Children to be banned from riding bikes without number plates.

[Vorpal]

.....
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

I'm sorry that you experienced that. And I do not condone violence.

However, aggression of that sort has a cause. What have they already been through to feel they need to threaten someone? Where have they been and how many planning applications have been rejected? What, if any, sanctioned sites are available to them? How many times have authorities told them they can't live on land that they've bought, but must go live somewhere that no one else wants? How many times have their human rights been violated?

[thirdcrank]

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

I was simply musing about the history of it. If there is collective responsibility, then by definition, there must be some way of enforcing it. AFAIK, in legal terms, it disappeared long ago in this country. To be responsible for somebody else's actions, there as to be something like incitement or acting with a common unlawful purpose. Stereotyping - which is the way the discussion is now moving - seems a bit different in that it's only socially constructed rather than socially constructed then legally defined.

Re the OP, is insisting on number plates a collective punishment? I see it as a rather heavy-handed way of the school trying to ensure it can identify individuals who are alleged to have misbehaved. If you think it is a punishment, then a lot of people obliged to wear name badges etc are being punished.

I've recently started volunteering at a local school. One of the conditions for being able to do so was the enhanced criminal record check. Now, when I go to the school, I use the security checking apparatus which knows I've been checked and cleared. It records me as being in the premises (eg for if there's a fire alarm) and prints out a sticky badge with my name, mugshot and other details, which I must wear. While that's a restriction on my ability to come and go as I please, in the light of current attitudes I don't think it's unreasonable and certainly not a punishment of me as an individual or all the other people monitored by the same system.

[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

I'm sorry that you experienced that. And I do not condone violence.

However, aggression of that sort has a cause. What have they already been through to feel they need to threaten someone? Where have they been and how many planning applications have been rejected? What, if any, sanctioned sites are available to them? How many times have authorities told them they can't live on land that they've bought, but must go live somewhere that no one else wants? How many times have their human rights been violated?

It's probably rather off-topic and I'm reserved about deflecting too much from the main topic which I do regard as important, particularly as my own experience becomes anecdotal and thus of limited useful. Bt to answer your questions:
Sanctioned sites are available.
No other previous planning applications rejected (they were previously in Council Housing which the decided to leave). Thus, not been told "no" by authorities previously (at leave not for quite a few years).
I have no idea how many times their "Human Rights" have been violated.
It was not only me who got threats in the Parish Council. One Councillor shocked the rest of the council by abstaining from all votes on the issue - I get on well with the Parish Council and the reason for that was later revealed!

They paid well over the top for land protected from development. They then did a fair bit of damage to the protected ecosystem and protected species. Access was dangerous (I was nearly "taken out" by a cab truck reversing out and I then had a torrent of verbal abuse), local nurse had been blocked from attending a patient by site related vehicles blocking the road, etc..

What has made things worse for this area is that this was not the 1st such case. It is a fairly regular thing these days. Lasts about 4 years. 1st couple of years spent with planning whilst the site gets trashed (get permission, do something different, argue, get more permission, fail to comply with conditions, etc.). Then maybe a year later the site is abandoned and left like an abandoned landfill site. People (round here) don't object because for discriminatory reasons as they know it will be gone shortly after the planning has settled down; they object to the protected environments being trashed.

But, in replying I don't want to divert from the school cycling issue ...

Ian

[bovlomov]

How many times have their human rights been violated?

Our borough never provided the land for travellers, that they were supposed to under the law.

Over the past 200 years the area has lost, probably, 80% of it's woodland and common land. None of that was taken by travellers.

There are two sides to this story, but one side doesn't get much of a hearing.

[Psamathe]

How many times have their human rights been violated?

Our borough never provided the land for travellers, that they were supposed to under the law.

Over the past 200 years the area has lost, probably, 80% of it's woodland and common land. None of that was taken by travellers.

There are two sides to this story, but one side doesn't get much of a hearing.

There are several challenges facing Councils in "providing the land"
e.g. Whilst a settled family might need a terraced/semi house with a few bedrooms and a small garden, Traveller families (round here) seem to require several acres for their horses.
e.g. Establishing the demand. My local district council commissioned a report to establish the need for Traveller land and it ended-up inconclusive. All they could do was identify sites they were aware of (provided, approved, tolerated and illegal). But by the time the report was published much had changed as sites had been abandoned and they did not yet know where others were establishing. I am told (so just repeating things) that Traveller families are now moving out of London and into East Anglia but the extent of that migration can only be "finger in the air" making it difficult to make any real assessment of need.

Ian

[Harptree]

"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". (I don't know how to do the box 'quote' thing, so I'm hoping its automatic.)

Most schools have zig-zag lines and railings for just that purpose. Many primary schools also have staff patrols and their own cones that they put out at school opening and closing times.

I sort of agree that its a shame, but I'm a bit shocked that Cycling UK isn't more positive and front-foot about this. No-one should be condoning dangerous behaviour on a bike for any reason let alone kids doing it - its in no-one's interest. If Cycling UK doesn't like the numberplates thing then the responsible thing is to come up with some other better practical suggestion that stops this before kids or others get killed or injured. That's the point of being an expert. Having a pop at the school that actually has to do something about the problem, quickly, whether they like it or not, saying they are wrongheaded or daft, or trying to pretend that 'this cannot and has not happened', is negative and unhelpful. Kids will sometimes be silly and thoughtless, on bikes and off. A boy in one of my classes - 12 years old - was killed doing just that. I'm surprised that Cycling UK isn't all over that school like a rash, being supportive and helping, developing policies to help schools deal with this when it arises, not getting adversarial about it.

[Harptree]

[quote="Psamathe"]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".

Sorry Psamathe - just learning how to do this - see previous post with quote from you - if this works, that is!

[bovlomov]

No-one should be condoning dangerous behaviour on a bike for any reason let alone kids doing it - its in no-one's interest.

As far as I know, no one is condoning dangerous behaviour.

If Cycling UK doesn't like the numberplates thing then the responsible thing is to come up with some other better practical suggestion that stops this before kids or others get killed or injured.

I'm not sure about that. If CUK thinks it's a terrible idea, then that verdict stands alone. What CUK does to stop kids getting killed is a separate issue.

And, finally, how does this intrusive and unjust policy stop any child from getting killed or injured? If the school knows that a child is behaving dangerously, it can tackle the child - not punish all the cyclists. The argument for registration numbers on bikes is the same as the one for registration numbers on all children - or, indeed, on all adults. Some people think that's a great idea, but many would resist.

[thirdcrank]

... And, finally, how does this intrusive and unjust policy stop any child from getting killed or injured? If the school knows that a child is behaving dangerously, it can tackle the child - not punish all the cyclists. The argument for registration numbers on bikes is the same as the one for registration numbers on all children - or, indeed, on all adults. Some people think that's a great idea, but many would resist.

How does the school know which children are involved if there's no way of identifying them? I'd suggest that the argument for reg plates on bikes is pretty much the same as the argument for reg plates on cars. There's no doubt that taken with the police power to require the identification of an offender, that is an infringement of the human right to avoid self-incrimination AKA the Right to Silence, the Fifth Amendment etc. It's been right up to the European Court of Human Rights (we've a thread about it) and in my words, the decision was it is a human rights infringement but a proportionate one, justified by the need to control motor traffic. FWIW, there was never a suggestion at the ECHR that this was a punishment, collective or otherwise.

I've described this as heavy handed - another way of saying disproportionate.

PS: I think there's a widespread belief that many people drive more carefully through knowing they can be identified - not all of course - and I suspect the school's case might be similar.

[Barks]

many people drive more carefully through knowing they can be identified

- quite true for many but how many times do we here about individiduals claiming they were not driving but are not willing to say who is. The fine for non-disclosure is derisory in my opinion, IMO it should be a requirement to know who is driving the car if you are registered keeper with a sizeable fine, and/or points, and/or driving ban, considered as obstruction of justice, contempt of court, etc. It seems the only people who don’t know is driving their car are the ones that own those involved in driving dangerously/carelessly/inconsideratly/speeding/etc and in a number of notable instances resulted in killed and/seriously injured innocents.

[bovlomov]

... And, finally, how does this intrusive and unjust policy stop any child from getting killed or injured? If the school knows that a child is behaving dangerously, it can tackle the child - not punish all the cyclists. The argument for registration numbers on bikes is the same as the one for registration numbers on all children - or, indeed, on all adults. Some people think that's a great idea, but many would resist.

How does the school know which children are involved if there's no way of identifying them? I'd suggest that the argument for reg plates on bikes is pretty much the same as the argument for reg plates on cars. There's no doubt that taken with the police power to require the identification of an offender, that is an infringement of the human right to avoid self-incrimination AKA the Right to Silence, the Fifth Amendment etc. It's been right up to the European Court of Human Rights (we've a thread about it) and in my words, the decision was it is a human rights infringement but a proportionate one, justified by the need to control motor traffic. FWIW, there was never a suggestion at the ECHR that this was a punishment, collective or otherwise.

I've described this as heavy handed - another way of saying disproportionate.

PS: I think there's a widespread belief that many people drive more carefully through knowing they can be identified - not all of course - and I suspect the school's case might be similar.

Aren't the rules for cars based on the danger posed by a ton of metal hurtling around at 70mph, and on the chemical and explosive hazard it presents? The argument for compelling child cyclists to have number plates is, rather, the same as that for compelling us all to wear our names and addresses on our backs. That is: we might do something wrong, and then someone can inform the police whose jacket the offender was wearing. Walking schoolchildren are often in conflict with traffic - at least as much as cyclists - but I haven't yet heard the argument that they should wear their names prominently on their person. I haven't heard that argument applied to adults either. And quite rightly, most adults would be insulted by the idea. I can see no reason why the policy should apply to cyclists but not walkers, or for that matter, the car drivers who deliver their children to school.

This isn't only a matter of proportion. The policy is founded on the idea that cyclists should be held to a higher standard than others. It's rubbish.

[Psamathe]

"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". (I don't know how to do the box 'quote' thing, so I'm hoping its automatic.)

Most schools have zig-zag lines and railings for just that purpose. Many primary schools also have staff patrols and their own cones that they put out at school opening and closing times.

Anecdotal but the local school I've raised this with has zig-zag lines, etc. and they are largely ignored but do not cover enough road anyway. But the worst bit is people parking on a blind bend. It would be easy for the school to send out a staff member with a smartphone camera and submit the photos to the police but they don't (maybe because it would annoy the parents?)

I sort of agree that its a shame, but I'm a bit shocked that Cycling UK isn't more positive and front-foot about this. No-one should be condoning dangerous behaviour on a bike for any reason let alone kids doing it - its in no-one's interest. If Cycling UK doesn't like the numberplates thing then the responsible thing is to come up with some other better practical suggestion that stops this before kids or others get killed or injured. That's the point of being an expert. Having a pop at the school that actually has to do something about the problem, quickly, whether they like it or not, saying they are wrongheaded or daft, or trying to pretend that 'this cannot and has not happened', is negative and unhelpful. Kids will sometimes be silly and thoughtless, on bikes and off. A boy in one of my classes - 12 years old - was killed doing just that. I'm surprised that Cycling UK isn't all over that school like a rash, being supportive and helping, developing policies to help schools deal with this when it arises, not getting adversarial about it.

I'm normally one of the quickest here to leap at any opportunity they criticise CTC/CUK but I don't think they would have the resource to help every school on a case by case basis. These daft ideas from school heads seem pretty regular and I have suspicions that they are more tick box exercises for OFSTEAD or to deflect attention from other bigger issues. Plus, it needs the school to be open to external help and advice and from all I've read about this one they've decided what the problem is and decided what the solution is and don't seem to have presented any justification for any of their "decisions".

There are loads of cycling organisations and I'm sure that if approached they would happily provide advice and assistance. It is a bit shocking that the school has not already done this and I suspect if they had they would have been making that very clear to deflect the criticism and bad press. But so many of these things seem based on pre-conceived ideas and prejudice.

And death is a tragedy but would the 12 year old boy from your class have been saved by a numberplate?

Ian

[brooksby]

Just seemed apt for the general discussion...

[mjr]

"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". (I don't know how to do the box 'quote' thing, so I'm hoping its automatic.)

Most schools have zig-zag lines and railings for just that purpose. Many primary schools also have staff patrols and their own cones that they put out at school opening and closing times.

Anecdotal but the local school I've raised this with has zig-zag lines, etc. and they are largely ignored but do not cover enough road anyway. But the worst bit is people parking on a blind bend. It would be easy for the school to send out a staff member with a smartphone camera and submit the photos to the police but they don't (maybe because it would annoy the parents?)

Same here - the school is actually on a blind bend, so the zig-zags are on a blind bend, where they shouldn't really be needed anyway. There are big fake-police-checkerboard "POLITE" notices on the fences. Still there's tons of bad driving.

I've literally never seen the school staff putting out cones or patrolling. I doubt it's "many" that have spare staff for that these days. As I understand it from a friend's children's school, it used to be the police that visibly discouraged bad parking at school drop-off/pick-up times, but PCSOs are no more here and I think it was done by one PC and three PCSOs, so I don't know what happens now.

If Cycling UK doesn't like the numberplates thing then the responsible thing is to come up with some other better practical suggestion that stops this before kids or others get killed or injured.

Easy: ban driving able-bodied children within 500m of the school. Motorists are by far the main injurers of child cyclists, so let's remove the danger, not make it more awkward for their likely victims.

And death is a tragedy but would the 12 year old boy from your class have been saved by a numberplate?

I suspect that's an acid test.

[Cunobelin]

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.

Excellent.....

Suits my previous entirely.

Student A comes to school in mummy's 4x4 which she then parks up on the pavement blocking the access to the pavement and pedestrian crossing, it is brought to the attention of the school that parents of 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.

But we know that it will not be the case, they will ignore lots of dangers to the children and fail to keep the school and local environment safe, and get away with it by denying the same responsibilities they accept when it suits them