Couple warned over allowing children to cycle to school alone

[OldLadyKnowsNothing]

From the Telegraph.

would it be viewed diffrerently if they were just out playing on their bikes? I played in the street with my friends and brother from a young age, with and without bikes and mostly unsupervised.

And yes, Dulwich does have long stretches of unbroken pavement. Tis also a jolly nice sleepily stylush London suburb.

I live on the outskirts of Dulwich.

I am a fairly relaxed parent. I let my 9 and 6 year olds walk to school (less than 5 minute walk) without me sometimes. But I can see the school gate from my front door.

But there is NO WAY I would allow a five year old to cycle to school in Dulwich.

Dulwich, like any other urban area, is crammed with traffic during school run times.

I used to cycle through Dulwich every day on my way to work, and the school traffic is terrible, with lots and lots of four by fours (a big issue when you are cycling). But I would never consider cycling on the pavement, and think it very irresponsible to encourage your children to regularly cycle on the pavement, especially at a time when there will be lots of children, toddlers, buggies etc using the pavement around the school, I would have thought that was very annoying for other families and potentially unsafe. (toddlers with supervising parents is different, as I suspect the likelihood of a three year old going fast enough to plow into someone is relatively small).

I am pretty relaxed about my children's freedom, and found it annoying that they weren't allowed to get themselves to school until they hit 10 or so, I think eight is perfectly reasonable to be responsible for yourself, but not to supervise a five year old. Someone supervises these children on the way home, they just need to do the same on the way to school. I can see why the school told them not to continue to do this. ss involvement a bit silly if it really was just on the basis of this, but as it is a private school they could I suspect ask them to find another school to attend.

Why can't the parents ride to school with their kids? I agree with many of you that 8 would be ok but not 5. BTW kids are allowed to cycle on the pavement here (NZ) till they are 12. My kids know to consider other users of the pavement and I wouldn't let them cycle on the road (we live in a city).
Surely SS have better things to do?

I'd love to start a campaign on this in support of the parents. Anyone like to join me?

doesn't more traffic actually mean it's going a lot slower, reducing risks for cyclists and pedestrians?

just saying.

Flabbergasted yet again!

So it is fine for 10yo to do whatever they like, as they are below the age of criminal responsibility, and if the restrcited activity attracts a penalty that cannot be levied below the age of 16 then they can do it until they're 16?

Isn't this exactly teh sort of thing that people are so upset about all the time - that no-one will take responsibiity for their own actions and do the right thing, everyone has to be controlled by outside agencies in order to force them to behave in a reasonable manner? And that people saying "oh well technically this is OK because blah" while they proceed to do something really stupid/inconvenient for everyone else are not behaving as they should?

Honestly.

And of course this is not about 3yo pootling along with their mum waiting to grab when they topple. It is illegal to cycle on the pavement. The children in this piece will not be pootling, they will be properly cycling along. That is illegal. And about a month ago I did see two police officers stop two children (about 10 maybe) who were cycling on the pavement, tell them off, and direct them to either cycle in teh road or dismount and push their bikes.

If people are unhappy with the law as it exists may I suggest peope lobby their politicians about having it changed. Rather than either not bothering to tell their children some of the laws of the road, or teling them the laws but explaining that they are allowed to ignore them.

I don't know why this drives me up the wall but it does. It is exactly the same as any other thoughtless behaviour that makes peoples everyday lives just that little bit shittier.

Highway code:

"64

You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement."

There does not follow a long list of "excepts". Like "expect if you feel like it, or the traffic's a bit heavy, or it's a quicker route, or there aren't that many people on the pavement, or you're just doing it this once, or you're not going to go that quickly honest" etc etc etc

Maybe some of you could lobby for more and better cycling routes, and like Riven says doing something about the weight of traffic, rather than flagrently disregarding the rules, because you think that you're so important that they don't apply to you.

I think it's reasonable for children to cycle on the pavement as a way of getting to a park/traffic free area/cycle path if supervised by a parent. They shouldn't so much as delay a pedestrian and the parent should be completely responsible for the child's behaviour. This is obviously not possible if they are not present.

However, I think that a child who is old enough to cycle on the pavement unsupervised is actually old enough to cycle on the road. Conversely, a child that isn't responsible enough to cycle on the road, should not be cycling on the pavement unsupervised. It's all about being in control of a vehicle that moves at speed and not bumping into things.

I wonder if it was the lollipop lady/other parents needing to supervise these children who raised concerns?

My son has been cycling in West London traffic - back streets, with me - since he was 5. He's amazing. he could certainly manage alone BUT as far as I am concerned he is too physically small to be noticed easily by car, bus and lorry drivers.

These South London children may be the most competent urban cyclists in the kingdom, but they are still physically too small to be safe. Furthermore, there is a lot more traffic in London nowadays than there was in the 70's. Bendy buses, huge trucks, potholes, roadworks....etc..

I too miss the independence we enjoyed as a children but I think this couple have taken it a bridge too far.

I also think that while in previous decades a 5 year old might have had more freedom to walk around unaccompanied, a 5 year old would have been quite lucky to have their own bike in the 60's, 70's and earlier.

Children may have lost many freedoms over the years, but the freedom to have a garage full of scooters, bikes and skateboards is quite recent.

There is no way I'd let a 5 yr old travel without an adult to school. I'd spend the whole day worrying whether they had reached school safely or not.

The school should have probably not mentioned social services in their conversation with the parents though.

ISNT - one of the pieces I read on this story today had a senior copper reiterating that children under 10 are allowed to cycle on the pavement, even though the Highway Code doesn't mention it. In practice, small children are allowed to cycle on the pavements.

(Btw have no prejudice here as ds doesn't cycle except in our own road and the park - not on the pavement anywhere except our own cul de sac where everyone knows him.)

I think it's worth bearing in mind that the people who have judged these children too young to be cycling to school unaccompanied are not actually social services, the police or the 'nanny state' - they are the children's teachers and other parents who observe them on their way to school each day.

Don't see what's wrong apart fromt he 5yr old? They are not even on the road, they go along the pavement.
Good god, SS would have had a field day in the 1970's I used to walk 2 miles to school by myself through a wood and cross a small stream several times when I was 7yrs old.

What's wrong with them walking with another familly or with their nanny? Why does it have to involve a bike?

Far too young in my opinion. I had a schoolfriend who was knocked off his bike when he was in year 1 and was very severely brain damaged. There was a girl in my year when I was in year 5 who was killed by a car knocking her off her bike.

Rush hour Dulwich is not somewhere children that little should be cycling to school unsupervised. The 5 year old in particular would surely be in danger of not being seen by bigger cars.

Ripeberry - I also used to walk back daily across country fields at primary age..remember finding an Adder on the path one day and being terrified!

I just couldn't imagine letting my 5 yr old walk/cycle a mile to school without an adult present.

Biryani- I'll join your campaign.

Our primary school had a policy of no unaccompanied cycling, till you had passed the cycling proficiency test. Seems quite reasonable to me.

They go along Stradella, Burbage and Turney Rds. Crosing in the centre of Dulwich Village where the crossing lady is.

I can't bear 10 year olds speeding along on the pavement, but I would have no worries about a 5yo - why are they more of a nuisance than joggers or huge great buggies? Or dog walkers with those long leads and the dog goes to the other side of the pavement and creates a trip wire? I think a 5 yo is more at risk of a speeding vehicle on the road than a pedestrian is from a 5 yo on the pavement. And the roads in question have wide pavements and are not teming with people. Also, it's very had to cycle within grabbing distance of a child - I don't know how a parent acccompanying a child who is cycling could save it from a car reversing out of a driveway if they were even 6' ahead.

Cycling may not be the only worry of the school, though. Sadly, a couple of years ago there were a few attempted abductions of children from the cluster of schools in the area.

Snowlady, The only time I was worried about walking through the woods was when I saw a dog by itself, I described it to my parents and they said it was a fox, but it was worrying for them as this was in Switzerland and most foxes have rabies .

But after a few weeks of walking the long way to school along the pavements, I carried on with the walk through the woods.

i thought they were riding their bikes on the pavement ,so are no more at risk than if they were walking ?