Children to be banned from riding bikes without number plates.

[bovlomov]

I think that the bit I've highlighted is where we seem to differ, in particular, who decides what's "outright wrongdoing?"

In this case, I meant the minority culture. Plenty of people from minorities commit crimes that are outside the norms of both the wider society and their own sub-culture.

On the matter of groups of children, I'm not sure that as individuals they do believe they are behaving properly, but rather they are trying to conform with the norms of their group: the notorious peer pressure.

I think children are often criticised for behaviour that they have no reason to be ashamed of, either collectively or individually. I'm not talking about kicking old ladies.

While I've been writing this, it's occurred to me that collective responsibility has deep roots in England. I was going to mention Hue and Cry as an example, but I see that's now a pop group. Digging into the recesses of memory I remembered the Statute of Winchester. There's a lot of collective responsibility in the chapter headings (and even something about the width of highways, but not cycle lanes )

I'm amazed to discover that Hue and Cry are still a pop group after all these years.

It isn't only collective responsibility that has deep roots in England. So does individual responsibility - of the serf to the Lord and the Lord to the King, and back in the other direction. Everyone knew their place, and not necessarily in a bad way.

Are you thinking that collective punishment is the flip side of collective responsibility? I don't think it is.

[bovlomov]

There is a current belief in human rights - what you might otherwise describe as the right to be protected "from offence that is an offence in any culture". Such offenses (and the associated human right) are not as common as you might think, if you consider the whole scope of human history and even the whole scope of current cultures world-wide. Even slavery, killing of others and many things we would both describe (from our own cultural perspective) as crimes are elsewhen or elsewhere the norms or even virtues.l

I agree. I've just replied to this question. I'm talking about offences that are outside the norms of the offender's culture as well as the wider society.

[bovlomov]

Travellers have been used as an example several times here. <snip>.

I agree with your post. I used travellers as an example, because they are one of the few groups (along with cyclists) that it's still OK to insult.

But I think my point still stands. Fear of traveller behaviour is grossly disproportionate. Travellers may be, by their own lights or even by ours, more upstanding than the average citizen. But, to me at least, there seems little doubt that the generally negative perception of travellers isn't built on nothing. It is built on some genuine negative experiences. I think it is as worthwhile trying to understand those experiences as it is to understand the travellers' views.

Also, it does the travellers no favours to suggest that all these bad experiences are to do with cultural misunderstandings.

[Cunobelin]

Travellers have been used as an example several times here. <snip>.

I agree with your post. I used travellers as an example, because they are one of the few groups (along with cyclists) that it's still OK to insult.

But I think my point still stands. Fear of traveller behaviour is grossly disproportionate. Travellers may be, by their own lights or even by ours, more upstanding than the average citizen. But, to me at least, there seems little doubt that the generally negative perception of travellers isn't built on nothing. It is built on some genuine negative experiences. I think it is as worthwhile trying to understand those experiences as it is to understand the travellers' views.

Also, it does the travellers no favours to suggest that all these bad experiences are to do with cultural misunderstandings.

Leaving behind piles of excrement, waste and damaging local property is not cultural

[Vorpal]

I'm not going to suggest that leaving piles of poo around is a good idea. However, if Traveller sites were provided with water, sewerage, and waste removal services, would that still happen? Or if the local authorities provided sites for them that were desireable, instead of the middle of nowhere? At least one reason Travellers use illegal sites (without services) is that the legal sites are not good. To the point that the UK has been in violation of their human rights according to the European Court of Human Rights.

I lived a couple of miles from a Traveller community, and what I experienced was that every time something 'bad' happened, the Travellers were blamed, even if there was no evidence linking them to it. And people also told their kids, 'The Travellers did it'.

For example, our house was broken into. The neighbor blamed the Travellers. The police said it wasn't the first one in the area, and they had a suspect in Colchester; a pro, not a Traveller. I told the neighbor that. He *insisted* it was the Travellers.


A loose dog was harrassing some game birds. The game keeper blamed the Travellers. He also implied that because it had been a Travellers' dog, it was 'ruined'.

[meic]

Leaving behind piles of excrement, waste and damaging local property is not cultural

You mean dog ownership?
Seems pretty cultural around here and if ever a group needed number plates its dogs so the owners could be tracked when their dogs do what you mention in that bit of quote.

[bovlomov]

Leaving behind piles of excrement, waste and damaging local property is not cultural

You mean dog ownership?
Seems pretty cultural around here and if ever a group needed number plates its dogs so the owners could be tracked when their dogs do what you mention in that bit of quote.

It's pretty cultural around here too, where the dog owners are mostly decent, upstanding folk. Not riff-raff. For anyone with children, it's a constant worry, and if anything has to be licensed, dogs are the place to start.

Actually, this is a perfect example. A huge number of adults endangering the health and quality of life of others, daily, with hardly a squeak of protest from Parliament and the media. That's because it is our culture to love dogs and overlook the shortcomings of their owners. If it was children or travellers creating such a hazard in, literally, every park and on every street, there would be an outcry. And dogs would be licensed to only a few.

[Cyril Haearn]

Horses have oat bags at the front and poo bags at the back

Are poo bags available for dogs?

[Cugel]

Travellers have been used as an example several times here. <snip>.

I agree with your post. I used travellers as an example, because they are one of the few groups (along with cyclists) that it's still OK to insult.

But I think my point still stands. Fear of traveller behaviour is grossly disproportionate. Travellers may be, by their own lights or even by ours, more upstanding than the average citizen. But, to me at least, there seems little doubt that the generally negative perception of travellers isn't built on nothing. It is built on some genuine negative experiences. I think it is as worthwhile trying to understand those experiences as it is to understand the travellers' views.

Also, it does the travellers no favours to suggest that all these bad experiences are to do with cultural misunderstandings.

Leaving behind piles of excrement, waste and damaging local property is not cultural

Yes it is. It is a "cultural misunderstanding". Some people's cultural habits are not of the kind you are me approve of. We can still disapprove without denigrating the whole cultural tradition .... but some can't manage this. They have and prefer their various "us & them" boogeymen.

In a multi-cultural society, the trick is to find compromises. The alternative is to have no compromise, which can end up in ethnic cleansing, sometimes of the very worst kind. Do me & you want to murder "travellers" because we find one or two of them a bit mucky? Hardly. What if "they" want to murder us for being too judgemental? One or two probably do.

Generally I find "travellers" very friendly folk, even if there are also some other habits less attractive amongst some such folk. In fact, they vary a great deal, to the point where there really is no easy classification of "them, the travellers". Just because they are peripatetic.....

Humans have and do live with far nastier (from our cultural perspective) habits than those you mention. Many do so in our midst but because we accept them as norms, we ignore the egregious effects. Consider the behaviour of many businesses, who generate enormous amounts of pollution, exploitation of others and general damage to the social fabric. If you want an obvious example that has gone far enough to come to the notice of even we rabid centrally-heated consumers, consider the current fracking fracas.

To some of us here, the filthy habits of car use seem like a cultural habit gone too far, even though we ourselves have the habit!

To repeat what someone else said up the thread: why is a traveller (itself a made-up grouping) identified as such when a planning permission is not got or a junk pile left; but no one identifies various other poor behaviours with some spurious classification of the person indulging in that poor behaviour?

But of course, they do. For example, it's a well-known "fact" that "cyclists jump red lights and run over innocent pedestrians" so we all deserve that close pass, don't we?

Cugel

[Psamathe]

.....
Generally I find "travellers" very friendly folk, even if there are also some other habits less attractive amongst some such folk. In fact, they vary a great deal, to the point where there really is no easy classification of "them, the travellers". Just because they are peripatetic.....
.....

After our Parish Council meeting discussing the local Traveller Planning application to destroy protected rural countryside and contrary to many planning policies, most people attended would say no more than that they felt too intimidated to speak. I was not and I was threatened, people asking afterwards if I felt safe now. (The Travellers concerned attended and were not shy in telling people what would happen ...).

Ian

[mjr]

Horses have oat bags at the front and poo bags at the back

Casual inspection of the roads around here would suggest that this is not generally true.

[Harptree]

I'm puzzled by some responses on here.

Like any other responsible organisation, schools accept a responsibility for people coming to and from their premises. Part of their OFSTED is about their relationships in and with the local community and so good schools do take interest and action about anti-social behaviour by students of their school on the way to and from school such as litter, fighting, etc. Schools have a special duty of care to their pupils in loco parentis and are not necessarily excluded from that on the pupil's journey to and from school.

If dangerous anti social behaviour on cycles has become a problem and it is alleged and brought to the attention of the school that pupils of the school are doing it, the head has little choice other than to look into it and take action about it; not just because of OFSTED but because pupils are at risk. To my mind, the notion that pupils who do not cycle in a reasonable way will not be allowed to bring their bikes to school seems sensible, as I wouldn't want my kid either (a) to have a blind eye turned if they were behaving badly on their bike, especially in such a way that they might injure themselves, or, (b) to get hurt while they walk or cycle to school by some other kid behaving badly on a bike. To need a license displayed to bring your bike to school - that you can lose if you don't cycle safely and with consideration for other people - means that it is just the pupils who are behaving badly that will receive a sanction, which actually protects the cycling of pupils who behave properly and incentivises all of them to behave safely and properly. Hence - I don't understand what's not to like there and, at risk of upsetting some on this forum, I think Cycling UK, as reported, have got this one wrong.

PS. For those who think school staff should wear badges and have their behaviour scrutinised and inspected - they already do.

[Psamathe]

I'm puzzled by some responses on here.

Like any other responsible organisation, schools accept a responsibility for people coming to and from their premises. Part of their OFSTED is about their relationships in and with the local community and so good schools do take interest and action about anti-social behaviour by students of their school on the way to and from school such as litter, fighting, etc. Schools have a special duty of care to their pupils in loco parentis and are not necessarily excluded from that on the pupil's journey to and from school.

If dangerous anti social behaviour on cycles has become a problem and it is alleged and brought to the attention of the school that pupils of the school are doing it, the head has little choice other than to look into it and take action about it; not just because of OFSTED but because pupils are at risk. To my mind, the notion that pupils who do not cycle in a reasonable way will not be allowed to bring their bikes to school seems sensible, as I wouldn't want my kid either (a) to have a blind eye turned if they were behaving badly on their bike, especially in such a way that they might injure themselves, or, (b) to get hurt while they walk or cycle to school by some other kid behaving badly on a bike. To need a license displayed to bring your bike to school - that you can lose if you don't cycle safely and with consideration for other people - means that it is just the pupils who are behaving badly that will receive a sanction, which actually protects the cycling of pupils who behave properly and incentivises all of them to behave safely and properly. Hence - I don't understand what's not to like there and, at risk of upsetting some on this forum, I think Cycling UK, as reported, have got this one wrong.

PS. For those who think school staff should wear badges and have their behaviour scrutinised and inspected - they already do.

I think the 1st thing the school head has to to is to demonstrate that this alleged anti-social behaviour is actually happening. Would we be happy for the Government to e.g. introduce number plates for all cyclists because of RLJ'ing that's happening? Next to demonstrate that fitting number plates will actually sort out this still to be proven problem. That number plates is the best way to resolve is still to be proven issue. Is this Head an expert on these matters and if not has (s)he taken expert advice?

And number plates have to tested to check they are clearly readable from a reasonable distance (to avoid accusing innocent cyclists), that they are adequately robust and safe and wont damage the bike, etc. Given that this will be subject to scrutiny as yet another way to discourage kids from cycling it becomes important that it is demonstrated that there is a real problem and that the proposed actions will be a solution and as far as I've need neither of these has been done.

In my experience schools' abilities to address problems can be very inadequate. When I started raising regular illegal and dangerous parking by cars/SUVs at drop-off/collection times the school listed back what it has done - easy response from me is that safety barriers, speed limit signs etc. might all be worthy actions but have absolutely no effect on illegal or dangerous parking.

I suspect that for many schools were the public to be prompted to complain about nuisance behaviour the vast majority of complaints would be about cars/SUVs driving and parking standards. But that somehow seems to be regarded as "just one of those things".

Ian

[Vorpal]

Well, the problem is mainly that 'dangerous cycling' tends to come very much from the perspective of people who don't cycle.

Mr Amin said the measure was in response to incidents of children cycling in a way that "endangers themselves and others".

I taught Bikeability in Essex and East London. My experience is that the children arriving by bike to school are largely well-behaved, with nothing worse happening than a bit of showing off (wheelies, etc.)

Instead, some near misses between parent-drivers and children riding their bikes to school have had the drivers complaining to the school. The drivers are normally the problem (impatient, late for work, parking illegally, children opening car doors into the paths of cyclists, etc.), not the cyclists. Even worse, the vast majority of the children arriving by car live within walking distance. There is no need for the cars to be there in the first place.

If it's really dangerous and anti-social behaviour, they should deal with the individuals exhibiting it, not punish everyone. However, I think it is unlikely that this is actually the case.

[pjclinch]

Well, the problem is mainly that 'dangerous cycling' tends to come very much from the perspective of people who don't cycle.

"Riding a bike", typically thought of as pretty dodgy... ;-/