Kid banned from cycling to school

Another aspect is that the school has responsibility for the children during the day and ought only release children into the hands of a competent adult. Waving "cheerio" to a five year old on a brakeless low-pro with spoks and inadequate foot retention, is hardly acting as though in loco parentis and might attract some critisism.

Posting again to provide support info to Markyboys post:

http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/managem...oschooltravel/

"Schools are only responsible for safety on the school journey where they have specifically arranged transport."

“They have taken the sword of common sense to the great bloated encephalopathic sacred cow of 'elf and safety.” - Boris..

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1291970/Couple-threatened-social-services-children-ride-bikes-school.html?ito=feeds-newsxml#ixzz0snASNJVG
vote to let the Mail know you have guts, regardless of your individual situation.
(the age for independent cycling is an advisory 10years, which seems sensible to me.)

all links for media addicts (rhyme?)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/7873270/Parents-should-decide-if-their-children-can-cycle-to-school.html

http://www.bikebiz.com/news/32465/Sustrans-children-should-be-encouraged-to-ride-to-school-not-prohibited

heres a poem I wrote yesterday
"Cycling professionals on the sea front,
cycling professionals were on the hunt,
for people in departments,
burying their heads,
ignoring the things, that we have said."

with thanks and apologies to J.Betjamin r.i.p

Sigh...discussed yesterday in the "in the news" thread...

Schools aren't responsible for children's journeys to school, just as they aren't responsible for...fuck it I'll just cut and paste...

*"The second point is more complex, and complexity doesn't necessarily sit well with an article penned by BoJo (never great with detail) for the Telegraph. As I understand it, the school is not responsible for any child's journey to or from school. What it is responsible for, is reporting anything it comes across that it believes puts children at risk. A school, quite rightly, has this duty of care. So, if a teacher notices a child with, for example, regular bruises and other injuries, they might want to consider whether this goes to social services.

As I say, this is only from my experience. At my kids' primary school, there is a boy whose mother has learning difficulties, as does he. From reception (age 5) he was walking the short distance to school - sometimes on his own, sometimes with his sister - and was turning up in filthy clothes. Both of these issues were picked up on and the school, with social services, has done what it can to ensure the appropriate support is in place for the mother. My nine year old daughter often walks to school from her mum's house (for the past year), which is very close to the school - sometimes hooking up with friends - but she frequently walks through the school gates on her own and the school have never said a thing. So it is about judgement and common sense.

I'm not supporting the school in the article Tommy linked to, but it is easy to jump to the conclusion that schools/authorities are always interferring in our lives. Getting the balance right can be difficult. People are just as quick to jump on child protection staff when they step in too late."*

But why let the complexities of the truth get in the way of a Daily Mail style rant about health and safety/political correctness/etc/etc (delete as necessary) gone mad?

It was Khornight saying: "The school do have a duty of care when it comes to childrens journies to and from school." that prompted the rant.

So, are kids allowed to cycle to school or not?

News just in: Boris takes the side of the tory-middle-class in fight against "encephalopathic sacred cow of 'elf and safety” shocker.

I actually think the school's got a point. Yes, ride to school. But on their own? When they're 8 and 11, maybe, but 5 is dead young.

Five years old is too frickin young to go to school on your own in my view. And eight years old is too young to be expected to try to deal with blame issues if the five year old wobbles under a car's wheels.

My two are now ten and seven. I let them go off on their own near our house in SE London (although their mother would shit a brick rather than do the same, but she has unaddressed issues) and I think that's fine. I've encouraged her to let them cycle to school together - it's only 400 yds but there is some traffic, so for the moment, I'd have them ride on the pavement. I should add, this is a village in Oxfordshire, not South London BTW.

So, me personally, I think those parents are being a touch keen to let the kids loose on their own. But in a year or two, I'd agree with them.

@ hippy - You want a "yes" or "no" answer don't you?

In which case.....yes, sir, they are.

BTW, my children's primary school has bike racks for children to park in after they ride to school. And they run cycling proficiency classes too.

So not every school is being so stoopid.

I wonder how much of this issue is driven by insurance companies. Schools must have to take out insurance. And I guess it costs them to have to be responsible for a shed of bikes and possibly the insurance companies charge extra if any children cycle to school. I know a friend has been told she is not to cycle between company offices any longer. I assumed that was an insurance issue.

It's all down to the parents, they should sign a contract with the school taking all responsibility for any injuries on or of the premises resulting from the use of the bike.

Personally though in this case, the link shows a 1 Mile route via back streets. God forbid, but anything could happen. For the Head it's a daily nightmare being held emotionally and physically accountable for a childs safety, let alone the guilt trip people send them on when something does go wrong. Someone needs to talk them out of it...

Unaccompanied and defenseless, no.

It's all down to the parents, they should sign a contract with the school taking all responsibility for any injuries on or of the premises resulting from the use of the bike.

Why would they need to do that? The school has no responsibility for an accident suffered by a child on a bike outside the school, and there is no need to ride a bike at school (other than as part of cycle training).

@ hippy - You want a "yes" or "no" answer don't you?
In which case.....yes, sir, they are.

Indeed I do. Ahhhh... :)

I was cycling to my primary school. Not sure how old I was but not more than 11. It was great. That is all.

I walked to school on my own just before I turned 6, twice a day, in town, lots of streets to cross. I actually went on my own to many places, walking or catching buses. The only times my parents were worried about me was when my grandmother drove me somewhere.

Why would they need to do that? The school has no responsibility for an accident suffered by a child on a bike outside the school, and there is no need to ride a bike at school (other than as part of cycle training).

Riding away from school if the child falls, the parents will do fine tooth comb search of all the possible causes. With any good LLB on your speed dial, you can be sure that all avenues will be looked at and worst case scenarios waxed. Another sad eventuality is that child does not return home. Now exactly at what point does the school deny responsibility?

Time spent looking for child

X

Police money spent looking for child

= More rules.

ffs, read rhb's link

BTW, my children's primary school has bike racks for children to park in after they ride to school. And they run cycling proficiency classes too.

So not every school is being so stoopid.

I wonder how much of this issue is driven by insurance companies. Schools must have to take out insurance. And I guess it costs them to have to be responsible for a shed of bikes and possibly the insurance companies charge extra if any children cycle to school. I know a friend has been told she is not to cycle between company offices any longer. I assumed that was an insurance issue.

Alot of it is about insurance and who is responsible if anything goes wrong. i.e. when the kids bikes get stolen by other kids at school or even outside the school, if the children fall off their bikes at school, etc. So much of these stupid rules are the results of schools protecting themselves from parents who love to aportion blame where ever they can and sue the pants of a local authority when the opportunity arises.

ffs, read rhb's link

I have

Now let's make this clear, you need an imagination beyond the realm of Sections 444, 509 of the big rule book which big Lawyers look at and bend.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1996/ukpga_19960056_en_27#pt6-ch2-pb2-l1g444

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1996/ukpga_19960056_en_31#pt9-ch2-pb1-l1g509

Have you read it, I have.

Now go and get yourself a Law degree and then come to me with ways on how the above acts can be bent and manipulated to the advantage of a victim. I can't educate you on this but can only guide you... somewhat.

The average make up of any given Jury is Mr and Miss Average, with them won over our Legal eagle is half way there. Now even if he loses the case he can put forward a notion, with friends in high places draft a bill and make even laws. Is that what you want? More LAWS ?!? Do you want to be 16 before you ride a bicycle !?!

Being a Lawyer is akin to being a Dictator, bombing people with one hand and selling them artificial limbs with another. Everybody else loses, money, time hair etc... but the white-collar's always win.

P.S

Stay classy and try to refrain from becoming over emotional. It's not helping your case.

You're Lynx aren't you?

If there were current legal issues around encouraging kids to cycle to school, projects such as the two below would not exist:

http://bikeclub.org.uk/
http://www.sustrans.org.uk/what-we-do/bike-it

Any future ruling as per Sharkys post above would no doubt have serious implications for such projects.

Being a Lawyer is akin to being a Dictator, bombing people with one hand and selling them artificial limbs with another. Everybody else loses, money, time hair etc... but the white-collar's always win.
Solution = Ban Lawyers

;)

I think you'd need to ban insurers too.

Duty of care is a bit complicated, but, hippy, if for example your company had given you the bike you ride in in (or more likely a car) they become responsible (effectively) for making sure that you don't injure yourself or other people in it! Because if you do have an accident a clever lawyer will argue it's the companies fault you were driving without a licence/due care/etc, even if it was on the way to work! It is possible that a badly set up cycle to work scheme could fall foul of a similar action.

In fact even without that, if for example dancing James work knew he was riding into work and that he was a liability on the road they could ask him to stop to at least show they'd tried to protect the public from him, although in reality they wouldn't actually be able to ban him from cycling in (in the same way this school can't really) but they've got to show they've tried to help to make sure they don't get sued by some drivers family that dj clubs to death...

You left out proximity , ie is there some person or body who is insured that I can sue.
That's really what the tort of negligence is about these days .

Any way , Its really all the fault of Scottish lawyers . I don't believe there ever was a snail in that bottle.

He probably posts on here these days - would explain a lot...

The prosecution rests...

I have been pondering...

Maybe its possible, we all just have been looking at this issue the wrong way..??

It MUST be against a childs' human rights to have to go to school, before the age of say ummm 13. ?

That way... no going to school. Therefore safer. Cuts the education budget. Simple...

Should I now run for office..?

But work don't provide the bike.

Also, if work did provide the bike and it was totally mechanically sound and you still had an accident on it because you're a shit rider or because someone else caused the accident then your employer should still have nothing to do with this other than to say 'our bikes are sound, fuck off'.