Perhaps the most stupid safety idea Ever ?

kingrollo

https://metro.co.uk/2018/09/25/school-f ... s-7976245/

slowbike

It's a school overstepping the mark - yet again ... "power" goes to their heads.

The "commute" to and from school is the responsibility of the parent - not the school. Its up to the parent HOW the child travels. The only control the school has is whether or not to allow the child to store the bike on the school premises.

Schools need to stop being overbearing and prescriptive (at least whilst outside the classroom/teaching environment) - kids will just kick up against it - and not being closely supervised they'll kick more successfully - parents lose respect of the school & staff - assuming they had some in the first place.

We're about to go and look at a couple of schools for Little Slowbike - being able to ride to school - AND store the bike is one of the questions we'll be asking. I recall when I was at primary school, we weren't allowed to use the bike racks until we'd passed our cycling proficiency test .

hdow

Clearly nothing whatsoever to do with safety but more about controlling behaviour. Will the school also require children who walk there to also wear a registration plate so that any bad behaviour can be reported and those that don't will have their shoes confiscated? Outside school it is the parents responsibility not the schools. How about just educating the kids for a change.

Tashman

I'd just be locking my bike outside the school in that instance. What a load of nonsense

cooldad

Judging from the comments, Metro readers think it's a great idea, along with a licence and insurance. No one has mentioned 'road tax' yet though.

I'll assume Metro readers are idiots.

Our local school has a helmet rule - most kids carry it on their arm, which can only make riding more dangerous. I assume they plonk it on their head when they get to the gate.

jgsi

cooldad wrote:

Judging from the comments, Metro readers think it's a great idea, along with a licence and insurance. No one has mentioned 'road tax' yet though.

I'll assume Metro readers are idiots.

Our local school has a helmet rule - most kids carry it on their arm, which can only make riding more dangerous. I assume they plonk it on their head when they get to the gate.

The online Metro is like the online Mail, full of Nazis - both in its editorial and readership.

cooldad

I hate Illinois nazis.

veronese68

cooldad wrote:

I'll assume Metro readers are idiots.

That's a fairly safe assumption, most people are anyway.
I will occasionally look at the Metro, but as with any free rag I skim read it, any content is usually forgotten almost immediately.

Bottom briquettes

The Metro is something to read, on the loser cruiser, in order to avoid eye contact with any other commuters.

thegreatdivide

Before you all get yourselves into a frothy pitchfork mess, there is a serious problem/trend in the UK that’s been building for the last few years with ‘the kids’ on their 29ers (Carrera is the brand of choice) popping their best Sagan en masse up the middle of the road or along the pavement, to and from school, when they’re not at school and sometimes at night with no lights. I’ve been witness to several accidents caused by said behaviour and I see regular blatant intimidation. They’re little w@nkers. This isn’t a ‘they all jump red lights, they don’t pay road tax, they don’t have insurance’ road/commuter situation (although the knuckle draggers are predictably on it like a flash) this school is obviously trying to address the current kidz trend and cover their ar$es. Yes it’ll backfire, but I totally see where they’re coming from.

pblakeney

It’ll tick boxes and achieve absolutely nothing.

slowbike

thegreatdivide wrote:

[background information]

All very well and good ... but

yet again - penalise those that behave whilst those that don't aren't going to pay much attention anyway.

School: "You must have a number plate attached to your bicycle"
Student: "ok, but I'll just remove it and stash it in my backpack or somewhere else I can grab it easily so I don't show it on my bike"

or
Student: "ok, but I'll cover it up"

Yet again - ill thought out rule that doesn't take the brains of Britain to circumvent. There have always been Kids that test the law of acceptability. Actually - if they're pulling wheelies and doing stunts on their bikes - at least that's activity - better than sat in front of the game station or sat in the park doing whatever drugs are the latest thing ...

kingrollo

As someone who submits regular footage to police - there is warning on there forms that unless you have some evidence (vids \ witnesses ) then no further action will be taken.

Headteacher "So no 46 - Johny Briggs - you were observed doing wheelies by mrs Buggins of High St"

Johny : "Not me sir, must have been somebody else"

Headteacher "Well er don't do it again"

supermurph09

Slowbike wrote:

thegreatdivide wrote:

[background information]

All very well and good ... but

yet again - penalise those that behave whilst those that don't aren't going to pay much attention anyway.

School: "You must have a number plate attached to your bicycle"
Student: "ok, but I'll just remove it and stash it in my backpack or somewhere else I can grab it easily so I don't show it on my bike"

or
Student: "ok, but I'll cover it up"

Yet again - ill thought out rule that doesn't take the brains of Britain to circumvent. There have always been Kids that test the law of acceptability. Actually - if they're pulling wheelies and doing stunts on their bikes - at least that's activity - better than sat in front of the game station or sat in the park doing whatever drugs are the latest thing ...

"Teach your kids to love bicycles and they won't have enough money for drugs"

The worrying thing for this initiative is that it gets in the press and gives people (term used loosely) ideas for what others should have to adopt too.

CitizenLee

Slowbike wrote:

Actually - if they're pulling wheelies and doing stunts on their bikes - at least that's activity - better than sat in front of the game station or sat in the park doing whatever drugs are the latest thing ...

Pah, we did all 3 in my day

slowbike

kingrollo wrote:

As someone who submits regular footage to police - there is warning on there forms that unless you have some evidence (vids \ witnesses ) then no further action will be taken.

Headteacher "So no 46 - Johny Briggs - you were observed doing wheelies by mrs Buggins of High St"

Johny : "Not me sir, must have been somebody else"

Headteacher "Well er don't do it again"

Erm - none of the head teachers business ...

At secondary school I was told by the head who I could - or rather, who I couldn't ride home with .... we just departed at slightly different times and met up around the corner ...

If kids are miss behaving outside school - which they have a tendancy of doing - then that is down to the parents & police.

After all, what next - the student gets detention having been caught doing something against the school rules at the weekend? No - sorry - they're overstepping their responsibility.

I can understand encouraging responsible behavior - in and out of school - but penalising - nope - sorry - the school can use the information to change their approach and/or inform parents/police as they see fit - but NOT impose arbitrary school rules ...
Of course, they'll use the excuse that the students are wearing school uniform and therefore are bringing the school into disrepute - whilst this may be the case, there's no law on the wearing of school uniform outside school times - and actually, it's a reflection on their ability to teach morals to the students.

poweredbyidris

Was sat next to a 'cyclists should wear an ID tabard' bore at a wedding at the weekend. I responded with the point that drunks cause much more public nuisance / law breaking / hospitalisations / police call outs than cyclists, and largely with impunity - therefore everyone who enters licensed premises should also wear ID clothing.

CitizenLee

PoweredByIdris wrote:

Was sat next to a 'cyclists should wear an ID tabard' bore at a wedding at the weekend..

I like to wind up folk like that, so I would have sarcastically replied with something along the lines of "what, like that a little yellow star?" and see how long it too them to work out I was comparing them to Hitler. Godwin's Law IRL, if you will.

drlodge

cooldad wrote:

Judging from the comments, Metro readers think it's a great idea, along with a licence and insurance. No one has mentioned 'road tax' yet though.

Some cretin on the BBC websh1te has.

There's a primary school on my road and I walk past it every morning to get the train just as all the parents are getting little Johnny to school. The two things that really get my goat are:
a) cars parking on the pavement, blocking the way, very near the zebra crossing
b) mummy with little johnny illegally cycling on the pavement cos 'the road is too dangerous'.

kingrollo

Its voluntary apparently now.....

lettingthedaysgoby

kingrollo wrote:

Its voluntary apparently now.....

I imagine they'll barely be able to keep up with demand

slowbike

drlodge wrote:

cooldad wrote:

Judging from the comments, Metro readers think it's a great idea, along with a licence and insurance. No one has mentioned 'road tax' yet though.

Some cretin on the BBC websh1te has.

There's a primary school on my road and I walk past it every morning to get the train just as all the parents are getting little Johnny to school. The two things that really get my goat are:
a) cars parking on the pavement, blocking the way, very near the zebra crossing
b) mummy with little johnny illegally cycling on the pavement cos 'the road is too dangerous'.

a) - totally - must get as close as possible - if they could park next to the child's desk I'm sure they would....
b) - depends tbh - a lot of roads around ARE too dangerous to cycle with a small child - unless you've got several adults acting as outriders for them - provided parent and child ride safely and courteously on the pavement I have little issue with it.

thegreatdivide

kingrollo wrote:

Its voluntary apparently now.....

It probably was all along, but that's not going to get any clicks from the frothers.

seajays

I think that this old webpage from Toronto summarises lots of the issues with trying to licence cycling:

Each time the City has rejected licensing as a solution to the problem under discussion. The major reasons why licensing has been rejected are:

• The difficulty in keeping a database complete and current
• The difficulty in licensing children, given that they ride bikes too
• Licensing in and of itself does not change the behaviour of cyclists who are disobeying traffic laws.

Cost
The cost of obtaining a license to drive a motor vehicle is considerable. Much of that cost covers the administrative costs of maintaining an accurate database, and processing licenses. The costs of developing a system for cyclists would be similar. When asked to consider such a move in the past, the Ministry of Transportation has rejected it. If cyclists were asked to cover the cost of licensing, in many cases, the license would be more expensive than the bicycle itself.

Age
Many children cycle, in fact most cyclists are young people. It would be difficult to create one standardized test that could be used by adults as well as children as young as five years old. There is an argument to be made that licensing would allow an opportunity for education, but again the bureaucracy of such a mandatory system has been seen as too cumbersome to develop.

Jurisdiction
Those who have looked into licensing cycling have determined that the only natural jurisdiction to license is the province, which has rejected licensing. Historically, municipalities have licensed bicycles in Ontario. Today, many cyclists cross municipal boundaries.

Enforcement
The discussions about cyclists and the law have raised the question about how we want our police to spend their time and limited resources. Do we want them checking up on and enforcing licenses, or do we want them enforcing traffic laws? Most people would argue that enforcing traffic laws is more worthwhile. Police who have been involved in the studies of licensing have determined that the HTA already gives them the necessary tools, such as Section 218, to do the enforcement job.

Effectiveness
In each of the above cases, major problems and difficulties arise in establishing a licensing system. The studies asked what is the goal that licensing cyclists is attempting to achieve? If the goal is to increase cyclists' compliance with traffic laws, and to reduce the number of conflicts with pedestrians and other road users, then licensing as an approach needs to be compared with other possible initiatives. Is the creation of the major bureaucracy that licensing would require worth it? The studies have concluded that licensing is not worth it. Other solutions: blitz enforcement of rules on riding on sidewalks, public awareness campaigns, skills training through CAN-BIKE, and the provision of bicycle-friendly facilities, such as bike lanes, while not perfect, are more effective in meeting the goals of cyclist compliance with traffic laws than the investment in licensing.

Public policy considerations
Concerns over cyclist compliance with traffic laws are real, and require ongoing attention. If, however, major investments are to be made by governments or by cyclists themselves, then the overall public policy goals behind that investment need to be addressed. For example, there is a strong public policy case to be made for licensing motor vehicle drivers. Hundreds of lives are lost each year because of motor vehicle crashes and collisions, and many thousands more are injured. Cyclists are involved in a smaller number of incidents, which must be addressed. However, given the benefits of cycling to health, the environment, and the community, on-going efforts to increase cycling compliance with traffic laws must be a part of an overall strategy to promote safe cycling.

slowbike

Seajays wrote:

I think that this old webpage from Toronto summarises lots of the issues with trying to licence cycling:
Cost
Age
Jurisdiction
Enforcement
Effectiveness
PublicPolicy

Cost - it's just a field in the already existing student DB - there will be a small setup fee - but not a lot. The cost will mostly be for the licence plates & replacing lost/stolen ones.
Age - it's not about testing - it's just have you got a licence to ride to school - if no, you're not allowed to.
Jurisdiction - School will argue it's their responsibility and they have a vested interest in ensuring pupils behaviour - I suggest it's not their jurisdiction - the most they can do is prevent those without plates from securing their bikes on school premesis
Enforcement - it's so members of the public can identify and report them - so the school aren't going to put any more resource into this.
Effectiveness - car number plates are stolen and or cloned - you will get students that will do exactly this to get around the restrictions - if nothing more than to get one up on the administration. "innocent" kids will have their plates stolen and suffer the consequences.
Public Policy - nothing anywhere in the UK requires a cyclist to carry any forms of ID - let alone display a number plate. This is discrimination against those that chose this form of travel.

Going back to the effectiveness - is it encouraging students into a life of crime? Ok - it's not really serious - taking or copying another bikes registration - but how easy was that, did they get away with it? was it a good laugh? If we can get away with that, how about doing the same on cars ... all of a sudden, a few wheelies on the pavement seems like childs play ...which is exactly what it is....

I have no doubt that some students are riding dangerously and are a menace to other pavement & road users- they tend to be predictable (ie school kicks out the same time every day) - get the police or a PCSO to target them - it'll take time and perseverance. The blind thought that making them have a licence plate would get me removing my child from the school as not being fit to teach children. Just the thought is childish in it's concept - do these people have no real world experience at all?

verylonglegs

I thought teachers were over-worked and had too much to deal with already. At least next time I hear anyone related to the profession say that I now know they are talking crap, they clearly don't have enough to do.

StillGoing

drlodge wrote:

cooldad wrote:

Judging from the comments, Metro readers think it's a great idea, along with a licence and insurance. No one has mentioned 'road tax' yet though.

Some cretin on the BBC websh1te has.

There's a primary school on my road and I walk past it every morning to get the train just as all the parents are getting little Johnny to school. The two things that really get my goat are:
a) cars parking on the pavement, blocking the way, very near the zebra crossing
b) mummy with little johnny illegally cycling on the pavement cos 'the road is too dangerous'.

Give over. The roads are dangerous for little ones and I refer to those of early years primary or whatever it is called these days. As long as the child is mindful of others and affords them courtesy, what is the problem. Older children sure, particularly who have the ability to balance without the slightest wobble and knowledge of how to ride safely on the road.

I live where the vast number of car drivers are oblivious to the world outside of their tin box and a good proportion of them have had someone else take the driving test for them. As a consequence I avoid main roads and head for the B roads as soon as I can. My daughters school is on a busy estate running parallel with a dual carriageway, where said drivers use the roads as a rat run. I happily report that she rides on the pavement with me walking behind, but that she stops for pedestrians giving them right of way.

964cup

drlodge wrote:

cooldad wrote:

Judging from the comments, Metro readers think it's a great idea, along with a licence and insurance. No one has mentioned 'road tax' yet though.

b) mummy with little johnny illegally cycling on the pavement cos 'the road is too dangerous'.

We can't call out the mouthbreathers for their road tax bollox and then spout this nonsense.

From CyclingUK:

in 1999, Home Office Minister Paul Boateng issued guidance saying that: "The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so. Chief Police Officers who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required".

The Home Office guidance was re-affirmed in 2014 by the then Cycling Minister Robert Goodwill, who agreed that the police should use discretion in enforcing the law and recommended that the matter be taken up with the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO). ACPO welcomed the renewed guidance, circulated it to all forces, and issued a statement referring to "discretion in taking a reasonable and proportionate approach, with safety being a guiding principle".

My emphasis.

awavey

the road I live on leads to a primary and high school and is a popular rat run to drop the kids off, I wont cycle on it till after the traffic dies down because it gets so f****n dangerous, even the dustcart avoids the early times now, because they get so much dogs abuse by parents being "held up", so chances of any kid riding their bike to school is correspondingly quite low.

weirdly it was always the teachers who were obviously late for class, who came closest to knocking me off though.

pblakeney

That’s the schools job. Innit.
#themindsetofsomeparents

DeVlaeminck

Riding like an idiot is a "thing" with some kids now - the secondary local to me has a little group of wannabe gangsters on mountain bikes who on their daily commute home do put themselves and others at some risk with the way they ride especially when they get to the pedestrian zone on the city centre. However it is on their commute home - it's the same route every day at the same time - if you know exactly where and when an offence is going to take place it shouldn't be hard to identify the culprits without this silly licence plate idea.

More generally as 95% of us carry cameras now just encourage people to snap those responsible - though I suppose the reaction of the "kids" may mean the school don't want to encourage that.