- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Drayton Park Road Cycleway artist's impression via Islington CouncilNorth London school head blocks new cycleway with cones, claiming cyclists endanger pupils
The head teacher of a North London primary school is using traffic cones to block a cycleway that runs past it, claiming that cyclists are putting children’s lives in danger. However, London Cycling Campaign has pointed out that by blocking the route, the head is endangering cyclists – including parents and children who choose to ride to and from the school.
Completed in May this year, the northern section of Cycleway 38 runs from Finsbury Park to Highbury Fields.
A four-week consultation by Islington Council in autumn 2019 found that 83 per cent of local residents were in favour of the scheme.
A fully segregated section of the route passes Drayton Park Primary School, a couple of hundred metres from Arsenal FC’s Emirates Stadium.
However, the Islington Gazette reports that the school’s headmaster, Damien Parrott, has started blocking the route during school run times.
In a letter sent to parents of pupils at the school, he said: “A number of near misses between cyclists and children, have caused aggressive confrontations in front of our children.”
He said that he “came to the conclusion that the situation is a very dangerous one” after going to look at the cycle lane himself.
“I watched someone cycle down the lane sitting up, not holding onto their handlebars and thus with no quick access to their brakes,” he continued.
“As the cycle lane is curved before our gate, with cars parked on the road side, visibility for both pedestrians and cyclists is limited.
“The consequences of a single mistake, in which a cyclist hit one of our children, could be disastrous. Cycling accidents lead to serious injury and death.”
He added: “I want to stop putting the cones out as soon as possible, because a better solution has been put in place by the appropriate authorities.”
The head teacher will be meeting with council officials shortly to highlight his concerns and try and resolve the situation.
A spokesperson for Islington Council told the newspaper: “We’re determined to create a fairer, greener, healthier Islington for everyone, with more pleasant, safer spaces for people to walk and cycle.
“The safety of children is absolutely vital to this, and we’re meeting with the executive head of Drayton Park School this week to discuss the concerns that have been raised.
“The cycleway offers a route for people, including families with children, to travel more safely in our borough, and will help to improve air quality and reduce emissions.”
LCC Senior Infrastructure Campaigner Simon Munk welcomed the fact that the head teacher and council will be meeting to discuss the issue – but pointed out that blocking the lane would endanger cyclists, including parents and children travelling to and from the school.
He said: “It is obviously right that Islington Council and the school work to mitigate any specific issues around the design of the track and car parking next to it. But it is dangerous for this cycle track to be blockaded with cones – this poses serious risks for children and parents cycling to and from the school, as well as everyone else.
“More, we need schools to work with councils to reduce the climate emissions and road danger of the school run – that primarily comes from cars and driving, not people cycling,” he added.
When the route, which was designed by the council and funded by Transport for London, was opened in May, Councillor Rowena Champion, Islington’s Executive Member for Environment and Transport, said: “We are determined to create a fairer, greener and healthier future for Islington, where everyone is able to travel easily around the borough and incorporate exercise into their daily routine.
“This new route will help make it safer to walk and cycle as we move out of lockdown, enabling local people to enjoy our borough in a way that cuts down on air pollution and congestion by reducing unnecessary car journeys.
“Walking, cycling and wheeling are convenient, inexpensive and fun ways to travel around the borough, and we look forward to seeing local people enjoy the benefits of the new Cycleway.”
Will Norman, London’s Walking and Cycling Commissioner, added: “Enabling people to walk and cycle around London is absolutely vital to ensuring a green recovery from the pandemic, and I’m thrilled to see this innovative new cycle route open in Islington.
"New infrastructure is being delivered at record pace across the capital and new routes such as Cycleway 38 mean more people are able to leave their cars at home and get on their bikes instead.
"We’ll continue to work closely with Islington Council to make the borough an even better place for walking and cycling for all.”
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- Phillman 18 min 11 sec ago
I desperately need a new tyre but cannot find one anywhere. The tyre says 20inch but the wheel is 22inch. Other tyres just don't fit. Can anyone...
- LordSandwich 24 min 8 sec ago
Your setup is a lot tidier than mine, for sure! 😅
- open_roads 54 min 30 sec ago
This looks like a potentially useful innovation - particularly for kids helmets....
- David9694 1 hour 31 min ago
Drivers : cyclists should pay Road Tax etc...
- ReflecToes 1 hour 34 min ago
A friend of mine created a rear light called tailgator technologies that has an accelorometer in it to get brighter when you are slowing down. My...
- ErnieC 1 hour 45 min ago
when does armed resistance become genocide?
- stonojnr 1 hour 57 min ago
well keep in mind the county council leading and proposing these active travel changes is Tory. so work that one out.
- Sredlums 2 hours 41 min ago
What I don't understand is what is so hard to understand about the fact that higher/steeper stems bring the handlebars closer to you. If you only...
- IanMSpencer 5 hours 24 min ago
I don't think you need have any concern about cycling safety improving with #toxicadi Ashley Neal advocating for us on protected cycle lanes....
Add new comment
96 comments
I still believe the danger to children is not children using the zebra crossing with the lollipop person but children getting in and out of cars.
Solution is to remind parents of the cycle lane and advise they treat exciting the vehicle to the cycle lens side the same as exciting to the road side. Not many parents would expect their u10 children to open their own door and step out into the road, but that is probably what is happening with the cycle lane.
Then when there are near collisions there is no reflection on what the car users could do differently, just that cyclists should make allowances
Not just a Head Teacher but an 'Executive' Head Teacher... says it all really.
Has this headmaster been charged for wilful obstruction of a carriageway? Don't argue about whether or not the claims made have merit or the "won't you think of the children" excuse, just look at the offence this person committed. By all means he should raise his concerns with the appropriate authorities, but what amount of arrogance does the man have that he thinks he's in charge of all before him?
Exactly. He's committed the offence, and publicly pleaded guilty (to all intents and purposes): it's now up to him to offer mitigation for committing the offence in the hope that the Powers That Be won't be too hard on him...
The head's first and most immediate duty is the safety of his pupils, not the highway code. If he had a well founded belief that the situation presented a risk of serious injury or worse he would be in dereliction of his duty if he did not avert the danger first, and worry about the niceties of his actions later. Obviously in the longer term a better solution must be found, but that is for another day.
I'd love it, LOVE IT, if the head at our school took the safety of my kids and other pupils seriously, as their immediate duty, and stuck out cones to stop people parking on the pavements and generally driving like pillocks. Yet that hasn't happened.
Also, check out the stats for the road outside that high school - one bike collision in recent years (no other road user involved, so might be a black ice crash) but LOADS of driving crashes. Including one fatality. But yeah, cyclists with no hands on handlebars....
So I take it you have no problem when another head does what you'd so love yours to have done?
But surely his duty of care only extends as far as the school gate?
If his duty of care goes further than that, then maybe he should be campaigning to stop polluting traffic outside his school as I'd expect that to have far greater health impact than some cyclists going close (no-handed) to students.
Or is it more that he's only concerned with their immediate safety and doesn't care about long-term health effects to the students as they'll be long gone when they're suffering from obesity, asthma, heart conditions etc.
No he wouldn't. He has absolutely no excuse, entitlement, right, authority or competency to obstruct the public highway. IF this were not the case all heads would be in dereliction, as none of them (including him) block roads with cones during drop-off time without authorisation.
He has actually deliberately caused a hazard and has interfered with the designed layout of a dedicated cycleway. He has not referred to the risk assessments conducted by the designers, and I doubt very much that he has conducted and verified a suitable risk assessment himself (he couldn't have, as that would have to be verified by stakeholders, one of which would have been the LA who are responsible for that stretch of the public highway).
His duty, in this case, is satisfied by escalating his concerns to the LA, otherwise known as "following due process".
As a temporary measure, a suitable way of addressing his own concerns would be to post staff outside the gates - many schools do this at drop off and pick up time, and is a perfectly reasonable policy.
I don't for a moment imagine this is intended as more than a very temporary, and imperfect, response to an immediate problem. But those of you arguing for paperwork and bureaucracy as the first response to an immediate danger, get over yourselves.
As you will see elsewhere I have questions about why there is a problem to begin with and who or what is at fault (I doubt it's the cyclists) but since the head has been out and seen it at first hand I'll accept his word that his pupils were at risk, immediate action, not paperwork, was needed.
I don't call for paperwork and bureaucracy - the head has neither the capacity, resource or expertise to fulfil that role. I call for a public figure to act appropriately and within proper channels
IF the head has questions about this then he should escalate them. If he acts unlawfully then he, and possibly the school, are potentially liable for any adverse outcome.
That's aside from the leadership he is showing - "don't like something? don't worry about understanding it, or obeying the law. Just do what you feel, regardless of the risk you impose on others."
It's almost as if there is a parallel with other people who claim that impeding, changing, vandalising LTNs is the right thing to do.....
"If he acts unlawfully then he, and possibly the school, are potentially liable for any adverse outcome."
You do understand that he would be acting unlawfully if, knowing of a risk to life/limb of his pupils, he either failed to act or he placed other, lesser, concerns before the safety of his pupils?
Of course. And his duty is discharged by escalating. He may if he chooses take other appropriate, lawful action too, for example ensuring staff supervise drop off (as said before, this is typical for schools). That's just one example, I'm sure as an illustrious leader of pedagogy he can exercise that prodigious intellect of his to come up with other ingenious lawful things to do.
However, unauthorised obstruction or alteration of part of the public highway (why only to bikes when cars are clearly far more of a hazard to his students?) is not within his remit, or field of professional expertise.
I may say, in this at least, he should stay in his lane.
You do understand that the above is a textbook "Won't somebody think of the children response?"
Captain Badgers got more patience with you than I would have. He deserves a promotion to Commodore.
Oh behave.....
In fact a school and its staff have no duty of care in terms of health and safety of pupils once they have vacated school premises unless pupils are under the direct care of staff for external activities such as sports events or educational trips. Of course most schools take measures to ensure safety in the immediate environs of the school, but they have no legal obligation to do this and the head in this instance would certainly not be acting unlawfully if he took no action.
Ofsted take a different view, whether it's a legal position or not.
Yes it's not like the council democraticlly agred a policy, and had a public consultation, then used trained professionals to design the scheme after all. Anyone with a hunch something is dangerous should just restrict access to it immediately.
I do wonder whether he was invited to consult as a stakeholder- me, I certainly would have identified him as a stakeholder in this design, if only in his capacity as head of a large institution with lots of students on the route.
I find some of the loudest critics of designs that have already been implemented are often the ones who
couldn't be arsedwere far too busy and important to respond to invitation to design sessions, or to turn up even if they said they were going to.The issue is more that his response is to introduce additional hazards rather than the speed of his response.
If his immediate response was to educate the children, or have additional staff acting as lollipop people, then we wouldn't really have an issue with it, but putting cones in the cycle lane is poorly thought out and also illegal.
But if he isn't held responsible for breaking the law and endangering perfectly legal road users, then the floodgates will be opened for anyone who objects to anything on whatever grounds they like. LTN objectors who drag aside barriers would not fear the law, nor drivers who speed because driving at 20mph is dangerous, nor yet drivers who deliberately pass cyclists dangerously close because there is an adjacent, not fit for purpose, cycle facility; all would be safe because their view is justifiable.
As others have said, for his actions to be valid, he would have to demonstrate an immediate, credible, significant danger to his pupils. He has not done so and cannot do so, and is merely demonstrating his absurd, irrational fear of bicycles, when he ignores the actual threat from drivers.
Look at it this way Sriracha. The head has been out and saw in his words one cyclist travelling no handed. He ALSO states that it is dangerous because of all the parked cars along the road. So his action is to cone of a perfectly reasonable bit of protected cycle lane used by adults AND children (his schools and others) and forcing them to be out in the road where we know car dooring, sudden stops or starts (it is during the school run) and close passes can occur, especially as the road carriageway is now significantly narrowed. So his actions to protect his pupils over a percieved threat has actually just moved the danger to more people.
The best way to have helped was to cordon off the parking he also stated as leading to this state of affairs. That way visibility for all was helped. But no, lets just target the second most vulnerable people on that route.
You're assuming there actually is a problem with pedestrian safety. You are assuming the person concerned is justified in the action they have taken. You are assuming that this person is telling the truth. You are assuming he has any responsibility at all for children when outside of school grounds.
But where is the evidence for any of that? Public policy and infrastructure decisions cannot be made based on assumptions. Which is why we can't have people taking matters into their own hands based on their personal perceptions.
People deliberately cycling no-handed near other people are annoying pillocks. The headmaster is right to try and do something about it, and these cones cannot reasonably be described as a danger to cyclists. I am personally irritated at the outrage at cyclists endangering children, which the annoying pillocks are doing, contrasting with the resigned acceptance of cars endangering children- more parking restrictions should be installed near this school as an urgent measure. These expletive-deleted parents are a hazard near most schools and need sorting out- sitting there with the engines of their monstrous guzzlers running even in midsummer- not that there's an excuse for keeping them running in winter!
People deliberately cycling no-handed near other people are annoying pillocks.
I was aware that was coming, and you complied!
Glad to be of service !
But riders have crashed whilst celebrating a win just like that because they couldnt then control their bike quickly enough.
So do you think in the court of public opinion if a primary school kid was hit/injured by a cyclist riding with no hands on the bars, showing a picture of pro rider winning a stage would count in their favour ?
If follow the posts, it was an expected bit of response; it wasn't to be taken literally.
it wasn't to be taken literally
People become familiar with the response of others because we're all saying the same things all the time. I, for instance, am averse to people trying to kill me (and undoubtedly get away with a suspended sentence and community service carried out online at home) and the police trying to help them because they 'didn't mean to do it' and 'penalising the driver won't bring him back'....and also to ebikes
Pages