School that confiscates bikes if helmets aren't worn claims more children are now riding to school

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Never mind car helmets, why put a child in a car at all?

 

I strongly suspect that the choice to use a car for the school run is a more serious health risk than the choice to not use a helmet.

 

Of course, to work out the comparitive effects needs a lot of data.  You could start with about 20-30,000 premature deaths a year due to traffic pollution as several studies have found.  Then you'd have to somehow work out how to add in the effect of physical inactivity on heart-disease and other illnesses, with particular reference to acuiring a habit of not engaging in such activity early in life.

 

  Then you'd have to work out what contribution each individual school run made to those death rates.  And then finally add in the RTA deaths and injuries.

 

It's true this would be _very_ complicated, but then so is the attempt to work out the effect of bike helmets, and the complete inability to come up with a definite answer to that doesn't seem to have stopped them making a rule about that issue.

 

Personally, I think its overwhelmingly likely, especially given the pollution deaths, that the car use is a bigger problem than the non-helmet use.

 

So the school needs to address that problem first.  So start by banning the use of cars for school runs for anyone closer than, say, 3  miles?  Perhaps electric cars could get more leeway?

 

Of course it wouldn't happen because there would be too much parental resistence, which demonstrates the point that this is entirely about power, not health.

 

Agree that car use is detrimental to the health of everybody.

Mr BS was specifically talking about head injuries though.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

So full of shit, he never had the pre nazi rule numbers of either kids cycling to school or parents driving like twats injuring kids. 

And if he had he'd have seen that the danger wasn't kids without helmets but parents in big killing machines and asked for a TRO for the area.

No sonshine, you're yet another lying nazi twat!

I call Godwin's Law on this

Gus T wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

So full of shit, he never had the pre nazi rule numbers of either kids cycling to school or parents driving like twats injuring kids. 

And if he had he'd have seen that the danger wasn't kids without helmets but parents in big killing machines and asked for a TRO for the area.

No sonshine, you're yet another lying nazi twat!

I call Godwin's Law on this

Is the action of the head extreme  A Yes

Is the action taken unilateral with no option ofr people to have input A. Yes

Is this effectively a dictatorship A: Yes

Does the action infringe people's rights A Yes

Does the action endanger the vulnerable. A. yes

Extreme dictatorships that wield power over the vulnerable and attack them as this head has done is most definitely akin to the actions of Herr Hitler, in the long run as proven everywhere else that forces helmets on cyclists it costs lives too, obviously not in the same way as Hitler meted out but the actions themselves are in essence no different. 

HTH

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Is the action of the head extreme  A Yes

Is the action taken unilateral with no option ofr people to have input A. Yes

Is this effectively a dictatorship A: Yes

Does the action infringe people's rights A Yes

Does the action endanger the vulnerable. A. yes

Extreme dictatorships that wield power over the vulnerable and attack them as this head has done is most definitely akin to the actions of Herr Hitler, in the long run as proven everywhere else that forces helmets on cyclists it costs lives too, obviously not in the same way as Hitler meted out but the actions themselves are in essence no different. 

HTH

I have suggested the the aggrieved parent invoke the school's bullying policy against the head.  Probably only applies to pupils though, but it might not specify that, so if it was me, I'd give it a go.

burtthebike wrote:

If I had a child at that school, I'd be looking for another one pronto.

I wouldn't.  I'd be sending my brat to school on a bike without a helmet. And when they confiscated the bike, they'd have a letter from my solicitor, asking them to explain how the Education and Inspections Act 2006 authorises them to confiscate property when there is no breach of a statutory provision.  And they would be given 24 hours to return the property before a complaint would be made at the local police station, as well as an action before the courts.

And I'd make sure that every other parent whose sprog cycled to school, did the same - or at least, was aware that he or she could so so.

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

If I had a child at that school, I'd be looking for another one pronto.

I wouldn't.  I'd be sending my brat to school on a bike without a helmet. And when they confiscated the bike, they'd have a letter from my solicitor, asking them to explain how the Education and Inspections Act 2006 authorises them to confiscate property when there is no breach of a statutory provision.  And they would be given 24 hours to return the property before a complaint would be made at the local police station, as well as an action before the courts.

And I'd make sure that every other parent whose sprog cycled to school, did the same - or at least, was aware that he or she could so so.

Unfortunately, it's a bit more complicated than that.

1 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/fil...

2 The Schools (Specification and Disposal of Articles) Regulations 2012

3 Education and Inspections Act 2006

S 94 Defence where confiscation lawful
S 91 Enforcement of disciplinary penalties: general
3 (b)is reasonable in all the circumstances.
6 (a)whether the imposition of the penalty constitutes a proportionate punishment in the circumstances of the case, and
(b)any special circumstances relevant to its imposition on the pupil which are known to the person imposing it (or of which he ought reasonably to be aware)

But you are correct that someone needs to challenge it.

Previous road.cc items have quoted cycling uk as saying schools have no powers to stop pupils cycling to school.

hirsute wrote:

Previous road.cc items have quoted cycling uk as saying schools have no powers to stop pupils cycling to school.

And they are probably right, but it would appear that the school is also right in being able to confiscate a bicycle when it arrives on school grounds.  Even if it is misguided and counter productive.

alansmurphy wrote:

Sounds like a great idea for me. Too many bikes are stolen from bike sheds, if you don't wear a helmet they confiscate the bike and give it you back at the end of school?!

Sounds like free parking to me, and if it is stolen then are liable. not at owner's risk.

and they say crime doesn't pay

Lamb Henry wrote:

It sounds like a response Donald Trump would make.

Ha Ha, best joke yet,   they used words with 3 and more syllables,  and you think Trump could come up with that (unaided) ????

Asside from that, the concept of a school refusing to allow a child to take home personal property because they do not have an OPTIONAL safety device (helmet) is borderline illegal.  I'm all for promoting safe cycling, but this is NOT how to "promote" something.