To think the 3 mile rule for school transport is unfair and not fit for the current time?

[WellThatsMeScrewed]

My eldest does not get transport to her secondary school because we live 2.89 miles away from her secondary school. Supposedly she can walk this.

It would involve crossing 3 lots of dual carriageways, walking along a unlit busy road.

It’s just not fair.

The 3 mile rule is from some archaic time where there was hardly any traffic.

Surely there’s a bus?

There will always be someone who’s just inside an arbitrary cut-off.

And the traffic by you won’t be the same as the traffic in different parts of the country.

I’m not sure it’s unfair or outdated, but I know it must be frustrating.

It’s not unfair.

It's not unfair. Is there no public transport?

You can get an independent ombudsman to come and walk the route before making a decision on this. Our village parents did this.
The walk involves a walk along a narrow, unlit road across empty fields. Haulage firms use the road for grain lorries and the like.
The ombudsman nearly had his head taken off by the wing mirror of a lorry about a third of the way across the fields. Almost immediately declared it was too dangerous. The children now all get free transport to their nearest secondary school. My house is almost exactly the same distance as yours from the nearest school.

Three miles isn't that much really, or 2.89 or whatever. At secondary school age they should be able to cross dual carriageways or walk along unlit roads safely, it's just a question of being patient. At my secondary school it was impossible to arrive or leave on foot without crossing a dual carriageway if you lived in a certain direction. You just need to be patient and wait for a gap in the traffic, then wait again when you get to the central reservation.

It's also from a time when fewer people had cars to drop their kids off at school.

However, you do have a right of appeal against the decision if 'The statutory distance is measured by the shortest route along which a child, accompanied if necessary, may walk safely.' and 'The child cannot reasonably be expected to walk the route to school because the nature of the route is unsafe to walk

The local authority will consider whether the child could reasonably be expected to walk if accompanied and whether the child’s parent can reasonably be expected to accompany the child.'

Look up the actual policy and submit an appeal.

It’s unfair and archaic and needs challenging.
mine qualify for bus passes until 16 because they are at the right school. If they went to a different school a mile away from their school and same distance from our house they wouldn’t qualify.

both schools under 3 miles from the house and officially in walking distance. Except they would have to cross 3 a roads and the start of 2 motorways to get there. Walkable but lethal.

band together with other local parents and see if you can challenge it. Get the mpinvolved if you can.

The rule is distance and safe route. If the route genuinely isn't safe (hard to know without knowing route, crossing a busy dual carriageway is fine with an appropriate crossing point I would assume)

www.gov.uk/free-school-transport

I thought you could appeal the 3 mile rule if the pedestrian access wasn’t available or dangerous?

Our closest primary school is only accessible to us down one long country lane with no pavement. Travelling assistance has been secured for houses by me and is part of the schools library of information to anyone who is placed there.

luckily we got into a school that is accessible on foot if ever so slightly further away.

I think 3 miles is quite far. Maybe they should just make everybody pay towards the cost of transport.

If there is no safe walking route, then transport should be provided.

So if there are no crossings for the dual carriageways, that would be unsafe. Unlit sections might also count as such.

So worth going in to bat with your council on those grounds.

This might be useful:
roadsafetygb.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Walked-Routes-to-School-2016.pdf

Yes you need to speak to the council and get them to assess the route for safety. They look at lighting, road type, traffic, speed limits I have previously had such discussions with the council regarding my daughter getting to school at primary rather than secondary but same principle just a lower mileage I think - we were 0.01 within their mileage limit but the route they measured went along a canal and several non pavement and unlit roads

my daughter got school transport at primary because walking route unsafe about ½mile with no pavement ie country road with a verge, total distance was about 1¼ miles. what is safe for primary is different to secondary, NT children should be able to cross roads but no pavement would still be considered unsafe not sure about lighting though as the vast majority of UK is not completely dark at 8.30am or 3.30pm even in December, LA's do not need to consider whether child stays for afterschool just leaving at normal time

Wow I can’t believe that people would want their 11-15 year olds crossing 3 duel carriageways. In the dark? Her school finishes late 3 days a week so I’m the winter she would be crossing it in the dark.

Then there is a walk along a path with no lights in the country (not in the town or village) for a good mile 1/2. Then a cut through a ‘parking’ area that is not seen by the road and is a well known dogging area.

So no I would not do this walk so no I would not expect any child to do it.

thabks for the useful suggestions.

Any why should there be a cut off? Tell me why should someone on the SAME street get a free bus and us not? Don’t tell me that is fair?

Is there no buses available? Why would you assume other posters would no the school does late days meaning she would walk in the dark when you hadn’t mentioned it. If it’s literally not doable by bus I totally agree with you, access to school should be safe.

Could she go on public transport? I have to pay for my son’s bus as we are out of the catchment area

Nobody should have to cross a dual carriageway - at any age, time of day or weather. It's just not safe unless there are proper pedestrian crossings.

Expecting children to walk unlit roads in winter is asking for trouble.

Most people have said the route could well be deemed unsafe and you should appeal on that basis so I'm not sure why you're outraged at posters. Put your energy into appealing FFS.

And of course there should be a cut off - there's a reasonable argument that an hours walk to and from school is too much for a teen, but that's an argument for reducing the cut off not removing it. Removing it means you have kids who live 5 mins away demanding a bus picks them up from outside their house.

Jesus, only on Mumsnet could you get a poster going ‘they should be able to cross a duel carriageway safely’. Don’t be ridiculous, of course that isn’t safe, or just a matter of being patient. You might be ok with an adult doing it but a distracted teenager in the dark and chancing their arm to cross quickly, no thank you.

Why would people not know that when in the winter it gets light late and dark early?

I wouldn't want to walk 3 miles myself so I wouldn't expect my child to do it either. You're talking 45 mins to 1hr 15 mins carrying school books and pe kits and the like.

Well they obviously would, but the OP hadn’t told people the school finishes late 3 days a week in her OP, which is why it’s dark for the walk home, that’s the bit people wouldn’t have been able to guess.

The distance is fine to walk but the route isn't safe.

Several people have pointed out that you can appeal if the route isn't safe for pedestrians, and have provided links.

It is as fair as anything can be because three miles is walkable for a healthy child over 10 years old to walk in combination with the fact that the safety of the route can and should be assessed as well as the distance .

Please appeal based on safety rather than fixating on the perceived unfairness of children who live a tiny bit further away having transport.