Head teacher of school in Exeter low traffic neighbourhood urges parents to take care after pupil knocked off bike

I recently passed  on my m scooter a group of children taking part in cycle training  I could clearly see that not one bike had front or rear lights , it would appear that these children aren't valued enough by their parents to spend the few pounds for lights and reflectors . Yet time after time we see kids out after dark on bikes with no lights ,surely lights should be compulsory 

Not forgetting this plonker who drives a school run of 700 METRES... only to cut me up to park on the pavement near parents and children walking to school...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-dp-G6W8Jk

[snip]

Reacting to news of the child being knocked off their bike, a spokesperson for the local authority said: “We hope that they weren't too badly hurt and that they make a full and speedy recovery.

[snip]

Such an odd turn off phrase ... "weren't too badly hurt" ... So being hurt is fine - skinned knees and elbows, maybe a purple golf ball on the child's forehead, and not to mention the potential  physiological effect - even if kids are more resilient than adults.

But the message from the spokesperson has the subtext of "it's fine to hurt kids by your driving ... just don't do it too badly."
 

Park "at least" a five-minute walk away? Isn't that asking an awful lot of parents? Five minutes to the school, a minute or two of doddling there at the turnaround, and another five minutes back to the car. That's 11 or 12 minutes. Who can be expected to spend that much time away from their precious motor vehicle? And not only that. If the parents walk they have to make little Johnny or Susie walk, too, and the children might not want to walk. This is the case with many today. Forcing them to walk could be viewed by the driving community as borderline child abuse. 

What isn't mentioned in the article is that the school in question is right next to one of the new bus gates installed as part of the LTN. In the early weeks of the trial, traffic by the school dropped to miniscule amounts, prompting a surge in numbers of kids biking to school. However, in recent weeks it's become apparent that Police aren't making any effort to enforce the bus gate and a significant minority of those opposed to the LTN have begun ignoring the bus gate and using the road again. Hence the situation we have now, traffic levels just as bad as before, but with increased children on bikes in the vicinity.
Many submissions have been made to op snap. But no action appears to be being taken. The police really need to start issuing penalties to those ignoring the bus gate.

The dominance of cars in our society is extreme, and endlessly reinforced by the media, and even the safety of children is clearly subservient to the great god car.  Social change is difficult, with huge vested interests and people who are addicted to their cars and see any change as a challenge to their right to drive.  It's going to take a long time, and there will be battles won and lost, but we have to keep believing in eventual success.

Of course, it being an LTN means that those who drive have an easier time of it and can manoeuvre without worrying so much about other motor vehicles.

head teacher Neil Williams wrote:

putting the children at risk is not acceptable

Most would instantly agree.  However that statement clearly needs qualifying to explain things in the UK.

Certainly putting children at risk is highly salient and that engages many* people's emotions very strongly.  However for some time we seem to have been rather static on what we consider safe for children in the built environment / by roads.  Also our response to "child danger" is quite often NOT to eliminate / reduce the source of the danger, but to constrain the children.

This is balanced against our "freedoms" in travel.  Changing the way that people get about is triggering - albeit in a different way.  It seems for a while that this roughly balances the negative of very rare "child hit by vehicle".

The result: all UK kids get less independence in their travel and physical play ** and less convenience getting about when they are allowed to.  (See what an alternative in a similarly developed nation looks like.) In return we all keep the level of motornormativity (speed, directness, convenience of parking, choice of routes / permeability through most places, sufficient safety, paying less than the overall cost of driving ***).

As many have suggested one of the best places to start campaigns for change is around the welfare of children (see also this list of general campaign hints to see where some heffalump traps lie).  It's just more difficult in the UK because we seem to consider that "solved" - or "about right" for most of us - until the worst thing happens...

* Although maybe less as we all live longer / have fewer kids?

** It helps that we've got entertainment boxes and fast remote communication which can make up for this - and normal human tendencies e.g. "why can't you drive me to school today?".

*** See many studies on the total cost including "externalities" of motoring e.g. the one linked here.

Great to hear that a school leader, who has central role in community development in the interests of the students, stands up for the principles of child safety when opportunists who oppose safe spaces for school students actively choose to promote practices that would increase child harm in many ways to serve thier own interests. The LA need to listen to those who really believe that children come first not some selfish halfwits who just want to protect their own ability to drive at the expense of others. Children come first, not cars! Get cars away from school gates to improve safety and quality of life.

The head teacher could go one step further and ban parents from dropping off kids in all but a select group of streets surrounding the school. And kids walking or cycling could be encouraged to take a different route avoiding the congestion zone.

"Oh won't somebody think of the children?!", wails parent opposed to the LTN