Kids caught cycling anti-socially face exclusion from Birmingham school

Bmblbzzz wrote:

Omigod there are children having fun! And some of them have fallen over and hurt themselves!  And getting up and laughing! Omigod it must be stopped! 

When you have this happening on tow paths, pavements and middle of the roads when cycling with children, there is nothing fun about it.

60kg lean keen climbing machine wrote:

I think the end ET needs to be given to the PC kill joys and they can delete it from the the film, We cant have that kind of behaviour encouraged can we! It might bring a whole young generation a love of bikes and Cycling!

Watching Stranger Things recently made me realise how many 80s kids' films and TV programmes involved kids bombing it around on bikes (even American ones - made me think of ET and the Goonies, among others).

Gives the child protagonists a real sense of independence, resourcefulness and freedom.

I'm watching comparable kids' films again now with my kids, and I couldn't think of any prominent bikeyness.

brooksby wrote:

Quote:

“We have also introduced a ruling that no student will be allowed to cycle to school without wearing a helmet or on a bike that is not roadworthy,” he said.

“Unfortunately, we are still seeing many of our students on the roads without a helmet.

“From a personal perspective, I believe this should be the law, but in the absence of that I believe the onus should lay with parents to encourage their child to wear a helmet when out on their bike, irrespective of their age."

I am astounded - nay: shocked - that nobody has started frothing at the mouth about this bit, yet...  I sprayed coffee on my keyboard when I read it.

Be patient, grasshopper: it can't be career-enhancing for a headmaster to be on social media, exhibiting confusion over his remit and a lack of critical thinking skills.

davel wrote:

 

Be patient, grasshopper: it can't be career-enhancing for a headmaster to be on social media, exhibiting confusion over his remit and a lack of critical thinking skills.

It very probably is career enhancing for a headmaster to be seen to be responding to complains from the local community about the anti-social behaviour of his pupils.

BarryBianchi wrote:

davel wrote:

 

Be patient, grasshopper: it can't be career-enhancing for a headmaster to be on social media, exhibiting confusion over his remit and a lack of critical thinking skills.

 

It very probably is career enhancing for a headmaster to be seen to be responding to complains from the local community about the anti-social behaviour of his pupils.

By playing to the cheap seats, pontificating about changes to law and claiming to have power over what kids do outside school?

We seem to expect very different attributes. Makes me appreciate the headteachers (and governors) at my kids' schools.

davel wrote:

 

By playing to the cheap seats, pontificating about changes to law and claiming to have power over what kids do outside school?

 

We seem to expect very different attributes. Makes me appreciate the headteachers (and governors) at my kids' schools.

 

It's obviously news to you that Heads DO have power over what pupils do outside school.  Rarely have I head such tosh talked.  Just because they are being anti-social and hacking people off and bikes are involved, seemingly its all free expression and the Nazi jack-boot of authority is exceeding its reach.  I can only imagine what the reaction would be if the VIth form where ragging up and down the road after school in cars.

Head is asked to address anti-social behavior and does something.  Get over it, it's a big world out there and it doesn't revolve around people doing what the hell they want on two wheels.

BarryBianchi wrote:

Rarely have I head such tosh talked. 

It is a big world out there, petal, but you've evidently not seen much of it.

If things get a bit too much for you, you can always rename yourself Trekpro, claim to have never visited the UK and flounce. That's right up your street, isn't it?

BarryBianchi wrote:

davel wrote:

 

By playing to the cheap seats, pontificating about changes to law and claiming to have power over what kids do outside school?

 

We seem to expect very different attributes. Makes me appreciate the headteachers (and governors) at my kids' schools.

 

It's obviously news to you that Heads DO have power over what pupils do outside school.  Rarely have I head such tosh talked.  Just because they are being anti-social and hacking people off and bikes are involved, seemingly its all free expression and the Nazi jack-boot of authority is exceeding its reach.  I can only imagine what the reaction would be if the VIth form where ragging up and down the road after school in cars.

Head is asked to address anti-social behavior and does something.  Get over it, it's a big world out there and it doesn't revolve around people doing what the hell they want on two wheels.

So you think that heads have power over their students outside of school hours and outside of school premises? Are you quite sure about that?

So does that mean that schools can dictate what kids read in their own time, what they wear in their own time, perhaps what they eat in their own time?

I'm a parent, and I understood that to be *my* job, not the school's  

brooksby wrote:

[

So you think that heads have power over their students outside of school hours and outside of school premises? Are you quite sure about that?

So does that mean that schools can dictate what kids read in their own time, what they wear in their own time, perhaps what they eat in their own time?

I'm a parent, and I understood that to be *my* job, not the school's  

Dear God, where have you been living for the past decade?  In the words of the DfE's Guidance on Discipline for Headteachers:

"Teachers have a statutory power to discipline pupils for misbehaving outside of
the school premises. Section 89(5) of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 gives
head teachers a specific statutory power to regulate pupils’ behaviour in these
circumstances “to such extent as is reasonable.”
 

BarryBianchi wrote:

brooksby wrote:

[

So you think that heads have power over their students outside of school hours and outside of school premises? Are you quite sure about that?

So does that mean that schools can dictate what kids read in their own time, what they wear in their own time, perhaps what they eat in their own time?

I'm a parent, and I understood that to be *my* job, not the school's  

Dear God, where have you been living for the past decade?  In the words of the DfE's Guidance on Discipline for Headteachers:

"Teachers have a statutory power to discipline pupils for misbehaving outside of
the school premises. Section 89(5) of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 gives
head teachers a specific statutory power to regulate pupils’ behaviour in these
circumstances “to such extent as is reasonable.”
 

It's called in loco parentis. From the moment the child steps out of their front gate, to the time they step back in they are the responsibilty of the school as well as the parents, and the school may dictate limits of behaviour in so far as it does not contravene the bill of rights.

madcarew wrote:

BarryBianchi wrote:

Dear God, where have you been living for the past decade?  In the words of the DfE's Guidance on Discipline for Headteachers:

"Teachers have a statutory power to discipline pupils for misbehaving outside of
the school premises. Section 89(5) of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 gives
head teachers a specific statutory power to regulate pupils’ behaviour in these
circumstances “to such extent as is reasonable.”
 

It's called in loco parentis. From the moment the child steps out of their front gate, to the time they step back in they are the responsibilty of the school as well as the parents, and the school may dictate limits of behaviour in so far as it does not contravene the bill of rights.

I think that "outside the school premises" means "right outside" (like, when I was a kid and the big boys would step over the school boundary before having a cigarette) or on the school bus to and from school (so, school-arranged form of transport).  Pretty sure it doesn't count for walking (or cycling) to school any more than one would expect the school to regulate what the child or its parent does when driving/being driven to school.

Surely the child is the responsibility of the school when on their premises.  The school acts in loco parentis when the child is in their loco (yes, I know my Latin is cr.p -  its been a while);  if thats not the case, and the school is choosing to act in loco parentis at all times except when the child is explicitly on my premises, then that's cool and I'll abdicate my responsibility now, thanks.  (Pretty sure that used to be called "being a bad parent", though...).

brooksby wrote:

 

I think that "outside the school premises" means "right outside"

It doesn't.

BarryBianchi wrote:

brooksby wrote:

 

I think that "outside the school premises" means "right outside"

 

It doesn't.

Well, now, that's a helluva social land-grab, isn't it?    (if you're right). 

(Looks like being a parent involves a lot less work than I'd thought, if the school's responsibility really does start from when my kids step over my property line...  )

brooksby wrote:

BarryBianchi wrote:

brooksby wrote:

 

I think that "outside the school premises" means "right outside"

 

It doesn't.

Well, now, that's a helluva social land-grab, isn't it?    (if you're right). 

He isn't. He's a troll.

He's the flounceartist formerly known as Bigtwin/Trekpro, who changed his user name to rail against 'racists' and 'swears' and claim he'd never been to the UK/this forum before realising that that hadn't given him a fresh login, and then doing it a bit less wrong as this latest salad.

He might Google a bit, but he can't troll properly. You could pick his favourite argument and put a stick of celery against him: the celery would remain unscathed and you'd win by default. Asking him to understand Latin or law is just unfair.

http://road.cc/content/news/225363-tour-de-france-stage-3-peter-sagan-un...

davel wrote:

brooksby wrote:

BarryBianchi wrote:

brooksby wrote:

 

I think that "outside the school premises" means "right outside"

 

It doesn't.

Well, now, that's a helluva social land-grab, isn't it?    (if you're right). 

He isn't. He's a troll. He's the flounceartist formerly known as Bigtwin/Trekpro, who changed his user name to rail against 'racists' and 'swears' and claim he'd never been to the UK/this forum before realising that that hadn't given him a fresh login, and then doing it a bit less wrong as this latest salad. He might Google a bit, but he can't troll properly. You could pick his favourite argument and put a stick of celery against him: the celery would remain unscathed and you'd win by default. Asking him to understand Latin or law is just unfair. http://road.cc/content/news/225363-tour-de-france-stage-3-peter-sagan-un...

Amazing.  Even more wrong than you usually are, but then you know nothing and want to know nothing that doesn't accord with your ignorant views.

brooksby wrote:

Quote:

“We have also introduced a ruling that no student will be allowed to cycle to school without wearing a helmet or on a bike that is not roadworthy,” he said.

“Unfortunately, we are still seeing many of our students on the roads without a helmet.

“From a personal perspective, I believe this should be the law, but in the absence of that I believe the onus should lay with parents to encourage their child to wear a helmet when out on their bike, irrespective of their age."

I am astounded - nay: shocked - that nobody has started frothing at the mouth about this bit, yet...  I sprayed coffee on my keyboard when I read it.

Well, given that helmets are compulsory for Bikeability, which where we live anyway is the only cycle training going on in schools, it's completely consistent.

BarryBianchi wrote:

brooksby wrote:

Quote:

“We have also introduced a ruling that no student will be allowed to cycle to school without wearing a helmet or on a bike that is not roadworthy,” he said.

“Unfortunately, we are still seeing many of our students on the roads without a helmet.

“From a personal perspective, I believe this should be the law, but in the absence of that I believe the onus should lay with parents to encourage their child to wear a helmet when out on their bike, irrespective of their age."

I am astounded - nay: shocked - that nobody has started frothing at the mouth about this bit, yet...  I sprayed coffee on my keyboard when I read it.

Well, given that helmets are compulsory for Bikeability, which where we live anyway is the only cycle training going on in schools, it's completely consistent.

see, now that's were you are wrong, plastic hats are not compulsary, this is a fallacy and is not pushed by bikeability/DfT but by LA whom fund the schemes.

This is a major problem, forcing children to wear ineffective 'safety' aids which do lure kids into taking more risks is a hugely stupid and irresponsible thing. Children are not as adept at finding their boundaries and judging risk as adults, so  when children think they are protected there is an even greater increase than that displayed in adults. This is a known in many differing situations not just on bikes.

That children are put off from cycling altogether when forced to wear plastic hats is another aspect that LA and governemnt ignore completely and also ignore statistics like 6 child cycling deaths in one year for the whole of the UK (last stats available) none which could be proven to be preventable by a plastic hat (even if wearing one) and yet there were more than double that in England and Wales alone that were killed as a sole result of head injury in motorvehicles, despite airbags, crash protection beams etc.

Care to hazard the numbers of accidental death by head injury for children in other activities/modes compared to All child deaths from cycling (again which are not all solely by head injury alone)?

There are between 1-1.4Million head injuries that attend hospital each year in England and Wales (National clinical Guideline), how many of these are from children on bikes?

300,000 TBI's - sports related

50% total of ALlLserious head injuries are from motorvehicles.

Do these other activities warrant more attention with respect to plastic hats so that we have the same measures for all or are you (plural) some of the many that are not only ignorant but blindly ignore the statistics and uphold the imbalance of forcing rules onto one group whom are more likely to take more risk adorning plastic hats and from that more likely to be hurt obeying said rules?

seemingly the advocates are ignorant of the facts relating to putting children off from cycling when forced to wear plastic hats, are those advocating plastic hats ignorant of the victim blaming culture that plastic hat wearing brings about, not just for children but on adults also?

bstock wrote:

I'm sure the kind of person who's active on a Facebook neighbourhood watch page is a reliable, sober source and not prone to any hysterical anti-bike anti-youth exaggeration.

 

Lot of headmasters seem to be power-tripping little totalitarians nowadays.

Absolutely. Especially with the advent of 'academies' and academy chains, that seem to have turned some headmasters into a kind of poor man's Russian Oligarch. They are increasingly accountable to nobody, as they build their little empires, and their pay can reach quite astonishing levels, even as that of teachers stagnates. When I was at school they just seemed at worst harmlessly out-of-touch, now some of them seem power mad.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

bstock wrote:

I'm sure the kind of person who's active on a Facebook neighbourhood watch page is a reliable, sober source and not prone to any hysterical anti-bike anti-youth exaggeration.

 

Lot of headmasters seem to be power-tripping little totalitarians nowadays.

Absolutely. Especially with the advent of 'academies' and academy chains, that seem to have turned some headmasters into a kind of poor man's Russian Oligarch. They are increasingly accountable to nobody, as they build their little empires, and their pay can reach quite astonishing levels, even as that of teachers stagnates. When I was at school they just seemed at worst harmlessly out-of-touch, now some of them seem power mad.

when I was 14 the history teacher made sure we couldn't ride our bikes by buying us rounds in the pub.

guyrwood wrote:

I wasn't referring to kids cycling along harmlessly to get somewhere, I'm talking about huge groups of youngsters basically mobbing the centre of the village using both lanes of the carriageway getting in people's way etc The chances of one of the pillocks falling off with a car following closely behind is a very real one. Try explaining that one to the parents, 'Sorry Mrs Smith but your son's just been killed by having his head run over whilst illegally playing in, and obstructing, the road'.

"Try explaining that one to the parents, 'Sorry Mrs Smith but your son's just been killed by having his head run over whilst illegally playing in, and obstructing, the road'. "

It wouldn't be the first time, won't be the last. It's a scenario that plays out every single day, normally after closing time of the pub rather than the school. Seriously, like anything else; Explain the risks, explain what is expected, and stand back and watch the inevitable. Been happening with smoking, drug taking, extreme sports and binge drinkinig for years. Really people complaining about this have F-all concern for the kids, they're just intimidated or threatened by behaviour out of their normal comfort zone. A bit like car drivers and cyclists in general. 

guyrwood wrote:

I wasn't referring to kids cycling along harmlessly to get somewhere, I'm talking about huge groups of youngsters basically mobbing the centre of the village using both lanes of the carriageway getting in people's way etc The chances of one of the pillocks falling off with a car following closely behind is a very real one. Try explaining that one to the parents, 'Sorry Mrs Smith but your son's just been killed by having his head run over whilst illegally playing in, and obstructing, the road'.

Why would you "follow closely" behind a group of kids on bikes? Keep your sodding distance!