# Some advice on biking to school & using their bike shed.



## Puddles (7 Jun 2013)

Hello all

Hoping someone can help, I should first state that I do put helmets on my children, but my mind set waivers on a daily basis with the more I read about them, anyhoo this is not so much helmet or anti-helmet

We had the newsletter today, and I had not realised the Head Teacher states helmets must be compulsory, I have a vague recollection of signing the Bike pass request form when waved under my nose by the eldest - can't say I read the terms though (bad Mummy).

Having and peered and stuff, it seems even the Government say it should be left up to parents whether to helmet their children, which is fair enough.

BUT, the Head Teacher has said that if my son does not wear a helmet on our journey to school then he cannot park his bike in the bike rack on school premises, I should point out you are not allowed to cycle on school premises, so from the gate he dismounts and pushes the bike.

The bottom line is the school is trying to dictate the safety gear that I put on my child in my time, off of school property with the rider that if I do not comply then my sons bike permit will be removed and no parking his bike at school.

I wrote a letter

_"You state in your newsletter that a child must wear a helmet when cycling otherwise they are not allowed a bike pass, yet you also have stated on numerous occasions that there is to be no cycling within the school grounds._
_If my child is not cycling on your property nor within school hours, I would question the validity of your statement considering you are attempting to dictate a requirement for my child to don a piece of headgear that is not a legal requirement, in order to pursue an activity that is not in school time and not on your property and not whilst my child is in your care._
_Whilst on your property (but out of school hours) he has to push his bike into the school and park it in your bike rack neither of those activities pushing/parking are suitably dangerous to require a helmet._
_I would very much appreciate you providing me with the information you based this decision on in order to extend your remit with regard to your duty of care to my child to attempt to enforce a policy on an activity that takes place in the time where my child is in my care._
_I am aware of numerous studies that say helmets indeed save lives in serious collisions but would be most interested to hear how & who advised you with regard to accidents whilst wearing a helmet and resulting injuries caused by the helmet and how you weighed up this and decided that helmet wearing would be enforced regardless._
_I and my children as cyclists are insured both our equipment and ourselves specifically whilst cycling, and my policy has a long list of items that must be adhered to before they will pay out in the event of an accident. Wearing a helmet is not one of those requirements._
_Samuel does indeed wear a helmet which is my choice; you may then question why I choose to write with regard to this issue as I am adhering to your requirements in order to secure a cycle pass. The answer to that is simple, whilst my child is in your care and/or on your property I adhere without question to the policies that you have in place in order to ensure that you fulfil the duty of care you have towards my son & other students._
_ I, however, do not accept that you have the right to dictate any policy with regard to times that my child is not on your property & not in your care and nor do I accept that you have the right to do this via blackmail/penalties through the use of cycle helmets, i.e. “your child will wear one out of school in your time when not in our care else we will not let you lock their bike on our property” because if we bring it down to the baseline this is what you are saying, as there is no requirement for a child to wear a helmet when they are pushing a bike, (As there is no cycling on school property) nor whilst they are locking a bike into a bike rack, there is no time where my child is cycling whilst he is in your care or on your property._
_I look forward to your response providing me with the information requested being, where it is shown you have the right to extend your remit to dictating requirements whilst a child is not in your care, what the discussion was with regard to the decision to make cycle helmets compulsory & upon whose expertise this was based & what studies you took note of in order to facilitate the making of this decision considering it is not a legal requirement in the UK for cyclists to wear helmets. _
_With the level of controversy & conflicting evidence over bike helmets and the fact that it is not a legal requirement I would suggest that the school is in a precarious position to cite that statement as fact & as a reason why they feel the need to over step their remit & attempt to enforce compulsory helmet wearing."_
I received this reply

_"Thank you for your email._

_No child cycling to school is required to park their bicycle on school _
_grounds. If you or any parent disagrees with my view that wearing a helmet _
_is a sensible safety measure then you are under no obligation to park the _
_bike on the school site._

_It is entirely your decision."_

She is correct I am not required to park his bike there but there is no where else to leave it, I just think it is stretching her authority a bit far, surely the school has no authority over my child, in my time, off school grounds?

Heyulp!


----------



## annedonnelly (7 Jun 2013)

I can't help but I see a lot of kids cycling to the local school (a secondary school so they're 11 or older) with their helmets hanging from the handlebars. I assume this is because the school insists that they wear them and that the kids put them on at the gate - or claim that they've just taken them off. Always makes me smile...

Would the head prefer that you drive your son to school adding to traffic congestion nearby?


----------



## Puddles (7 Jun 2013)

This is primary school with surprisingly a huge car problem, we are in a village, its about 3 miles for longest journey I would say being really really generous but there is a park next to the school that has a nice car park, right next to the school gates and seriously, there is more in the newsletters asking parents to please park considerately, any school event (like the school fair today) is constantly interupted due to tannoy announcements asking people to move cars as they have blocked "park users" in. At drop off/pick up time they park in all the spaces, then start double parking all the way round the "U" road in the car park if that makes sense, so every inch of tarmac has a car on it.

The y have just bought more bike/scooter racks, they took part in the big pedal, they pushed the don't take car to school thing they have the huge signs saying Less Honk Honk more Tweet Tweet I had assumed they were pro-cycling. I just am a bit floored by the Head's stance of "I have every right to tell you what to do with your child in your time and off school grounds and if you don't do as I say then you will be barred from using the school bike facilities" cos that is what they are doing. Its Orwellian in my opinion


----------



## Puddles (7 Jun 2013)

I have found the school travel plan :-) It says nothing about helmets being worn, but says lots about discouraging cars & encouraging scooting/walking/cycling etc I have mailed and asked our local Transport Policy Team who work with schools to produce these if the school has the authority to do this.

I am glad you think it is rude, I thought it was rude. You might be right about jitters she is usually quite nice and happy to discuss things so ?


----------



## Profpointy (7 Jun 2013)

very rude response from head. Basically an abuse of power. Of course, the kid could cycle to work without a helmet, then what? get expelled / excluded? You could ask, and could be worded non rudely if you work at it, something on the lines of "I appreciate that you may choose to exclude my child, and that would of course be a lesson as to what happens if you stand up to abuses of power and bullies"


----------



## Puddles (7 Jun 2013)

All they say on non-compliance is that they will remove their bike pass, no bike pass means no parking in the cycle rack, but as to how they enforce that I do not know, I know he has to carry bike pass "at all times" (not forgetting the possible severe injury to my child)

I am going with
"I would still very much like to know the answer to the questions I raised

1. Where is the authority for the school to dictate what I shall do with my child, in my own time, off of their property as a pathway for the school to exclude my child from using a facility at the school?

2. As the wearing of helmets is not a legal requirement in the UK, what is the school basing their decision to enforce mandatory helmet wearing on? The government “encourages” cycle helmets in children, but has refused to make cycle helmet wearing for children compulsory, believing instead, that parents should choose, how did the school come to the conclusion that parents should have that decision removed from them if they wish to use the Cycle facilities on site?

Thank you for your time"
I think, possibly, and then if I don't get an answer apparently I then have to write to the Chair of Governors


----------



## Puddles (7 Jun 2013)

I cannot find another newsletter where I am told scooterists are mentioned too they also must wear helmet, if you want to park something in the bike/scooter rack you must wear a helmet

Oh and she wrote the Travel Safety Plan :-/

Ok will go with the justify helmet being a vital safety measure will do the simpler approach.


----------



## summerdays (7 Jun 2013)

I know when I was involved in getting a bike shelter installed in my children's primary school (err 8 or more years ago now I suspect), that the head there wanted to have a helmet rule and also that each pupil had had cycle training. At that point they only got training in the summer term in year 6 which meant the bike shed would have been completely used for most of the school year! We had the Safe Routes to School team on the local council contact him and they had a meeting which resulted in both rules not being implemented.

Find out what they are doing to make the policy inclusive - for those who may be wearing other things on their head for religious grounds, and what they will do for those families who can not afford to buy a helmet - will they provide a helmet for those pupils? Does it matter if the helmet actually fits ... and will they be checking that it is properly adjusted on the pupils heads on a regular basis. It would be more useful if they actually checked to see the bikes were roadworthy instead. Having working brakes on a bike is more important.

Me - I think I would be tempted to lock it to the school gates instead.


----------



## Puddles (7 Jun 2013)

Oooh never thought of that one  If she does not answer sensibly I shall use that in my letter to the Chair of the Governors

I am tempted to lock it across the school gates, the only other option is locking it against one of the barriers around the car park in the park, and leaving it there for 6/7 hours and I cannot say I am too happy about doing that really I am not sure why if I am honest.

when they did the big pedal you could lock your bike to the school fence but we have since been told that is off limits to bike parking.


----------



## summerdays (8 Jun 2013)

Just noticed ... it doesn't seem to specify a *cycle* helmet in the bits you have posted .... you could wear a roman helmet for example - probably quite a good safety feature - certainly drivers would notice you!


----------



## ufkacbln (8 Jun 2013)

I think that she is perfectly right to use her powers beyond the school gates...... in fact she does not go far enough

She has now set up a precedent by withdrawing access to school facilities.

The car problem is now easy to solve, children need to apply for a pass to be driven to school, and withdraw school privileges if they are driven to school without a pass.

Equally they could put children in detention if a parent has to be asked to move their car, parks inconsiderately etc

After all she cannot state that it is beyond her control!


----------



## summerdays (8 Jun 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> I think that she is perfectly right to use her powers beyond the school gates...... in fact she does not go far enough
> 
> She has now set up a precedent by withdrawing access to school facilities.
> 
> ...


Taking it even further - how is she intending to ensure that all children have arrived in school by car wearing a seat belt (standing under an umbrella in the middle of winter by the school gate)? Which unlike helmets actually has lots of evidence to prove it works. By the way I wear a helmet myself, as did my kids when they were younger - I just consider it is a decision for the parents rather than for the school to make, and that a lack of helmet should not prevent someone from cycling.

And is she going to get those who came by car have to do some extra exercise to make up for their lack of exercise getting to school - since that has obvious health risks too.


----------



## ufkacbln (8 Jun 2013)

Also ask her to provide the risk assessment used to make the decision, there needs to be one

There is also another stitchup.......If you can, get her to use the magic word PPE, ad direct question such as "do you classify a cycle helmet as Personal Protective Equipment?

Once they put that in writing they than have to provide, maintain and store!


----------



## Puddles (8 Jun 2013)

summerdays said:


> . By the way I wear a helmet myself, as did my kids when they were younger - I just consider it is a decision for the parents rather than for the school to make, and that a lack of helmet should not prevent someone from cycling.
> 
> .


 
That is my main issue, everywhere states, even the government that it is a matter for the individual to decide and in the case of the children, the parent to decide.

It is simply not within her remit, it is not her choice. It seems to me to be the thin end of the wedge, to dictate what will happen in my time whilst my child is in my care and to force compliance by removing a facility from my child if I do not.

Lots of people have said to me over this but your son wears a helmet so why are you making an issue over this, yes I choose at the moment for my son to wear a helmet but what happens if more evidence/studies happen that make me to change my mind on that, I should be able to change my mind on the helmet without reprisal from the school


----------



## Puddles (8 Jun 2013)

This was interesting to me tho

PART III, Article 7 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights.

Article 7 
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation. 

The UK report RSRR30 reported 31 papers in favour of helmets or legislation compared with 32 against. The evidence supporting helmet use and legislation is clearly divided. 

People have a right not to be experimented on, any form of mandatory cycle helmet use would be an experiment.

So a letter could go like this

In view of Article 7 of the ICCPR, I no longer want my son to be part of the bicycle helmet 'medical or scientific experiment'. Therefore please respect my sons right to ride his bicycle without a helmet and not be penalised by withdrawal of facilities which I exercise with my free refusal, the counter to free consent. 
Kind regards, 

Thanks to 
http://www.freedomcyclist.blogspot.co.uk/ Freedoncyclist is a qualified solicitor.


----------



## RiflemanSmith (8 Jun 2013)

To be honest she is the head, she sets the policy. 
If you don't like it don't park the bike there as she says simple.
Wether a helmet wild give any protection in RTA probably not, will it provide since protection if your kid crashes and bumps their head probably. 
I know that wearing a helmet has no negative effect so what's the problem? 
It's a school they only have the well being of your child in its policy.


----------



## Rural halfwit (8 Jun 2013)

Puddles, going on about experiments under the ECHR as Mister P points out may have you put in the 'odd' box.
I'd contact the LEA if you must go above the head but as stated just try to keep on her level.Her decision seems a little strange tbh..
If you want to go down ECHR route I'd go for right of freedom of expression my self..


----------



## Puddles (8 Jun 2013)

I have no intention of going down that route straight away. I am hoping that the Safer School route person can have words and advise her it not a good thing to make it mandatory, and to change it to it is recommended or suggested

Much as I accept she makes policy at school as I have said before It is simply not within her remit, it is not her choice. It seems to me to be the thin end of the wedge, to dictate what will happen in my time whilst my child is in my care and to force compliance by removing a facility from my child if I do not.

Just explained all the hoo har to Squidge as it does affect him, and he said "you should stand up for your rights as a parent mummy, we did rights at school & they said you should always stand up for your rights and not everyone will have pennies for a bike AND a helmet so that's mean"

So in for a penny...


----------



## Rural halfwit (8 Jun 2013)

Better yet, let the small person do the talking as you have highlighted..it is them this so called policy effects. I did that with a teacher once to explain some such' made up teacher rule' to one of my brood.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (8 Jun 2013)

Puddles said:


> I have no intention of going down that route straight away. I am hoping that the Safer School route person can have words and advise her it not a good thing to make it mandatory, and to change it to it is recommended or suggested
> 
> Much as I accept she makes policy at school as I have said before It is simply not within her remit, it is not her choice. It seems to me to be the thin end of the wedge, to dictate what will happen in my time whilst my child is in my care and to force compliance by removing a facility from my child if I do not.
> 
> ...


Good lad, Squidge!


----------



## ufkacbln (8 Jun 2013)

RiflemanSmith said:


> It's a school they only have the well being of your child in its policy.




Yet fail to tackle the real problems of bad parking?

They have the well being in its policy when convenient


----------



## RiflemanSmith (8 Jun 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> Yet fail to tackle the real problems of bad parking?
> 
> They have the well being in its policy when convenient


That's not some thing they can actually enforce is it? 
But as the op has already said they are always on about considerate parking, not alot else they cam do is there?


----------



## summerdays (8 Jun 2013)

RiflemanSmith said:


> That's not some thing they can actually enforce is it?
> But as the op has already said they are always on about considerate parking, not alot else they cam do is there?


 
But why should they enforce helmets? They can't drive in the school, they can't ride in the school so it is a method of transport to school, in which she is not treating the children in the school equally.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (8 Jun 2013)

As a school governor & chair of many years, if a parent showed me a response like that from any member of staff, there would be strong words had, it is brusque to the point of rude, high handed and provides no rationale to the decision made. I should ask at the office for a copy of the parental complaint policy (you are entitled to policies) for the letter, if not the helmet silliness.
You don't say what sort of school it is, Local Authority (LA), church etc, each have some differences to their governance and interaction with the LA, but whatever type, I would contact the LA education services and ask for their model policy on travel to school etc and ask for their stance on mandatory helmet use, Also the same enquiry to the Dept for Education.

When writing to the Chair of Govs : keep it brief and to the point (unlike your first letter- sorry, but even by my wordy standards it was longwinded) ask if the helmet or no permit decision was agreed by Govs or delegated to the Head & bullet point your concerns with it, the hugely conflicting opinions on helmets amongst professional studies and what outcome you want from this (freedom to choose, apology for a brusque arsey response etc) - you may not get it, depends on the Head/Chair relationship but I always liked to know what the parent wanted as I was able to get to the point with all sides and either sort it quickly or be able to explain why not in the right terms.


----------



## Schmilliemoo (8 Jun 2013)

Let's hope she's equally strong when implementing their anti bullying policy. I find head teachers to be mysteriously powerless to enforce under these circumstances. 
On topic I'd definitely go to the lea. The head is answerable to someone. Also will there be an audit of whether the helmets are of a suitable standard etc. and if she does force your wee un into wearing one is she accepting liability if it does contribute to an accident should it be proven a factor. 
Head teachers can sometimes have a god complex. Maybe you should rally support from other parents?
Best wishes and good luck


----------



## Puddles (8 Jun 2013)

shouldbeinbed said:


> As a school governor & chair of many years, if a parent showed me a response like that from any member of staff, there would be strong words had, it is brusque to the point of rude, high handed and provides no rationale to the decision made. I should ask at the office for a copy of the parental complaint policy (you are entitled to policies) for the letter, if not the helmet silliness.
> You don't say what sort of school it is, Local Authority (LA), church etc, each have some differences to their governance and interaction with the LA, but whatever type, I would contact the LA education services and ask for their model policy on travel to school etc and ask for their stance on mandatory helmet use, Also the same enquiry to the Dept for Education.
> 
> When writing to the Chair of Govs : keep it brief and to the point (unlike your first letter- sorry, but even by my wordy standards it was longwinded) ask if the helmet or no permit decision was agreed by Govs or delegated to the Head & bullet point your concerns with it, the hugely conflicting opinions on helmets amongst professional studies and what outcome you want from this (freedom to choose, apology for a brusque arsey response etc) - you may not get it, depends on the Head/Chair relationship but I always liked to know what the parent wanted as I was able to get to the point with all sides and either sort it quickly or be able to explain why not in the right terms.


 

Thanks all that really helps & I do have a bit of tendency to wiffle & repeat myself, (does not help when writing letter with the help of a 2 year - I should by now learn just to leave it until the wee people are asleep)

It is just a local authority school. I have written to the person in Local Authority that liaises with schools on travel plans & safe routes to schools and asked about this I am not expecting a reply till Monday earliest.

I am hoping probably stupidly that the head will be more informative and open on Monday perhaps she was having a bad day on Friday and did this as another poster suggested without really thinking about it.


----------



## snorri (8 Jun 2013)

RiflemanSmith said:


> .
> I know that wearing a helmet has no negative effect so what's the problem? .


Well, that's rather a bold statement that few who have delved into helmet research reports would agree with, unless you have found some new information?


----------



## Puddles (8 Jun 2013)

Schmilliemoo said:


> Let's hope she's equally strong when implementing their anti bullying policy. I find head teachers to be mysteriously powerless to enforce under these circumstances.
> On topic I'd definitely go to the lea. The head is answerable to someone. Also will there be an audit of whether the helmets are of a suitable standard etc. and if she does force your wee un into wearing one is she accepting liability if it does contribute to an accident should it be proven a factor.
> Head teachers can sometimes have a god complex. Maybe you should rally support from other parents?
> Best wishes and good luck


 

Bullying policy well judging by comments heard in the playground no they are not so hot on that but as I have no personal experience I cannot say, the head has always seemed very nice & approachable & helpful I even made her a cake for helping when youngest managed to pull a bench on her foot causing blood everywhere when we collected eldest from Tai Kwon Do (not enough eyes in my head) and she was really over the top with her thanks about that.

That said (see the wiffle) I have not had any dealings with her on an "official" basis shall we say so don't know what she is normally like when questioned.


----------



## Canrider (8 Jun 2013)

snorri said:


> Well, that's rather a bold statement that few who have delved into helmet research reports would agree with, unless you have found some new information?


 
Leave it, it doesn't matter if a helmet is a Get Out of Death Free card, the issue here is the Head's attempting to dictate how a parent cares for their child out of school and off school property.
That letter from the head is basically a Please fark Off letter--let's just reiterate the policy and hope they go away. In the head's defense it may be boilerplate shot out by an admin rather than from the desk of.., but that's no excuse, it's just a politician's answer: 'You've got this wrong'...'Thank you for your comment, let me just repeat what our policy is, now Please fark Off'


----------



## Puddles (8 Jun 2013)

Canrider said:


> Leave it, it doesn't matter if a helmet is a Get Out of Death Free card, the issue here is the Head's attempting to dictate how a parent cares for their child out of school and off school property.
> That letter from the head is basically a Please f*** Off letter--let's just reiterate the policy and hope they go away. In the head's defense it may be boilerplate shot out by an admin rather than from the desk of.., but that's no excuse, it's just a politician's answer: 'You've got this wrong'...'Thank you for your comment, let me just repeat what our policy is, now Please f*** Off'


 
Quite correct as I have Said Squidge does wear a helmet and no not from Admin, from her its not a large school its a little village school and she clocked me at the Summer Fair after school on Friday and did a u-turn a race driver would have been proud off


----------



## Canrider (8 Jun 2013)

PMSL.
Part of me thinks 'Whatever, wear the helmet, let her have her power trip/illusions' but this kind of control-freakery/bogus liability avoidance deserves to be challenged. Mr Paul and shouldbeinbed's advice IMO was spot on, get her on the basics of the policy before going into the stratosphere. Ultimately it'll turn out it's just her personal opinion about helmets/belief this is the way to avoid any legal liabilities, and yet the implication of her policy is the same as if she came round to your house and ensured you were feeding your kids school-approved meals out of school hours.


----------



## stu9000 (8 Jun 2013)

I m a teacher.
I see kids risk their lives when I'm on duty every day. They have little road sense and have no idea how rushed and harassed some drivers are or any idea of how invisible they are. Both as pedestrians at the lights or on bikes i wince on a daily basis. We've done assemblies and talks and will continue to do so. 

I'm a pretty anti establishment guy on the quiet. Not a massive fan of heavy handed power hungry managers whether in education or not. In my dealings with parents I'm always courteous and respect their views even if I don't agree. The time it takes is always a good investment that pays dividends down the line.

But, you did go on a bit. And is it that big a deal. Perhaps there are other debates to be had such as Goves sweeping changes to the curriculum and the fabric of our country's school infrastructure. 
I've just read four pages of angry posts talking about how awful this head is and what a terrible thing she is doing.

Really? 
Maybe she just wants the pupils to arrive at school safely and get home again safely .





Now, I know I know.
In this health and safety rule obsessed risk averse world we live in our kids are not allowed to fall out of trees, explore the woods and could end up alienated from the real world. Even us adults are treated like infants that need protecting by the state.

But this isn't about that. Its a school trying to look after its students. Your sons and daughters. 

Perhaps she could have been more delicate in her response but all this talk about letters to govs is, in my view, undeserved in this case.


----------



## Puddles (8 Jun 2013)

There lies my internal struggle, see part of me says Squidge wears a helmet so whats the big deal, you comply to her requirements so just carry on and ignore it. (Ignore it either for the next 8 years - youngest will be next one there or until she leaves) sign on that little dotted line every year to get a bike pass that says I will put a helmet on my child cos you say so.

Then part of me says you know what love Get Tae F**k (and the fish wife comes out) and I feel a primal urge to say things like "how bloody dare you" and "what gives you the right" and it makes me feel resentful for every sodding cake I have bloody baked for their cake sale 

The last tangle I had with a Head was over a no chocolate policy (Long story short Squidge had a pirate treasure map cake for his birthday - I sent in the practice small Treasure Chest I had made as part of his lunch on his actual birthday as a treat it had a whole 5 golden chocolate buttons in it - Lunch Assistant (Dinner lady) called a code red lol it got removed and he was not allowed it) - I detest the lunch box police, that Head at least had the grace to admit that he agreed that chocolate in moderation was part of a healthy balanced diet and that their lunch box policies were aimed at the Can of Coke & a Mars Bar lunch boxes, then freely admitted that the coke & mars bar brigade would not take any notice anyway.


----------



## Puddles (8 Jun 2013)

stu9000 said:


> I m a teacher.
> I see kids risk their lives when I'm on duty every day. They have little road sense and have no idea how rushed and harassed some drivers are or any idea of how invisible they are. Both as pedestrians at the lights or on bikes i wince on a daily basis. We've done assemblies and talks and will continue to do so.
> 
> I'm a pretty anti establishment guy on the quiet. Not a massive fan of heavy handed power hungry managers whether in education or not. In my dealings with parents I'm always courteous and respect their views even if I don't agree. The time it takes is always a good investment that pays dividends down the line.
> ...


 

Great I get your sentiments and see where you are coming from so if she is so concerned then why are most children that comply to her policy wearing ill-fitted helmets which as I understand it is as bad as not wearing one, why has she not arranged for someone to come in a give parents a how to lesson, same with bike maintenance, same with lessons for children on how to ride. If it were a genuine concern about bike safety then the school would not respond with "wear helmets" Ta-Dah problem solved

Yes it is a HUGE deal to me when someone attempts to take away my parental right to decide what my child does in my time & my care when they are not in any position to do so


----------



## oldfatfool (8 Jun 2013)

stu9000 said:


> Now, I know I know.
> In this health and safety rule obsessed risk averse world we live in our kids are not allowed to fall out of trees, explore the woods and could end up alienated from the real world. Even us adults are treated like infants that need protecting by the state..


 
Except the state don't specify that a child must wear a helmet



stu9000 said:


> But this isn't about that. Its a school trying to look after its students. Your sons and daughters.


 
Until one child as a simple accident that would have resulted in a slight bump, but instead leads to a broken neck from a rotational injury brought about from wearing a helmet.


----------



## Canrider (9 Jun 2013)

stu9000 said:


> In this health and safety rule obsessed risk averse world we live in our kids are not allowed to fall out of trees, explore the woods and could end up alienated from the real world.


 
That's nice.
My children go to an 'outstanding' (Ofsted 2010, IIRC) daycare that:
- Takes them into the local woods for exploration, campfires and building huts
- *Doesn't* make them wear helmets to use the scooters and balance bikes they've got for use in the slab-paved backyard of the facility. Favourite activity is riding the bikes and scooters down the access ramp and into the mix of kids in the outdoor play area at speed. I've never seen a serious accident that wearing a helmet would mitigate.
These activities and provisions were in place at the most recent Ofsted inspection and were singled out as something the playgroup did well.

So, you're a teacher, I've got actual Ofsted on my side, what've you got?


----------



## ufkacbln (9 Jun 2013)

RiflemanSmith said:


> That's not some thing they can actually enforce is it?
> But as the op has already said they are always on about considerate parking, not alot else they cam do is there?


 
OF course they can!

They enforce parental choice on cycle helmets by withdrawing privileges from teh child.

It is so simple to use the same system of censure if a parental choice is to drive or park like a muppet!

It is the same system, and the same authority.... to fail to do so is pure hypocrisy


----------



## ufkacbln (9 Jun 2013)

The other side of the coin is the trotted out claim that it is in the intersets of the child, and that she is only taking care of them...



stu9000 said:


> I m a teacher.
> I see kids risk their lives when I'm on duty every day. They have little road sense and have no idea how rushed and harassed some drivers are or any idea of how invisible they are. Both as pedestrians at the lights or on bikes i wince on a daily basis. We've done assemblies and talks and will continue to do so..


 
Why are HiViz jackets not compulsory for all children it would increase their visibility and s no more difficult to enforce than cycle helmets.

Two other things did worry me i.. firstly failing to take care around a School because you are "rushed and harassed" is a ludicrous excuse for bad driving.

Secondly is the concept of "road sense" - adults should remain responsible for the safety of children, FULL STOP

Research has shown that children cannot accurately read vehicle speeds and distances as they lack the experience and skills to intepret vehicle motion. Height references change as a child grows so this makes relative height of a vehicle difficult to assess.

In recent research an adult was shown to be able to detect accurately a 5 mph difference in speed for approaching vehicles where as children under 11 can only distinguish a 20 mph or more !

It is nothing at all to do with "road sense" but simply the ability of the child to read the traffic.... yet with all this knowledge we still expect the child to interpret, react and avoid acidents, as opposed to the driver actually taking extra time and care around the school (too rushed and harassed?)


----------



## stu9000 (9 Jun 2013)

Canrider said:


> So, you're a teacher, I've got actual Ofsted on my side, what've you got?



This is my point exactly. Are we not on the same side? I understand your annoyance but don't make the situation even more polarised.

Some other points made are good ideas. Getting parents in for a talk where all these concerns could be in the table is much more effective than edicts fired off by a faceless bureaucracy. But there is not time for everything. Maybe, if a lot of parents feel like you, this should be made a higher priority. I do wonder whether many parents share your view. That's a genuine question and not a snipe. What do parents feel think?

I'm guessing the real issue here is a feeling that parent autonomy is being undermined. Parents are being guilt tripped from the moment the kid is born. 

The healthy food police example is a good illustration. From a school perspective we see the impact a high sugar diet has on behaviour and concentration but the rules laid down no doubt make a lot of parents feel judged. But how can the school single out certain families?

It's not just schools that make rules that affect more than just the target group. We all have to drive at 70 mph cos some people drive dangerously. There are millions of examples of where we all get tarred with the same brush. 

Teachers are not perfect. We don't always get it right. But the vast majority care deeply about your kids learning and safety. 

I would urge anyone who is frustrated with the school administration to go see the head of year and have a discussion. Don't just fire off a long and angry letter. Maybe your cycling expertise could help the school develop a better policy. Maybe the school is not aware about some peoples views on helmets and feel that asking students to wear them is a no brainer.


----------



## hatler (9 Jun 2013)

stu9000 said:


> This is my point exactly. Are we not on the same side? I understand your annoyance but don't make the situation even more polarised.
> 
> Some other points made are good ideas. Getting parents in for a talk where all these concerns could be in the table is much more effective than edicts fired off by a faceless bureaucracy. But there is not time for everything. Maybe, if a lot of parents feel like you, this should be made a higher priority. I do wonder whether many parents share your view. That's a genuine question and not a snipe. What do parents feel think?
> 
> ...


 
I think the emboldened bit is the likeliest of all reasons behind the edict.

Sensible, concise, level headed engagement on the issue has to be the method most likely to produce a satisfactory outcome for all.


----------



## Puddles (9 Jun 2013)

stu9000 said:


> This is my point exactly. Are we not on the same side? I understand your annoyance but don't make the situation even more polarised.
> 
> Some other points made are good ideas. Getting parents in for a talk where all these concerns could be in the table is much more effective than edicts fired off by a faceless bureaucracy. But there is not time for everything. Maybe, if a lot of parents feel like you, this should be made a higher priority. I do wonder whether many parents share your view. That's a genuine question and not a snipe. What do parents feel think?


 
Quite a number share my view all cyclists, some I was with today, all of whom wish to know her answer to my last mail, asking what evidence she based her decision on. One of these parents until last Summer lived in NZ (Where there are helmet laws) she chooses in this country not to put helmets on her children & had not realised the school had this policy



stu9000 said:


> I'm guessing the real issue here is a feeling that parent autonomy is being undermined. Parents are being guilt tripped from the moment the kid is born.


 
Feeling? It is, unequivocally. My time, my care, off school property = no duty of care to the school
In fact even the government agrees with me


https://www.gov.uk/health-safety-school-children
*When schools are responsible for health and safety*

Schools are responsible for day-to-day health and safety whenever your child is in the care of school staff - this includes school trips and clubs.



stu9000 said:


> The healthy food police example is a good illustration. From a school perspective we see the impact a high sugar diet has on behaviour and concentration but the rules laid down no doubt make a lot of parents feel judged. But how can the school single out certain families?


 
Mainly because in my experience & it seems the last schools Head Teachers experience they are in-effective. The parents that, shall we say for ease "know what is a healthy diet & provide it" get annoyed when they are pulled up by the teacher at pick up time for putting an illicit item as an occasional treat in their child's lunch and because they are for want of a better way of putting it "good parents" they suck it up, apologise and off they go, usually red as a beetroot. I have seen Teachers do the same to a Mars Bar & Coke parent, the parent has turned round on the Teacher snarled at them told them to Eff Off, and strangely those parents are never seen being questioned again... I can't speak for all schools I can only speak from experience of what I have seen with my own eyes and heard with my ears.

At this school if they can single parents out & pull parents in at end of school for their child not completing the homework, project or not doing home reading or doing spelling etc, in infant school, surely they can single them out for other things



stu9000 said:


> It's not just schools that make rules that affect more than just the target group. We all have to drive at 70 mph cos some people drive dangerously. There are millions of examples of where we all get tarred with the same brush.
> 
> Teachers are not perfect. We don't always get it right. But the vast majority care deeply about your kids learning and safety.


 
Wonderful, this is exactly what I would want them to be, *whilst they are in their care* as per the government guidelines



stu9000 said:


> I would urge anyone who is frustrated with the school administration to go see the head of year and have a discussion. Don't just fire off a long and angry letter. Maybe your cycling expertise could help the school develop a better policy. Maybe the school is not aware about some peoples views on helmets and feel that asking students to wear them is a no brainer.


 
My letter is long, I don't see it as being angry, perhaps it is a matter of perspective, it is factual, it questions and asks for information, I am not rude in it.

But, okay lets take your spin on things as "someone who knows about behind the scenes at schools"

The Headteacher I would hope has quite some experience under her belt (she is not a youngster) I am sure she has received far more blatantly rude letters, I am sure she has had some very aggressive parents in front of her, I could wiffle I am sure you get the point I am trying to make, in short if she cannot handle a letter such as mine without being thoroughly rude and dismissive and arrogant in her response, then I question her right to be in that job, as I said before I am reserving judgement, she might have had a bad day, she might have fired off a knee jerk reply and now regrets it, she might be a lovely person as long as you do not question her, I do not know until further communication is entered in to.

I posted this here as I felt I was most likely not alone in schools doing this and hoped someone might have some advice or have been through this before and have some answers.

*I still believe that a school has no right to attempt to impose rules for my children, in my time & off of school property with penalties of withdrawing facilities for non-compliance.*

As a Teacher perhaps you can answer that question as to do they have the right to do that?

Oh and another thing which may make a difference to views, is the trip to school from anywhere in the village is at most a 30 second walk to the cycle path which runs, all the way through the main road and goes right past the school, the only place cars are an issue, is at the school entrance with cars turning into the same "road" which has car park entrance on left and school gates on right


----------



## Sara_H (9 Jun 2013)

Puddles said:


> Hello all
> 
> Hoping someone can help, I should first state that I do put helmets on my children, but my mind set waivers on a daily basis with the more I read about them, anyhoo this is not so much helmet or anti-helmet
> 
> ...


 
I had a simlar issue with my sons school. Every term the schools newsletter stated that in order to be allowed to ride school children had to wear a helmet and had to have passed bikeability. My son doesn't ride to school as we only live a two minute walk away, but it really rankled with me!

I emailed the head teacher and copied the school governers in, stating that as far as I was concerned they had no responsibility or duty of care for my son when he is off school premises, outside school hours and that what he wore, by what method he traveled and with what level of training/experience he had was entirely my responsibility.

I also pointed them in the direction of some helmet research, making the point that their assumptions about the protection offered by helmets were probably wrong and that helmet enforcement was most likely to discourage children, particularly girls from cycling which I fealt is not inkeeping with the schools "healthy living" ethos.

I got a quite rude email back from the head teacher stating that she most certainly was responsible for children as they traveled to school, and that Bradley Wiggins had said that people should wear helmets so that was good enough for her!

I got an even ruder email from the head governor, stating similar nonsense. 

I replied once again, with a few more links to information around the issues, and didn't hear anymore. I have noticed though, that the instructions re: helmets/bikeability have not appeared in the newsletter since that time!

I feel your frustration, and this is the kind of issue I'd be prepared to take further if I were you.


----------



## ufkacbln (9 Jun 2013)

[QUOTE 2494590, member: 45"]Yes there is. Every few weeks at our previous school a local beat bobby would stand at the gates, at the invitation of the school, and chastise the idiots.[/quote]

One of our local schools used "pester power" they taught the children how to park responsibly and got them to nag the parents when they failed to do so. it was later withdrawn due to the number of complaints from parents


----------



## Mr Haematocrit (9 Jun 2013)

The first thing I think you need to appreciate is that the head is doing what she believes is best for your child. I would rather have a head who cares rather than one who does not.
I would then try to work with her, rather than against her..... Why not ask a local bike shop to do a bike doctor once every six months at school and check the bikes, the helmets and advise on safety clothing and lights etc.... having a cycling professional support what you wish to achieve adds value.
Do organized rides from school in the summer, start a school cycle club.
I think you would build support for cycling, rather than fighting one issue which IMHO is simply not worth the effort... What harm does it do if the little one has to wear a helmet, I don't have total freedom to wear what I want to work., its the real world - like it or not at times we need to conform


----------



## Puddles (9 Jun 2013)

Mr Haematocrit said:


> The first thing I think you need to appreciate is that the head is doing what she believes is best for your child. I would rather have a head who cares rather than one who does not.
> I would then try to work with her, rather than against her..... Why not ask a local bike shop to do a bike doctor once every six months at school and check the bikes, the helmets and advise on safety clothing and lights etc.... having a cycling professional support what you wish to achieve adds value.
> Do organized rides from school in the summer, start a school cycle club.
> I think you would build support for cycling, rather than fighting one issue which IMHO is simply not worth the effort... What harm does it do if the little one has to wear a helmet, I don't have total freedom to wear what I want to work., its the real world - like it or not at times we need to conform


 
It is eroding my parental authority, would the Head Teacher accept me dictating terms to her? Perhaps I should insist that the school make all children wear helmets at play time and that the school should fund this, because judging by the number of "head injury" forms I receive that state the cause was banging heads with another child in the playground oh & the twice he smacked his head off the playground, I can only assume that many other children do this and so it would only be a sensible safety measure, right?

Quite a few children roller blade to school - no helmets insisted for them by the school as they hang their boots up on their peg, and the school cannot enforce this by removing their school peg.

I do support cycling, which is why I would fight for barriers to entry to be removed, i.e the school dictating to parents and over stepping their authority.

Everywhere mandatory helmet laws have been introduced cycling numbers have decreased


----------



## fossyant (9 Jun 2013)

Jesus, is it such a big deal to stick a helmet on. Kids do have odd ways of falling off bikes so its wise to pop one on. Certainly saves a trip to Aand E. You signed the bike pass permit rules. The School is only covering their arse as you can bet there are plenty of parents out there who would sue the School if little Johnny fell off his bike on the way to school


----------



## Puddles (9 Jun 2013)

They would not get very far if they tried to sue, it is not covered by the school's duty of care, however, by insisting on mandatory helmet wear they could be deemed that they are voluntarily extending their duty of care and thereby giving the opening for being sued that would not be there if they did not do this.

As I stated before my son does wear a helmet, my question was about if they have the authority to dictate what happens, in my time, whilst my child was under my care & off school property with the penalty of withdrawal of school facilities if I do not comply.


----------



## ufkacbln (9 Jun 2013)

fossyant said:


> Jesus, is it such a big deal to stick a helmet on. Kids do have odd ways of falling off bikes so its wise to pop one on. Certainly saves a trip to Aand E. You signed the bike pass permit rules. The School is only covering their arse as you can bet there are plenty of parents out there who would sue the School if little Johnny fell off his bike on the way to school


 
I agree fully

Jesus, is it such a big deal to stick aThudguard on. Kids do have odd ways of falling over so its wise to pop one on. Certainly saves a trip to Aand E. The School would only be covering their arse as you can bet there are plenty of parents out there who would sue the School if little Johnny fell over on the way to school


----------



## RiflemanSmith (10 Jun 2013)

snorri said:


> Well, that's rather a bold statement that few who have delved into helmet research reports would agree with, unless you have found some new information?


 
LOL you really are an idiot.
I don't care if you wear a helmet or not.
I have a helmet I wear it some times, I know it wont give me much protection in a RTA, I am not pro helmet or anti helmet.
If some body wants to wear a helmet or not their choice.
What makes me laugh is people like you so militant about it, you sound like those yanks with there stupid pro gun law slogans that don't really make any sense.
So come on then enlighten me to what negative effect does actually wearing a helmet have?
Causes brain tumours, makes you a social outcast, makes you unstable when you ride in the wind causing you to crash 
If you are talking about wearing of a helmet putting people off cycling then that is a different kettle of fish!



Cunobelin said:


> OF course they can!
> 
> They enforce parental choice on cycle helmets by withdrawing privileges from teh child.
> 
> ...


 
No it is not the same thing at all.
They are withdrawing the use of the bike sheds how should they enforce the idiots parking? 
Taking away the child's lunch? 
How about the inconsiderate mums who walk two abreast with thier pushchairs creating a rolling barricade lets take the children's playtime away. 
Asking parents to park considerately in school letters and asking the old bill and wasps to come to the school in the mornings is about all they can do as it off the premises and they have NO authority out side the school.
If you say it is the same thing it is not as if they were making you put a helmet on your child then yes it would be but they have no authority to make you or your child wear any thing off school premises.


----------



## RiflemanSmith (10 Jun 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> I agree fully
> 
> Jesus, is it such a big deal to stick aThudguard on. Kids do have odd ways of falling over so its wise to pop one on. Certainly saves a trip to Aand E. The School would only be covering their arse as you can bet there are plenty of parents out there who would sue the School if little Johnny fell over on the way to school


 
Then they would be wasting their time and money trying to sue a school if a child fell over, really stupid argument put forward!
You are more likely to hurt your self crashing or falling off a bike then you are tripping over.


----------



## RiflemanSmith (10 Jun 2013)

Canrider said:


> Leave it, it doesn't matter if a helmet is a Get Out of Death Free card, the issue here is the Head's attempting to dictate how a parent cares for their child out of school and off school property.
> That letter from the head is basically a Please f*** Off letter--let's just reiterate the policy and hope they go away. In the head's defense it may be boilerplate shot out by an admin rather than from the desk of.., but that's no excuse, it's just a politician's answer: 'You've got this wrong'...'Thank you for your comment, let me just repeat what our policy is, now Please f*** Off'


 
But you have no problem with the child wearing school uniform which you have to pay for?


----------



## fossyant (10 Jun 2013)

Storm in a tea cup - he wears a helmet, you signed the 'agreement' - why kick up a fuss ? Oh and your child wouldn't be allowed to do Bikeability or any organised British Cycling events (not SKY ride) without a helmet.

Does the OP ride a bike ?


----------



## mcshroom (10 Jun 2013)

RiflemanSmith said:


> Then they would be wasting their time and money trying to sue a school if a child fell over, really stupid argument put forward!
> *You are more likely to hurt your self crashing or falling off a bike then you are tripping over.*


Ooh, evidence please?


----------



## Archie_tect (10 Jun 2013)

Wouldn't it be a reasonable idea to ask your child whether he/she would be prepared to wear a helmet to ride his/her bike to school and may prefer you to not make a big issue about it with his/her head teacher. He/she may be perfectly happy to wear a helmet ... ultimately it's his/her decision, not yours?
...though PaulB's point about not being able to afford one is a fair one... but then would they be able to afford to maintain a bike properly in that case?


----------



## Mr Haematocrit (10 Jun 2013)

mcshroom said:


> Ooh, evidence please?


 
Common sense is the only thing which is required..... A bike will go at a higher constant speed when ridden to school as a child that is walking (personally I have not seen to many children sprinting to school).
Just to clarify are you saying that you require evidence that a proportional increase of speed increases the possibility of more serious injury's.
You can find evidence on google images for the difference between gravel rash from a bike accident and motorcycle accident.. Even though these modes of transport are similar being two wheeled, the injury for motorcyclists are generally more serious and a lot of this is due to the higher speeds involved.


----------



## fossyant (10 Jun 2013)

Do I smell a Troll ?


----------



## Puddles (10 Jun 2013)

To clarify my original post stated:



Puddles said:


> Hello all
> 
> Hoping someone can help, I should first state that* I do put helmets on my children*, but my mind set waivers on a daily basis with the more I read about them, anyhoo *this is not so much helmet or anti-helmet*
> 
> ...


 
See it is not a helmet thing nor a cycle thing, but being a cycle forum with lots of parents on I thought someone might have had a similar experience and be able to provide me with some answers or assistance or information & I have received some very useful information.

I do cycle it is my most often mode of transport, as I gave up the 2nd car. I cycle with a trailer mostly with my youngest in it.

I have asked my son and gave the answer in a previous post, he says as he did rights at school and they said to stand up for your rights I should stand up for my rights, he also said it was "mean" to make people wear a helmet because bikes & helmets cost money and some people might not have enough money for both.

I have just received another reply from Head to my question

"I would very much like to know on what evidence you base your comment that
"wearing a helmet is a sensible safety measure"

She has replied:
The Local Authority Road Safety Team and the Local Authority School Travelling Team advise schools on road safety matters. As a Headteacher in a Local Authority school I follow their advice and guidance on these matters and have always found them to be helpful and well-informed teams. If you wish to debate the matter of helmet safety further I am happy to give you their contact numbers.


----------



## Canrider (10 Jun 2013)

RiflemanSmith said:


> But you have no problem with the child wearing school uniform which you have to pay for?


 
An odd comparison to make. The OP situation is more akin to the headteacher requiring the children to wear their uniforms _at home on the weekend_.


----------



## mcshroom (10 Jun 2013)

Mr Haematocrit said:


> Common sense is the only thing which is required..... A bike will go at a higher constant speed when ridden to school as a child that is walking (personally I have not seen to many children sprinting to school).
> Just to clarify are you saying that you require evidence that a proportional increase of speed increases the possibility of more serious injury's.
> You can find evidence on google images for the difference between gravel rash from a bike accident and motorcycle accident.. Even though these modes of transport are similar being two wheeled, the injury for motorcyclists are generally more serious and a lot of this is due to the higher speeds involved.


I was asking for the evidence you are more likely to be injured falling off a bike than tripping over. After all this is 'common sense' as you describe it. I'm sure if this is so obvious then the stats will back this up. They don't seem to however - link


----------



## fossyant (10 Jun 2013)

I really don't know what your problem is.

I've got two kids, one who cycles to high school every day. Both don't have any problems wearing a helmet, or not. If that was part of the school rules, that using the facility required the kids to have a helmet, then so be it. You signed the acceptance ? My son uses his helmet every day, other than when he forgets it in school and can't be ar$ed to find it again ! My son has two bikes, one for school and one for home/rides.

I'm a very keen cyclist and not a pootler/wobbly bob, and even I wouldn't start having a ding dong with the Head over a trivial matter. TBH, if I was the Head, I'd be ensuring the kids had working brakes first. The flippin standard of most kids bike is shocking.

I even offered to parents at the local Beaver Cub Scout group to do a free check up on their bikes... met one response of 'the bike is new' and another - 'oh you can fix the puncture' - think not !

The Head is only trying to be responsible and fit in line with the Authority. The Head can't win either way !

Storm in a teacup.


----------



## Archie_tect (10 Jun 2013)

Puddles said:


> To clarify my original post stated:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Sorry Puddles, I had missed that.

In that case as the school have taken the decision for it to be a requirement that to allow pupils to store their bicycles within school grounds their pupils must take/wear a helmet to ride their bicycles to school. They have a right to take that decision- it has been discussed and the decision has been taken and advertised by the issuing of the agreement which everyone had the opportunity to comment upon, and still have [nothing is ever cast in stone permanently]. It is your son's right, if he chooses not to abide by the school's requirement, to store his bicycle off the school site to satisfy the school's rule.

It is perfectly reasonable to set rules which appear to satisfy the majority of parents' agreement, ie by signing and returning the agreement parents undertake to accept the rules stated. If the majority felt it was unreasonable they would have resisted it at a parent/teacher meeting or by lobbying their school governors. Being a lone voice against something, now that the school's position has been confirmed by the Head Teacher and the School Governors, will just appear to be argumentative for the sake of prolonging the point. I think you should accept it and/or make alternative arrangements for your son to secure his bike elsewhere.

You may be concerned about where the helmet can be safely and securely stored, as many schools don't provide secure lockers and it would be impossible for pupils to keep a helmet with them all day.


----------



## roadrash (10 Jun 2013)

It seems to me that the head teacher is sitting in her office saying ... dammned if you do ........damned if you dont . you cant please all of the people all of the time.

In my last job, upon signing the contract of employment i saw a paragraph stating that while wearing company uniform you must not do anything which reflects the company in a bad light which would result in disciplinary action ,i had a choice .sign it and abide, by it or dont sign it , dont work there .i didnt expect them to change it just because i didnt like it.

............................................... you have the same choice ................................................................

One rule for one and a different rule for another does not work .

i do think that the head is a bit of an arse in the way shes dealing with though she could put her case across better.
Oh by the way ,yes i do sometimes wear a helmet and sometimes i dont , and i dont give a shiny fart whether anybody else does or not.


----------



## Sara_H (10 Jun 2013)

Archie_tect said:


> In that case as the school have taken the decision for it to be a requirement that to allow pupils to store their bicycles within school grounds their pupils must take/wear a helmet to ride their bicycles to school. They have a right to take that decision- it has been discussed and the decision has been taken and advertised by the issuing of the agreement which everyone had the opportunity to comment upon, and still have [nothing is ever cast in stone permanently]. It is your son's right, if he chooses not to abide by the school's requirement, to store his bicycle off the school site to satisfy the school's rule.
> 
> It is perfectly reasonable to set rules which appear to satisfy the majority of parents' agreement, ie by signing and returning the agreement parents undertake to accept the rules stated. If the majority felt it was unreasonable they would have resisted it at a parent/teacher meeting or by lobbying their school governors. Being a lone voice against something, now that the school's position has been confirmed by the Head Teacher and the School Governors, will just appear to be argumentative for the sake of prolonging the point. I think you should accept it and/or make alternative arrangements for your son to secure his bike elsewhere.
> 
> You may be concerned about where the helmet can be safely and securely stored, as many schools don't provide secure lockers and it would be impossible for pupils to keep a helmet with them all day.


 
But why do the school have the right to stipulate that any child wear a helmet to school?This is the point, and is exactly the same as the issue I had at my sons school. 

As others have said, the school has no duty of care for pupils on their way to school, the duty of care is with parents, until children are on school premises, and for school to discriminate against children who's parents have made the choice against helmet use is unfair.


----------



## summerdays (10 Jun 2013)

My objection is that it is picking on those who cycle and subjecting them to their "safety" rules whilst not applying similar rules to those who come by other modes, and when different rule would be far more effective at keeping them safe (checking bikes were actually roadworthy) or getting them some training which would increase their safety.


----------



## Archie_tect (10 Jun 2013)

They don't have a 'right' Sara, the parents and teachers and govenors have taken a collective decision which everyone at the time appears to have been consulted about and the majority felt was reasonable. They then sent out a form to set out the terms of the agreement. At any time people can challenge the terms of a collective agreement, Puddles has... and the response has been considered and given. If Puddles wishes to present what it is that makes this unfair or prejudiced against certain pupils to the next Parent/Teacher or governors meeting, I am sure they would discuss it openly and fairly and amend the agreement if they agree. If they decide not to change it then Puddles would have to accept the decision and/or make alternative arrangements to avoid undermining the collective agreement.


----------



## Archie_tect (10 Jun 2013)

summerdays said:


> My objection is that it is picking on those who cycle and subjecting them to their "safety" rules whilst not applying similar rules to those who come by other modes, and when different rule would be far more effective at keeping them safe (checking bikes were actually roadworthy) or getting them some training which would increase their safety.


Didn't Puddles say the school has a basic cycling training requirement? However, once you start imposing requirements about bike road worthiness, who does the checking, how do you legislate and who has the responsibility to say yes or no?


----------



## Sara_H (10 Jun 2013)

Archie_tect said:


> They don't have a 'right' Sara, the parents and teachers and govenors have taken a collective decision which everyone at the time appears to have been consulted about and the majority felt was reasonable..


 

Just because the majority felt it was reasonable doesn't mean it was. 

When I raised my objections at school the main reasons given were that Bradley Wiggins had said helmets should be compulsorary (!) and that another parent, who happened to be a nurse had said that children should wear helmets.
There was nothing evidence based or reasonable whatsoever about their decision to try to prevent children without helmets from cycling to school.
In this case the school is trying to withold a facility from some children in a manner that is not reasonable.

@Puddles, just for information, when I was going through this I found some quite useful info on the CTC website, it was guidance for schools, a downloadable pdf. It explicitly states that schools should not be insisting on helmets and backs it up with evidence. It may be worth digging it up.


----------



## Sara_H (10 Jun 2013)

http://www.ctc.org.uk/file/public/schools-and-collegesbrf_2.pdf 

_"Cycle helmets: Imposing helmet rules is not justified on health and safety grounds given the _
_uncertainties about their effectiveness, and the measure can be discriminatory because the cost of buying a helmet may be beyond some family’s means. It should therefore be up to parents to_
_decide whether they want their children to wear helmets whilst cycling and their decisions should _
_be informed by clear information about the protection such headwear affords. Cycle helmets are _
_discussed more fully in CTC’s briefing Cycle helmets. www.ctc.org.uk/campaigns > views"_


----------



## Archie_tect (10 Jun 2013)

I like that, thanks Sara.
Were you successful in persuading the school to change it's policy?


----------



## Puddles (10 Jun 2013)

To clarify.

The school travel policy - says nothing about helmets

There is no training requirement for cyclists

Every parent I have spoken to has said "do they? when did they bring that in? why did they decide to do that now?, being in a small village (born & raised here moved away with hubby came back) I even went to that school, I can recognise former pupils who are also parents, one of whom is on child #5 2 already have gone through the school and she was unaware of the helmet policy and said in 2008 when they did the whole woo hoo bike racks, travel policy safe route to school etc thing, helmets were never mentioned, they did ask parents about the training but parents voted no.


Bike passes are apparently relatively new only been in for 3 years when the school issued them they did not consult they simply said due to over loaded racks & un-locked bikes they wanted to do the pass so bike useage could be monitored and so that parents would agree to lock bikes (apparently the wrong bike had been taken home on a few occasions when bikes were the same & locks would solve them having a parent in the office saying where is my sons bike). I am told the first forms only had things like locking bikes, don't ride them in school, don't leave overnight & that the school took no responsibility for their safety etc.

Since then once you get your pass issued for 1 year, they simply re-issue the pass each year with no form to sign so a lot of "oldies" at the school have no idea when the "new bike pass rules" were issued and are unaware they MUST put a helmet on their child to put a bike in a rack.


----------



## Sara_H (10 Jun 2013)

Archie_tect said:


> I like that.
> Were you successful in persuading the school to change it's policy Sara?


 
Well, as I said further up, I recieved two rather rude replies to my email to school. I replied once again stating (nicely) that they were ill informed and gave them some pointers.
I didn't hear from them again, but in the two newsletters sent since then the item about cycle hlmets/bikeabilty has not appeared (prior to this it was included in every newsletter.).


----------



## Puddles (10 Jun 2013)

Thanks Sara, I shall add that to my, now extensive, collection of information


----------



## RiflemanSmith (10 Jun 2013)

Canrider said:


> An odd comparison to make. The OP situation is more akin to the headteacher requiring the children to wear their uniforms _at home on the weekend_.


 
Not really as you could walk your child to school in a onesie if you so wished but you would have to be wearing it when you enter the school grounds.
If it is such a big deal and you are so anti helmet lol, let your kid ride to school then put the helmet on to push their bike into school then park the bike in the bike stand not hard why the fuss?


----------



## Puddles (10 Jun 2013)

YAY! Small victory

The travel plan officer local authority is going to mail her with another schools policy recommending they change their cycle policy to not mandatory


----------



## RiflemanSmith (10 Jun 2013)

Puddles said:


> YAY! Small victory
> 
> The travel plan officer local authority is going to mail her with another schools policy recommending they change their cycle policy to not mandatory


 
Wow well done you are very heroic in your struggle against the oppressive over bearing regime of that school and your victory shall reverberate down the book of history.
Your name shall be the battle cry on the lips of the self-righteous forever more.


----------



## benb (10 Jun 2013)

RiflemanSmith said:


> Wow well done you are very heroic in your struggle against the oppressive over bearing regime of that school and your victory shall reverberate down the book of history.
> Your name shall be the battle cry on the lips of the self-righteous forever more.


 

Wow, you really are up yourself.

If you'd bothered to read the thread, you'd see that the mini-Puddles *do* wear a helmet.
The issue is that the head is exceeding their authority. What right do they have to dictate what safety measures parents choose to take outside school property when the child is not under the school's duty of care?

This is no different to the school demanding that pupils walking around the village always wear high-vis tabards, even in the evenings and weekends.
Or the school sending evening and weekend meal inspectors round to check parents are not feeding their children unhealthy meals.

And as others have said, they do not insist roller-bladers or scooter riders (or pedestrians, come to that) wear helmets, so why not?


----------



## Sara_H (10 Jun 2013)

Good for you, Puddles. 

Ignore some of the sillier messages here, not worth wasting thought proceses over.


----------



## Tim Hall (10 Jun 2013)

Sara_H said:


> Good for you, Puddles.
> 
> Ignore some of the sillier messages here, not worth wasting thought proceses over.


 


Sara_H said:


> Good for you, Puddles.
> 
> Ignore some of the sillier messages here, not worth wasting thought proceses over.


 
Wot she said. Well done, Puddles.


----------



## mcshroom (10 Jun 2013)

Now that is very selectively quoted. Reading the whole quote gives an answer to your 'logic'


> *We find no basis for the idea that cycling is dangerous or especially productive of head injuries*. Our study has shown that the greatest influence on the likelihood of serious head injury is motor vehicle involvement, independent of whether a child is cycling, walking or a car passenger. We conclude that improving the safety of the cycling environment is likely to be more effective in reducing head injuries than the promotion of helmets, *and it would also benefit child pedestrians who outnumber cyclists 5 to 1 in receiving head injuries*. Increasing walking and cycling to gain the wider health benefits is complementary to this, for it has been shown to be the most effective way to reduce the risk of all kinds of injury to those involved (Jacobsen, 2003).



The data is laid out on that page as well which details the different injuries, and also the net drop in both cyclist head injuries and helmet usage rates over the period of the study.

This pie chart is quite enlightening, especially as Mr Smith asserted that


> You are more likely to hurt your self crashing or falling off a bike then you are tripping over.


----------



## summerdays (10 Jun 2013)

Archie_tect said:


> Didn't Puddles say the school has a basic cycling training requirement? However, once you start imposing requirements about bike road worthiness, who does the checking, how do you legislate and who has the responsibility to say yes or no?


 
Who has the responsibility to say whether the helmet has been fitted properly and can inspect it to say that it hasn't been dropped etc - I doubt the head would be able to tell me if you lined up all the children and asked her to pick out those with an "ok" helmet and those not.


----------



## Sara_H (10 Jun 2013)

RiflemanSmith said:


> Wow well done you are very heroic in your struggle against the oppressive over bearing regime of that school and your victory shall reverberate down the book of history.
> Your name shall be the battle cry on the lips of the self-righteous forever more.


Are you wearing sunglasses on top of your head, by chance?


----------



## Archie_tect (10 Jun 2013)

summerdays said:


> Who has the responsibility to say whether the helmet has been fitted properly and can inspect it to say that it hasn't been dropped etc - I doubt the head would be able to tell me if you lined up all the children and asked her to pick out those with an "ok" helmet and those not.


That's the trouble with rules, they have to be policed by people qualified to do the assessments!


----------



## summerdays (10 Jun 2013)

Archie_tect said:


> That's the trouble with rules, they have to be policed by people qualified to do the assessments!


 
And for helmets that is......???


----------



## Archie_tect (10 Jun 2013)

It would have to be the Head Teacher, after an appropriate period of training and a suitable test for competence.... unless the Head Teacher assigns the role to a subordinate in which case the subordinate would have to be trained and tested and then be assessed for their ongoing competence by the Head Teacher who would have to undertake suitable training to be able to assess the subordinate.

[edit: unless they decide that is the parents' responsibility....]


----------



## PocketFrog (10 Jun 2013)

I think that the Head is more imagining the scenario should one of her pupils injure themselves while riding to school - As the general public love to have a scapegoat, they would be asking, though their group moral panic:

_*"Why wasn't there a helmet policy in place to prevent this tragedy?" 
*_There wouldn't be the same outcry or deflection of blame to the school if a child be injured in a car accident not wearing a seatbelt. 

I think I see both sides of the argument here but the Head could have been much more gracious in her replies to your concerns/questions.


----------



## Archie_tect (10 Jun 2013)

I don't imagine anyone but Puddles knows the answer to your question Adrian.


----------



## fossyant (10 Jun 2013)

I don't see the point, really of all of this.


----------



## 4F (10 Jun 2013)

RiflemanSmith said:


> Wow well done you are very heroic in your struggle against the oppressive over bearing regime of that school and your victory shall reverberate down the book of history.
> Your name shall be the battle cry on the lips of the self-righteous forever more.


 

Bad day at work at the high horse factory ? IMHO if the head had responded to me in the same short manner from the start then I would have taken the same actions.


----------



## ufkacbln (10 Jun 2013)

RiflemanSmith said:


> Then they would be wasting their time and money trying to sue a school if a child fell over, really stupid argument put forward!
> You are more likely to hurt your self crashing or falling off a bike then you are tripping over.


 

Not according to hospital admission figures they are not!

Which again comes to teh simple question...... why should a child's parents (or teh school) be responsible for preventing head injuries when the child is on a bike, yet are allowed to shirk responsibility when they are playing, or walking / running


----------



## ufkacbln (10 Jun 2013)

RiflemanSmith said:


> ...... as it off the premises and they have NO authority out side the school.
> If you say it is the same thing it is not as if they were making you put a helmet on your child then yes it would be but they have no authority to make you or your child wear any thing off school premises.


 

Which is the whole point!!!!!!!


----------



## PocketFrog (10 Jun 2013)

2496199 said:


> So where is the equivalent policy for all the other modes of transport?


 

Well the policy for being driven to work is covered by law (e.g. a seatbelt must be worn)... what other modes of transport do you think might have a policy?


----------



## Sara_H (10 Jun 2013)

PocketFrog said:


> Well the policy for being driven to work is covered by law (e.g. a seatbelt must be worn)... what other modes of transport do you think might have a policy?


 
THe policy for cycling is also covered in law, there is abosolutely no need for schools to arbitarily add extra "rules".


----------



## ufkacbln (10 Jun 2013)

RiflemanSmith said:


> Wow well done you are very heroic in your struggle against the oppressive over bearing regime of that school and your victory shall reverberate down the book of history.
> Your name shall be the battle cry on the lips of the self-righteous forever more.


 

A few years ago in Portsmouth there was a young lad who was told he could not cycle to School because they had performed a safety audit and decided it was unsafe.

He could have let his lie and given up, but they did not. After some correpsondence the Council made the road to and from the School one way and clamped down on dangerous parking. THe ban was removed.

He is now the youngest competitor ever in the Abu Dhabi Triathlon and an up and coming racer.

But no - his parents should have stopped hi cycling as a child, and prevented this.


----------



## PocketFrog (10 Jun 2013)

Sara_H said:


> THe policy for cycling is also covered in law, there is abosolutely no need for schools to arbitarily add extra "rules".


 

And I agree! But I can see where the head is coming from with her attempt to avoid any litigation/bad press etc. The problem is that it's not very well researched....but neither is public opinion.

If a poor kid takes a tumble the public will look to the school as a scapegoat, she's trying to cover her own back.


----------



## Sara_H (10 Jun 2013)

PocketFrog said:


> And I agree! But I can see where the head is coming from with her attempt to avoid any litigation/bad press etc. The problem is that it's not very well researched....but neither is public opinion.
> 
> If a poor kid takes a tumble the public will look to the school as a scapegoat, she's trying to cover her own back.


 
There is no fear of litigation as the head has no duty of care whilst the children are outside school, outside school hours.

Responsibility lies solely with the parents.


----------



## Puddles (10 Jun 2013)

2496212 said:


> It was a rhetorical, there isn't one.


 Oh good because I was looking for one & getting very confused, which is not difficult for me.

Thanks for all the alternative versions of Yay. For those that do not understand the need or even understand all I can say "is move along nothing to see here" I have explained and explained I do get the schools point, really I do, I suspect they did it with the bestest of intentions, none the less, that journey to school in my care, perhaps the words of Maggot, my 2 year old might help "Mine!, Not Touch"

I am hoping the Head has a really useful productive open conversation with the Transport Policy Department which results in lots of help in encouraging people out of cars for the school journey as that will help everyone.


----------



## PocketFrog (10 Jun 2013)

Sara_H said:


> There is no fear of litigation as the head has no duty of care whilst the children are outside school, outside school hours.
> Responsibility lies solely with the parents.


 

If there is no legal precedent (I don't know if there is) it doesn't stop someone trying to bring a case which in turn means bad press etc etc.


----------



## benb (10 Jun 2013)

2496212 said:


> It was a rhetorical, there isn't one.


 

Where would we be without rhetorical questions?


----------



## Puddles (10 Jun 2013)

PocketFrog said:


> If there is no legal precedent (I don't know if there is) it doesn't stop someone trying to bring a case which in turn means bad press etc etc.


 
https://www.gov.uk/health-safety-school-children
*When schools are responsible for health and safety*

Schools are responsible for day-to-day health and safety whenever your child is in the care of school staff - this includes school trips and clubs.


----------



## PocketFrog (10 Jun 2013)

Puddles said:


> https://www.gov.uk/health-safety-school-children
> *When schools are responsible for health and safety*
> 
> Schools are responsible for day-to-day health and safety whenever your child is in the care of school staff - this includes school trips and clubs.


 

I'm afraid there's nothing in there that would stop some try-hard either bringing bad press, smear campaign or a frivolous lawsuit.

I totally agree and back you, btw, I just wanted to give the opposing view a little justification, misguided or not.


----------



## Puddles (10 Jun 2013)

One point the lady at the Transport Policy LA said, which clarified everything for me on the actual helmet wearing issue (not he parental rights issue) was, she was very much pro-helmet and would love to make it policy for all children to wear helmets on the journey to school, but *they cannot do that as it is not legal*, which is why all the "official" sites, state that although they recommend them, it is down to the individual.


----------



## Sara_H (10 Jun 2013)

PocketFrog said:


> If there is no legal precedent (I don't know if there is) it doesn't stop someone trying to bring a case which in turn means bad press etc etc.


 
Should we make all important decisions based on the fact that someone might try to bring an action?

My son fell at school and injured his face on a concrete plant pot left in the middle of the playground, a friend of his did exactly the same a few months later.
It amuses me to this day that the head tries to force children to wear cycle helmets just in case of injury, and in circumstances she has no control over or responsibility for, but the plant pot that has caused actual injury is still in he middle of the playground.


----------



## Sara_H (10 Jun 2013)

Puddles said:


> One point the lady at the Transport Policy LA said, which clarified everything for me on the actual helmet wearing issue (not he parental rights issue) was, she was very much pro-helmet and would love to make it policy for all children to wear helmets on the journey to school, but *they cannot do that as it is not legal*, which is why all the "official" sites, state that although they recommend them, it is down to the individual.


 
Well, it sounds like she needs to read all the information you've gathered too!


----------



## PocketFrog (10 Jun 2013)

Sara_H said:


> Should we make all important decisions based on the fact that someone might try to bring an action?


 

We shouldn't but unfortunately it's an ever increasing reason for such decisions being made.


----------



## Sara_H (10 Jun 2013)

PocketFrog said:


> We shouldn't but unfortunately it's an ever increasing reason for such decisions being made.


 
Well, it shouldn't be, which is why it's important to challenge these decisions.


----------



## Puddles (10 Jun 2013)

fossyant said:


> Storm in a tea cup - he wears a helmet, you signed the 'agreement' - why kick up a fuss ? Oh and your child wouldn't be allowed to do Bikeability or any organised British Cycling events (not SKY ride) without a helmet.
> 
> Does the OP ride a bike ?


 
Oh I forgot to quote this about your bikeability statement, helmet is recommended not mandatory.


http://www.dft.gov.uk/bikeability
*Q. Will children need a special bike or other equipment?*
[...While no special clothing or accessories are required, _a helmet is recommended_. They may also recommend a high visibility tabard for poor conditions, especially when training on the road.

*Cycle Training UK stated this about the Bikeability programme at the Cyclenation Conference in June 2012*
Bikeability is a programme that exists to enthuse young people about riding bikes. Its aims are to up-skill people so they are less likely to crash. It is delivered by professionals who are able to deliver this
training at low risk. The emphasis, time and money involved in _active helmet promotion is detrimental to these aims and send the wrong message even putting people off doing this low risk fun activity_


----------



## mcshroom (10 Jun 2013)

Puddles said:


> *this low risk fun activity*



Always worth highlighting


----------



## fossyant (10 Jun 2013)

I still dont understand why folk get all so worked up about helmets when they are already using them. My son had to have a helmet on training at school and especially Brittish Cycling training last summer. They both also had to have helmets on Tameside Circuit when doing skills work, again no lid, no ride.

You may also find the local bikeability insists on lids for the very reason of H&S mitigation as most are self employed.


The head is only mitigating those jumped up parents who think they know better and would kick up a stink if the kid did knock their head.


----------



## Sara_H (10 Jun 2013)

fossyant said:


> I still dont understand why folk get all so worked up about helmets when they are already using them. My son had to have a helmet on training at school and especially Brittish Cycling training last summer. They both also had to have helmets on Tameside Circuit when doing skills work, again no lid, no ride.
> 
> You may also find the local bikeability insists on lids for the very reason of H&S mitigation as most are self employed.
> 
> ...


 
There are two issues as I see it, the head over stepping the mark with regard to their authority outside school.

Helmet promotion and the detrimental effect on cycling uptake, particularly among girls.

These are both important issues and worth addressing. It's not people getting uppity, it's people quite rightly questioning people when they're wrong.


----------



## Puddles (10 Jun 2013)

fossyant said:


> I still dont understand why folk get all so worked up about helmets when they are already using them. .


 
If you had read my OP and many other posts you would have realised I was not worked up about the helmet I was annoyed at a school trying to erode my parental rights. If you do not understand that by this stage of the thread I am at a loss as to how else to phrase it for you to understand the helmets were not my issue.


----------



## fossyant (10 Jun 2013)

I couldnt give a flying poo about helmets and all the bloody fuss they raise. These threads never end well.


----------



## fossyant (10 Jun 2013)

Well my son is one of a handful of kids that cycle to school in about 800 and the school doesn't insist on any helmets. Girls and boys of a particular age won't cycle anyway as its not cool, especially in high school.

The head is only covering their arse as we do live in a blame culture.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (10 Jun 2013)

fossyant said:


> I couldnt give a flying poo about helmets and all the bloody fuss they raise. *These threads never end well*.


*Maybe because of contributions like yours to this thread that state your case but then can't seem to leave it alone or accept a point of view other than your own and repeatedly return to pointlessly re-stoke the fire.* piece said move on or add something new to the discussion.
Particularly as you do seem to have missed the point that it isn't the helmet per-se but the presumption of parental authority by the Head, and (for me anyhow) the exceedingly poor way in which she has presented herself as a professional communicator to a parent with a genuine enquiry. Why are you so het up on something you have repeatedly stated is a non event to you and that you don't give a flying poo about? it's not as if it the only thread running on cyclechat for you to look at.


----------



## Puddles (10 Jun 2013)

fossyant said:


> The head is only covering their arse as we do live in a blame culture.


 
I really dislike getting snarky with people on line, but... do you think you could possible read the rest of this post slowly & let the information sink in....

As pointed out to me today by the

*Local Authority Transport Policy Department that specialises in "Safer Routes To School & School Travel Policies"*

(This would be the department the Head assured me she gets all her information & guidance from)

They stated

*She should not put a mandatory helmet requirement in the cycle policy or as a requirement for a bike pass as doing that is NOT LEGAL* and they would be telling her that and asking her to revise her policy.

SO

You would think if the Head was "Just covering her arse" one of the things she might do in order to make sure she is doing just that, is to check with the department she *says* she gets all her information & guidance from before she implements a policy?

Or does that not seem a reasonable assumption to make if the Head was simply "covering her arse"?


----------



## fossyant (10 Jun 2013)

I do accept the point of the thread but heads are teachers and these days businesses managers. The head probably included the statement in all good intention as most folk dont know much about bikes and helmets. 

Yeh the head didnt make a good job of the statements but they all have the school to run. Some things you might not like. Unfortunately by coming to a cyclists forum and having a debate on helmets and a head teachers misguided opinion, or indeed that if the governors, will just get the two sided of the cycling camp at war. 

I think you mentioned you had one child of 3 and another of 6. I would say having a helmet on at that age is a good idea, as the helmet we had for my son saved us quite a few A&E trips.

As said the Head is only trying to do the right. We dont always agree with the policy of a school.


----------



## Puddles (10 Jun 2013)

fossyant said:


> I think you mentioned you had one child of 3 and another of 6. I would say having a helmet on at that age is a good idea, as the helmet we had for my son saved us quite a few A&E trips.
> 
> As said the Head is only trying to do the right. We dont always agree with the policy of a school.


 
Umm for eleventy million hundredy twelfth time, my children do wear helmets

See that photo over there <------------ thats the 2 1/2 yr old in a helmet

Here is one of the 7 year old in his helmet too







He is not on his bike in this picture because I make him wear his helmet everywhere "just in case" because well "you never know" and I am just "covering my arse" I have nothing to base this on but hey why the hell not. Because being a Mum is like being just about everything including the God of your choice

FYI I came on a cycle forum because

a) I was a member before this and hey have you been on Net Mums at all ? I like myself as a Mum, I am not perfect but I think I do ok and wish to continue to do so!

b) Although my issue was with parental rights erosion, it was over a helmet issue, if I wanted a helmet debate I would have posted it in the helmet & headphones forum, as I was asking had any other parent had a similar experience and did they have any advice on this I posted it in the Family section.

You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make a cow read


----------



## fossyant (10 Jun 2013)

I know you have the kids wearing helmets, but then govenors and head is probably thinking about the broader picture and that some primary kids may be riding to school unaccompanied. 

Oh christ a mum netter. 

Thought you might be whenmyou mentioned parental authority or what ever. You are asking a bunch of hairy arsed cyclists you know, this is all too mumsy, I will exclude the ladies of this parish from the hairy ass remarks.


----------



## Puddles (10 Jun 2013)

No I am not a Mum Netter as I said I think I do ok, I wish to continue to think I do ok,

As a Head or a Governor I would hope (I am now sadly devoid of that hope) but I would hope that they would KNOW when something is NOT LEGALLY in their remit.

I would prefer they think about the little picture, the NOT LEGAL picture.

Hey tell you what, hows about I suggest to the head & governors that we go ram raid the huge Halfords nick all the helmets and issue one to each child in the school - Ta Dah - broader picture all sorted - yes?

Errrr no, why? Cos it is NOT LEGAL!

This is all too Mumsy ? Knowing what Parental Authority is means you must have a hoo-har?

Seriously? There is only one response to that


----------



## fossyant (10 Jun 2013)

Primary Heads think they rule the world, so good luck. Ours did and we did our best as our son was bullied all the way through primary. They have very thick skin, more like an armoured tank.


----------



## Profpointy (10 Jun 2013)

Really good effort in pushing this.

The head was, perhaps inadvertently, using the power of the school to push a political point, and a controversial one at that, and this really must be stood up to. Helmet efficacy is highly debatable, and compulsion even more so, so compulsion by the backdoor is a threat to cycling in general.

For the record I used to wear a helmet, and was in fact an "early adopter" in 1980 something. I even thought those who didn't are stupid. Subsequently I revised my view as the evidence simply doesn't back up "common sense", at least not with any degree of conviction. Hence very anti compulsion, and personally no longer wear one. I was always anti compulsion in any case.


----------



## Ticktockmy (10 Jun 2013)

I think it is simply a case of _* loco parentis*_, when you hand your child over to the safe keeping of the school and the staff, they have a right to lay down terms to safeguard themselves, and your child; remember they then become legally responsibility to take on some of the functions and responsibilities of you a parent.
It allows institutions such as colleges and schools to act in the best interests of the students as they see fit, although not allowing what would be considered violations of the students civil rights. Simply they are covering their arse's in this day and age where parents will sue at the slighty problem


----------



## Sara_H (10 Jun 2013)

Ticktockmy said:


> I think it is simply a case of _* loco parentis*_, when you hand your child over to the safe keeping of the school and the staff, they have a right to lay down terms to safeguard themselves, and your child; remember they then become legally responsibility to take on some of the functions and responsibilities of you a parent.
> It allows institutions such as colleges and schools to act in the best interests of the students as they see fit, although not allowing what would be considered violations of the students civil rights. Simply they are covering their arse's in this day and age where parents will sue at the slighty problem


 

The point is, the school are trying to enforce helmet use when they AREN'T in loco parentis, when the children are still in the actual care of their actual parents, when they are not on school premises, and not in school time.

It's like your boss telling you you've got to wear wellies in the bath.


----------



## Fab Foodie (10 Jun 2013)

fossyant said:


> I couldnt give a flying poo about helmets and all the bloody fuss they raise. These threads never end well.


Well then don't engage in them then FFS. For some of us it's an important issue, small erosions of choice is the path to compulsion.
Puddles is right to challenge the decision. Well done kiddo. There should be no link between helmet usage and bike parking, that's just pathetic and outside the head's remit. The head was clearly rude in her initial response and should also be taken to task over it. And MrP is on the money in his earlier post, overflowing bike sheds are a sign of a good thing, restricting use is not the answer, building more farking sheds is.
Every man woman and child on a bike is a victory for common sense.


----------



## ufkacbln (11 Jun 2013)

[QUOTE 2496861, member: 45"]What's wrong with primary school children riding to school unaccompanied?[/quote]

You are joking?

It is bleedin' dangerous like.


----------



## ufkacbln (11 Jun 2013)

Ticktockmy said:


> I think it is simply a case of _* loco parentis*_, when you hand your child over to the safe keeping of the school and the staff, they have a right to lay down terms to safeguard themselves, and your child; remember they then become legally responsibility to take on some of the functions and responsibilities of you a parent.
> It allows institutions such as colleges and schools to act in the best interests of the students as they see fit, although not allowing what would be considered violations of the students civil rights. Simply they are covering their arse's in this day and age where parents will sue at the slighty problem


 
Interesting stance by the HSE!



> HSE has no remit with regards to workers cycling to and from work. Furthermore cycle helmets used on the public highway are specifically excluded from the Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) at work regulations. This means that it would be very hard for an employer to force an employee to wear a cycle helmet on health and safety grounds, they will however be free to require employees to wear cycle helmets as part of their uniform.
> 
> HSE has no remit to dictate the uniform policy of a company unless it falls within the scope of PPE. _*Ultimately the wearing of cycle helmets is a matter on individual choice, any stance to the contrary could potentially be challenged on human rights*_


----------



## benb (11 Jun 2013)

I do wish people would read the thread before responding

Being charitable to the head, they probably put the clause in without really thinking about the wider issues, because helmets must work - it's just common sense, innit?
They probably never expected to be challenged on it, and it looks like they didn't consider the issue about them forcing their policy onto children not under their duty of care.


----------



## Sara_H (11 Jun 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> You are joking?
> 
> It is bleedin' dangerous like.


 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...lowing-children-to-cycle-to-school-alone.html


----------



## RiflemanSmith (11 Jun 2013)

My son's school is at the end of our road I wouldn't let him travel to school unsupervised. 
Those parents in that article need their heads testing, idiots.


----------



## summerdays (11 Jun 2013)

RiflemanSmith said:


> My son's school is at the end of our road I wouldn't let him travel to school unsupervised.
> Those parents in that article need their heads testing, idiots.


 
Surely it depends on the age, environment and the child. All of mine walked home from school or cycled home alone at some of the later stages when they were at primary school (in a city). The youngest one did it least as he had to pass a building site which involved lots of lorries but at least he learnt lots about blind spots and cycling near lorries.


----------



## Puddles (11 Jun 2013)

When I was 4 I started school the infant school then was the other end of the village (tis now a house it was so tiddly) My Mum used to put me on the bus at the end of the road alone, I distinctly remember my ladybird purse that hung round my neck with my pennies in to pay the driver, I also got the bus home, in fact any children living this end of the village did just that - and no it was not a "school bus".

When they made the Junior school a Primary school and closed the school down the village, I was 6 I then walked to school with my brother, he would have been 8 so did all the other children in the village - alone.

I would not feel comfortable with my child going to school alone (7yrs), for one reason his head is up his bum 90% of the time, he is a daydreamer, the most often word I have to use with him near roads, is "concentrate" I do know other children that are far more "with it" shall we say. He has since he was 5 walked or cycled to my parents house "alone" the fact that I can see him all the way there he is unaware of, but it is nice as a parent to be able to see what he is doing when "alone" to make a decision as to their capability.

Parents know there children & know what they are capable of much as I know my child is airy fairy I know others of his age who are not.


----------



## Sara_H (11 Jun 2013)

RiflemanSmith said:


> My son's school is at the end of our road I wouldn't let him travel to school unsupervised.
> Those parents in that article need their heads testing, idiots.


 
I think its the headteacher that needs his head testing.

Also, I really dislike the way the head "threatened" the parents with a child protection referral. If he felt the children were at risk, he should have made the referral, not start issueing ultimatums. Again, an abuse of power by some jumped master of all he surveys.


----------



## Profpointy (11 Jun 2013)

Further thought on this, in reply to the superficially reasonable "what's the big deal?" view, especially for those who are broadly "pro-helmet"

What if the head banned use of the bike shed to kids who DID wear a helmet to school, based on, say, the Australian experience of increased head injury rate post compulsion? You could put together a pretty good case for this with real evidence, and could of course pick great holes in such a case too, but it's a good thought-experiment.

Or even on uniform grounds by saying schoolboy caps are compulsory to / from school.

Still "what's the big deal?" ?

Oh, and what about the Sikh lads?


----------



## Sara_H (11 Jun 2013)

[QUOTE 2497493, member: 45"]...and the head in this story has made the same mistake...

_“If a school feels a child in their care is at risk, they have a legal responsibility to notify the local authority,” he said._

The children weren't in his care.[/quote]
The risk doesn't have to occur during the time the children are in the professionals care, they are professionally obliged to make a referral if they believe a child is being put at risk.

My beef with the story is that the head used the potential referral as a threat, which is entirely unacceptable. If he really believed they were at risk, his professional responsibility was to make a child protection referral and then the responsibility would lie with social care to make an assessment.

The use of a child protection referral as a threat is nothing more than bullying or blackmail. I'd be interested to know if any such referral was subsequently made.


----------



## RiflemanSmith (11 Jun 2013)

I aint worried about most things, I have been in life or death situations some times of my own making the one thing that I am really scared of is some thing happening to my son.
As I would be powerless to do any thing about it.
I don't molly coddle him but there is no way on this planet he would go to school on his own, nearly every day there are stories of abductions rapes etc.
Like the little 11 year girl that was followed home from SCHOOL dragged in to a park and subject to multiple rapes for hours and that was in my Borough just down the road from me!


----------



## hatler (11 Jun 2013)

Surely bringing this to the attention of the Head and/or governors will be doing them a favour. If they have once established a duty of care beyond the school gates, their responsibility knows no bounds, and they can't want that.

That would be the angle I would play.


----------



## benb (11 Jun 2013)

RiflemanSmith said:


> Wow a totally useless person who decides peoples fate just like a key worker juvenile justice worker and the worst of the bunch a probation officers!
> Probably when at Uni they thought they were going to change the world and help people, got the role they wanted and realised it was just a job became apathetic didn't give a f*** or just down right incompetent.
> The whole system, social and probation services not fit for purpose!


 

You don't have a clue what you're talking about.


----------



## Sara_H (11 Jun 2013)

RiflemanSmith said:


> Wow a totally useless person who decides peoples fate just like a key worker juvenile justice worker and the worst of the bunch a probation officers!
> Probably when at Uni they thought they were going to change the world and help people, got the role they wanted and realised it was just a job became apathetic didn't give a f*** or just down right incompetent.
> The whole system, social and probation services not fit for purpose!


 




benb said:


> You don't have a clue what you're talking about.


 
+1


----------



## ianrauk (11 Jun 2013)

RiflemanSmith said:


> Wow a totally useless person who decides peoples fate just like a key worker juvenile justice worker and the worst of the bunch a probation officers!
> Probably when at Uni they thought they were going to change the world and help people, got the role they wanted and realised it was just a job became apathetic didn't give a f*** or just down right incompetent.
> The whole system, social and probation services not fit for purpose!


 


I hate all soldiers, all of them are just totally useless people who decides peoples fate by going around killing people.

Now do you see what I did there Riflemansmith?


----------



## ufkacbln (11 Jun 2013)

[QUOTE 2497487, member: 45"]You think?

Mine were cycling off with their mates when they were 9. It was a great thing to watch, like the end of ET, BMXs darting all over the place.

I'd be an idiot to deny them that enjoyment and adventure.[/quote]


At that age we would pack sarnies, cycle the three miles on coutry roads to the back of RAF Wyton, and spend the day watching aircraft (Vulcan, Victor, Canberra, Lightning) take off and land, then ccyle home in the evening.


----------



## Sara_H (11 Jun 2013)

RiflemanSmith said:


> I don't molly coddle him but there is no way on this planet he would go to school on his own, nearly every day there are stories of abductions rapes etc.
> Like the little 11 year girl that was followed home from SCHOOL dragged in to a park and subject to multiple rapes for hours and that was in my Borough just down the road from me!


 
Your child is more likely to be raped by one of your relatives than by a stranger in the street.


----------



## Fab Foodie (11 Jun 2013)

RiflemanSmith said:


> Wow a totally useless person who decides peoples fate just like a key worker juvenile justice worker and the worst of the bunch a probation officers!
> Probably when at Uni they thought they were going to change the world and help people, got the role they wanted and realised it was just a job became apathetic didn't give a f*** or just down right incompetent.
> The whole system, social and probation services not fit for purpose!


 
Without doubt one of the most ignorant and unpleasant posts I've ever read.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (11 Jun 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> At that age we would pack sarnies, cycle the three miles on coutry roads to the back of RAF Wyton, and spend the day watching aircraft (Vulcan, Victor, Canberra, Lightning) take off and land, then ccyle home in the evening.


That was you too? My love of riding stemmed from living in Bluntishsm up to 10yo and riding out to Wyton to feel the jetwash as the planes took off, we'd all converge from various villages and go our separate ways when we were done. Loved living so close and the sky going dark as the Vulcans went over or the Canberras so low you could wave at the pilot. 

40 years later and I'm living in a bit more hilly territory but that simple joy of hopping on a bike and pedalling is just the same as it was back then.

Such a shame if more hysterical media and bizarre scaremongering posts on bike websites put a stop to an innate part of growing up and spreading our wings


----------



## RiflemanSmith (11 Jun 2013)

@ benb
"You don't have a clue what you're talking about. "
Yeah really?
First I grew up in care, second I have spent over ten years in prison so I spent a hell of a lot of time dealing with these people.
Yes it is a big generalisation, and there is always good and bad etc but the useless out weigh the good.
Don't get me wrong they are over worked have to many caseloads but they are like teachers they don't get the sack for being rubbish at their job.

Mister you may well be very good at your job and I don't know you and I normally judge people by who there are not what they are regardless of colour creed sexual orentation etc but I intensely dislike social workers and especailly parole officers.
I shouldnt have said what I did as they was no call for it, so to you I am sorry mate


----------



## RiflemanSmith (11 Jun 2013)

Sara_H said:


> Your child is more likely to be raped by one of your relatives than by a stranger in the street.


 Yes I grew up in care I do know.


----------



## ufkacbln (11 Jun 2013)

shouldbeinbed said:


> That was you too? My love of riding stemmed from living in Bluntishsm up to 10yo and riding out to Wyton to feel the jetwash as the planes took off, we'd all converge from various villages and go our separate ways when we were done. Loved living so close and the sky going dark as the Vulcans went over or the Canberras so low you could wave at the pilot.
> 
> 40 years later and I'm living in a bit more hilly territory but that simple joy of hopping on a bike and pedalling is just the same as it was back then.
> 
> Such a shame if more hysterical media and bizarre scaremongering posts on bike websites put a stop to an innate part of growing up and spreading our wings


 
When I was older ... about 13/ 14 I used to cycle through Bluntisham to Earith to meet a young lady called Ruth!

Far more interesting than aircraft!

Funnily enough I was up there in March and cycled up the Old Ramsey Road... it hasn't really changed in 45 years!


----------



## Fab Foodie (11 Jun 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> When I was older ... about 13/ 14 I used to cycle through Bluntisham to Earith to meet a young lady called Ruth!


 
You as well?


----------



## Ticktockmy (12 Jun 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> At that age we would pack sarnies, cycle the three miles on coutry roads to the back of RAF Wyton, and spend the day watching aircraft (Vulcan, Victor, Canberra, Lightning) take off and land, then cycle home in the evening.


Different age mate, Same for me, we lived 3 miles from school, and everyday summer and winter rain and snow my Brother, sister and I walked to school and back along country roads with out an adult, and most kids did, weekends my mate and I used to cycle the 10 miles to Tangmere RAF station and watch the Lancaster and Spitfire and Meteor aircraft taking off. In those day you could cycle around the Airfield with out getting chased off, often invited to climb aboard the plane to see inside of it, we happily sit there all day with our packet of Sarnies and bottle of Tizer.
In those laid back days parents understood that kids had to have freedom to do there own thing we often left home at 9 in the morning and return home at 5PM and never wore a helmet no one never did in those days. Kids tended to be hard little buggers in those days, no manby pamby parents worrying about kids getting bumps and bruises or stranger danger. I treated my kids the same and no harm come to them.
Now you have teachers laying down rules about things that should be a matter for parents. The problem is unlike the OP most parents just sign away there rights without understanding that they are giving some of there parental rights over to the interfering teachers and other bureaucratic organisations


----------



## benb (12 Jun 2013)

It's really important to let kids make mistakes and take risks (within reason), and learn that their actions have consequences.

The small risk that a child playing outside will come to harm is insignificant alongside the harm that will definitely come to them by never letting them have any freedom or responsibility.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (12 Jun 2013)

Just to add a similar gripe of my own that has cropped up today. My work have set up a couple of rides this weekend, a 100 miler for the athletes and a family friendly 20. minimal support for the100 and none for the 20, we're not in liveried tops and we do it on our own time, no association to work at all apart fom it being the start and finish point.

The Gettysberg address is far shorter and to the point than the disclaimer we have to sign to participate, which advised helmets but then had a bullet point saying (I paraphrase) 'it's up to you but if you get hurt or killed through not wearing one don't come moaning to us'. (fair enough, my head, my choice, no bother with that at all).

The joining instructions that arrived today had a you must bring section including a helmet and backed it up with a helpful little clipart of a helmet with the epithet No Helmet = No Ride.

This has annoyed me far more than I expected it to. (70 odd % of the time I do wear a helmet) I'm not anti lid, I simply expect the right within the law to do with my head as I wish, on my own bike, on my own time & when I am doing nothing that represents the company through my dress or action that could bring it into disrepute. In fact I've cycled home from work many times helmetless and far more readily identifiable as working for them.

Cycling mileage is offered for business trips within work time on the proviso I wear a lid and hi-viz. No bother with that at all, I'm on paid time, if they told me to wear a pink tutu and Jimmy Cricket wellies its their perogative.

I will be taking it up with them in the same manner as puddles has, politely, based on the (conflicting) evidence, highlighting that helmet compulsion is seen by some as a disincentive and a voluntary ride for health should not seek to disenfranchise people from a healthy activity by overly prescriptive nannying and seeking the limits of where they feel corporate responsibility meets personal.

I shall not be taking part now but will go with my son on a 20 mile ride of our choosing dressed however the hell we like.


----------



## ufkacbln (12 Jun 2013)

I used to do cycle training for the Scouts, and used to raise over a £1000 per year with a family sponsored ride.

Then rhey brought in a helmet rule and we had to exclude anyone who was not wearing one.

I no longer do either.


----------



## Puddles (12 Jun 2013)

Can I just say aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh

Thank you, received letter from Head. Now either the LA has not yet written to her, or she is ignoring them or I misunderstand (I don't think I misunderstood) and I quote lady from LA

"I am pro-helmet and would love to make it so school children wear a helmet on their bike on the way to school, but we can't because it is not legal..... I shall write to her with a copy of another local schools policy which is acceptable which says "should" not "must" and advise her to change their policy"

This was Monday afternoon. I then replied to Head's email telling me to talk to LA, saying

"Thank you for your time blah blah spoken to LA they were very helpful, they have told me they will be in contact with you, _(I did not put what they said as I didn't want to seem like I was gloating)_ I am happy to support the school in any policy to get children out of cars on school journey etc but could not support policies that erode parental rights"


I then get this response today

"I am pleased that you found the School Journey team
helpful. I have worked closely with them over the last 10 years and have
always found them to be excellent.

I do understand that your concern is about your parental rights. That is why
the letter about the bike pass makes it very clear what the conditions of
use of the school bike racks are. Any parent who does not agree with the
conditions can make alternative parking arrangements. As the bike racks are
on school premises the Travel Plan team, as it was then, gave me the format
for the letter to promote good cycling practice, which is still used by
them, I understand.

As you rightly say, the school does not have a duty of care over your child
whilst you are travelling to school. it is your parental right to decide how
your child travels to school, the school is not responsible for this
journey - you are, as a parent. You can choose whether to apply for a bike
space or not depending on whether you agree with the conditions of use. Only
those parents who sign to agree with the conditions are given bike spaces
and are then expected to abide by them. No parental rights are removed from
any parent who does not agree with the conditions of use - they simply won't
apply for a bike pass. Parking bikes on school grounds is not compulsory nor
is it a right.

You signed the slip agreeing to abide by the conditions of use of the bike
racks in September. Do you wish to withdraw from the agreement and give up
the space?"

So as I said I can only assume either

a) I misunderstood LA
b) They have not mailed her yet
c) They have mailed her & she is ignoring it


----------



## Puddles (12 Jun 2013)

I resisted the urge to reply with "Are you intentionally winding me up?"

and replied thus, I will phone the LA tomorrow

_At this point in time I am not giving up Samuel's space, as I said he wears _
_a helmet, having spoken to the School Journey Team, they informed me that _
_the mandatory helmet policy was not one of theirs as they can promote helmet _
_use but not make it mandatory, as mandatory helmet directives are not _
_legal, I shall speak to them again in the near future when I have the time _
_to ascertain if I missunderstood Laura Kerrigan, she advised me she would _
_be writing to you with an acceptable policy used by Shamblehurst Primary _
_that has the wording "should" not "must" with regard to Helmet & hi-viz._

_Please be assured that if I take the decision to no longer require a space I _
_will hand in Samuel's pass, I have already ensured that should this be the _
_only option I have left to me that I have the necessary equipment to secure _
_his bike near the school premises._


----------



## Sara_H (12 Jun 2013)

Puddles said:


> Can I just say aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh
> 
> Thank you, received letter from Head. Now either the LA has not yet written to her, or she is ignoring them or I misunderstand (I don't think I misunderstood) and I quote lady from LA
> 
> ...


 

She's a nobber, and all that waffle is a load of bullshit designed to bully you into backing down. She's with holding a facility available to all children except unhemeted cyclists for no good reason whatsoever.

PM me her address, I want to organise a protest involving organic m&s eggs! Mind you, at least she admits she doesn't have a duty of care while you're walking to school, our head insisted she did!

Can I just ask? how does she know which children have ridden with a helmet and which haven't. How does she police it?


----------



## Puddles (12 Jun 2013)

I have no idea how she polices it, to be honest we did not ride to school on the day they checked the bike rack that they referred to in the newsletter so I don't know how they did that? I can only assume they stood by the bike rack and as children/adults went to lock a bike they either asked to see their pass or had a list of pupils who had passes and clocked the ones not on the list (as I said it is small school and she seems to know all the children by name & parents (even if they have different surnames)

As to the helmet policing ????? Is all I can say I know children ride without helmets & only a tiny tiny amount of scooterists wear helmets.


----------



## Tim Hall (12 Jun 2013)

Sara_H said:


> She's a nobber,


 
After nine pages, Sara_H hits the nail fairly and squarely on the head.


----------



## Puddles (12 Jun 2013)

Sara_H said:


> She's a nobber, and all that waffle is a load of bulls*** designed to bully you into backing down. She's with holding a facility available to all children except unhemeted cyclists for no good reason whatsoever.
> 
> PM me her address, I want to organise a protest involving organic m&s eggs! Mind you, at least she admits she doesn't have a duty of care while you're walking to school, our head insisted she did!
> 
> Can I just ask? how does she know which children have ridden with a helmet and which haven't. How does she police it?


 

Well, she now has it worse (and no I am not about to get naked) my Mother is back from her hols and boy is she mad, she asked me if she needed to round up the mothers from my time at school and get them protesting again.

When I said Again? she told me how they had all formed a line across the road in the late 70's in protest to reduce the speed limit around the school and get a zebra crossing put in, NAKED! That was when the then head proposed to make parents walk with their children to school as the answer to "keeping them safe" , I apparently joined in at the tender age of 3 1/2 naked! My Mum said she had photos of it somewhere I made her promise to go find them!

Who knew a sleepy village has such militant mothers in their midst!


----------



## Sara_H (12 Jun 2013)

Puddles said:


> Well, she now has it worse (and no I am not about to get naked) my Mother is back from her hols and boy is she mad, she asked me if she needed to round up the mothers from my time at school and get them protesting again.
> 
> When I said Again? she told me how they had all formed a line across the road in the late 70's in protest to reduce the speed limit around the school and get a zebra crossing put in, NAKED! That was when the then head proposed to make parents walk with their children to school as the answer to "keeping them safe" , I apparently joined in at the tender age of 3 1/2 naked! My Mum said she had photos of it somewhere I made her promise to go find them!
> 
> Who knew a sleepy village has such militant mothers in their midst!


 
Yay! A protest! If you wait til I'm down for my hols I'll definitely be there!


----------



## summerdays (12 Jun 2013)

You have form obviously ... and it worked last time (phew very glad my kid's primary school head was much more reasonable!)


----------



## Puddles (12 Jun 2013)

I am hoping with crossed fingers, that it is just she has not heard from the LA and so is unaware

I shall be asking one very straight question to LA tomorrow, can she do this as if she can I am handing in bike pass and I just need a yes she can do this or no she cannot and we will sort it.

Then when I get an answer to that the fun will really begin if I have to hand in bike pass...


----------



## Fab Foodie (13 Jun 2013)

Sara_H said:


> Yay! A protest! If you wait til I'm down for my hols I'll definitely be there!


 As I've already done one naked cycle protest this week, I'm 'up' for another .... cue Fnaar ....


----------



## Sara_H (13 Jun 2013)

Puddles said:


> I am hoping with crossed fingers, that it is just she has not heard from the LA and so is unaware
> 
> I shall be asking one very straight question to LA tomorrow, can she do this as if she can I am handing in bike pass and I just need a yes she can do this or no she cannot and we will sort it.
> 
> Then when I get an answer to that the fun will really begin if I have to hand in bike pass...


 
I think she probably can, because to a point, she is the manager of what happens on school premises. It's not reasonable, though, and if I were were you I'd be tempted to take it through the formal complaints procedure before handing in your pass, for the simple reason that she's trying to bully you into submission.


----------



## Puddles (13 Jun 2013)

Oh I shall take it through the complaints procedure, but, I may hand bike pass in before that only because if she starts being OTT with me first thing in the morning when we lock his bike in when I am usually not calm & serene having just said the same things a million times in the space of two hours, eat your breakfast, get dressed, no don't take you clothes off again, where is your book bag, get your shoes on, where is your football/tae kwon do/swimming kit I gave it to you 10 seconds ago. No dog you are staying, etc etc etc. I am liable to explode literally at her & it won't be pretty.

Having said that is she makes a fuss over if he is wearing a helmet, that could work to my advantage in getting the word out.

But, if I park his bike where I intend to park it I can have a nice sign on it saying why it is there & all 90% of the parents would walk past it, in school I suspect they could remove that sign, outside they cannot

Anyhoo I am trying to just keep one step at a time, today's job is to contact the LA again and ask the question.


----------



## Puddles (13 Jun 2013)

Aha - The LA's email was down and so nothing had been sent to her, it now has & I also have a copy

When I asked the blunt please tell me without the legal flim flam etc, Can she do this as I need to know whether to hand in bike pass or not the answer was a resounding NO

Here is an extract of what she has been sent by the LA

"_I liaised with my colleagues in the School Travel Planning team at Hampshire County Council and both Helen Harris and myself agree that this can be a very ‘grey’ area in terms of wording and what a school can and can’t enforce and we appreciate that pulling together a policy on a topic such as cycling to school is obviously a very difficult task for schools to do and a difficult judgement to have to make._

_The topic of cycling policies in schools has recently been discussed at length by the School Travel Planning team, the Road Safety team both from Hampshire County Council and Sustrans staff (Sustrans is a sustainable transport charity). All parties have reviewed and revised some of the suggested wording in the cycle guidelines issued by the Road Safety team on theirwebsite (http://www3.hants.gov.uk/roadsafety/children/cycle_training.htm) and have also signposted other suggested policies by organisations such as Sustrans so that schools can choose what is appropriate for the age of their children, the local environment and the cycle routes available._

_The suggested policies focus on using words such as 'should' and 'encourage', particularly on the topic of wearing helmets as they are not required by law, and there is a view held by some that insisting on wearing a helmet can act as a deterrent to children cycling and imply that cycling is dangerous. However, we do appreciate that schools often feel in a difficult position as to how much encouragement they give to cycling, even though it is ultimately a parent's responsibility to ensure their child arrives at schools safely. _

_Like schools, we as local authorities would like to encourage as many families and children to be safe cyclists and encourage them to wear cycle helmets wherever possible. However, as cyclists are not by law required to wear a cycle helmet, we as local authorities are therefore not permitted to enforce that pupils cycling to school wear helmets to and from school, but where possible we do encourage as many families as possible to consider the safety aspects of cycling and what possible precautions they can take to reduce any potential risks."_


----------



## Schmilliemoo (13 Jun 2013)

Ooh. Interesting to see what happens next. I'm loving this, far more exciting than corrie.


----------



## Puddles (13 Jun 2013)

2500605 said:


> Good. Have you tried asking why they don't similarly encourage parents to put helmets on their children before driving them to school and the basis for that decision?


 

In short - no. One thing at a time, first they make the (usually nice) Head change that schools policy and give them the lots & lots of help they are promising to get rid of the cars then perhaps more.

As an aside I growl when I hear Sustrans they advised the local country park to put stupid barriers across the cycle tracks so that it is damn near impossible to get on to them with a bike trailer - oh so helpful!


----------



## snorri (13 Jun 2013)

I'm not able to Quote the post in which Rifleman Smith calls me an idiot then goes on to berate me rudely for things I have never said or thought.
Rifleman Smith raise any points of issue you may have with cycle helmet wearing and these an be discussed in a polite manner, firing off insults impresses no one.


----------



## ufkacbln (14 Jun 2013)

Now apparently there is a health and safety ban on frilly socks! after a girl fell over!









Surely the sensible answer would have been a frilly sock permit and an agreement that the girls had to wear a suitable helmet when wearing the socks?


----------



## Puddles (14 Jun 2013)

& jumpers! & bags & anything of a dangly nature

Small people will injure themselves on anything. Last week eldest was carrying jumper managed to step on sleeve & put his teeth through his bottom lip, it was an interesting sight as I went into reception to ask to use loo... smallest small person had poo-ed her pants (potty training) was stinking to high heaven, largest small person was dripping blood from his mouth.

p.s. I would ban those frilly socks, but only because they are vile


----------



## fossyant (14 Jun 2013)

Any updates with the Head ? Hitlers of the Primary world !


----------



## Puddles (14 Jun 2013)

fossyant said:


> Any updates with the Head ? Hitlers of the Primary world !


 
No she has gone very very very quiet since the LA pointed out to her what she was doing was not legal & sent her an acceptable policy. I expect it will take some to-ing & fro-ing between her & them and some Admin time to actually see any changes, I would like to think that I would get a mail from her saying something other than "If you don't like it sod off" but by this stage I somehow think that is not going to happen.

No mention of helmets in this weeks school newsletter she is now on "Lunchboxes" and how they are an Egg, Nut & Kiwi fruit free school & how we should be all be doing stuff at home with our children especially in the summer holidays.

She is, however, allowing someone to advertise 2nd hand life jackets & car seats in the for sale section... *sits on hands*


----------



## ufkacbln (14 Jun 2013)

2500992 said:


> Yes, I have encountered Sustrans barriers with a tandem triplet




Just to be picky.... They are local Council barriers, installed by the local Council and often against the advice and complaints of Sustrans


----------



## Puddles (14 Jun 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> Just to be picky.... They are local Council barriers, installed by the local Council and often against the advice and complaints of Sustrans


 

Nope, I complained I was veh veh annoyed after getting stuck behind one in the cold wintery rain whilst also bursting for a wee (unless the man told big fat lies)

the answer I got

"Thank you for your email describing your experience with the cycle path barriers within Royal Victoria Country Park and the for the excellent accompanying photographs.
Having only very recently taken up my responsibilities at RVCP I have no direct experience of this installation. However, having looked into the background of the cycle path improvement project it would appear to have been initiated and specified by Eastleigh Borough Council in association with Hampshire County Council's Highways department. 
The barriers were erected to protect cycle path users at the potentially dangerous crossing point of the Park access road and *are to a specification approved by the Sustrans National Cycle Network*.
I can appreciate that these barriers can be an inconvenience to cyclists, particularly to those with trailer-type cycles. However, any inconvenience is hopefully more than off-set by the safety benefits they provide."







p.s. I don't complain often 'onest & I also made it a promise to myself this year that if someone did good things in a worky type environment I would write to their employer and say they are veh veh nice and did do good fings and you should give them a medal type thing cos they are nice& I have done. I have only complained twice this year once to school & once to the RVCP for this.


----------



## mcshroom (14 Jun 2013)

What safety benefit does the council think deliberately putting obstacles on a cycleway would provide?


----------



## Spinney (14 Jun 2013)

Puddles said:


> p.s. I don't complain often 'onest & I also made it a promise to myself this year that if someone did good things in a worky type environment I would write to their employer and say they are veh veh nice and did do good fings and you should give them a medal type thing cos they are nice& I have done. I have only complained twice this year once to school & once to the RVCP for this.


 

But when you DO complain you do it properly!


----------



## Spinney (14 Jun 2013)

mcshroom said:


> What safety benefit does the council think deliberately putting obstacles on a cycleway would provide?


 

Keeping motorbikes off it, I should think.


----------



## Puddles (14 Jun 2013)

mcshroom said:


> What safety benefit does the council think deliberately putting obstacles on a cycleway would provide?


 

It supposedly is to stop speeding cyclists shooting straight across the road to the next bit of cycle path without stopping and potentially being squished by a vehicle on the road!


----------



## Fab Foodie (14 Jun 2013)

Spinney said:


> Keeping motorbikes off it, I should think.


 Mostly this ^^^^


----------



## Puddles (14 Jun 2013)

Spinney said:


> But when you DO complain you do it properly!


 

Yes I do.. I have found my next awkward question for school.

"How come you told me I could not put quiche in my sons lunch cos it contained egg, yet on the school dinner menu Quiche is on there?"  lol

The motor bike thing, would disagree as if you saw the park you would see why that would not stop motorbikes only cause them the same annoyance as longer/wider cyclists and there are lots of roads/paths they could access with no issue. In fact the other end of that path has no barrier it is only across that one road.


----------



## benb (14 Jun 2013)

Puddles said:


> It supposedly is to stop speeding cyclists shooting straight across the road to the next bit of cycle path without stopping and potentially being squished by a vehicle on the road!


 

Brilliant.
We seem to trust car drivers with less intrusive methods, such as give way markings.


----------



## mcshroom (14 Jun 2013)

Of course they are much more observant and careful road users though benb, just look at the insides of any 6'6" width restriction barriers for evidence of just how observant and careful they all are


----------



## Canrider (14 Jun 2013)

benb said:


> Brilliant.
> We seem to trust car drivers with less intrusive methods, such as give way markings.


 
To be fair, there is a speed bump visible in the photo (RHS).


----------



## summerdays (15 Jun 2013)

Puddles said:


> It supposedly is to stop speeding cyclists shooting straight across the road to the next bit of cycle path without stopping and potentially being squished by a vehicle on the road!


 
But if it is like one on my route, it means that you can have pedestrians and cycles queuing in the road to get through to the path, whilst letting people coming the other way through.


----------



## Schmilliemoo (15 Jun 2013)

Just thinking you know, this isn't going to be resolved before the school holidays is it?
What's the betting somebody else on the staff will be in charge of it in the new school year?


----------



## Puddles (15 Jun 2013)

Schmilliemoo said:


> Just thinking you know, this isn't going to be resolved before the school holidays is it?
> What's the betting somebody else on the staff will be in charge of it in the new school year?


 
Not unless the Head moves, cos it is her who does it.

However, I do fear "come the revolution" her getting her own back by asking me (apparently it can be parent, teacher, governor or n e one) to be the travel person thingy - which I would have no objection to if I could have all the parents shown the two video's from this http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/this-will-brighten-your-day.132843/ thread and say to them this is what cycling feels like, even as an adult

Then also knife all the tyres of those that make the un-needed car journeys to school  lol


----------



## Puddles (15 Jun 2013)

[QUOTE 2504228, member: 45"]She might have a point. After all, you want your kids to be safe on the way to school. By badgering, I managed to get the school a bike shelter, and just before we moved and after barraging the school and LA they also installed as zebra crossing on one of the busier roads to the school.[/quote]

From my talks with the LA they are v.v.v. keen to help & do & provide so it would be a shame that for a lack of time or interest by someone that the school did not grab that with both hands and get all they can from it.

From what I have managed to gather the school pays lip service to their requirements to safer routes to schools, makes all the right noises, produces all the paperwork and does nothing to follow it up, this could be a time factor or it could be a lack of interest or a bit of both.


----------



## Schmilliemoo (15 Jun 2013)

Puddles said:


> Not unless the Head moves, cos it is her who does it.
> 
> However, I do fear "come the revolution" her getting her own back by asking me (apparently it can be parent, teacher, governor or n e one) to be the travel person thingy - which I would have no objection to if I could have all the parents shown the two video's from this http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/this-will-brighten-your-day.132843/ thread and say to them this is what cycling feels like, even as an adult
> 
> Then also knife all the tyres of those that make the un-needed car journeys to school  lol



Well at least they'll have somebody normal/sensible on side in that case. I was thinking the head doesn't sound like she wants to back down and moving the problem to somebody else might be the answer hehe. 

I think you should adopt a super hero garb for knifing tyres and leave a cars under the windscreen wipers, like a vigilante milk tray lady


----------



## stu9000 (15 Jun 2013)

Puddles said:


> From what I have managed to gather the school pays lip service to their requirements to safer routes to schools, makes all the right noises, produces all the paperwork and does nothing to follow it up, this could be a time factor or it could be a lack of interest or a bit of both.



Bit harsh. 
My school has been trying to get double yellow lines for years without much help from the council. 

My point is that most teachers and school administrators care deeply about kids safety. Sometimes I think they are almost too risk averse. 

Maybe they don't know enough about cycling. Maybe they could communicate with you better. but the best way to fix that would be to work with the school rather than pick fights with them .


----------



## Puddles (15 Jun 2013)

stu9000 said:


> Bit harsh.
> My school has been trying to get double yellow lines for years without much help from the council.
> 
> My point is that most teachers and school administrators care deeply about kids safety. Sometimes I think they are almost too risk averse.
> ...


 

I questioned their policy,

she would not answer my questions, apart from to tell me if I didn't like it tough,

then pointed me in direction of LA to speak to,

I spoke to them they said what she was doing was not legal and would speak to them,

the LA people who liaise with the school on safer routes to schools, etc, said themselves, that although they (the school) did a plan in 2008, and did a survey in 2009, they have not followed up on anything.

So no it is not a bit harsh it is what I can gather by what the LA have told me.

How can you work with someone who will not listen at all & who is dismissive & rude & will not even entertain a discussion, and simply says "sod off" but in a slightly more polite manner.

Even after I mailed her, thanking her for her time and apologising if she took umbridge at my initial letter etc, if you like doing an okay lets be grown up, you may have been peed off at my letter and taken it as an attack, and then sent me a snotty mail but hey ho I have spoken to the LA and they will now be contacting you about this, and the school has my support & I am happy to assist anyway I can etc etc

I then get a smug, glad you found the LA helpful letter filled with crap that simply was not true & asking me if I wish to hand my sons bike pass in, which once again was entirely snotty, arrogant & bullying.

But still I am willing to help/assist etc, why? because she may leave that school in x number of years I will have a child in that school for at least another 8 years and looking at family history where every generation has gone to the village school chances are my grandchildren will go there and yes I do subscribe to the if not me then who, no I am not a vigilante but I do believe that if you are not happy about something, you need to do something about it. Cos there is not point in being like a dog sat on a thorn, moaning about it but too lazy to move.

You will, if you have read the whole thread, notice that I have said I have always found the head to be nice prior to this, that she might have had a bad day, that as one poster suggested she may have put the helmet thing in without thinking and was now flapping. I am still willing to give her the benefit of the doubt, perhaps my letter was the 100th one she had received from a parent and she was thoroughly fed up of re-iterating herself, I do not know, perhaps she hates being questioned about something and feels she is all powerful as a Head, I do not know.

I try to be fair to others, but I am a mere Human Being, not some all powerful all knowing being.

I know how long things do take it took 22 years to get a crossing outside the school.


----------



## Puddles (15 Jun 2013)

Schmilliemoo said:


> I think you should adopt a super hero garb for knifing tyres and leave a cars under the windscreen wipers, like a vigilante milk tray lady


 
To be honest I am not sure anything will get parents out of the car school run, I think so many consider time a factor with going on to work & such, I am sure laziness is a factor with some, perhaps smaller children play a part

I really don't know to be honest about the why they go in cars, and I mean that as I do not know their reason for it


----------



## Schmilliemoo (15 Jun 2013)

I think sometimes it's habit. Leaving everything to the last minute and thinking you cannot live without a car. 
Having just bought a bike I'm hoping my link to the car will be weakened somewhat. I am already quite fit but am open to squeezing more exercise into a day however I can. 
I'm thinking the head is also flapping and is digging her heels in in preference to backing down. I also support the idea that if you don't like something don't just whine about it, try to change it, hence my interest in this post


----------



## Puddles (15 Jun 2013)

It is about 11 months since we went to 1 car, I do have access to the car when hubby is on nights/days off but now 11 months on I find I rarely use it unless it is somewhere I cannot bike to, I am encouraging not only my self to take longer journeys (up to a 5 mile round trip now for shopping) but my son too he still views some journeys as too far, I am hoping to change that with strawberry picking season, I was not fit when I took up cycling, I still am not, I do not view it as exercise per se, but I enjoy it, it is fun & also my transport.

I found myself having a conversation with a friend recently which would have be unheard of me to say a year ago, she had an epileptic fit due to stress (she has had about 3 in ten years) so has had to surrender her licence for 6 months to ensure her medication is working, her hubby is being posted for 6 months, she has same age small people as me & her hubby thought cycling would be the answer & I said yes get a bike & a trailer you will be able to do 90% of what you do now just as easily & in some cases a lot easier than if you were in a car.

My initial reaction for swapping a car for a bike was - bugger that for a laugh!


----------



## Schmilliemoo (15 Jun 2013)

I think you hit the nail on the head, the key is finding something you enjoy that isn't a chore. 
I'm a martial artist first, I train a minimum of four nights a week and have just qualified for a world champs. I need to get more cv work into my day and I firmly believe different types if activity lead to the best all around fitness. 
I've yet to get to work on the bike but I am determined to crack it next week. I admit I am a bit nervous but hope this will go and eventually I'll be taking the bike everywhere


----------



## PocketFrog (16 Jun 2013)

Puddles said:


> Egg, Nut & Kiwi fruit free school



Jeeeeeeez!


----------



## mcshroom (16 Jun 2013)

To be fair, Nutty kiwi eggs does sound rather disgusting


----------



## Puddles (16 Jun 2013)

mcshroom said:


> To be fair, Nutty kiwi eggs does sound rather disgusting


 

To be fair, It is mostly Eggy Kiwi Nuts that are the problem


----------



## Schmilliemoo (16 Jun 2013)

I'd be knackered at that school, that's my staple diet!


----------



## stu9000 (19 Jun 2013)

Puddles said:


> So no it is not a bit harsh...



Fair enough . best of luck with it


----------



## Puddles (12 Sep 2013)

Oh very dear, oh very very dear, 

I have just received this years letter for the bike rack

"the child will wear a helmet on this journey....."

At the bottom of the document I have to sign to say 

"I give my permission for my child to cycle to school and will be responsible for their safety on the journey to and from the school. I agree to abide by the condition of use of the bicycle scooter racks"

I have signed it but amended it slighty to add on this statement

", where those conditions are not considered not legal by the local authority as per attached letter"

and I have attached the letter the LA sent the head.

The Head is not currently there, she had a heart attack over the school hols and is recovering from an operation, so perhaps the deputy is more sensible.


----------



## Puddles (21 Oct 2013)

Just realised I have no given those that wish to know the outcome, the schools cycle permit rules have now been amended to recommend helmet wearing not insist upon helmet wearing, by the Deputy Head who looked at the information in the Head Teachers extended abscence from the school this term, agreed they were overstepping the mark, had no right to dictate such a thing and apologised for the way it had been handled last term.

I also expressed my willingness to the Deputy Head to assist if they needed it with their less Toot Toot, more Tweet Tweet campaign.


----------



## Sara_H (21 Oct 2013)

Puddles said:


> Just realised I have no given those that wish to know the outcome, the schools cycle permit rules have now been amended to recommend helmet wearing not insist upon helmet wearing, by the Deputy Head who looked at the information in the Head Teachers extended abscence from the school this term, agreed they were overstepping the mark, had no right to dictate such a thing and apologised for the way it had been handled last term.
> 
> I also expressed my willingness to the Deputy Head to assist if they needed it with their less Toot Toot, more Tweet Tweet campaign.


Good outcome Puddles.

I waged a similar campaign against my son's school cos the termly newsletter always used to say that children were only allowed to cycle to school if they'd done bikeability (so only Y6 children) and if they wore helmets.

I wrote to the head teacher and governors pointing out the error of their ways. I received two very rude and ill informed replied whilst I was in hospital having my near death experience, so wasn't able respond as robustly as I might have done otherwise, but I did email them both back about a week after being discharged (I remember being almost too weak to type, but I blummin did!).

I never got an acknowledgment that they were wrong, or an apology for their very rude letters, but any mention of cycling, bikeability or helmets has been removed from the termly newsletter. 

The Head retired last term and we now have a new Head, woe betide hime if he starts now I'm feeling stronger!

Whats the Toot Toot, Tweet Tweet campaign?


----------



## Puddles (21 Oct 2013)

Sara_H said:


> Good outcome Puddles.
> 
> I waged a similar campaign against my son's school cos the termly newsletter always used to say that children were only allowed to cycle to school if they'd done bikeability (so only Y6 children) and if they wore helmets.
> 
> ...




I think it might be a Hampshire thing it is basically saying less taking the car to school more going under your own steam







Bit like Walk to School Week or Bike to School Week


----------



## Boris Bajic (21 Oct 2013)

I volunteered at a school where helmet use by cyclists was mandatory... even for adult volunteers.

It was (I thought) short-sighted and Draconian, but I complied with nothing more than a few raised eyebrows. 

I see quite clearly the cause of disquiet in the OP and I think I would feel similarly. At my children's Primary School there were restrictions but I bypassed or ignored them and was never challenged. I rather imagine the governors imposed them and the Head and staff thought them silly. I'll never know.

The joke with the place where I volunteered is that the headteacher was groundshakingly large and clearly a stranger to sport and salad. There were only ever two other bicycles alongside mine in the racks, usually one or none.

I haven't read this whole thread, but I'd be inclined to get into the PTA or (better yet) become a parent governor. You could also volunteer to do bike maintenance classes and elementary riding classes at the school. I never did, so I'm not expecting you to leap at that... it's just a thought. Certainly it is easier to influence school policy and behaviour as a governor than a simple parent.


----------



## Puddles (21 Oct 2013)

Boris Bajic said:


> I haven't read this whole thread, but I'd be inclined to get into the PTA or (better yet) become a parent governor. You could also volunteer to do bike maintenance classes and elementary riding classes at the school. I never did, so I'm not expecting you to leap at that... it's just a thought. Certainly it is easier to influence school policy and behaviour as a governor than a simple parent.



We are fingers crossed about to have a really avid cyclist as a governor he is very enthusiastic so that is good!

PTA no thank you no no no bunch of vapid cliquey crispy mothers, who I swear spend 4 hours to get ready just to turn up to the school gate in full make up and heels (in their snorting 4x4)

Bike Maintenance class I could organise yes, but do, no... I have a nice bike man what does mine I am to my shame quite useless I can change a puncture, but I am having lessons on maintenance in 1/2 term with the nice bike man who is also doing the same with my son then I won't have to wander down the road to Dad to say "daaad" and point in a pointed manner at said bike look suitably useless and then he sorts it and no Dad will not teach me cos he is a chauvenistic wotsit and I have boobs. My bike is all hub thingies.

I am quite happy to sort stuff if they want it but would be no good at showing basically


----------



## Boris Bajic (21 Oct 2013)

Puddles said:


> We are fingers crossed about to have a really avid cyclist as a governor he is very enthusiastic so that is good!
> 
> PTA no thank you no no no bunch of vapid cliquey crispy mothers, who I swear spend 4 hours to get ready just to turn up to the school gate in full make up and heels (in their snorting 4x4)
> 
> ...


 
Excellent news about the new governor. This will happen more and more and cycling becomes more accepted among the middle classes - who essentially provide school governors in all but very few cases.

Your description of PTAs is (sadly) very and depressingly accurate. I was a male PTA member and chair for some years and it can be simply depressing how it is often just a perceived indicator of social rank, when in theory it is nothing of the sort.

I was taught rudimentary bike maintenance by my mother (a wartime land girl who had very good mechanical skills). That was many years ago and I was very little. She was long gone before I had anything with gears.

Keep pushing junior's school, but keep doing so with grace and diplomacy. You will have supporters within and the door will eventually creak and open a little.

I imagine the current rules are based on a slightly paranoid misunderstanding of H&E legislation.


----------



## Puddles (21 Oct 2013)

Boris Bajic said:


> I imagine the current rules are based on a slightly paranoid misunderstanding of H&E legislation.



Rules are all changed as of 2 weeks ago  deputy head has removed the must and change it to we recommend


----------

