Couple warned over allowing children to cycle to school alone

[OldLadyKnowsNothing]

From the Telegraph.

all the children cycle on the pavements here. ds1 does on the way to school. i'm on the pavement pushing the buggy. or on my bike with ds2 behind me. on the pavement. whats the alternative ? for us both to cycle along the main road, all the way to school ?

I think the reason the law regarding riding bikes on the pavement is not enforced for children is just common sense.

Anybody who can't imagine how a 5 year old might be a nuisance on a bike on the pavement hasn't met my children. On the other hand, I have come across 5 year olds who are very sensible on the pavement.

Of course if you aren't with them you can't tell how they are behaving and at 5 that isn't the child's responsibility, or the sibling's responsibility it's the parent's.

Icapture,

totally agree with you on the helmet issue. it's mandatory. I don't think it its unrelated to the wider question of whether it's appropriate for the children to be doing it -- after all, what's at stake is whether the children are going to be able to get there with a minimal risk of personal injury.

I think children of any age have a very poor chance of correctly assessing traffic speed and behaviour. This is my main concern here.

Doesn't mean it's wrong to let them, just that it needs acceptance that there are risks of which they are unaware or are unable to sufficiently control.

Where we used to live (in Penge so not that far from Dulwich) the local community police did stop kids on bikes and tell them to cycle on the road or push their bikes (not very small children with accompanying parents, but certainly 10 year olds). Cyclists are bound (or should be) by the highway code the same as any other wheeled vehicle and should obey the rules of the road, and not pick and choose.

The routine breaking of rules by many cyclists is one of the reasons why cyclists get such a bad press and frequently get abused by car drivers. In general London is now a really good place for cyclists, lots of new cycle lanes, maps, places to lock bikes up etc, but there is some degree of backlash (it's expensive to make any changes to roads, and generally has a negative consequence for other road users). There 's a long way to go yet before lots of people make the move to cycling, and I do understand that there are places where cycling can be a scary experience, but cycling on the pavement and breaking the safety rules seems to me a really unhelpful thing to do. It's difficult to kick up a stink about cars in cycle lanes when there are cyclists on the pavement (and jumping lights and all the other crazy things a small amount of cyclists choose to do).

{total hijack and probable threadkill, but hell, I started it!} ...I can't see the word "Penge" without thinking "Bungalow Murders".

Apologies to non-Rumpole fans.

I'm sure Penge is lovely. Even Rumpole said so.

Honest.

I'm not sure that "lovely" is the word I'd use to describe Penge! There are a few really nice parts, but it is on the whole a fairly down at heel South East London suburb.

Ah, the hallmark of politically correct headbangers: lots and lots of messages saying that allowing these kids the freedom to play, laugh and have fun on the way to school is utterly evil and wrong, but none saying exactly WHY.

We've established that they're not going to get run over because they're on the pavement and they're only travelling for five to ten minutes in a built-up area so they're unlikely to fall prey to even the omnipotent, savage and voracious sexual predators which so many of you are convinced infest our streets in their millions.

Yet despite there being no extraordinary risks that anyone can actually describe and despite no actual harm having come to the kids, this forum is largely in agreement that the parents should be reported to the authorities and punished preferably severely, as if that'll help.

I look forward to seeing you on daytime TV in a few years' time whining about how your own kids aren't independent enough to leave home and get a career.

'On 1st August 1999, new legislation came into force to allow a fixed penalty notice to be served on anyone who is guilty of cycling on a footway. However the Home Office issued guidance...:"The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so. Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required."

'Chief officers recognise that the fixed penalty needs to be used with a considerable degree of discretion and it cannot be issued to anyone under the age of 16. (Letter to Mr H. Peel from John Crozier of The Home Office, reference T5080/4, 23 February 2004)

Has anyone mentioned paedophiles on this thread?

Plenty of non-sexual real risks have been mentioned, cs, & nobody has suggested any punishment for the parents, severe or otherwise.

Try reading the whole thread, properly.

"allowing these kids the freedom to play, laugh and have fun on the way to school is utterly evil and wrong"

FFS

"I look forward to seeing you on daytime TV in a few years' time whining about how your own kids aren't independent enough to leave home and get a career."

WTF? My DS's walk to school on their own, and DS1 will be (hopefully if he gets a place there) going to senior school on the train from the other side of town every morning as soon as he goes into YR7.

My issue is with the ages of the children

And yes - we've defined it's a residential area..........with a LOT of driveways - ie cars coming across the pavement (and ime not always checking before they pull out).

Haven't read the thread since I last posted - but has anyone said whether they would leave their 8 and 5yr old children at home for "5-10 minutes"?

Biryani.

I will support your campaign.
I think children should be able to get themselves to school.
I also think children should be able to play outside in the streets as well.

My DD1 is desparate to go out to play but no other bugger will let their precious child out of the house.
I used to get lots of filthy looks from other parents in our old road because I let DDs out to play. Their children used to sit at the window watching my girls having fun.

Surprisingly my girls were never approached by strange men or knocked off their bikes

We have got to give our children back the freedoms we all had when we were children.

I'm a great one for allowing DS to freerange when possible, but I think 8 and 5 is a bit young to be going to school on bikes simply because kids FALL OFF bikes an break limbs etc. I would deffo let an 8 year old walk, though, if the only crossing had a lollipop lady.

My nephew was nearly hit by a 4x4 reversing out of the drive walking along the pavement in Dulwich the other day when I was with him. It's easily done

ronshar - my children go out to play - my 6yr old walks up the street to his friends house, to knock for her. At 8yrs old my DS1 walked a mile to school, zebra crossing (no lollipop lady), a small side road to cross and then a lollipop lady next to the school.

I think it's a bit far fetched to asssme that because we wouldn't let children that age ride to school that we don't allow our children any freedom or encourage their independence

captainspeaking Wed 07-Jul-10 08:52:27

"We've established that they're not going to get run over because they're on the pavement and they're only travelling for five to ten minutes in a built-up area so they're unlikely to fall prey to even the omnipotent, savage and voracious sexual predators which so many of you are convinced infest our streets in their millions."

People have actually mentioned the risk of them accidentally swerving into the road or losing balance due to being too close to traffic.

fwiw I let my 8yo walk to school on his own, my 9yo stay at home on his own for whole days and my 10yo go to the beach with her friends, so I'm hardly an overprotective mum- but I can still see dangers attached to cycling on the pavement round here: you need to be a very steady cyclist to be sure of not losing balance on narrow pavements near heavy traffic and with lots of pedestrians to dodge. If you fall off, you are as likely as not to fall into the road, and then you will almost certainly get run over.

I also know a fair few people who have been injured by cyclists on pavements, so again I would not be happy for my dcs to ride on the pavement. I am perfectly happy for them to ride on their own in safer places where they are not going to cause a risk to other people.

167 post thread and it takes CaptainSpeaking, a complete newbie or namechanger, to be rude and insulting.

All thise points could have been made without being rude.

And in any case, your post doesn't even accurately reflect the tenor of the thread.

That's because the rest of us are well thread trained, Blu- as we should be, considering how often this subject comes up
(funny to find myself on the side of caution for once, never really tried out the facilities on this side before)

Is it because you is a pc headbanger?

It sounds a bit young to me for that distance in a busy urban area. Though I have and do sometimes let my last two 6yos walk and cycle to school unaccompanied or with an older sibling. But that's since we moved to Milly-Molly-Mandy land, if we'd stayed in the cities we used to live in I'd have let them from 8 maybe. depending on the roads, and the sense of the children.

I'm amused by the people citing 'busy traffic' as the main problem - this is south London! Rush hour traffic is doing well if it gets above 10 mph!
My offspring aren't school age yet but in the mornings the main road near my house (a couple miles from this couple) is gridlock and the side roads under 15 mph. After school is a bit faster.

"167 post thread and it takes CaptainSpeaking, a complete newbie or namechanger, to be rude and insulting"

Oh you poor delicate petal, I'm so sorry. What was I thinking, actually disagreeing with you?

Oh wait, hang on, I've just remembered something - I'm ALLOWED to disagree with you.

Who'd have thunk it?

"People have actually mentioned the risk of them accidentally swerving into the road or losing balance due to being too close to traffic."

Oh well in that case I agree with you. Children whose folks can't be bothered to teach them to ride a bike properly certainly shouldn't be cycling in public.

Of course, apparently the actual children in question (not the imaginary ones made of porcelain and glass which you'd obviously prefer we base our legislation on) have travelled to and from the school without swerving uncontrollably into traffic which they're more than old enough to know is very dangerous, or even just ploughing into another pedestrian and killing or seriously injuring them.

In fact all your hypothetical scenarios about the horrors which might befall them are just nonsense, aren't they? Now be honest, you're just making up stuff which has not happened to the two kids in question, aren't you, because if you were forced to admit that in the real world they seem perfectly safe and competent, you'd have nothing to base your obstructive, interfering meddling on, would you?

Thanks so much!

Agree with ronshar.
I have a communal garden at the back of our house. only accessed from the houses that back onto it. gate, with 2 padlocks that council use to come in and mow it. i let my 6 yr old play football with the 6 other kids aged 7-11. And i let my nearly 2 year old in there. unsupervised i tell you. yes i stand and hang out my washing. i can hear them, catch glimpses of them. and when i told the council woman she said, but surely you don't leave them there unsupervised, evne for a minute. and i said actually i do.
make sme mad it does. helicopter parenitng at its worse. i know we will never regain my childhood wehre i went off on my bike all dya and only came home for my dinner. but we have to make some steps and trying to re-gain some sort of balance.