slow down or even stop. You do know that is an option, right?
[/quote]
Sure definitly an option on an A road where the little yobs are doing this type of crap(A2 e.g.near Pckham). Please stop defending the indefensible. I am sure you are all up in arms because similar idiots ran their moped in the side of a police car and sure it must be the police’s fault for not anticipating ?
VonPinkhoffen wrote:
You’re not applying the slightest bit of intellect to the issue. Car is driving down the road toward the school, well under the legal speed limit. Cyclist riding away from school pops a wheelie, loses balance, comes down and swerves into path of oncoming car. Car necessarily swerves to avoid child, bangs hard into motorcycle parked near kerb etc etc etc. I suggest you imagine this was a bunch of young thugs doing wheelies on their motor bikes around the school exit at leaving time and see how your perspective changes.
FWIW I think there is actually little issue with the behaviour. The school simply arranges for a plain clothes cop, the cop stops the kids, the school removes the bicycles which will be returned on a good behaviour bond, or similar. Or Alternatively the school opens the play ground up to kids doing wheelies as soon as the school has emptied. I think the biggest issue here is the overprecious Mum in the car.
madcarew wrote:
:loll:
VonPinkhoffen wrote:
Because the idiots doing this are usually not on the side of the road but in the middle and swerving like hell. Don’t defend the yobs, it doesn’t do this site nor your credibility any favours
kil0ran wrote:
Sure because the yob’s will nicely stay on their side of the road, never swerve, kindly stop at crossings etc …
I’m all for this, it seems to
I’m all for this, it seems to be the ‘latest thing’ arounf our way too. Gangs of up to 20 youngsters on mountain bikes taking over the roads doing wheelies. A: Old people probably find it very intimidating. B: They can damage property falling off and banging into cars etc and C: They are reckless and don’t wear helmets so one of them is going to come a real cropper eventually. If one of them ever knocks me off my bike by being a dick he’ll get his testicles kicked back up into his body cavity, that’s for certain!
guyrwood wrote:
Kick the testicles of an 11 year old eh? And one NOT even WEARING a HELMET (the horror). What a warrior you must be. I guess you’re just jealous that their bike handling skills make yours look so hopeless.
mrpaul wrote:
Given the attitude of the little yobs I encounter doing this in central london, kick in the **** would be light punishment compared to falling on their face in the path of a bus or lorry
mrpaul wrote:
double post
guyrwood wrote:
Nothing is more certain than this never, ever happening.
I admit to some confusion,
I admit to some confusion, here: what possible business of the school’s is it what their students get up to outside of school hours and away from school premises, if they haven’t broken the law (presumably, as nobody has been arrested) and it doesn’t affect their schoolwork?
I wasn’t referring to kids
I wasn’t referring to kids cycling along harmlessly to get somewhere, I’m talking about huge groups of youngsters basically mobbing the centre of the village using both lanes of the carriageway getting in people’s way etc The chances of one of the pillocks falling off with a car following closely behind is a very real one. Try explaining that one to the parents, ‘Sorry Mrs Smith but your son’s just been killed by having his head run over whilst illegally playing in, and obstructing, the road’.
guyrwood wrote:
“Try explaining that one to the parents, ‘Sorry Mrs Smith but your son’s just been killed by having his head run over whilst illegally playing in, and obstructing, the road’. “
It wouldn’t be the first time, won’t be the last. It’s a scenario that plays out every single day, normally after closing time of the pub rather than the school. Seriously, like anything else; Explain the risks, explain what is expected, and stand back and watch the inevitable. Been happening with smoking, drug taking, extreme sports and binge drinkinig for years. Really people complaining about this have F-all concern for the kids, they’re just intimidated or threatened by behaviour out of their normal comfort zone. A bit like car drivers and cyclists in general.
guyrwood wrote:
Why would you “follow closely” behind a group of kids on bikes? Keep your sodding distance!
I’m sure the kind of person
I’m sure the kind of person who’s active on a Facebook neighbourhood watch page is a reliable, sober source and not prone to any hysterical anti-bike anti-youth exaggeration.
Lot of headmasters seem to be power-tripping little totalitarians nowadays.
bstock wrote:
Absolutely. Especially with the advent of ‘academies’ and academy chains, that seem to have turned some headmasters into a kind of poor man’s Russian Oligarch. They are increasingly accountable to nobody, as they build their little empires, and their pay can reach quite astonishing levels, even as that of teachers stagnates. When I was at school they just seemed at worst harmlessly out-of-touch, now some of them seem power mad.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
I’m sure the kind of person who’s active on a Facebook neighbourhood watch page is a reliable, sober source and not prone to any hysterical anti-bike anti-youth exaggeration.
Lot of headmasters seem to be power-tripping little totalitarians nowadays.
— FluffyKittenofTindalos Absolutely. Especially with the advent of ‘academies’ and academy chains, that seem to have turned some headmasters into a kind of poor man’s Russian Oligarch. They are increasingly accountable to nobody, as they build their little empires, and their pay can reach quite astonishing levels, even as that of teachers stagnates. When I was at school they just seemed at worst harmlessly out-of-touch, now some of them seem power mad.— bstock
when I was 14 the history teacher made sure we couldn’t ride our bikes by buying us rounds in the pub.
Quote:
I am astounded – nay: shocked – that nobody has started frothing at the mouth about this bit, yet…
I sprayed coffee on my keyboard when I read it.
brooksby wrote:
Be patient, grasshopper: it can’t be career-enhancing for a headmaster to be on social media, exhibiting confusion over his remit and a lack of critical thinking skills.
davel wrote:
It very probably is career enhancing for a headmaster to be seen to be responding to complains from the local community about the anti-social behaviour of his pupils.
BarryBianchi wrote:
By playing to the cheap seats, pontificating about changes to law and claiming to have power over what kids do outside school?
We seem to expect very different attributes. Makes me appreciate the headteachers (and governors) at my kids’ schools.
davel wrote:
It’s obviously news to you that Heads DO have power over what pupils do outside school. Rarely have I head such tosh talked. Just because they are being anti-social and hacking people off and bikes are involved, seemingly its all free expression and the Nazi jack-boot of authority is exceeding its reach. I can only imagine what the reaction would be if the VIth form where ragging up and down the road after school in cars.
Head is asked to address anti-social behavior and does something. Get over it, it’s a big world out there and it doesn’t revolve around people doing what the hell they want on two wheels.
BarryBianchi wrote:
It is a big world out there, petal, but you’ve evidently not seen much of it.
If things get a bit too much for you, you can always rename yourself Trekpro, claim to have never visited the UK and flounce. That’s right up your street, isn’t it?
BarryBianchi wrote:
So you think that heads have power over their students outside of school hours and outside of school premises? Are you quite sure about that?
So does that mean that schools can dictate what kids read in their own time, what they wear in their own time, perhaps what they eat in their own time?
I’m a parent, and I understood that to be *my* job, not the school’s 😉
brooksby wrote:
Dear God, where have you been living for the past decade? In the words of the DfE’s Guidance on Discipline for Headteachers:
“Teachers have a statutory power to discipline pupils for misbehaving outside of
the school premises. Section 89(5) of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 gives
head teachers a specific statutory power to regulate pupils’ behaviour in these
circumstances “to such extent as is reasonable.”
BarryBianchi wrote:
It’s called in loco parentis. From the moment the child steps out of their front gate, to the time they step back in they are the responsibilty of the school as well as the parents, and the school may dictate limits of behaviour in so far as it does not contravene the bill of rights.
madcarew wrote:
I think that “outside the school premises” means “right outside” (like, when I was a kid and the big boys would step over the school boundary before having a cigarette) or on the school bus to and from school (so, school-arranged form of transport). Pretty sure it doesn’t count for walking (or cycling) to school any more than one would expect the school to regulate what the child or its parent does when driving/being driven to school.
Surely the child is the responsibility of the school when on their premises. The school acts in loco parentis when the child is in their loco (yes, I know my Latin is cr.p – its been a while); if thats not the case, and the school is choosing to act in loco parentis at all times except when the child is explicitly on my premises, then that’s cool and I’ll abdicate my responsibility now, thanks. (Pretty sure that used to be called “being a bad parent”, though…).
brooksby wrote:
It doesn’t.
BarryBianchi wrote:
Well, now, that’s a helluva social land-grab, isn’t it?
(if you’re right).
(Looks like being a parent involves a lot less work than I’d thought, if the school’s responsibility really does start from when my kids step over my property line…
)
brooksby wrote:
He isn’t. He’s a troll.
He’s the flounceartist formerly known as Bigtwin/Trekpro, who changed his user name to rail against ‘racists’ and ‘swears’ and claim he’d never been to the UK/this forum before realising that that hadn’t given him a fresh login, and then doing it a bit less wrong as this latest salad.
He might Google a bit, but he can’t troll properly. You could pick his favourite argument and put a stick of celery against him: the celery would remain unscathed and you’d win by default. Asking him to understand Latin or law is just unfair.
http://road.cc/content/news/225363-tour-de-france-stage-3-peter-sagan-unclips-200-metres-line-and-still-wins#comments
davel wrote:
Well, now, that’s a helluva social land-grab, isn’t it?
(if you’re right).
— BarryBianchi He isn’t. He’s a troll. He’s the flounceartist formerly known as Bigtwin/Trekpro, who changed his user name to rail against ‘racists’ and ‘swears’ and claim he’d never been to the UK/this forum before realising that that hadn’t given him a fresh login, and then doing it a bit less wrong as this latest salad. He might Google a bit, but he can’t troll properly. You could pick his favourite argument and put a stick of celery against him: the celery would remain unscathed and you’d win by default. Asking him to understand Latin or law is just unfair. http://road.cc/content/news/225363-tour-de-france-stage-3-peter-sagan-unclips-200-metres-line-and-still-wins#comments— brooksbyAmazing. Even more wrong than you usually are, but then you know nothing and want to know nothing that doesn’t accord with your ignorant views.
brooksby wrote:
Well, given that helmets are compulsory for Bikeability, which where we live anyway is the only cycle training going on in schools, it’s completely consistent.
BarryBianchi wrote:
see, now that’s were you are wrong, plastic hats are not compulsary, this is a fallacy and is not pushed by bikeability/DfT but by LA whom fund the schemes.
This is a major problem, forcing children to wear ineffective ‘safety’ aids which do lure kids into taking more risks is a hugely stupid and irresponsible thing. Children are not as adept at finding their boundaries and judging risk as adults, so when children think they are protected there is an even greater increase than that displayed in adults. This is a known in many differing situations not just on bikes.
That children are put off from cycling altogether when forced to wear plastic hats is another aspect that LA and governemnt ignore completely and also ignore statistics like 6 child cycling deaths in one year for the whole of the UK (last stats available) none which could be proven to be preventable by a plastic hat (even if wearing one) and yet there were more than double that in England and Wales alone that were killed as a sole result of head injury in motorvehicles, despite airbags, crash protection beams etc.
Care to hazard the numbers of accidental death by head injury for children in other activities/modes compared to All child deaths from cycling (again which are not all solely by head injury alone)?
There are between 1-1.4Million head injuries that attend hospital each year in England and Wales (National clinical Guideline), how many of these are from children on bikes?
300,000 TBI’s – sports related
50% total of ALlLserious head injuries are from motorvehicles.
Do these other activities warrant more attention with respect to plastic hats so that we have the same measures for all or are you (plural) some of the many that are not only ignorant but blindly ignore the statistics and uphold the imbalance of forcing rules onto one group whom are more likely to take more risk adorning plastic hats and from that more likely to be hurt obeying said rules?
seemingly the advocates are ignorant of the facts relating to putting children off from cycling when forced to wear plastic hats, are those advocating plastic hats ignorant of the victim blaming culture that plastic hat wearing brings about, not just for children but on adults also?
BehindTheBikesheds
BehindTheBikesheds
“I CHOOSE YOU”
The school my children attend
The school my children attend sent a letter home last year that stated, amongst other things:
“Our cycle permit policy clearly states that all our cyclists must understand and abide by the Highway Code. “
and this gem:
“This includes the possibility of any students seen cycling dangerously having their bike confiscated. “
I asked if they could also send out a letter to all parents that deliver their children to school reminding them to drive carefully – especially around vulnerable road users. I suggested that they could use the opportunity to remind parents that they should be obeying speed limits, and other rules of the Highway Code and that they should be patient and cautious around anyone on cycles, especially children, at all times.
I also asked if there was a corresponding permit that parents of children driven to school had to sign to confirm that they will drive safely, obey all traffic laws and will keep their vehicles roadworthy etc under threat of confiscation of their car.
I didn’t get an answer. This years ‘bad cycling’ letter was much more balanced though 🙂
I think the end ET needs to
I think the end ET needs to be given to the PC kill joys and they can delete it from the the film, We cant have that kind of behaviour encouraged can we! It might bring a whole young generation a love of bikes and Cycling!
60kg lean keen climbing
Watching Stranger Things recently made me realise how many 80s kids’ films and TV programmes involved kids bombing it around on bikes (even American ones – made me think of ET and the Goonies, among others).
Gives the child protagonists a real sense of independence, resourcefulness and freedom.
I’m watching comparable kids’ films again now with my kids, and I couldn’t think of any prominent bikeyness.
And you think insisting on
And you think insisting on pupils wearing a helmet is reasonable, Bigtwin?
Omigod there are children
Omigod there are children having fun! And some of them have fallen over and hurt themselves! And getting up and laughing! Omigod it must be stopped!
Bmblbzzz wrote:
When you have this happening on tow paths, pavements and middle of the roads when cycling with children, there is nothing fun about it.
Lord above – some kids appear
Lord above – some kids appear to larking about in a public place hardly the end of the world. Somewhere someone is complaining about kids spending too much time on play stations then when the kids do get outside the get told off for behaving exactly how kids have behaved down the centuries. I don’t know the area but I bet in the last few years a few play schemes have been shut down, youth clubs closed and other clamp downs on kids gathering. The headmaster would be better off hiring a decent instructor to teach them how to wheely properly, the instructor could then drops hints about finding safe places to show off.
Sorry to hear that parents no
Sorry to hear that parents no longer exist. Thank God you have the government.
and oh how I wished the
and oh how I wished the conclusion had been that the Headteacher, Parents and the Community group were all working together to lobby for funding of a pump track / jump park on the probably unused out of school hours school grounds….in a parallel world somewhere I hope
Spineless swine, cemented
Spineless swine, cemented minds
Out of all of the possible
Out of all of the possible mischief that kids can get up to, I can’t think of anything better than them larking around on bikes and pulling wheelies. It’s get them outside in the fresh traffic fumes, gives them some exercise, teaches them some hand-eye co-ordination and balance skills. Most importantly, it teaches them to hold moton cages in contempt.
I’d encourage them and I wish schools would concentrate on the teaching rather than random political agendas.
“what if my baby was in her
“what if my baby was in her car seat and I’d knocked him off?”
Really? What the hell has that got to do with anything ????
madcarew wrote:
I picked up on this. Probably the most ridiculous connection I’ve ever seen. And I literally mean ever. An ex-boss justified his hatred of cyclists, in part, because he felt threatened by cycists while he was in his car. The was the beginning of the process of him becoming an ex-boss.
I don’t think these kids are
I don’t think these kids are on the school commute.
Let’s be real here. These
Let’s be real here. These kids are probably a bunch of twats riding with gang mentality. In a few years it’ll be scooters, shitty supermotos and riding in big gangs being cocks for Youtube views and you’ll all hate them then for ruining your cycling.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
Please don’t bring any rational common sense into this, you’ll riun the thread.
BarryBianchi wrote:
Absolutely: pulling wheelies on a bike in the street is a guaranteed gateway into joining the Crips and pulling wheelies on a Honda Fireblade. It’s how all the kids in my area have gone.
davel wrote:
I’m not hearing gasps of surprise.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
Agreed but some of the posters on this site have lost all sense of reason when it comes to defending certain idiots on bikes. All up for regularly given the usual DM cycle haters a good bit of stick, but some zealots on this site are the exact opposite of the same spectrum.
Look at these little shitbags
Look at these little shitbags…..but…..but ….they’re cyclists!!
https://youtu.be/PvBA3cMqxAI
It’s obviously easier to
It’s obviously easier to bully schoolchildren than adult drivers…
Getting the few idiots
Getting the few idiots identified and punished is good.
Tarring all kids with the same brush is bad.
Threatening kids with non-existant laws is just stupid and we don’t want to teach our kids stupid, do we?
don simon wrote:
I’d thought that was pretty much official government policy now, wasn’t it? ‘Not being stupid’ might give the masses ideas above their station… They might remember when we were at war with Eurasia and allied with Eastasia, instead of the new normal of being allied with Eurasia and at war with Eastasia.
Though the guidelines do say
Though the guidelines do say it depends on the child being identifiable as a pupil of the school. So the obvious solution is to give your offspring the blazer or other uniform item from a neighbouring rival school, to wear while pulling wheelies or not using a helmet.
The main thing about this for me is it just brings up my general dislike of what is happening with the academies system, that removes all democratic accountability from schools. Power-mad headmasters seem to be part of that.
Edit – incidentally, what would the reaction be if instead of insisting on bike helmets, it was a Muslim headmaster insisting girls wear the hijab outside of school? Pupils out-of-school clothing choices are none of his business.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
I prefer the idea of the North London Academy of Western Values insisting that their pupils wear miniskirts and crop-tops (boys too) in order to shore up our civilization against encroaching Islamicisation. That could be coupled with http://road.cc/content/review/221475-weatherneck-system-breakaway-balaclava in order to ensure privacy.
Ush wrote:
cool! they’re doing aero ones now, in a choice of colourway:
http://bbsimg.ngfiles.com/1/7672000/ngbbs43cc522e52cd0.jpg
Good comeback.
Good comeback.
No, the other one. Shit comeback. Off you flounce. But change your name first and pretend it’s your first post. Pleeeeese.
davel wrote:
Yawn. You tried that line last night just before you were told to turn your light out.
I’m guessing that that Danny
I’m guessing that that Danny Macaskill pulled a few wheelies with his mates when in his youth.
ktache wrote:
I don’t think he did. Just always wanted to present the weather.
BarryBianchi wrote:
Your Google-fu needs improvement, grasshopper (or possibly your sense of humour) : ktache was referring to Danny not Ian…
brooksby wrote:
Did Dr Waston bring you your morning cuppa?
BarryBianchi wrote:
You’d make a more convincing smartarse if you spellchecked your posts.
davel wrote:
Did Dr Waston bring you your morning cuppa?
— BarryBianchi You’d make a more convincing smartarse if you spellchecked your posts.— brooksbyI’m sorry for your struggle.
(No subject)
Godwinning
Godwinning