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

[Ticktockmy]

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]

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]

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]

[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]

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]

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]

You are joking?

It is bleedin' dangerous like.

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

 

[RiflemanSmith]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

[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]

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]

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.