Banning by intimidation? Personally I think aged 8 is old enough to cope, 5 is a bit young even if accompanied by the 8 year old. I don't see why this should be anything to do with the social services though.
I'm with Boris on that one!
I am shocked!!! I agree with an article in the Torygraph written by Boris!!!!
5 seems a bit young but 8 should be fine.
Think the school are worried about the whole "in loco parentis" thing which is a bit sad really.
Well said Boris.
Broadly agree with Boris except the blanket use of the term 'political correctness' when it's really not relevant grinds my gears.
Thought this was interesting too
London is now one of the safest big cities on earth, with youth violence down 10 per cent over the past two years, robbery down 20 per cent – and the murder rate at its lowest since 1978.
Thanks to New Labour policies? Lax sentencing due to full prisons etc? Police too hampered by paperwork and 'political correctness' to do their jobs properly? That's what the Tories have been banging on about.
I just read his article as self publicism, he's using the issue and the opportunity, to spout off about himself and how he has massively reduced crime in his term in office. Although, I always consider political types to have self interest at the heart of everything.
I'm with the school on this one.
The school in question is in a bit of a warren of narrow busy streets, often only wide enough to allow cars to travel in one direction due to parked cars on both sides of the street, causing traffic back up. There's speed humps, because the roads are used as rat runs, and coaches regularly use the roads delivering pupils.
I think this is too congested an area to allow a 5 and 8 year old to travel alone on the roads, especially if the elder child is supervising the younger as well.
Hell, even in the halcyon days of the '60s in NZ, we weren't allowed to cycle to school, supervised or not, until we were 7.
Would you say they were also too young to walk to school on their own?
My secondary school banned cycling to schoold completely. I don't know on wht grounds.
Notice this is a private school not a state one. I bet there is some underlying story we don't know about.
Would you say they were also too young to walk to school on their own?
No, it's a traffic safety issue.
Notice this is a private school not a state one. I bet there is some underlying story we don't know about.
What on earth makes you say that?
I think this is too congested an area to allow a 5 and 8 year old to travel alone on the roads, especially if the elder child is supervising the younger as well.Hell, even in the halcyon days of the '60s in NZ, we weren't allowed to cycle to school, supervised or not, until we were 7.
You do realise kids can use the pavements too? But I probably would say 5 is a tad early in an urban environment. Less so in a village/small town school.
8 is probably old enough but 5 isn't in my opinion.
It's generally advised that most children don't develop the road sense to safely cross roads alone until about 8. Riding to school probably requires even greater awareness - I certainly wouldn't let my 6 year old ride to school alone.
vinnyeh - Member"Notice this is a private school not a state one. I bet there is some underlying story we don't know about".
What on earth makes you say that?
I don't see a state school being so ridiculous, the legislative environment for private schools is slightly different, state schools on the whole are more used to dealing with health and safety issues in a pragmatic way.
Its so ridiculous that I suspect there is a part of the story we don't know about and the threat of a social services referral is so that the school can get their way.
There is no "child protection" social services issues here.
I noticed a comment on the Telegraph one:
And the kids don't wear cycle helmets? So what! Cycle helmets provide almost no protection to the falls off bikes ...
I would have though that a helmet would be quite useful to a kid as is most likely to crash at the sort of low speeds where helmets can be of use - am I wrong?
tiger - to some extent both are true.
Helmets provide less protection than many people think but the sort of accident a child might have ie falling off at low speed and not hitting anything but the ground is probably when they are most useful.
TJ, sorry but I can't really understand what the point you're trying to make is.
The school (it's irrelevant whether state or private) thinks that it's not a good idea for the parents to allow this to happen. Irrespective of whether it's stance is right or wrong, if it [b]feels that it's right[/b] then surely it should report, because it believes that the parents are being negligent by allowing this.
If I let my 5 year old wander the streets at night unsupervised, then I would expect to reported for negligence- the dangers might be different, but they are real, and children of that age are not equipped to deal with them.
vinney - my point is I think that there is something else going on and the school made a threat of reporting to social services.
My guess - The school does not want any children riding to school and has a blanket policy against it. These parents want the kids to ride to school so found some way round the ban - not storing the bikes on school premises. The threat of social services involvement is to get the parents to kowtow - not because the children are in danger.
A state school would simply have more important things to worry about and would be more used to involving social services in situations so would be less likely to make the ridiculous threat.
BMW X5's and other Chelsea tractors for the win. Kids might hurt their little feet if they walk or ride. They should be carried from the car into the school.
I used to walk about 2 miles to school with my mates (from Junior school onwards). Was all part of learning independence and social skills. The kids around my way all have bus passes and they will literally squeeze onto a bus and get off 50 yards down the road at the next stop.
My kids go to a private school that is fairly pro-bike (Bike-to-work for the staff, secure bike storage etc. for the kids bikes) however I suspect they'd have concerns about a 5-year old cycling in without supervision from an adult. Not sure they'd could or would do anything about it though.
My guess - The school does not want any children riding to school and has a blanket policy against it. These parents want the kids to ride to school so found some way round the ban - not storing the bikes on school premises. The threat of social services involvement is to get the parents to kowtow - not because the children are in danger.
The school does permit cycling. In the square mile or so of Dulwich there's seven private schools. I don't think I've seen more kids cycling to and from school anywhere else in London- I think the issue is just with the children's age.
I think it was just an excuse for TJ to get in a dig against the hated private sector...
Kids are cycling along the pavements, so not a road safety issue really. More of an encouraging kids to break the law thing.... Think there is definitely an underlying story here that we aren't hearing.
Kids are cycling along the pavements, so not a road safety issue really. More of an encouraging kids to break the law thing.... Think there is definitely an underlying story here that we aren't hearing.
They are allowed to cycle on the pavements, it's not illegal.
i say good on the parents - about time parent stopped driving kids all of 1 mile to drop them off etc and for kids to look after themselves a bit
Where, anywhere, is it written that the school has banned cycling? I can't see this stated anywhere...
What I have seen is that the school considers that the children being unsupervised on the way to school in the morning is inappropriate.
They are allowed to cycle on the pavements, it's not illegal.
No, they're not. It is illegal.
There is no exemption for young children, to allow them to ride their bikes on pavements.
i say good on the parents - about time parent stopped driving kids all of 1 mile to drop them off etc and for kids to look after themselves a bit
I fully agree - I should be illegal for parents to drive kids to school if they live, let say less than 2 miles from the school (barring kids with disabilities etc)
If more kids were forced to walk / cycle to and from school then maybe we wouldn't have such a problem with childhood obesity.
The whole thing about driving to school is ludicrous.
Back when I were a lad you went to your local school and you walked/ bussed/ cycled.No one got driven to school
the peculiar "choice" agenda has increased the length of journeys to school but mainly its driven by fear - which is ludicrous as kids were more at risk back in the day than they are now.
I can't see trusting an 8 year old to have care of a 5 year old for a mile trip. Think that's more significant than the bikes. Think a five year old should have an adult or a much older child supervising them.
I used to walk half a mile to school from age 6. When I was 9, I walked to school with my sister aged 5. I was nominally 'in charge' of her. We'd have done the same on bikes if it wasn't as easy to walk.
I think yes, a 5 year old is too young to ride to school unaccompanied. If you have your older sibling with you, I honestly cannot see the problem.
You're correct, my mistake however I doubt this is the schools reasoning, as I'm sure many of the other children rinding to school ride on the pavement.
The whole thing about driving to school is ludicrous.
It's 7 miles from where I live to my kids school, and it takes 2 buses to get there. They do use buses some of the time, and my son even cycles on occasion. Most days my wife drives them to school though - it's very much on her way (given she teaches at the same school).
epicsteve - in the general case -of course individuals have differences.- and is there a closer school?
there is a huge increse in the number of parents driving kids to school compared to 25 yrs ago
I started walking (0.75 mile) to school when I was 6 apparently (without adult accompaniment if you exclude lollypop lady at a crossing)
Go me!
epicsteve - in the general case -of course individuals have differences.- and is there a closer school?
Yes, but it's not remotely as good as the one my kids go to (although it's pretty good as state schools go).
Well, your wife driving to work is a whole other problem, but its probably best not to go into that here, you'll probably only get pissed off.
Then again, she could be a community nurse or something, and need the car, rather than just being lazy or suffering from a lack of infrastructure like the rest of us.
the peculiar "choice" agenda has increased the length of journeys to school but mainly its driven by fear - which is ludicrous as kids were more at risk back in the day than they are now.>>
yer and the chances of harm to kids is much more likely from someone they know like a family member or a family friend rather than a 'stranger'
"would you like to see some puppies.."
when I was at school (secondary) a nut job did pull knife on one kid in the woods (on one route to school) unfortunately for said nutjob - he picked on the school headcase/pycho who disarmed nutjob of his knife by grabing the blade 😯 ... very badly cut obviously but nut job ran off.. that kid was a legend
shrewsbury is such a rough place....
shrewsbury is such a rough place....
😯
Bayston Hill Massive here.
*thumps chest*
Represent bro.
steve - my point made then - before the "choice" of schools your children would have gone to the nearest one and thus no need to be driven
Well, your wife driving to work is a whole other problem, but its probably best not to go into that here, you'll probably only get pissed off.Then again, she could be a community nurse or something, and need the car, rather than just being lazy or suffering from a lack of infrastructure like the rest of us.
Be interesting to hear your arguments on this one. Is 3 people taking two buses each way (and turning a 20 minute each-way trip into a 60 minute one) preferable to the three of them driving in my wife's little fuel-efficient car?
She does cycle on occasion and would do so more often, however the amount of marking etc. she regularily has to bring home along with her laptop etc. makes cycling less desirable.
We walked nearly a mile to a bus stop then got on a normal service bus (not a specific school bus). The walk included crossing the a15 when it still went through the village. I did that from age 4 with my 7 year old sister.
My brother and a friend tried to walk the whole journey home after school when he was 4. Cue much frantic panicking about arriving at home without him by my then 9 year old sister. He hadn't managed to get very far due to following the bus route round the one way system so luckily we managed to spot him and get him onto the bus.
Four year olds walking off after school unsupervised seems to make national news these days, my mum just made my brother ring the head teacher and apologise for the worry he'd caused!
At secondary school it was very uncool to be driven to school by your parents, I wonder when that changed.
interest bit on kids on pavements..
"The DfT view, from discussions with Home Office, is that the law applies to all but the police can show discretion to younger children cycling on the pavement for whom cycling on the road would not be a safe option."The age of criminal responsibility is 10 so, technically, only children below this age can cycle on pavements without fear of redress.
While adults are not allowed to cycle on 'footways' (see definition above), children up to the age of 16 cannot be prosecuted for doing so, see text above for clarification.
from http://www.bikeforall.net/content/cycling_and_the_law.php
bottom faq from here seems to back this up..
steve - my point made then - before the "choice" of schools your children would have gone to the nearest one and thus no need to be driven
Are you sure? The private school my kids go to has been around since 1741...
She does cycle on occasion and would do so more often, however the amount of marking etc. she regularily has to bring home along with her laptop etc. makes cycling less desirable.
please do not take this as a flippant comment.. cycling some of the time is better than not cycling at all - nowt wrong with cars - just the inappropriate use of them - so bringing home a load of marking etc seems reasonable..
could always look at getting a smaller laptop and/or a decent bike trailer? you can get trailers on a c2w scheme.
Be interesting to hear your arguments on this one
Well, if you think you're going to find me rabidly arguing that everyone should cycle everywhere all the time, I think you'll be disappointed.
Agree that panniers full of books and teaching clutter are a ball ache. So its really a 'no alternative infrastructure' problem isn't it? If it was cleaner, quicker, more direct, more frequent and did't cost a gazillion pounds, it would be better than a car of any fuel efficiency wouldn't it?
Are you sure? The private school my kids go to has been around since 1741...
TJ's head may soon explode 🙂
Seems to me this could all be turned around to a different perspective - that the school threatens to report to social services all parents who allow their children to be driven to school. On the grounds the parents are deliberately risking the long term health of the child (possibly leading to earlier than usual death from heart and/or weight problems). This would remove a huge amount of traffic, local schools would be driven to improve standards by parents who could no longer ship them miles across town thereby improving everyone's education and it would be safe for the kids to walk and cycle to school as the roads would be much emptier. Win win 😉
Won't happen though, car culture, fear and lazyness means anyone tryign to put a sensible policy like that into action would get fired pronto.
epicsteve - I assumed state school - just not your local one. 🙂
epicsteve - I assumed state school - just not your local one.
Just proves the danger of assumption then doesn't it.
My local state school is Balerno (which is one of the better state schools in Edinburgh) so there wouldn't have been any point sending them anywhere else in the state sector. Not that it was the local one when my kids started school though, as we didn't live in Balerno then.
[img] 
[/img]
I'm torn on this one personally, just because of the ages - looking at the article, it says that they ride on the pavement, and only cross one major road, where there is a lollipop man, which doesn't seem too bad from a safety point of view, but I think possibly 5 is a bit young to be taken places by not much older siblings - I think I was at 7 before we started going to school alone (we would have been 7 and 9).
I think that is more of a thing than the cycling, which doesn't really seem to add any danger compared to them walking their on their own. I'm not really sure I'd be happy with them walking on their own, although obviously that depends a lot on the kids in question - I've known 8 year olds who I'd happily send down the corner shop (to pick up some fags and booze obviously), but some who are complete space cadets, who'd probably get lost and end up in S****horpe (or some other undesirable destination).
Joe
I would imagine also that if they do refer it to social services, nothing will happen. Just because something is referred to social services doesn't mean anything will happen. Just a school covering their arse. As a private school they are likely to have more of a cover your arse mentality, as they are probably more likely to get sued generally.
Joe