So are the cars being banned - or do they have to have a mattress on the roof?
Do reply and ask for details about those RTCs and complaints.
I would also be interested in details of the RTCs and the Police reports
Equally as they are dealing with complaints about cycling dangerously, it would also be nice to see how many complaints there are, and compare with teh number of complaints about dangerous parking, obstruction, and driving
Cunobelin wrote:Equally as they are dealing with complaints about cycling dangerously, it would also be nice to see how many complaints there are, and compare with teh number of complaints about dangerous parking, obstruction, and driving
I wouldn't be at all surprised if there are more complaints about dangerous cycling than dangerous parking, obstruction, and driving because almost everyone expects and accepts bad motoring around schools. Cognitive dissonance
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
pjclinch wrote:..... So me being Awkward, I ask BC why I can't just do that anyway for anyone without a lid, and they went for variously passing the buck and ignoring me but this was on the back of an answer I'd made in my L2 coaching assessment they did ultimately feel obliged to take it on, and after much arm waving it appeared to come down pretty much to ease of getting insurance cover. ....
Something that seems to be creeping in more and more. I seem to remember CTC/CUK's cycle cover requires riders to wear a helmet (from a thread a couple of months ago).
Although I do wear a helmet (I go through phases), I am unconvinced about their benefit and strongly believe it is a matter for personal choice. It worries me over how it seems to be becoming more and more mandatory for insurance, schools, cycling organisations, loads of reasons. We wont need a law change soon because they will be mandatory for other reasons soon!
Ian
I wear a helmet too - when I think it might rain. Seriously, if I’m going to wear a hat anyway, maybe then I might as well use a helmet. Otherwise, no.
I'm a trendy consumer. Just look at my wobbly bog brush using hovercraft full of eels
Cunobelin wrote:Equally as they are dealing with complaints about cycling dangerously, it would also be nice to see how many complaints there are, and compare with teh number of complaints about dangerous parking, obstruction, and driving
And for the school to explain how the children wearing helmets makes their cycling less dangerous (to others, which is where the complaints come from).
Goodness knows how they cope with maths and philosophy.
When the pestilence strikes from the East, go far and breathe the cold air deeply. Ignore the sage, stay not indoors. Ho Ri Zon 12th Century Chinese philosopher
Si wrote:I would put it to the school that by setting rules as to what the children do beyond the school gates the school is in fact taking responsibility for the children's safety when they are outside of school. In which case they may be liable for any injury, cycling related or not, to the children. At this point the representative of the school may start to get very worried.
Very good point
I'm a trendy consumer. Just look at my wobbly bog brush using hovercraft full of eels
So are the cars being banned - or do they have to have a mattress on the roof?
Do reply and ask for details about those RTCs and complaints.
I would also be interested in details of the RTCs and the Police reports
Equally as they are dealing with complaints about cycling dangerously, it would also be nice to see how many complaints there are, and compare with teh number of complaints about dangerous parking, obstruction, and driving
There are a number of possible sources for such info: http://www.collisionmap.uk, enter their postcode CV3 6EA into the map and it shows 3 "Slight Accidents" none involving cyclists, none involving pedestrians.
l understand that there is a grey area surrounding the Law on this especially in areas of employment, however as a school and we are under a duty to safeguard our students during school hours
Well that says it all really, the school have completely defeated thier own stance by being ignorant of the law, and failing to understand what constitutes school hours and/or thier legal responsibilities for pupils when they are not in school under the care and supervision of the school.
If they want to insist children wear helmets on school grounds, it could be reasonable, especially if there's a liability /insurance constraint, but for a head teacher to see fit to put such a flawed and ill considered statement in writing.. That raises many more concerns...
landsurfer wrote: Students who do not wish to wear helmets can of course use a different method of transport to school. Our aim is simply to do everything we can to keep our young people safe.
But not from the effects of childhood obesity it would appear.
I've sent links to our forum post and copies of the traffic between the school and myself to 2 significant news desks. Lets see if anything occurs.
“Quiet, calm deliberation disentangles every knot.”
Be more Mike.
The road goes on forever.
This policy is deeply misguided, and the school’s responses to enquiries about it are as jejune and depressing as I have come to expect from the busybodies who get ahead in our institutions these days.
Surely schools should exalt rational thinking and challenge dogma rather than capitulate to “complaints from parents” in this craven way? And by the way, what’s the betting the complainers are the usual cyclist-haters whose true desire is to clear the streets of bicycles to facilitate their lazy car use?
But back to scaredy-cats bleating about children not wearing helmets. Where does this outsized phobia of cycling injury come from? How can it share brain-space with total acceptance of the scale of injury and harm done by the fleet of cars that run amok around any school? Are people so blinkered they cannot see that cycling success in places like Amsterdam (or even Paris) is based around the absence of these pointless restrictions?
In short, what is the point of protecting your brain if you refuse to use it?
How about suggesting that the school get a batch of helmets made up in the school colours / logo etc? You might even suggest that since helmets vary in effectiveness, only these "school approved" helmets should be worn.
This should place the helmet firmly in the category of "school uniform" (impractical items of clothing arbitrarily demanded by the school) and ensure that it is never worn outside school hours.
Possession of a helmet would appear to be a requirement of using the school's "secure" cycle parking, so walking onto the site won't work. Nor can the policy be challenged legally (IMO, IANAL ect) (they can make whatever requirements they like), though the confiscation might be (they should be preventing cycles entering the site, not leaving). There is actually no requirement to wear the thing, let alone wear it correctly, but that sort of approach is for adults. Please avoid any action which will get your son "noticed" by staff or even fellow pupils.
Samuel D wrote:Surely schools should exalt rational thinking and challenge dogma...
A school's primary function is as a child detention facility. Schools keep children off the streets while parents contribute to the economy through paid work.
Challenging dogma is the last thing schools want to encourage, as mutiny is sure to follow.
