Compulsory helmets for school pupils?

[Sara_H]

My sons primary school has just had some sheffield stands installed outside the entrance.

Good that they're there, but I would have preferred them to be inside the grounds or at least be lockable (more secure).

The head teacher has sent this information out in a letter:

"A Reminder About Riding Bikes to School. I am very happy To see that children are riding their bikes to school. It's a great way to gain some exercise and develop independence. Please can I remind parents though that children MUST wear a helmet if they are coming to school on their bikes and They MUST have completed their Pedal Ready Training. If anyone sees a chiid coming to school ontheir bike without a helmet, please can you let the office know? Thank you."

I am somewhat concerned that the head teacher has taken it upon herself to dictate who may or may not cycle to school. As an example, I know one 9 year old who cycles independantly and safely (taught by parents) and has done for some time, he has not completed Pedal Ready (not offered til Year 5) and so is excluded from cycling to school under these rules.

I'm also concerned about the head teacher making it compulsorary for helmets to be worn, as far as I'm aware, this is not a legal requirement?

Given that the stands are non secure and in a public place, I don't supposse the Headteacher can enforce these rules, but the tone is all wrong if the intention is to encourage cycling?

Thoughts, and top tips for a well worded letter to the head teacher please.

 

[benb]

Arse covering.

 

[Jezston]

I'd focus more on the Pedal Ready bit - that's really not fair if it's excluding the majority of pupils just because the course isn't available until year five.

I can see it being arse covering, but I can't see how the school could be seen as any way liable for anything that happens to pupils outside of school grounds.

Bit about helmets is always a weird sticking point, especially as they don't mention lights etc, but I can appreciate benefits of helmets for children while their skulls are still comparatively weak. Although it is ridiculous when you see a bunch of kids with parents riding bikes, wearing helmets ... completely incorrectly sloped backwards on their heads - isn't that more dangerous than no helmet?

 

[Dan_h]

Once they are on school grounds then the school can enforce the helmets rule, but the answer is to get off and push when you get there (at my sons school you have to push from the school gate to the bike stand as they don't allow cycling on school property). Outside the school there is no way they can enforce these rules.

I would personally write to the school gently pointing this out to them!

 

[Alun]

I wonder if by attempting to exercise it's authority beyond the school's grounds, a school might be inadvertently extending it's liability for the child's safety. Perhaps not what they want to be doing.

 

[Bicycle]

I was the chair of the PTA at a primary where cycle racks were built.

Similar restrictions were put on pupils who wanted to ride in: Year 5-and-above only. I don't remember the helmet bit, but at primary-school age my children all wore helmets, so i may not have noticed. They certainly had to have completed cycle training.

I'd look at the positives here:

1. A school has taken the step to put cycle racks in when money was tight and it didn't have to do it. That is a good, good thing.

2. There is an extent to which the Governors and the Head are roped in by local, national or LEA policy. I'm not surprised about the conditions. I'm not sure it's a big issue, partly for the following reason:

3. You can always ignore them. We did. My children rode in from a very young age and no-one batted an eye. I take a French view on conditions like this: I comply with the ones I agree with or feel like complying with. Only one of my children did the free cycle training at primary school, but all cycled there. All cycled in well before Year 5. Who is going to police this? Are they really going to get in a fluster about it? I think the school staff have plenty to worry about without checking names against a list.

It's not arse-covering per se, but it's not far from being just that.

 

[Monsieur]

Headteacher using common sense...they have a duty of care to pupils coming to school, at school and going home from school so his stipulation about wearing helmets is good practice, sensible and instills some road discipline in the children.
No issue with this ruling at all...
My 14 year old is going on a ski trip with his school in january. Going to Italy where the law states that all under 14s MUST wera helmets on the slopes.
Again, sensible.

 

[coffeejo]

There's a difference between what happens on school property or trips etc where the school is the legal guardian, but overruling parental decisions out of school hours? Hmmm.

 

[Sara_H]

I was the chair of the PTA at a primary where cycle racks were built.

Similar restrictions were put on pupils who wanted to ride in: Year 5-and-above only. I don't remember the helmet bit, but at primary-school age my children all wore helmets, so i may not have noticed. They certainly had to have completed cycle training.

I'd look at the positives here:

1. A school has taken the step to put cycle racks in when money was tight and it didn't have to do it. That is a good, good thing.

2. There is an extent to which the Governors and the Head are roped in by local, national or LEA policy. I'm not surprised about the conditions. I'm not sure it's a big issue, partly for the following reason:

3. You can always ignore them. We did. My children rode in from a very young age and no-one batted an eye. I take a French view on conditions like this: I comply with the ones I agree with or feel like complying with. Only one of my children did the free cycle training at primary school, but all cycled there. All cycled in well before Year 5. Who is going to police this? Are they really going to get in a fluster about it? I think the school staff have plenty to worry about without checking names against a list.

It's not arse-covering per se, but it's not far from being just that.

Whilst I agree that its fab that the bike stands have been introduced, I see no point whatsoever in introducing unnecesserry rules that discourage children from cycling.
And I find the part asking parents to report unhelmeted children to the office completely OTT.

 

[summerdays]

I was involved in my child's Safe Routes to School years ago, and when we had cycle stands installed in school the head wanted to to make a similar rule both on the helmets and having completed cycle training. We contacted the council's Safe Routes to School officer who helped the head to change their mind.

I think I remember that the school can control whether they can actually bring their bikes onto school property but not how they get there, whether it is in a car without using a seatbelt or on the back of a motorcycle etc.

Who provided the money for the cycle stands? Do they agree with the head?

For me it would of caused a problem cycling with more than one child to school. I love the fact that we even get bikes with stabilizers in the school.

 

[Sara_H]

Did you say that this school was in the former GDR?

LOL - The Headteacher is a lovely woman, but I've seen her in telling off mode - I wouldn't cross her!

 

[ufkacbln]

Headteacher using common sense...they have a duty of care to pupils coming to school, at school and going home from school so his stipulation about wearing helmets is good practice, sensible and instills some road discipline in the children.

How does a helmet instill road discipline?

There are some bizarre claims for helmets - but that one needs explanation.

 

[Alun]

Headteacher using common sense...they have a duty of care to pupils coming to school, at school and going home from school so his stipulation about wearing helmets is good practice, sensible and instills some road discipline in the children.
No issue with this ruling at all...
My 14 year old is going on a ski trip with his school in january. Going to Italy where the law states that all under 14s MUST wera helmets on the slopes.
Again, sensible.

I don't think that headteachers do have a duty of care outside the school, other than official school functions. It would leave them open to legal action for events over which they have little or no control.
Skiing in Italy is very different from cycling to school in the UK. I would expect the teachers to ensure that your son wears a helmet if required by law whilst they are in "loco parentis".

 

[Richard Mann]

Training in year 5 is so they can use the roads, once it's become an offence for them to use the pavements (there's no such thing as a criminal offence for the under 10s). So it's advisable to do some training about that point, but in no way should one particular course be compulsory.

In my children's school in Oxford, they do the training in year 6, because they need to be despatched to secondary school unaccompanied. It's good training, even if they fail (and some do). We've got 3 year olds on balance bikes cycling to school, and I don't know what sort of training your headteacher might insist on for them!

As for helmets: ask her whether she's aware that the medical profession is divided on the subject, with some evidence of increased neck injuries as a result of wearing helmets. Best to leave it to the parents to make up their own minds.

 

[ufkacbln]

Also point out the evidence that compulsion has been shown to reduce the number of pupils undertaking training a well as those riding to school.

Unless that is her agenda