Students attending the Beacon School in Banstead were this week informed that they will need number plates on their bikes if they wish to cycle to school.
A letter dated November 13 states that from Monday December 11, all students of the academy school for 11-18 year olds, “will require a cycling permit in the form of a number plate.”
The permit is obtained and issued after students and parents/carers sign a cycling agreement. “The number plate must be attached to the student’s bicycle underneath the seat so that all students can be identified cycling to and from school.”
Students are asked to follow the Highway Code; to take responsibility for the roadworthiness of their bikes; to behave “in a manner which shows them and the school in the best possible light”; and to use bike lights and hi-vis clothing “as appropriate”.
Parents are also advised: “Please note that should a student not ride safely to school or wear a helmet, the school will inform parents and may refuse the student permission to cycle to school in the future. Should a student continue to cycle to school once permission has been revoked the school will lock the bicycle until a parent/carer is available to collect the bicycle.”
The letter begins by listing some of the benefits of cycling to school.
- Improving health through physical activity
- Establishing positive active travel behaviour
- Promoting independence and improving safety awareness
- Reducing congestion, noise and pollution in the community
- Reducing environmental impact of the journey to school
Headteacher Keith Batchelor, who described himself as “a very slow recreational cyclist,” told road.cc:
“I am extremely positive about the role of cycling and the health and wellbeing benefits of cycling. I have seen number plate systems be highly effective in a number of schools which support students to cycle safely to school.
“The system will allow us to target cycle training and safety awareness sessions to our students, to reward good and safe cycling by giving members of the community a way to give us feedback about how our students are using the roads locally. As well as helping us to discuss with students any occasions where their cycling may not meet our expectations.
“Alongside this we are also expecting students to wear helmets, be visible, use lights and ride bikes that are road safe.
“We live in a beautiful area for cycling but also the roads are extremely busy, with the school being next to the A217 which links the M25 with south London. Our refined policy is there to promote safe cycling so that our students can be active lifelong riders.”
138 thoughts on “Surrey school says students can only cycle to school if they fit a number plate to their bikes”
Your policy is designed to
Your policy is designed to teach these kids that cyclists should know their place, subservient to the great god Car. Maybe Halfords will sponsor your plates.
You’d be better targeting the
You’d be better targeting the parents and their already-registered two ton death machines.
Be interesting to see how well that number plate protects them from Tarquins Mummy rolling over them in a 4×4.
Besides which, it’s not up to him if a child rides to school or not, nor the manner in which he/she does it.
Bet the “feedback from the community” will be a riot too.
Keith Batchelor. You are an idiot.
Given the school’s interest
Given the school’s interest in enforcement outside of their demise I look forward to all speeding and parking incidents by staff or parents being reported to the relevant authorities.
Because fitting number plates
Because fitting number plates to cars suddenly solved all problems with drivers breaking the law.
And this idiot is responsible for educating the next generation! Just kill me now.
Yet more unlawful bs,
Yet more unlawful bs, tentacles that reach beyond their authority but ignore the actions of those posing the harm and then say it’s all part of safety. Then make threats if you don’t do their bidding.
If all the parents ignore this and all send their kids to school sans helmet and ‘permit’ then the school will fail.
This crap especially helmets is slowly creeping in and no-one is doing a fucking thing to stop it!
Makes my bloid boil. To think my sons own school used to have over 100 bike spaces in a locked and covered facility and since they used the space to increase the building size and push the bikes away from the building, no longer enclosed or locked area and 20 spaces tops cycling has massively reduced.
I hope the parents tell the school to fuck off!
If having a number plate on
If having a number plate on my bikes made cycling safe (like some invisible shield?) then I’d fit them today. However, the biggest risk to my safety is usually something that already has a number plate fitted.
Utter bollocks
Utter bollocks
I’m sure they’d appreciate
I’m sure they’d appreciate some alternative views from the wider community.
https://twitter.com/TheBeaconSch
don simon wrote:
The first thing you see on that site is anti-bullying! Probably isn’t aimed at head teachers though.
burtthebike wrote:
I’ve tweeted them about it.
good idea
good idea
Hang on, won’t a number plate
Hang on, won’t a number plate obscure the usual position for a reflector/light/saddlebag? Don’t see many kids riding with 100mm of seatpost do you…
wtf…
wtf…
I know schools have a care of duty to students (that starts from as soon as they leave their house to go to school), but this isn’t caring, it’s controlling.
Next up, students need a permit to walk to school.
As others have said, can’t wait until the school sends out letters to parents telling them to stick to the speed limit etc.
wellsprop wrote:
Don’t joke. Some schools – ok they are mostly primary schools – have taken my friends’ who are parents to task over allowing their 9, 10 and 11 year olds walk to and from school on their own. The thing is the kids are walking in a minimum of pairs and frequently walk with another parent just because they are all going the same way.
Oh and a school nearby Gyln
Oh and a school nearby Gyln school which has ties to the Beacon school head already had this license olate and helmet rule since at least April.
So looks like since the new head came in he’s spreading his vileness and going beyond his lawful powers.
And local authorities do fuck all to stop it and yet also do fuck all to prevent KSIs by not restricting motorists actions.
Grrrr
If my kids went to this
If my kids went to this school I would have to inform the headteacher that it was none of their business how they get to school. I appreciate the advice about safe cycling but, as parent, the decision rests with me. This is a great example of a school believing it has total authoritarian control over kids. To quote Pink Floyd ” hey teacher, leave those kids alone”.
Will students who gradually
Will students who gradually develop diabetes, heart disease and other obesity-related illnessness similarly be tagged, I wonder? Piss-boiled my stuff. I think I’d be sending my kids to school on a different old bike every day just to piss them off.
So for the interests of
So for the interests of balance, I’d be interested to know what prompted this, and whether they’re as preachy with car drivers.
I’d take a punt that this is to counter a few kids pulling wheelies that some people seem to think is heralding the Apocalypse, and they’ve done fuck-all to counter the very real threat of kids being squashed by twats trying to park their Chelsea tractors in the school.
But is anyone close enough to the school to actually know, before I join the Twitterwar?
What the actual fuck?
What the actual fuck?
hawkinspeter wrote:
This was going to be my exact comment.
Is this one of these schools
Is this one of these schools that wash their hands of bullying outside of the school because it’s “not on their property”?
His rules are entirely unenforceable.
I wonder what kind of 4×4
I wonder what kind of 4×4 tank Headteacher Keith Batchelor drives? And does he have a rule for all pupils, whatever method of transport, to wear a helmet? After all, pedestrians have the same risk per mile travelled as cyclists, and there are many more head injuries to car occupants than cyclists.
No? Effing hypocrite.
burtthebike wrote:
He’s a professional cyclist, rides for Sky. Maybe.
https://twitter.com/batchelor1666
dodgy wrote:
Personal harrasment might not be wise
Depressing that an actual cyclist thinks this might be a good idea though.
Maybe it’s just an ‘appeasement’ to some local whiners. Doesn’t excuse it though.
dodgy wrote:
Oh god. He’s one Of Them: a cyclist who doesn’t get it; a car apologist who thinks that because they ride a bike, they can’t possibly be on Their side.
Occasionally known as a Willo.
davel wrote:
The helmet and glasses combo tell you how often he’s out on a bike!
dodgy wrote:
Well there’s a picture of how to wear a helmet, but not one of his bike, so we don’t know if it’s got number plates. Bet it hasn’t.
” I have seen number plate
” I have seen number plate systems be highly effective in a number of schools”
I call BS. Anyone know of another example, anywhere?
jollygoodvelo wrote:
Yes, another school in Surrey, the Howard of Effingham, has made the kids use number plates for about thirty years. That’s probably what they were thinking of, though if it’s that effective I’m not sure why it took them so long to copy it.
jollygoodvelo wrote:
Zero is a number.
When I was at school, every
When I was at school, every bike had a number on it – painted on the mudguard, even if it was only a tiny mudguard, because those were compulsory too. Nearly everyone had a bike. There were giant bike sheds with numbered racks. Lost bikes were easily reunited with their owners and, after a fashion, miscreants could be tracked down and dealt with – but they could also be traced by virtue of their faces.
This was in the late 70’s.
Progress – what will they think of next?
nniff wrote:
In the 70s, the car was still probably seen as the future of transport, but they weren’t as ubiquitous as today. We didn’t have decades of knowledge of global warming, congestion, understanding of pollution killing 40,000 people each year, and perspective regarding alternative approaches like Amsterdam and Copenhagen. Every class had its ‘fat kid’; now a third of all kids are obese.
As such, the bike could have been viewed as something to control.
But today, with all of the understanding we have since the 70s, gained while Keith Batchelor has been alive, imposing something like this is more sinister and spectacularly missing the bigger picture. If Batchelor was my kids’ headmaster I’d be discussing his priorities and misunderstanding of facts with him and the governors.
How can they enforce
How can they enforce something that isn’t a legal requirement? I’d tell them where to shove the number plate!!! I could understand if they were promoting the wearing of helmets as that’s a safety matter
To my mind, there are some
To my mind, there are some things that I think could be good about this, and some things that are not quite right.
Possible Advantages:
At the School my daughter attends, there is a problem with abandoned bikes taking up bike shed space, a licence would enable traceability
Could stop anti-social behaviour immediately outside of school and assist in the reporting of bullies?
Depending on how robust and secured the plates are, could deter bike thieves
Could be used to highlight cycling proficiency issues and address them quickly by incorporating it into training to make better cyclists of the future
If the same rules are going to be applied for the cars that drive into the school grounds to drop pupils off then the accountability for better road users is to be applauded.
Potential Pitfalls:
The school has no authority to dictate how the pupils get to school, as long as their uniform is covered and their bikes locked outside the school grounds they have no control.
Why are pupils subjected to this but no mentions of teachers?
Barriers to active travel are more likely to prevent it rather than enable it
I doubt that the same is going to be leveled at the car commuters dropping pupils off
ClubSmed wrote:
— ClubSmedThe same is already required of motorists, as all cars are required to have a licence plate.
What it certainly does not do is encourage safe driving and make the roads safer.
kitsunegari wrote:
Not at all. The school does not require the children to get school number plates for their parents’ cars. Nor, I imagine, does it have a stated policy that if the car is driven unsafely (or the child does not wear their seatbelt / car helmet) that they will not be allowed to be driven to school. So, no, motorists are not required to do the same.
kitsunegari wrote:
So if the parent does not drive safely to school or wear a seatbelt, the school will inform the authorities and may refuse the parent permission to drive to school in the future?
That would be the equivalent of:
“Please note that should a student not ride safely to school or wear a helmet, the school will inform parents and may refuse the student permission to cycle to school in the future. Should a student continue to cycle to school once permission has been revoked the school will lock the bicycle until a parent/carer is available to collect the bicycle.”
The plate is just a part of the issue
This is truly horrid, one
This is truly horrid, one step forward for the the UK to become a cycling nation by actually getting kids to cycle to school and two steps back by regulation from the luddites driving cars.
Whoever came up with this is UTTER SCUM in my book. They probably cited Charlie Alliston in the case brought forward to do this.
Well I know the A217 and it a
Well I know the A217 and it a rat route. But the head would do a lot better to take parents driving their kids to school to task. On my commute to work I pass a very successful grammar school that’s in the top 20 in the UK. It’s of note how many of the high achieving parents of these kids are happy to park their cars on the double yellow lines outside the school, often pulling up onto the pavements as well. And it’s of note how many of them are in high end 4x4s. It is a cliche but the parents in BMWs, Audis and expensive 4x4s do seem to drive with far less consideration for others or for the fact that they’re breaking traffic laws. Considering that they’re outside the school, you’d think they’d have the sense to put their phones away too. I do wonder if schools should consider enforcing rules about drop-off points for those parents driving their offspring to school. Certainly on my commute, preventing parents from blocking the narrow road when they park up on double yellow lines would improve traffic flow and probably safety as well.
There’s a good article from
There’s a good article from Cycling UK on how to deal with such anti-cycling policies.
https://www.cyclinguk.org/article/campaigns-guide/how-to-encourage-cycling-schools-anti-cycling-policies
“Schools do not have any legal right to ban cycling to and from their premises.
However, schools can discourage cycling through letters to parents or anti-cycling statements at assemblies and in policies and newsletters etc.. Schools can also ban bicycles from school grounds or refuse to supply cycle parking, which in many cases creates a de facto ban.”
I’m betting the local
I’m betting the local residents near the school have been complaining about the behaviour of students riding to and from school and have requested (demanded) some way of identifing a rider and being able to report them.
I doubt the school as thought through any reporting system properly wrt the need for supporting evidence, I can see it ending up as residents word against a students.
I live near there and there
I live near there and there are a load of knob head drivers in that area. Seems these ‘safety measures’ are to look out for the children but do nothing to address the irresponsible drivers.
Not sure if this has been asked, but what do these number plates look like and who decides what is written on them?
Is 666 free?
Is 666 free?
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
Don’t be silly, already taken by the headmaster.
.
.
I’ve emailed Cycling UK
I’ve emailed Cycling UK directly regarding this.
I’m all for it after chatting
I’m all for it after chatting with nbrus about what winds drivers up.
I propose the nbrus number plate system. Each number plate is 3m wide and fixed to the seatpost, the numberplate can be LEDs confirming the subject of the chat, school children to ride side by side for safety.
Sorted.
I thought UK schools were
I thought UK schools were strapped for cash? Why would they spent resources on something that does not make any sense. Unless of course they charge pupils to get those registrations.
Any ideas for the appropriate
Any ideas for the appropriate form of protest since I ride past this school twice a day?
sethpistol wrote:
Make yourself multiple copies of their number plates with different numbers. Attach a different one to your bike every day and ride like a twat so they get multiple reports that then don’t corroborate with who’s riding on that day (or get kids strongly protesting their innocence every day) . Make it unworkable. 🙂
Silver Rider wrote:
Probably also have to dress in school uniform, which might take a little bit of explaining when getting to work.
How big are these
How big are these numberplates, and who pays for them? Are there any photos out there of a bike fitted with one?
Assuming the plate is sized large enouph to be visible from a distance – then its going to be a safty hazard – if one of these plates ends up being a contributing factor in causing an accident and/or injury – would the school be liable??
Quote:
Is that not theft?
Must be Mad wrote:
No.
Must be Mad]
Try doing that to my child’s bike mr Wanker and I’ll block your main entrance with a sizeable vehicle every single day until you apologise.
Must be Mad wrote:
I think I would simply do a Jon Snow and bolt-crop the school’s lock… and any others they had “enforced”. If they did it a second time I would repeat, but then might buy a wheel clamp or big secure chain and secure the headmaster’s vehicle.
If I had kids I certainly wouldn’t stand for this illegal nonsense.
ChrisB200SX wrote:
Not sure what the law is if the bike is on the school’s grounds. Probably they are legally allowed to lock it up and if you break their lock you would be committing criminal damage.
But it would certainly be a morally-justiifed response to in return immobilise any teacher’s vehicle that emits any kind of pollution that endangers children’s health, so if one is going to ignore the law might as well just jump straight to that.
What an utterly disgusting
What an utterly disgusting attitude.
If my sons school ever come out with such nonsense I’ll be telling him to ignore it.
Just a reminder that personal
Just a reminder that personal abuse is against our T&Cs, folks. We hate deleting comments, so please try and avoid that. Cheers.
Presumably the headmaster is
Presumably the headmaster is also requesting number plates of parents’ and staff vehicles, so any bad driving etc can be cross referenced to a name.
What about if students misbehave and bring the school into disrepute whilst walking to school… How can they be identified?
For what its worth, my daughters’ school has been known to contact parents who’s cars have been reported as being driven dangerously locally, to warn them and threaten that they will not be allowed to drive onto school premises again.
Would love to see my
Would love to see my childrens school lock up cars that are not driven safely to school. Tow away all those parked up on the double yellow lines as well as those on the yellow zig zags
I believe they may be
I believe they may be interested in people views: info@thebeaconschool.co.uk
I would accept this if they
I would accept this if they applied the same rule to cars.
Spot a car driving dangerously or parking badly? Simply report the registration and the child will be banned from being driven to school.
I’d be inclined to tell them
I’d be inclined to tell them to get fu**ed.
I brought this to the
I brought this to the attention of Chris Boardman via his twitter and he’s picked up on it. Think the school’s social media accounts might be getting some attention…
Curto80 wrote:
just seen that and retweeted it to Cycling UK and British Cycling.
The headmasters of Academies
The headmasters of Academies (and the unaccountable ‘chains’ that control many of them) are turning into wanna-be Russian oligarchs. They need to be reined-in and taught their place. They are funded by the state, and should be democratically accountable to the electorate as a whole. Instead they are all building mini-empires at tax-payers expense.
So if a child has ‘K13TH 15
So if a child has ‘K13TH 15 4 TW4T’ printed on a yellow plate and attached to the back of a bike they can be permitted to ride to school, and has the school created it’s own bike DVLA, taking ‘road tax’ off its pupils? I suppose it’s prepares them for the realness of adulthood.
I think it is covered under
I think it is covered under Section 91 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 which gives schools the power to discipline pupils which enables a member of staff to confiscate, keep or dispose of pupil’s property as a disciplinary measure where it is reasonable to do so. Staff have a defence to any complaint provided they act within their legal powers. The law protects members of staff from liability for any loss of or damage to any confiscated item, provided that they have acted lawfully.
If it is within the school’s policy that bikes without the ‘necessary’ number plate etc. are seized then that is likely to be deemed ‘lawful’.
The Principal of the school MUST inform parents and pupils at least once per year of the school’s policy. Unfortunately the school’s policy doesn’t seem to be avaiable online.
simplesimon99 wrote:
They act within their legal powers if they prove that the confiscation is reasonable. I, sir, say it is not reasonable. Even in the school’s policy, it’s still unreasonable.
[/quote]
[/quote]
They act within their legal powers if they prove that the confiscation is reasonable. I, sir, say it is not reasonable. Even in the school’s policy, it’s still unreasonable.
[/quote]
The Act itselfs determines what is reasonable, it states that any confiscation must be proportionate to the ‘offence’. The failure to follow the school’s policy would result in the seizure of the bike and is likely to be a proportionate penalty.
I don’t agree with the school’s approach as it is likely to be counter-productive but what they are doing is likely to be lawful.
simplesimon99 wrote:
You say that what is reasonable then fill the rest of the post with ifs, buts and maybes. I imagine that the school, during a court session, would be demonstrating to the judge that their action is reasonable, while the accused would be trying to demonstrate, with equal verve, that the action is unreasonable. That’s how I understand that the law would work. It isn’t as black and white as you would have us believe.
don simon wrote:
Precisely. Otherwise you could have a policy that penalised Red Heads or Spectacle Wearers. A defence of ‘in the Policy’ would not be justified or proportionate.
simplesimon99 wrote:
There are a few legislative documents
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/554415/searching_screening_confiscation_advice_Sept_2016.pdf
The Schools (Specification and Disposal of Articles) Regulations 2012
Education and Inspections Act 2006
As with all these things, they have to be justified and proportionate. Given the previous post earlier that cycling uk consider:
“Schools do not have any legal right to ban cycling to and from their premises.”
I would say it fails the test of justified and proportionate and consequently the schools remedy is unlawful.
Why do these twats always
Why do these twats always manage to describe themselves as “cyclists” (always “recreational”, never as an alternative to pouring their lardy arse into a car seat) while promoting their latest piece of anti-cycling bollocks? It’s the equivalent of saying “I’ve got black friends, but…”
From ‘ask the police’
From ‘ask the police’
Private land
It is a criminal offence to clamp/block/tow away a vehicle on private land without lawful authority. Lawful authority to immobilise or move a vehicle is restricted to a number of organisation such as the police, DVLA and local authorities.
Privately owned land includes car parks, such as those at retail parks, whether or not there a fee is payable in order to park there (not local authority run car parks).
To commit this offence a person must intend to prevent the owner/driver from moving their vehicle.
I would suggest it is unlawful for the school to lock the bikes.
atgni wrote:
Let’s just hope that Mr Batchelor isn’t a recreational lawyer, or we’re all fucked!
atgni wrote:
Unfortunately under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 this only applies to ‘motor vehicles’, bikes are not covered.
Various legislation comes
Various legislation comes into it
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/554415/searching_screening_confiscation_advice_Sept_2016.pdf
The Schools (Specification and Disposal of Articles) Regulations 2012
Education and Inspections Act 2006
As with all these things, they have to be justified and proportionate. Given the previous post earlier that cycling uk consider:
“Schools do not have any legal right to ban cycling to and from their premises.”
I would say it fails the test of justified and proportionate and consequently the schools remedy is unlawful. the fact that it is in a Policy is not relevant as the policy has to be justified and proportionate. You can write any terms you want into a contract, but they have to be supported by law to be enforced.
Well done Mr Batchelour.
Well done Mr Batchelor.
Anything that makes cycling safer for children is a breath of fresh air.
Ensuring children ride safely with correct attitude, clothing and helmets (compulsory in some of countries penalised by on the spot fine by police officers) is a great idea.
Which parent of sane mind wouldn’t want their children to ride safely???
areyouallstupid wrote:
Nice first post.
What bike have you got?
As you’re here, have a search for helmet debate threads to see who’s really stupid, nice name by the way, I don’t suspect we’ll see you on any other threads though.
Surely the adults who are driving are the ones who should be setting examples by driving with the correct attitude.
Cycling is not dangerous, cycling while being harrangued by dangerous drivers is. Parking outside the schools on cycle paths makes cycling dangerous.
Have a look at the close pass featured videos, they might educate a stupid person.
I’ve got a nice big gas guzzling 4×4 and pay a lot of VED. What do you drive?
areyouallstupid wrote:
what evidence do you have that these measures make cycling safer for children?
In what ways does a number plate on their bike make cycling safer for children?
areyouallstupid wrote:
Sadly, fresh air is in short supply in most places due to high polluting cars running their engines outside schools. But that’s a subject for a different time.
I think parents would prefer safer roads than onerous and unnecessary regulation (although I’m sure many parents and their driving are part of the problem).
areyouallstupid wrote:
Having a number plate will not make the children safer.
What will make the children safer is having dedicated properly segrated cycle paths to school. I suggest you campaign for that as there are both a child obesity problem and child mental health problems related to body issues in this country, or have you not noticed?
areyouallstupid wrote:
Jog on troll, clearly you’re another clueless type, if you think helmets are needed for children then by definition you must force your own children if you have any to wear a helmet whilst in your car, after all there are double the number of child deaths solely from head injury whilst inside motorvehicles in England and Wales than there were total child cycling deaths in the whole of the UK.
What about when they walk, I mean they are at greater risk per mile than children on bikes, what, you don’t force special clothing and helmets on them then either? You should make sure you contact your local schools to tell them to get ALL kids helmetted up and have ID tags at all times to enter school, no, that’s right because you’re a fucking no-nowt hypocrite!
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
Cars already have safety fixtures available instead of helmets, e.g. seat belts, rear-facing seats, airbags, the lack, or inappropriate use, of which is implicated in many child vehicle occupant deaths. Have a look at something like the French CASIMIR report from ~10 years ago, especially the proportion of the fatalities of correctly restrained children which were deemed unsurvivable by the occupant in any event. There are no such analogues for kids on bikes, so as an alternative a helmet can be useful in some circumstances. Not that that has any bearing on compulsion or what this school is trying to enforce – both of which are fucking ridiculous.
fukawitribe wrote:
Cars already have safety fixtures available instead of helmets, e.g. seat belts, rear-facing seats, airbags, the lack, or inappropriate use, of which is implicated in many child vehicle occupant deaths. Have a look at something like the French CASIMIR report from ~10 years ago, especially the proportion of the fatalities of correctly restrained children which were deemed unsurvivable by the occupant in any event. There are no such analogues for kids on bikes, so as an alternative a helmet can be useful in some circumstances. Not that that has any bearing on compulsion or what this school is trying to enforce – both of which are fucking ridiculous.— BehindTheBikesheds
And yet despite all those safety aids deaths of children in motorvehicles (mainly cars) solely down to head injury is double that the total number of all child deaths of all injuries and in a smaller populated/geographic area of children riding often without any safety feature whatsoever, by definition if we suggest helmets for one group then we must suggest/enforce for the other, especially those on foot. If we actually bothered to curb motorists and make them think about safety that cycling death figure would be zero.
You also ignore that risk homeostasis is even greater in children (second worse group for risk homeostasis are competition riders hence why they crash much more and die in greater number than before helmet wearing became a thing), they push even further beyond their boundaries when they feel protected, again this is reflected not just in the UK with respect to cycling but all activities, and given the very real effect of adding up to 20% extra weight on a childs head and the feeble protective nature of helmets I 100% disagree with children wearing helmets, they cause more harm than they do good on an individual level and make a huge difference socially and healthwise nationally not to mention the removal of freedom of choice.
My son wore a helmet once and then it went in the loft, he cycled to high school down a NSL road for 7 years (2001-2008), cycled to the library in the town centre, his grandparents and generally riding around, he even had a spill or two including a minor head injury when he came off at 9 years old. He became a very competent rider, able to deal with the knobjockeys in their cages, he even managed to control his bike when his crank snapped (thanks specialized!), I now instill that same way of thinking with my step daughters kids, learn how to handle a bike, find your boundaries, think about x, y & z (as much as kids can) and a helmet is not your friend nor ever will be! The oldest lad is fantastic, he has some mental health problems and ADHD but even he understands the concept of doing something to an extreme more so if he felt more protected than if he weren’t and he’s 8!
Here are a few quotes from child risk compensation studies.
“Results revealed that children engaged in significantly more risk taking when wearing safety gear, thereby demonstrating risk compensation, and this was significantly greater for the activity with which they had greater experience”
Another study “The responses suggest that children wearing PE were more likely to report increased risk-taking than those who did not wear PE. For most of the hypothetical questions, the majority also reported changes toward riskier behaviour when using PE”
Helmets for children is not the answer in the slightest, quite the opposite.
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
The point was that the majority of the deaths were in cases which demonstrated a lack of use of the safety features, and that many of the cases where they were used the death was deemed unavoidable.
No – you were suggesting a safety device should be used in one group because others (not me) said it should be used with cyclists. I was saying that there is already several alternatives to that, and that having them and using them correctly should correspond to a reduction in deaths. If there were no alternatives, I would agree with your argument more.
fukawitribe wrote:
You have evidence that properly worn helmets saves lives because the data does not add up to show that at all does it?
Please can you let us know of this new revelation that gives an extra massive reduction in forces in these new wonder helmets? They’ll be such an improvement on current helmets that cannot by design reduce the forces enough in best case scenario in a lab on the strongest part of the helmet to prevent a serious TBI/death.
I presume you also think that strapping on a well fitted weight to your head circa 20% the total mass of your head 9in a childs case) has no effect either, you also ignore the risk compensation factor which is huge in children as i quoted earlier which makes wearers of helmets even more at risk when wearing.
Sorry but you are so, so wrong and in denial like many others about the efficacy of helmets.
areyouallstupid wrote:
Funny how the motoring-addicted are always hit-and-run in their posting habits.
areyouallstupid wrote:
Riding safely is *not* the same thing as dressing up like a highlighter pen, or even wearing a helmet.
Non-wearing of these is not an offence in the UK, and it’s kind of irrelevant whether it’s an offence in any other country.
And finally: troll troll troll troll, troll troll troll troll, troll troll troll troll &c.
areyouallstupid wrote:
Congratulations. You have a 100% bullshit post success rate.
Keep up the good work.
areyouallstupid wrote:
Agreed! So you’re all in favour of building high quality, segregated infrastructure and television campaigns to stop people driving like pricks around cyclists so that they can get to the back of the next queue a few seconds more quickly! Brilliant!
Oh. But I thought you said things that make cycling safer, rather than things that morons with zero experience of riding a bike on public roads think will make people safer, like hi-viz and cycling proficiency tests.
Oh, there I was thinking that you were just a one-post wonder from the bottom half of the DM comments pages, when actually it’s just me being insane.
For your second post, have you considered posting at length about your fantastic experience buying from Race View Cycles?
Woah, I am late to this party
Woah, I am late to this party.
“Down with this sort of thing!
Careful Now”
Found another one here,
Found another one here,
http://www.cheam.sutton.sch.uk/257/cycling-to-school
Do we know if the school
Do we know if the school provides any access to, or provision of cycle training.
Rather than the ‘stick’ of the threat of accountability, and the restriction of registration, helmet enforcement, why not go down the route of empowerment?
Teach kids how to ride well, why riding well is better for them, provide them with the competencies to stay safe… encourage the right behaviours, not simply punish the wrong behaviours.
As I’ve commented before, there is this expectation that kids, teenagers, hell adults who are popping a leg over a bike are reading the highway code and learning their legal responsibilities before doing so. Why would they? No one asks them to, they are not obliged to, so why would they?
Surely there are appropriate channels to challenge this heads decision? I for one would be kicking off if they looked to install this at my kids schools.
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:
Can’t see it on the school website. The county council definitely provides cycling training which the schools can take up.
Hmm. So as there are no
Hmm. So as there are no official Registration plate standards for cycles, does that mean a vanity plate with a pithy message would be acceptable?
I hope the lad/ladette that
I hope the lad/ladette that was knocked down outside Bury Grammar School during someone’s car commute lastnight is OK.
The drivers can note the
The drivers can note the number plate of miscreant cylists and txt it to the school whilst driving past. The head can be waiting with a padlock and chain as the child arrives.
I wish I could read something
I wish I could read something on here that didn’t bring me out in an uncontrollable bout of Tourettes.
I wish I could read something
I wish I could read something on here that didn’t bring me out in an uncontrollable bout of Tourettes.
I had been doing quite well.
Fair enough if the bikes
Fair enough if the bikes needed tagged for ID to stop them getting abandoned in the bike stands, some commercial premises have the same, its ideal where racks are very busy.
But anything else…..by all means have a policy on hi viz and hats if you want – but no need to enforce it, and in fact by saying you will enforce it Mr School, youre putting a lot of responsibility and liability on your staff to firstly know what is appropriate and that its worn appropriately as we all know on here how quick the judiciary are to use the lack of every optional safety device as some sort of causal factor.
Have these people nothing better to do?
Surely the good deed is done by sending a wee flyer with some web links to remind parents about road cycling best practice and making sure their kids machines are appropriately maintained and the riders have some sort of road awareness training, job done.
Right, I’ve tried to look at
Right, I’ve tried to look at this again from the perspective of “What issue could they be trying to solve?”
There is a subbtle subtext that could lead you to assume that antisocial behaviour by cyclists has been reported on the school run.
IF this is happening and IF it is becoming an increasing issue but not yet police worthy, I can see the plates being one possible solution. IF the school do have a duty of care from when they leave the house, and IF they are wearing their uniform (but with face masks/buffs) they will be having a detrimental impact on the school reputation as are identifiable as students without being easily identifiable as individuals.
IF they have a problem with antisocial behaviour, it is not a big leap to assume that they may have issues with bike theft and/or cheap bike abandonment. Plates could again, in this scenario, help.
So I suppose I might be able to justify the plates in the right scenario, but they have not called these elements out specifically so for me there are far too many IFs to be able to support the move in the slightest.
The other point that seemed to be raised (though I think it may have just been misdirection, though not sure why) was Safety. Most notably in the forms of Helmets, Hi-vis and training.
Helmets
As we all know on this forum, the benefits from a safety perspective is highly debateable. What we can all agree on though is forced helmet campaigns kill cycling enthusiasm. Also helmets do not fit in bags easily and no-one likes wearing a wet helmet from leaving it out on the bike. So these helmets are likely to be carried around attached to bags identifying and potentially segregating the cyclists in the school.
Hi-Vis
If hi-vis is a safety feature that is warranted then fair enough. If it is needed though, it is needed for both cyclists and pedestrians. So it would make more sense to incorporate hi-vis and reflective elements into the school uniform over time. This could reduce the financial impact on the parent, remove the segregation element, and keep all commuting children safe (if you believe in the problem/solution)
Training
Couldn’t agree more that training is a good idea, it’s hard to argue against it. In fact I do not think I can come up with a single reason not to do this. The only way they could mess this one up is if they made it extra-curricular and mandatory for all cyclists. That could stop a few people who would otherwise cycle.
Sorry for the long post, I was just trying to collate my thoughts and musings. I suppose in summary, I am not as opposed to plates as I originally thought (given the right reasons and environment) and the training is great if executed correctly. The Helmet and Hi-vis part is just causing segregation though.
ClubSmed wrote:
And IF those problems exist, they won’t be restricted to bikes, will they?
Not knowing the school, the kids, anything about the situation, or the headmaster, but fully booted up and jumping to a conclusion anyhow:
the headmaster struggles with cause and effect, basic science and logic. I’d be fucking pissed off if I saw this shit from a headmaster of my kids, even if it was on a topic that I don’t care in the slightest about, and I’d want to discuss it with him in more detail to have confidence that the school wasn’t being run as wrong-headedly as it seemed.
davel wrote:
I see what you mean with your point about cause and effect, if the problem is with anti-social behaviour currently from children on bikes, forcing them to register would just end up with those same children displaying the same anti-social behaviour as pedestrians instead. Also if they are going to start reprimanding bad commuting behaviour they would need some form of cctv footage or similar as evidence wouldn’t they? In which case they would probably not need plates on the bikes, I would assume that any footage detailed enough to show a plate would show other identifying characters needed.
The only element that I would argue is a bike specific issue is any possible bike abandonment taking up bike rack space that they may have. Again of course, that is not mentioned anywhere by the school as either an issue or a reason for the solution. It is just my thought based on knowing nothing about the school, just my thinking of issues I see at my daughters school and at my work on what could justify number plates to me.
ClubSmed wrote:
Most places I have seen put a note on the bike to say it will be removed in X days. We have had a couple of these at work which were subsequently removed.
hirsute wrote:
The only element that I would argue is a bike specific issue is any possible bike abandonment taking up bike rack space that they may have. Again of course, that is not mentioned anywhere by the school as either an issue or a reason for the solution. It is just my thought based on knowing nothing about the school, just my thinking of issues I see at my daughters school and at my work on what could justify number plates to me.
— hirsuteMost places I have seen put a note on the bike to say it will be removed in X days. We have had a couple of these at work which were subsequently removed.— ClubSmed
That seems far too easy and far too workable.
However, I don’t think it fits in with the headmaster’s (anti-cycling) agenda.
hawkinspeter wrote:
They tried this method a few years ago where I used to work but due to elemental forces the notices didn’t stay attached to the bike and/or legible for a reasonable enough duration so they gave up
ClubSmed wrote:
The only element that I would argue is a bike specific issue is any possible bike abandonment taking up bike rack space that they may have. Again of course, that is not mentioned anywhere by the school as either an issue or a reason for the solution. It is just my thought based on knowing nothing about the school, just my thinking of issues I see at my daughters school and at my work on what could justify number plates to me.
— ClubSmedMost places I have seen put a note on the bike to say it will be removed in X days. We have had a couple of these at work which were subsequently removed.— hawkinspeter
That seems far too easy and far too workable.
However, I don’t think it fits in with the headmaster’s (anti-cycling) agenda.
— hirsute They tried this method a few years ago where I used to work but due to elemental forces the notices didn’t stay attached to the bike and/or legible for a reasonable enough duration so they gave up— ClubSmed
There’s a brand new, modern hi-tech way of securing things – cable ties. That and a set of generic plastic signs (e.g. “This bike will be removed on Friday evening if this notice is still attached”) seem like a simple solution to me. Also, sellotape would probably work.
hawkinspeter wrote:
They tried this method a few years ago where I used to work but due to elemental forces the notices didn’t stay attached to the bike and/or legible for a reasonable enough duration so they gave up— hirsute
There’s a brand new, modern hi-tech way of securing things – cable ties. That and a set of generic plastic signs (e.g. “This bike will be removed on Friday evening if this notice is still attached”) seem like a simple solution to me. Also, sellotape would probably work.— ClubSmed
“by Friday” isn’t enough notice as holidays can easily be a couple of weeks. Generic dates just don’t work as they are not specific enough for legal removal so pre printed plastic signs won’t work. Selotape does not stand up to rain, and whilst zip ties do, that doesn’t make a difference if the signage doesn’t. Laminating also doesn’t stand up to much, just in case you were thinking of suggesting that.
This debate was had at my last work place several times.
ClubSmed wrote:
There’s a brand new, modern hi-tech way of securing things – cable ties. That and a set of generic plastic signs (e.g. “This bike will be removed on Friday evening if this notice is still attached”) seem like a simple solution to me. Also, sellotape would probably work.— hirsute
“by Friday” isn’t enough notice as holidays can easily be a couple of weeks. Generic dates just don’t work as they are not specific enough for legal removal so pre printed plastic signs won’t work. Selotape does not stand up to rain, and whilst zip ties do, that doesn’t make a difference if the signage doesn’t. Laminating also doesn’t stand up to much, just in case you were thinking of suggesting that.
This debate was had at my last work place several times.— ClubSmed
Yeah, but that was at the special warden department of Wardens R Us, the real world doesn’t always work like that.
Helmut D. Bate wrote:
“by Friday” isn’t enough notice as holidays can easily be a couple of weeks. Generic dates just don’t work as they are not specific enough for legal removal so pre printed plastic signs won’t work. Selotape does not stand up to rain, and whilst zip ties do, that doesn’t make a difference if the signage doesn’t. Laminating also doesn’t stand up to much, just in case you were thinking of suggesting that.
This debate was had at my last work place several times.— hirsute
Yeah, but that was at the special warden department of Wardens R Us, the real world doesn’t always work like that.— ClubSmed
Another value add comment, well done.
The major issue with the “stick a notice on it” approach is fair weather cyclists. The majority of the workforce in the places I’ve worked (and as a Management Consultant I’ve worked in a lot) have been fair weather cyclists. This means that when the weather turns they may not use their bikes for months, but still intend to cycle again when conditions change. They can (and do) in these scenarios, leave their bikes at work locked in the bike racks. They are unlikely to return to the bike racks to see any notes until the point they are ready to cycle again. Fair weather cyclists are still cyclists that should be encouraged and penalising them will not help anything.
Welcome to the real world!
ClubSmed wrote:
The only element that I would argue is a bike specific issue is any possible bike abandonment taking up bike rack space that they may have. Again of course, that is not mentioned anywhere by the school as either an issue or a reason for the solution. It is just my thought based on knowing nothing about the school, just my thinking of issues I see at my daughters school and at my work on what could justify number plates to me.
— ClubSmedMost places I have seen put a note on the bike to say it will be removed in X days. We have had a couple of these at work which were subsequently removed.— Helmut D. Bate
That seems far too easy and far too workable.
However, I don’t think it fits in with the headmaster’s (anti-cycling) agenda.
— ClubSmed They tried this method a few years ago where I used to work but due to elemental forces the notices didn’t stay attached to the bike and/or legible for a reasonable enough duration so they gave up— hawkinspeter
There’s a brand new, modern hi-tech way of securing things – cable ties. That and a set of generic plastic signs (e.g. “This bike will be removed on Friday evening if this notice is still attached”) seem like a simple solution to me. Also, sellotape would probably work.
— ClubSmed “by Friday” isn’t enough notice as holidays can easily be a couple of weeks. Generic dates just don’t work as they are not specific enough for legal removal so pre printed plastic signs won’t work. Selotape does not stand up to rain, and whilst zip ties do, that doesn’t make a difference if the signage doesn’t. Laminating also doesn’t stand up to much, just in case you were thinking of suggesting that. This debate was had at my last work place several times.— hawkinspeter Yeah, but that was at the special warden department of Wardens R Us, the real world doesn’t always work like that.— hirsute Another value add comment, well done. The major issue with the “stick a notice on it” approach is fair weather cyclists. The majority of the workforce in the places I’ve worked (and as a Management Consultant I’ve worked in a lot) have been fair weather cyclists. This means that when the weather turns they may not use their bikes for months, but still intend to cycle again when conditions change. They can (and do) in these scenarios, leave their bikes at work locked in the bike racks. They are unlikely to return to the bike racks to see any notes until the point they are ready to cycle again. Fair weather cyclists are still cyclists that should be encouraged and penalising them will not help anything. Welcome to the real world!— ClubSmed
There’s a big white Cube 29er which appears in the bike shed in my building, then doesn’t appear to move for about three weeks, then disappears for a few weeks, then repeat. Never have got to the bottom of who owns it…
ClubSmed wrote:
The only element that I would argue is a bike specific issue is any possible bike abandonment taking up bike rack space that they may have. Again of course, that is not mentioned anywhere by the school as either an issue or a reason for the solution. It is just my thought based on knowing nothing about the school, just my thinking of issues I see at my daughters school and at my work on what could justify number plates to me.
— ClubSmedMost places I have seen put a note on the bike to say it will be removed in X days. We have had a couple of these at work which were subsequently removed.— Helmut D. Bate
That seems far too easy and far too workable.
However, I don’t think it fits in with the headmaster’s (anti-cycling) agenda.
— ClubSmed They tried this method a few years ago where I used to work but due to elemental forces the notices didn’t stay attached to the bike and/or legible for a reasonable enough duration so they gave up— hawkinspeter
There’s a brand new, modern hi-tech way of securing things – cable ties. That and a set of generic plastic signs (e.g. “This bike will be removed on Friday evening if this notice is still attached”) seem like a simple solution to me. Also, sellotape would probably work.
— ClubSmed “by Friday” isn’t enough notice as holidays can easily be a couple of weeks. Generic dates just don’t work as they are not specific enough for legal removal so pre printed plastic signs won’t work. Selotape does not stand up to rain, and whilst zip ties do, that doesn’t make a difference if the signage doesn’t. Laminating also doesn’t stand up to much, just in case you were thinking of suggesting that. This debate was had at my last work place several times.— hawkinspeter Yeah, but that was at the special warden department of Wardens R Us, the real world doesn’t always work like that.— hirsute Another value add comment, well done. The major issue with the “stick a notice on it” approach is fair weather cyclists. The majority of the workforce in the places I’ve worked (and as a Management Consultant I’ve worked in a lot) have been fair weather cyclists. This means that when the weather turns they may not use their bikes for months, but still intend to cycle again when conditions change. They can (and do) in these scenarios, leave their bikes at work locked in the bike racks. They are unlikely to return to the bike racks to see any notes until the point they are ready to cycle again. Fair weather cyclists are still cyclists that should be encouraged and penalising them will not help anything. Welcome to the real world!— ClubSmed
Just make the policy on abandoned bikes clear – stick a notice on the bike shed so that people will see it when they lock up their bike. If someone wants to leave their bike there for months (although I don’t understand how they commute there if the bike is stuck at work) then they just have to visit their bike once a week to remove any “abandoned” notices.
Meanwhile, here in the ‘real world’ there’s lots of places that deal with abandoned bikes (e.g. train stations) – they just put a red cable tie on the bike along with notices that the bike will be removed in a few days. It’s really not difficult.
hawkinspeter wrote:
“by Friday” isn’t enough notice as holidays can easily be a couple of weeks. Generic dates just don’t work as they are not specific enough for legal removal so pre printed plastic signs won’t work. Selotape does not stand up to rain, and whilst zip ties do, that doesn’t make a difference if the signage doesn’t. Laminating also doesn’t stand up to much, just in case you were thinking of suggesting that. This debate was had at my last work place several times.— ClubSmed Yeah, but that was at the special warden department of Wardens R Us, the real world doesn’t always work like that.— hawkinspeter Another value add comment, well done. The major issue with the “stick a notice on it” approach is fair weather cyclists. The majority of the workforce in the places I’ve worked (and as a Management Consultant I’ve worked in a lot) have been fair weather cyclists. This means that when the weather turns they may not use their bikes for months, but still intend to cycle again when conditions change. They can (and do) in these scenarios, leave their bikes at work locked in the bike racks. They are unlikely to return to the bike racks to see any notes until the point they are ready to cycle again. Fair weather cyclists are still cyclists that should be encouraged and penalising them will not help anything. Welcome to the real world!— hirsute
Just make the policy on abandoned bikes clear – stick a notice on the bike shed so that people will see it when they lock up their bike. If someone wants to leave their bike there for months (although I don’t understand how they commute there if the bike is stuck at work) then they just have to visit their bike once a week to remove any “abandoned” notices.
Meanwhile, here in the ‘real world’ there’s lots of places that deal with abandoned bikes (e.g. train stations) – they just put a red cable tie on the bike along with notices that the bike will be removed in a few days. It’s really not difficult.— ClubSmed
He’s a management consultant: everything’s complicated.
That would actually explain a lot… Not sure what calculation he’s using to measure value added to Web comments though.
I love how people on here get
I love how people on here get incensed when cyclists are all lumped together and judged and then come out with comments like this:
As you enquired:
The “calculation” I use was posted earlier in the thread, but as it was in response to a post that Helmut D Bate wrote that was wishing harm it looks like it has been removed along with any other replies to that comment. I did not report the post, merely replied with my issues with it, so at least one other must have seen it as out of order too. From Memory, this is more or less what I posted as my “calculation” that I use personally as you missed it and seem so interested:
Is the post furthering the subject of the thread
-Is the post backing up previous claims in the thread
-Is the post challenging previous claims in the thread
-Is the post adding a new dimension to the subject of the thread
Is the post furthering the forum community
Is the post adding humour to the thread
If non of the above it’s probably not adding value
ClubSmed wrote:
I didn’t.
But thanks for the wordy answer to a question nobody asked.
hawkinspeter wrote:
“by Friday” isn’t enough notice as holidays can easily be a couple of weeks. Generic dates just don’t work as they are not specific enough for legal removal so pre printed plastic signs won’t work. Selotape does not stand up to rain, and whilst zip ties do, that doesn’t make a difference if the signage doesn’t. Laminating also doesn’t stand up to much, just in case you were thinking of suggesting that. This debate was had at my last work place several times.— ClubSmed Yeah, but that was at the special warden department of Wardens R Us, the real world doesn’t always work like that.— hawkinspeter Another value add comment, well done. The major issue with the “stick a notice on it” approach is fair weather cyclists. The majority of the workforce in the places I’ve worked (and as a Management Consultant I’ve worked in a lot) have been fair weather cyclists. This means that when the weather turns they may not use their bikes for months, but still intend to cycle again when conditions change. They can (and do) in these scenarios, leave their bikes at work locked in the bike racks. They are unlikely to return to the bike racks to see any notes until the point they are ready to cycle again. Fair weather cyclists are still cyclists that should be encouraged and penalising them will not help anything. Welcome to the real world!— hirsute
Just make the policy on abandoned bikes clear – stick a notice on the bike shed so that people will see it when they lock up their bike. If someone wants to leave their bike there for months (although I don’t understand how they commute there if the bike is stuck at work) then they just have to visit their bike once a week to remove any “abandoned” notices.
Meanwhile, here in the ‘real world’ there’s lots of places that deal with abandoned bikes (e.g. train stations) – they just put a red cable tie on the bike along with notices that the bike will be removed in a few days. It’s really not difficult.— ClubSmed
They could have commuted in by bike but gone out straight after work so taxi home. Cycled to work but decided to get the train back due to strong winds, cycled to to work at site A but then goes to site B to work for the rest of the month etc. There are so many possible scenarios, I also see evidenced in the changing rooms on site of cycling kit that appears, stays for a long time then goes back again to regular appearance/disappearance schedules. I am not sure what’s so difficult to understand or believe about this.
Work places and train stations are different and have different motivations and options available to them
ClubSmed wrote:
Presumably those who don’t ride a bike will require training on how not to open a car door and how to be pedestrian and how to cross the road, etc?
ChrisB200SX wrote:
I’d expect the majority of the pedestrian training of the highway code to have already been done at primary school, not so sure the bike side will have though. I can see benefit in a refresher on the pedestrian side of things too though.
Response from Cycling UK to
Response from Cycling UK to my email:
Debate, according to Yehuda
Debate, according to Yehuda Moon
If you have taken part in an
If you have taken part in an organised cycling event you have no problem putting a number plate on your bike and wearing a skidlid. This however is oppression, targeting a minority group under a pretense of doing it for the safety of that minority. This is likely to encourage those more rebellious kids to put their safety at risk as a demonstration against this policy or maybe kids not from this school having a laugh and cycling dangerously but with false plates to get the schools students in trouble.
Muddy Ford wrote:
Isn’t the whole point that not wearing a helmet is not “putting your safety at risk “.
Muddy Ford wrote:
I take it you have yet to sample the delights of an Audax ride. Or any CTC/Cycling UK organised event for that matter.
FWIW I’ve done a few sportives. Personally, I’ve always felt that the little number I ziptie to my handlebars is there to help the photographer to organise their event photos more easily, and to stop passers-by from raiding the sausage rolls etc at each feed station.
A teenager cycles past me
A teenager cycles past me regularly, no hands on the handlebars, head down using his mobile phone. When I yelled at him yesterday for not look where he was going, his reply ‘ what’s your problem’ …….
very soon he will be learning to drive and since he can ride his bike and use his phone, I am sure he will do it on the car
how do I tell his parents that what he is doing is very dangerous, oh great a number plate on his bike
I think all cyclists, as in China, should have a plate on their bike
wknight wrote:
firstly, how many no-handed cyclists have killed others/killed themselves?
Second, how many drivers with number plates have killed themselves/others?
Third, can you please share your crystal ball and tell us the lotto numbers for tonight, seeing as you can forsee this young mans future and how he will behave IF he decides he wants to drive?
What crime has he committed, none as far as you’ve described, I’d hazard he doesn’t wear a helmet or hi-vis right? Does he cycle on the road zig-zagging amongst traffic and cutting up peds, cyclists and motorvehicles, does he run red lights constantly, has he mown someone down, has he killed himelf, you didn’t mention any of that so I would presume what he is doing isn’t harming anyone, you know seeing as cycling should be likened to walking, a normal every day activity.
You sticking your neb in is not required, go hassle someone actually posing harm to others, those who already have a license plate which does not do shit to stop that harm!
wknight wrote:
Thanks for your opinion, but you’ll find that you’re in a minority in the world of cycling. And as we now know, we have to go with the flow.
don simon wrote:
I’d like to know how him having a number plate would allow you to have a nice chat with his mum…
alansmurphy wrote:
Thanks for your opinion, but you’ll find that you’re in a minority in the world of cycling. And as we now know, we have to go with the flow.
— don simon I’d like to know how him having a number plate would allow you to have a nice chat with his mum…— wknight
Naff all to do with me, mate…
wknight wrote:
I do like how you refute your own argument in the same comment! Saves everyone else the trouble!
wknight wrote:
On the other hand learning to drive – like a few males I know – may be the key to get him to cycle with more responsibility.
Releasing how crap some car brakes are and the limits on visibility in vehicles was enough to change these guys behaviour as cyclists and pedestrians.
Bluebug wrote:
A teenager cycles past me regularly, no hands on the handlebars, head down using his mobile phone. When I yelled at him yesterday for not look where he was going, his reply ‘ what’s your problem’ …….
very soon he will be learning to drive and since he can ride his bike and use his phone, I am sure he will do it on the car
how do I tell his parents that what he is doing is very dangerous, oh great a number plate on his bike
I think all cyclists, as in China, should have a plate on their bike
— Bluebug On the other hand learning to drive – like a few males I know – may be the key to get him to cycle with more responsibility. Releasing how crap some car brakes are and the limits on visibility in vehicles was enough to change these guys behaviour as cyclists and pedestrians.— wknight
I never exactly enjoyed driving, but I actively grew to dislike it after getting into riding a bike: driving felt like trying to manoeuvre an oil tanker or something by comparison …
Bluebug wrote:
A teenager cycles past me regularly, no hands on the handlebars, head down using his mobile phone. When I yelled at him yesterday for not look where he was going, his reply ‘ what’s your problem’ …….
very soon he will be learning to drive and since he can ride his bike and use his phone, I am sure he will do it on the car
how do I tell his parents that what he is doing is very dangerous, oh great a number plate on his bike
I think all cyclists, as in China, should have a plate on their bike
— Bluebug On the other hand learning to drive – like a few males I know – may be the key to get him to cycle with more responsibility. Releasing how crap some car brakes are and the limits on visibility in vehicles was enough to change these guys behaviour as cyclists and pedestrians.— wknight
Was just re-reading this thread and probably being a bit over sensitive, but: is your comment supposed to be criticising males only? If so, why? Have females nothing to learn?
The man is a baffoon
The man is a baffoon
Pipkins wrote:
I don’t know about that, but he’s certainly a buffoon! 🙂
Headteacher needs to
Headteacher needs to understand the limits of his kingdom.