# How to reply to school newsletter



## steve292 (7 Oct 2017)

*Road Safety - Cyclists*
*A concerned parent has advised that four students were cycling along Church Road, near the Golf Club, one morning without high vis jackets or arm bands; the lane is very tight and with the now dark mornings it was difficult to see them. Please could cyclists ensure they are suitably attired when cycling to and from school for their own and others' safety. Thank you.*


This was in this weeks Churchill academy newsletter.
i was minded to write a bit of a rebuke of this POS advice, pointing out that perhaps people could use their eyes to watch out for others in the road, instead of facebook, eating porridge, the application of makeup, shaving...all of which I have seen on this stretch of road.

Then I thought....that won't achieve anything with regards to getting the school to put across a point of view that encourages alternatives to the car, and leaves out the implied blaming of others for being hit by a vehicle.
How would you go about it? a bit of levity is alright, but can you suggest how to get the message across in a way that might achieve a result?

I'm thinking @theclaud @mjr @User et al


----------



## slowmotion (7 Oct 2017)

You could ask them what colour of car the "concerned parent" was driving. Dark coloured ones are quite hard for cyclists to see.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (7 Oct 2017)

*Road Safety - Parents/Drivers
A concerned parent has advised that a number of parents who drive their children to school seem to be unable to give due consideration to other road users and driving conditions and are having difficulty appreciating that students will be cycling to school; there is no requirement for them to wear high vis jackets or arm bands; please could drivers ensure they are suitably paying attention to the rights of other road users when driving. Thank you.
Edit - I was going to suggest adding "you utter bellends" but possibly not for the eyes of children...*


----------



## mjr (7 Oct 2017)

Yeah. Inform them that there's no good evidence that hi vis reduces road casualty rates and ask when they're going to do something more likely to help, such as act to stop parent motorists overtaking without leaving 1.5m clearance, as in operation Close Pass. Make a formal complaint about the bad attitude discouraging cycling instead of tackling bad drivers if you must.

I'd be very tempted to ask if they deal with bullying by issuing body armour to the victims, or with knife crime by telling people to buy stab vests, but I doubt much good would come from that.


----------



## Drago (7 Oct 2017)

The person reporting clearly saw the four students, which makes her report somewhat baffling.


----------



## mjr (7 Oct 2017)

http://Twitter.com/hiVisFails BTW


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (7 Oct 2017)

At risk of boring people with this story as I have mentioned it many times before...

I was once ranted at by some bloke in a car as a I made my way up a hill in fog (it was summer), he decided he needed to roll his window down and shout "nobody can see you mate! Get a light on!!"" (I was in Englandshire, so "mate" seemed fitting). He slowed down, and drew level with me. "Sorry?" I said. "Nobody can see you!!" "Who are you speaking to then.." He called me a c*nt. I chuckled.


----------



## snorri (8 Oct 2017)

Quite a number of drivers seem to imagine their eyesight is infinitely better than everyone else on the road, it's a funny thing.


----------



## steve292 (8 Oct 2017)

*This is my opening gambit-

To the Headmaster,


In response to the article in the newsletter of the 6 October headed “Road Safety- Cyclists”, I would like to point out that this is wrong on many levels, and is effectively shifting the burden of blame for any potential accident from someone who is piloting a device that weighs in many cases in excess of a tonne and is capable of fast acceleration and high speeds, and has sat a test to prove their competence to drive it, to a child on a bike.


It concerns me that a number of parents who drive their children to school seem to be unable to give due consideration to other road users and driving conditions and are having difficulty appreciating that students will be cycling or walking to school. The person who reported the four cyclists evidently saw them in the road and they had every right to be there so I would suggest that the real issue here is that he/ she was held up or nearly hit someone through driving inappropriately for the road and / or conditions.


There is no requirement in law for a cyclist to wear high vis jackets or arm bands; indeed if drivers are not suitably paying attention to other road users when driving it won’t help at all. If I may make an analogy here would you issue body armour to a bullying victim or tackle the cause of the bullying?


By all means promote the use of lights on cycles that are ridden in low light conditions, and a common sense approach to road safety and adherence to the law among your pupils who cycle, but please also put forward the many health related benefits that can also come from cycling, along with a strong message that parents who drive their children to school, or pick them up (and I am one who occasionally does just that) have a responsibility to -

· Obey the law

· Drive in way that respects the rights of other road users.





Regards,

*





We shall see.
.



,


----------



## classic33 (8 Oct 2017)

Hi-Vis in a low sun condition can cause you to be "lost" in the vision of anyone viewing you. You're there, you're gone.

Colours that contrast with your surroundings are better.


----------



## Welsh wheels (8 Oct 2017)

Drago said:


> The person reporting clearly saw the four students, which makes her report somewhat baffling.


I must complain about the four cyclists I saw who I couldn't see.


----------



## raleighnut (8 Oct 2017)

Nothing new, I missed it but both my younger sisters had to wear reflective armbands when walking to/from school. This was early/mid 70's.


----------



## raleighnut (8 Oct 2017)

User said:


> That was to do with the experiment about keeping summer time in the winter.


I don't remember that but I was too busy hooning around on my bike (or better still my cousins Carlton which I had access to from 74) and trying to get girls to like me to notice what was going on in the world.

I thought it had something to do with the powercuts.


----------



## mjr (8 Oct 2017)

raleighnut said:


> Nothing new, I missed it but both my younger sisters had to wear reflective armbands when walking to/from school. This was early/mid 70's.


Did you go to school in Scarfolk?


----------



## growingvegetables (8 Oct 2017)

steve292 said:


> *Road Safety - Cyclists ...*


Anecdata - sorry! But if the adults who contribute to CC have their stories/perceptions about close and aggressive passes, I reckon school kids would have MANY, MANY more. Just personal observation from around a couple of schools where I've worked.

Guessing you're a parent. Question - do your children cycle to the school?


----------



## classic33 (8 Oct 2017)

raleighnut said:


> Nothing new, I missed it but both my younger sisters had to wear reflective armbands when walking to/from school. This was early/mid 70's.


Not much use when you can't see 10 foot in front of you, due to fog.

One lad used to try getting of the bus just before the junction. Conductors used to shut one side and block the other. The last time he tried it was foggy, he mis-timed it and failed to let go, quick enough.

The lampost he hit stopped any further forward movement. And broke his hold on the rail.


----------



## Big Andy (8 Oct 2017)

To be fair the letter doesnt say that they didn't see the cyclists but that * it was difficult to see them. 
*
So if a parent could do something that makes them even easier to see how is that not sensible?


----------



## mjr (8 Oct 2017)

Big Andy said:


> To be fair the letter doesnt say that they didn't see the cyclists but that * it was difficult to see them.
> *
> So if a parent could do something that makes them even easier to see how is that not sensible?


It doesn't work and even if it did, it could only be by beggaring their neighbours. Drivers must drive within what they can see to be clear, else someone not in hi vis is going to get run over, whether a schoolchild or Mrs Muggins... and even if it worked and you convinced all pedestrians ever to wear Yellow Stars, you ain't gonna tag all wildlife and killing that would still be pretty awful. So no, let's insist on stopping motorists injuring, rather than intimidating their victims.


----------



## Big Andy (8 Oct 2017)

mjr said:


> It doesn't work and even if it did, it could only be by beggaring their neighbours. Drivers must drive within what they can see to be clear, else someone not in hi vis is going to get run over, whether a schoolchild or Mrs Muggins... and even if it worked and you convinced all pedestrians ever to wear Yellow Stars, you ain't gonna tag all wildlife and killing that would still be pretty awful. So no, let's insist on stopping motorists injuring, rather than intimidating their victims.


Nothing at all against doing all that can be done to stop motorists or anyone else for that matter injuring anyone else in fact I encourage it. However i dont see how that precludes parents making their kids as conspicuous as possible. Suggesting parents shouldnt do this because drivers should be better i
doesnt seem, at least to me, either realistic or sensible.
Sometimes pragmatism needs to trump principle.


----------



## mjr (8 Oct 2017)

It ain't pragmatism if it doesn't work. It's foolish superstition.

And in this case, it is taking space in letters and attention away from the motorist problem.


----------



## smutchin (8 Oct 2017)

steve292 said:


> *Road Safety - Cyclists*
> *A concerned parent has advised that four students were cycling along Church Road, near the Golf Club, one morning without high vis jackets or arm bands; the lane is very tight and with the now dark mornings it was difficult to see them. Please could cyclists ensure they are suitably attired when cycling to and from school for their own and others' safety. Thank you.*



Arm bands? Just how heavily was it raining?


----------



## Big Andy (8 Oct 2017)

mjr said:


> It ain't pragmatism if it doesn't work. It's foolish superstition.
> 
> And in this case, it is taking space in letters and attention away from the motorist problem.


You say it doesnt worķ? So would you say its not ppssible to make someone easier to see?


----------



## Drago (8 Oct 2017)

It is possible to make people and objects more visibly conspicuous.

However, there is little evidence that translates to safety. The governments own research via the TRL could find no improvement in accident rates among the wearers of hi vis. People crash into things because they weren't looking, not because they couldn't see them.


----------



## fatblokish (8 Oct 2017)

Recommend that the school contact Modeshift http://www.modeshift.org.uk/about-modeshift , may be some good will come of it.


----------



## steve292 (8 Oct 2017)

growingvegetables said:


> Anecdata - sorry! But if the adults who contribute to CC have their stories/perceptions about close and aggressive passes, I reckon school kids would have MANY, MANY more. Just personal observation from around a couple of schools where I've worked.
> 
> Guessing you're a parent. Question - do your children cycle to the school?



No. I have two, the oldest goes on the bus to the school in question, and the youngest is still in the primary in the village. It's about 4 miles to the school, so we can't be in two places at once.
Just to be clear, I'm not trying to say that people shouldn't take their kids to school in cars, I am trying to point out to the school that they are looking at road safety from the wrong way in this case.


----------



## growingvegetables (8 Oct 2017)

Back to this post.

Sorry folks. Harsh but true. As things stand, the school (as in whoever produces the newsletter!) ain't going to be persuaded.

Until there's a packet of reports, with registration numbers, from kids, reported to school staff ... on which the school have taken no action.

And that's their weak point ... that's when they're vulnerable to charges of double standards, where the school has failed to act to protect their pupils.

Bleak outlook?


----------



## growingvegetables (8 Oct 2017)

steve292 said:


> No. I have two, the oldest goes on the bus to the school in question, and the youngest is still in the primary in the village. It's about 4 miles to the school, so we can't be in two places at once.
> Just to be clear, I'm not trying to say that people shouldn't take their kids to school in cars, I am trying to point out to the school that they are looking at road safety from the wrong way in this case.


Oops - cross-posted. 

[edited to add] ... but (disappointed) point stands? Until the school have cast-iron and enumerated examples of them failing in their duty of care, the numpty who produces the newsletter is impregnable?


----------



## classic33 (9 Oct 2017)

Thought I was responsible for my safety, walking to and from school(not the school), when I did the three miles each way. Included crossing a busy "A" road each way as well.


----------



## steve292 (11 Oct 2017)

And this is the reply_

*Dear Mr

Many thanks for your message regarding our newsletter article about cycling. Our primary concern was the safety and wellbeing of our students. We are delighted that many of our students cycle to school and we are keen to promote the health benefits. Having been contacted by a concerned member of the public we felt that the concerns raised were grounds to remind our students of the Highway Code Rule 59, which states that cyclists should wear:


· a cycle helmet which conforms to current regulations, is the correct size and securely fastened

· appropriate clothes for cycling. Avoid clothes which may get tangled in the chain, or in a wheel or may obscure your lights

· light-coloured or fluorescent clothing which helps other road users to see you in daylight and poor light

· reflective clothing and/or accessories (belt, arm or ankle bands) in the dark.


Since the Highway Code places responsibility on the cyclist to wear clothing which helps other road users to see them in daylight and poor light, we felt it only right to reinforce that responsibility to our students. We did not intend in any way to undermine or reduce the responsibility of motorists to drive with due care and attention, especially on the country lanes which surround the Academy. Thank you for raising the issue; we will continue to look out for the health and safety of our students in whatever way we can.


Kind regards,*


I give up


----------



## Drago (11 Oct 2017)

A beautiful example of someone digging their hole even deeper.


----------



## steve292 (11 Oct 2017)

Drago said:


> A beautiful example of someone digging their hole even deeper.



In which way?

I'm thinking about a reply ATM.


----------



## classic33 (11 Oct 2017)

steve292 said:


> In which way?
> 
> I'm thinking about a reply ATM.


Putting the onus for being seen on those that cycle. None of the pieces mentioned are actually a legal requirement.

Hi-Vis in broad daylight blends into the background too easily, which can actually make it harder see. Contrasting colours work better.


----------



## raleighnut (11 Oct 2017)

classic33 said:


> Putting the onus for being seen on those that cycle. None of the pieces mentioned are actually a legal requirement.
> 
> Hi-Vis in broad daylight blends into the background too easily, which can actually make it harder see. Contrasting colours work better.


My Northwave 'Skeleton' jersey is pretty visible,


----------



## classic33 (11 Oct 2017)

raleighnut said:


> My Northwave 'Skeleton' jersey is pretty visible,
> 
> 
> View attachment 378206


Contrasting colours though.

Do they see through you?


----------



## raleighnut (11 Oct 2017)

classic33 said:


> Contrasting colours though.
> 
> Do they see through you?


I did tend to get less 'close passes'.


----------



## classic33 (11 Oct 2017)

raleighnut said:


> I did tend to get less 'close passes'.


Matching balaclava required for a better effect.


----------



## Drago (11 Oct 2017)

steve292 said:


> In which way?
> 
> I'm thinking about a reply ATM.



I think I'd give it up mate. You'll never win, and you'll lose your sanity trying.

I think I'd suggest to them that they only send out road safety advice from someone actually qualified to give it. After all, they wouldn't let me teach a French class because I'm not qualified, so why do they suddenly feel compelled to give advice themselves in matters in which they have no expertise?

Beyond that, I'd leave it. Idiots drag you down to their levelmof you let them.


----------



## Mugshot (11 Oct 2017)

Big Andy said:


> Nothing at all against doing all that can be done to stop motorists or anyone else for that matter injuring anyone else in fact I encourage it. However i dont see how that precludes parents making their kids as conspicuous as possible. Suggesting parents shouldnt do this because drivers should be better i
> doesnt seem, at least to me, either realistic or sensible.
> Sometimes pragmatism needs to trump principle.


What if the child feels like a bit of a dick wearing a bright yellow jacket and shoves it in their pocket as soon as they're round the corner or refuses to ride their bike or walk if they're made to wear it? The wearing of a hi-viz jacket should not be the reason why Jimmy gets knocked over but Alison doesn't, neither of them should be, no matter what they're wearing.


----------



## snorri (11 Oct 2017)

steve292 said:


> *Road Safety - Cyclists **A concerned parent has advised that four students were cycling *


Perhaps the headie should be asked why he has given such high priority to an issue raised by just ONE parent, and why he has decided to come down on _all_ cyclists just because four cyclists may have offended his feelings.


----------



## Vantage (11 Oct 2017)

Use hard evidence.
My daughter's school sent out a newsletter just as summer was starting up. The school were very much in favour of children riding their bikes to school especially as they'd just finished installing their new bike stands (they're crap) but advised parents to ensure their kids wore helmets while doing so for their own safety. 
Uh oh. 
I emailed the head mistress with my own views on their enforced use and safety and gave links to various studies regarding their safety etc.
To date, no one has replied and there have been no further advice columns regarding cycling since.
Maybe they just can't be arsed arguing with me but I like to think that I made them think.


----------



## steve292 (11 Oct 2017)

My plan.

The next time I have occasion to go out there, I shall be watching for the crap driving, and will email the school as a concerned parent, asking the school to point out the error of their ways. 

I could batter my head against the wall for ever. I've made my point, and don't see any good coming from starting an email pissing match.


----------



## machew (14 Oct 2017)

I would reply by asking the Head to speak to an English teacher and ask them "What is the difference between *should *and *must*" .


----------



## Drago (14 Oct 2017)

At risk of igniting a helmet debate (not my intention, up just illustrating a point) you could eductate the head teacher that cycling accounts for 6.5% of all serious head injuries admitted to hospital. This is terrible, and we should all clearly forsake our bicycles and walk.

Except that pedestrians account for 43%.

The head should leave the giving of advice to someone qualified to do so, and it should be inclusive of all modes of transport, and not just inexplicably one that isn't the most dangerous.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (14 Oct 2017)

You could reply that the Head should ask parents not to drive to the school putting themselves and others children at risk.


----------



## Bonefish Blues (14 Oct 2017)

A similar reminder to parents driving to school would shirley be in order and wholly justified by statistics. I'm sure the Head would be only too eager to do this...


----------



## NorthernDave (14 Oct 2017)

steve292 said:


> And this is the reply_
> 
> *Dear Mr
> 
> ...



I'm surprised that they didn't insist on all bikes being fitted with a bell as well. 

To be honest, you've done your bit and raised the point and as @Drago has said you'll risk driving yourself potty by trying to change the attitude of the school. In my experience the majority of those involved in formal education (Wiki: the acquisition of knowledge, skills, values, beliefs, and habits) are seldom wrong about anything.

(Not very) Interesting fact: When I was at school we were expressly forbidden from cycling to school*.
The official reason was that it was near a busy road.
The unofficial reason was that the school were sick of the fall out from the number of bikes that got nicked.

* - a rule that was relaxed immediately when the bus drivers went on strike


----------



## winjim (14 Oct 2017)

machew said:


> I would reply by asking the Head to speak to an English teacher and ask them "What is the difference between *should *and *must*" .


By all means do that, but then never ever complain when a driver breaks rule 163 or similar. Live by the sword etc

I think if the HC advises something, the school is correct to follow that advice. Take it up with the HC.


----------



## bozmandb9 (14 Oct 2017)

steve292 said:


> *This is my opening gambit-
> 
> To the Headmaster,
> 
> ...



Not sure if it's too late, but I'd avoid pointing out that it's not a legal requirement to wear high vis, that's not really relevant. The relevant point is whether it would be beneficial to the safety of 'vulnerable' cyclists (not saying that's right, just saying that's how they'll see it), so give them the facts: http://www.cyclist.co.uk/in-depth/1016/does-fluoro-kit-make-you-safer


----------



## winjim (14 Oct 2017)

winjim said:


> By all means do that, but then never ever complain when a driver breaks rule 163 or similar. Live by the sword etc
> 
> I think if the HC advises something, the school is correct to follow that advice. Take it up with the HC.


A further thought: What does bikeability have to say on the matter and does their advice conflict with that given in the HC? Does the school offer bikeability? Could you perhaps suggest it?


----------



## winjim (14 Oct 2017)

[QUOTE 4998798, member: 45"]*What should my child wear to take part in Bikeability?*
Your child may wear their normal clothes, suitable for the season and weather. In colder months, warm layers and gloves are recommended.

The Bikeability scheme delivering the training may stipulate that helmets are required for training, and may provide children with high visibility tabards to wear.

For more information about safety equipment and what to wear, see the Highway Code’s ‘Rules for Cyclists’.

https://bikeability.org.uk/faqs/[/QUOTE]
Well there you go. HC recommends hi-vis, Bikeability refers to the HC, it would appear perfectly reasonable for the school to also recommend it.


----------



## jarlrmai (16 Oct 2017)

Yeah you can't win your way, if you want to push this you need to provide evidence of parents' or teachers driving that is against the highway code, the standard has been set by them, and that is that is any broken rule that is against a 'should' in the highway code is worthy of a letter to all parents. You cannot expect your word to be taken as gospel unlike the previous concerned individual so you need to take photos on your smart phone.


----------

