First Ann Arbour trys to ban cycling on city streets and now Madison School Board's book of code: "A pupil under the age of 10 shall not ride a bicycle to school."
Is it any wonder society is getting more sedentary, health costs are going up, and there are less cyclists on the road?
Authorities are doing their (misdirected) best to save ourselves from the "dangers" of cycling!
"Karla Handel's kindergarten son, Aaron, ran into the policy after a two-block ride from his house on East Mifflin Street to Lapham Elementary School. Handel said that a staffer at the school door told them Aaron shouldn't be riding his bike, telling them it was a district rule.
"So we haven't ridden a bike since," Handel said. Before that, she had been walking alongside Aaron as he pedaled the sidewalks.
John Coleman and his daughter have a longer ride to the kindergarten through second-grade school on East Dayton Street. Their route takes them from their house on South Dickinson Street across East Washington Avenue, but Coleman said he's comfortable having his 9-year-old daughter pedal alongside him.
"I want the time to teach my kids to bike safely," he said. "It takes them quite a bit of reminding for them to learn to look."
He biked alongside his older daughter every day until she was nearly 12, he said, and she's now an excellent cyclist.
gonesh9
05-31-03, 02:51 PM
:confused:
Guest
05-31-03, 03:42 PM
Ok, so I guess we end up with big, fat diabetic lazy kids who take the bus?
This is so ridiculous... :rolleyes:
It looks like an attempt by the school board to get more people to pay for the bus, if you ask me!
jatkins679
05-31-03, 04:46 PM
I would doubt that such a ban were enforceable. School districts cannot dictate who can and cannot ride their bikes on public roads. Yes, they may be able to prevent students from bringing their bicycles on campus. But that's a different story and from the article posted, it doesn't say that they cannot park their bikes at school anyway.
Almost certainly, there are some children who are too young to be riding their bikes to school at every school. I remember growing up several classmates who were too unsure of themselves or just too stupid to be riding their bikes to school.
But I don't see what the point of a school district making a rule against it does. It's really up to parents (stupid or smart, good parents or not) to decide for themselves if their children are capable of cycling to school or not. And it is up to them to take responsibility for it. Student gets hurt riding their bike to school and the parents want to blame the school? The correct response from the school is, 'Uhhh... how exactly does this concern us?'
In all fairness to the school, though, maybe they have had litigation about this, where some parent wanted the school to shell out for their kid getting hurt riding his/her bike to school. I mean, let's be honest here: newspapers aren't exactly known nowadays for being thorough or unbiased when it comes to reporting. It is a good example of poor journalism that the article didn't mention that they even asked for an explanation for the school district about why they have such a rule in the first place.
I can clearly imagine that some parent has threatened suit over their little Johnny getting hurt riding to school and this was the school district's response. I'm sure that it has already happened to districts around the country.
ngateguy
05-31-03, 05:02 PM
There might be a liability question here that we are not aware of. First under 10 is really to young to be riding without proper supervision anyway. And I seem to recall (remember this was a couple of eons ago) when I was in school the school had some responsibility in the trip home, I maybe wrong. Of course the way some parents work these days even if the let the kid leave the house on a bike without a helmet and something happened they would sue the school district and Bell helmets for not forcing them to be responsible parents.
John E
05-31-03, 05:04 PM
Just what we needed -- more paternalistic, irrationally risk-averse, Big Brother nanny-statism. A free society can remain so only if its members are held accountable for their individual decisions and actions and treated as though they (in this case, the parents of the affected schoolchildren) are rational, intelligent adults.
Bicycling with one's children to school, or walking alongside them while they ride, is a fabulous way to spend quality family time together, while teaching vital safety tips. Yes, the kids near the school can walk, but many of the ones farther away will end up being driven, instead.
Someone needs to challenge rules such as this diplomatically, but also assertively and steadfastly.
Guest
05-31-03, 05:06 PM
<sigh>
Good 'ole United States, land of the sue happy and litigious! :rolleyes:
If parents are willing to sign a waiver relinquishing school responsibility, then let the kids ride....
Make the parents responsible for their own kids for once!
Sheesh!
Koff
mike
05-31-03, 06:58 PM
So...
Exactly what freedoms are our military supposedly going around the world defending?
Right here in the USA, it is against the law for kids to ride bicycles to school. In my town, it is against the law for kids to be outside of school during school hours (yes, a LAW, not a rule), and it is agains the law for minors to be out past 10:00 PM.
We are searched when we travel. We cannot assemble for public protest without being arrested. The list goes on and on.
America might be the home of the brave, but the home of the free part is fading.
wabbit
05-31-03, 07:27 PM
NO kidding. I just saw a story on 2020 last night about kids whose parents SPY on them. They put cameras in their rooms, GPS devices in the cars, eavesdrop on their internet activities. All so their kids won't make mistakes. In the process, their kids won't have lives either, and instead of learning how to be good, they'll grow up suspicious and fearful. I am amazed that there are towns with CURFEWS. Then, we send kids out into the world with no coping skills. Any wonder we have lazy, hyperactive, diabetic kids?
Seriously, spying on kids. I was appalled. We criticize countries like Iraq for spying on their citizens. How free are you if you can't even trust your own KIDS????
oscaregg
05-31-03, 07:31 PM
Just what we need-more kids turned into motor-dependent little ******* earlier.
FOG
05-31-03, 07:34 PM
10 is not too young if you are responsible, The issue with younger children is a much narrower field of vision- that's why we tell them to look both ways, turning their heads. My brother was ten when he and I rode roughly 50 miles together (I was 13). We rode up a heavily traveled US numbered route that was two and four lanes for most of the trip. To this day I think it was a safe and vbaluable experience. I think we need to give our kids freedom, and expect them to be responsible with it.
greywolf
05-31-03, 07:45 PM
Originally posted by mike
So...
Exactly what freedoms are our military supposedly going around the world defending?
Right here in the USA, it is against the law for kids to ride bicycles to school. In my town, it is against the law for kids to be outside of school during school hours (yes, a LAW, not a rule), and it is agains the law for minors to be out past 10:00 PM.
We are searched when we travel. We cannot assemble for public protest without being arrested. The list goes on and on.
America might be the home of the brave, but the home of the free part is fading.
You can't go to Cuba on a cycling vacation neither , now thats a shame :)
Chris L
05-31-03, 07:53 PM
Originally posted by jatkins679
I would doubt that such a ban were enforceable. School districts cannot dictate who can and cannot ride their bikes on public roads.
Unfortunately they can. They can actually punish the kids at school for doing so with detentions and so on. When I was a kid I knew of people who got into trouble at school for fighting with someone on the way home, so technically they could take the same action in this area.
Having said that, I think it's a ridiculous idea. When I was growing up in Werris Creek back in the 80's, I remember kids as young as 5 or 6 riding to school - and not confined to the footpath/sidewalk either. Admittedly, Werris Creek was (and still is) a very small town, but surely if someone can ride on the roads at the age of five, they should be ready for it by the age of 10.
As Koffee said below, this is all about parents not wanting to make the effort to be proper parents. Yes, there are some things children need to be protected from, but this is just ridiculous. My view on schools is (and always has been) that they are there to educate our children, not to be a substitute parent. As far as I'm concerned if the parents are happy to let their children ride to school, they should be allowed to do so.
Originally posted by wabbit
I just saw a story on 2020 last night about kids whose parents SPY on them. They put cameras in their rooms, GPS devices in the cars, eavesdrop on their internet activities. All so their kids won't make mistakes. In the process, their kids won't have lives either, and instead of learning how to be good, they'll grow up suspicious and fearful. I am amazed that there are towns with CURFEWS. Then, we send kids out into the world with no coping skills. Any wonder we have lazy, hyperactive, diabetic kids?
How is that spying thing supposed to work? Like it's really going to stop kids from going behind the school toilets for a smoke or skipping a class or something. That is just ridiculous - unless they intend to hire a camera crew to follow them to school and so on (I hope I haven't suggested anything with that post).
I might also add at this point that the Gold Coast is looking like introducing one of those curfews right now. Yes, it's the same mayor Gary Baildon who banned Marilyn Manson from performing here and later publicly claimed "I have to look after the morals of the people of the Gold Coast because they are too stupid to do it for themselves." He's right - after all, we elected him, didn't we?
Prosody
05-31-03, 09:01 PM
School boards are populated by some of the most worthless human beings on the planet! Sorry, had to vent, school employee, you know.
There is a liability issue here. Schools can, and often are, held responsible for the safety of their students from the time they walk out of their homes in the morning until they walk back into their homes in the afternoon. I forget the Latin term, but school officials have the rights and responsibilities of parents during this time. The more litigious society becomes, the more school boards try to cover their rear ends. Unfortunately, they fail to consider all the circumstances under which a child might ride a bicycle to school--riding in the company of a parent should not be against the rules because, essentially, school officials do not function as the parent when a child is accompanied by his/her own parent. In addition, a parent should be able to authorize a child to ride a bicycle to school, thus releasing school officials, somewhat, from responsibility.
One thing is for certain, though. If you are looking for a rational application of logic among those who confront difficult issues, do not go looking for school officials.
mike
05-31-03, 11:09 PM
Originally posted by FOG
My brother was ten when he and I rode roughly 50 miles together (I was 13). We rode up a heavily traveled US numbered route that was two and four lanes for most of the trip. To this day I think it was a safe and vbaluable experience. I think we need to give our kids freedom, and expect them to be responsible with it.
No kidding. When I was fifteen, my thirteen year old brother and my sixteen year old friend threw a canoe on top of a volkswagon bus and drove 600 miles to Canada. We then canoed and portaged the backcountry for two weeks, completely un-escorted by anyone else. It was just us kids with a compass, maps, gear, and luck.
These days, parents would be arrested for neglect if they allowed their kids to do that kind of stuff.
Chris L
05-31-03, 11:25 PM
Originally posted by Prosody
There is a liability issue here. Schools can, and often are, held responsible for the safety of their students from the time they walk out of their homes in the morning until they walk back into their homes in the afternoon.
Alright, so what happens if a school bus crashes somewhere? Are the schools held responsible for that, too? Will we see people being banned from riding the school bus? I'm sorry, but I can't think of any way of looking at this situation which makes it appear anything other than completely ridiculous.
oscaregg
06-01-03, 07:29 AM
Prosody, the phrase is "in loco parentis;" meaning something like substitute parents. Brings to mind an even worse radio commercial heard recently around here; about a BMX freestyle VIDEO GAME, to save sweat, scabs, and ER visits, as it said.
Paige
06-01-03, 09:01 AM
"Land of the free, home of the brave", indeed!
"Freedom of movement is the very essence of our free society ... once the right to travel is curtailed, all other rights suffer."
== Justice William Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court
bac
06-01-03, 09:07 AM
Originally posted by Koffee Brown
Ok, so I guess we end up with big, fat diabetic lazy kids who take the bus?
It's even worse than that. It's fat, lazy kids who have their parents drive them to school. What's up with that? http://www.smilies.okipages.com/s/contrib/aahmed/azcrying.gif
closetbiker
06-01-03, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by Paige
"Freedom of movement is the very essence of our free society ... once the right to travel is curtailed, all other rights suffer."
What's bad here is that bike riding is taken as too risky to be considered for movement.
Maybe the way the kids have been (or not been) shown how to ride is the problem.
The two examples of parents walking or riding with their kids are examples of good instruction and guidance. Maybe other parents just make sure their kids can "balance" and tell them to go to school (with no other instruction), and there may have been some problems with how the kids (under 10) handle traffic situations (of which they have had no instruction or guidance).
This seems typical of how many view riding a bike, a kids toy that has no connection to "real" transportation. What a potential benefit for all if kids are taught how to ride properly and explained to about how traffic works so when they eventually do drive, they are better drivers because they were responsible bike riders.
jatkins679
06-01-03, 11:59 AM
I'd just like to see more information about the policy and a better reporter and/or copy editor write it up.
As I said before, the article was a poor piece of journalism. The reporter spoke to the district's attorney, but no where in the article does it say that the reporter asked for a reason behind the policy. So what exactly IS the reason for the policy?
And why no skepticism or outright incredulity on the part of the reporter? The policy 'should not be taken as a barrier, but a chance to have a discussion'? Oh please.... What complete nonsense.
That's what having a formal policy doesn't do: talking's over, here's how we handle things. You discuss BEFORE you draft and implement policy, not afterwards. But the reporter apparently let the district's counsel slide on that (among other things) or the copy editor cut that out. Either way, I've seen high school newspaper stories better written that this.
wabbit
06-01-03, 12:15 PM
I actually remember Dave Barry writing a column about how he and his brother, when they were teens went on a vacation alone! Most parents today won't even let their kids walk out the door without supervision, and as I mentioned before, even SPY on their kids.
Then, when the kids are in college, parents send them out with no life skills, no understanding of how the world works, and lots of cash. Kids aren't learning anything about the world around them except how to be afraid of everything.
Paige
06-01-03, 04:50 PM
Originally posted by closetbiker
What's bad here is that bike riding is taken as too risky to be considered for movement.
Maybe the way the kids have been (or not been) shown how to ride is the problem.
The two examples of parents walking or riding with their kids are examples of good instruction and guidance. Maybe other parents just make sure their kids can "balance" and tell them to go to school (with no other instruction), and there may have been some problems with how the kids (under 10) handle traffic situations (of which they have had no instruction or guidance).
This seems typical of how many view riding a bike, a kids toy that has no connection to "real" transportation. What a potential benefit for all if kids are taught how to ride properly and explained to about how traffic works so when they eventually do drive, they are better drivers because they were responsible bike riders.
This post reminded me of a program I had heard about some time ago, I wasn't sure where so I did a search (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=safe+bike+routes+to+school&btnG=Google+Search)
Pete Clark
06-02-03, 09:56 AM
Yikes! Madison, Wisconsin bans cycling to school
The irony is that driving a car is the number one killer of teenagers in the United States. Not drugs, gangs, AIDS, or weapons in school.
So, who's the brave desk-jockey who'll step up to the plate and ban teenagers from driving to school?
It's believed that children who learn to cycle safely for transportation (that means to school, doesn't it?) grow up to become safer drivers.
oscaregg
06-02-03, 10:05 AM
How's this for an approach that's green, "market oriented," and would attack teenage sedentariness (?:) Step 1. Eliminate free student parking at high schools, Step 2. Sell that valuable real estate to private contractors who will be allowed to rent parking space at a fixed, high, urban-downtownish rate,
and Step 3: Give full physical education credit to any high school student who walks or bicycles to school. The side benefit is that it'll get kids out of the competitive team sports worship of most high school gym classes and into lifetime activities. Walking and cycling are activities that can then be enjoyed, instead of the Nazi-with-a-whistle approach of most gym classes which most likely causes many people to hate exercise for life, as the pleasant activities they are.
MattC
06-02-03, 10:09 AM
I don't see what is so bad about this. I don't really think a child under the age of 10 should be riding a bike on the street unsupervised in the first place and I am sure this is what they are trying to stop.
mtbkanata
06-02-03, 10:19 AM
Maybe they can fill the Fat American Stereotype and ride a Segway to school... heh... No offence to anyone... this could have happened here in Canada too. It seems that one person has a bad experience and everyone over-reacts!
Joe
ngateguy
06-02-03, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by oscaregg
How's this for an approach that's green, "market oriented," and would attack teenage sedentariness (?:) Step 1. Eliminate free student parking at high schools, Step 2. Sell that valuable real estate to private contractors who will be allowed to rent parking space at a fixed, high, urban-downtownish rate,
and Step 3: Give full physical education credit to any high school student who walks or bicycles to school. The side benefit is that it'll get kids out of the competitive team sports worship of most high school gym classes and into lifetime activities. Walking and cycling are activities that can then be enjoyed, instead of the Nazi-with-a-whistle approach of most gym classes which most likely causes many people to hate exercise for life, as the pleasant activities they are.
Yes but as for step 2 don't sell develop it themselves and use the money raised to fund athletic programs. ANd yes down with the military regime gym classes I did poorly in them I had to learn to exercise my self. I was weak not because I was lazy but because I had a disability that was not detected and also easy to overcome once identified! y\ut the gym teachers all decided that I was a weakling and didn't put enough effort into their class
caloso
06-02-03, 12:03 PM
I'm surprised and disappointed. My perception of Madison was that it combined the progessivism of a university town with good ol' fashioned upper Midwest sensibility.
This is neither progressive nor sensible. It's just stupid on several levels. Feh.
FOG
06-02-03, 01:35 PM
Originally posted by caloso
I'm surprised and disappointed. My perception of Madison was that it combined the progessivism of a university town with good ol' fashioned upper Midwest sensibility.
This is neither progressive nor sensible. It's just stupid on several levels. Feh.
It is progressive- like cancer and the income tax.
Pete Clark
06-02-03, 06:49 PM
Originally posted by FOG
It is progressive- like cancer and the income tax.
This indeed has occurred to me also. Passive acceptance of this
decision could bolster the public misconception that cycling is too dangerous on the road (where else can you ride to get anywhere important?) and should be curtailed.
Sometimes this war is fought in the sleepy minds of normal people who simply believe without question.
bac
06-02-03, 07:14 PM
Originally posted by FOG
It is progressive- like cancer and the income tax.
Man, I could not have stated it better! http://www.gamers-forums.com/smilies/contrib/edoom/bounce2.gif
oscaregg
06-03-03, 09:34 AM
Originally posted by ngateguy
Yes but as for step 2 don't sell develop it themselves and use the money raised to fund athletic programs. ANd yes down with the military regime gym classes I did poorly in them I had to learn to exercise my self. I was weak not because I was lazy but because I had a disability that was not detected and also easy to overcome once identified! y\ut the gym teachers all decided that I was a weakling and didn't put enough effort into their class Yes, you're thinking better than me on this one--schools would have a better use for the money than parking lot contractors, for sure! I ditched gym as much as possible through high school--to hide my ABL of A-standard shaved legs for the criteriums and road races I was in on the weekends!
Crazy Cyclist
06-04-03, 11:31 AM
This ban was probably thought up by some women 's group, some crazy parent who didn't want to see their kid get any excersize, I mean they sit in school all day, it wouldn't kill the kids to ride a few KM's after or before school. This is a case of over protective parents.
oscaregg
06-05-03, 01:43 PM
And speaking of liability--could this school district be sued thirty years in the future if someone's lawyer can prove that the no cycling policy led to ill health brought on by the enforcement of sedentary habits?
greywolf
06-20-03, 04:05 AM
When I went to school in the UK ,in the 50s :eek: you could ride your bike school Ok but to bring your bike onto the school grounds & get a place in the bike shelter , you had to have passed the "Cycle Proficiance Cert." which was a cycle safty course & test run by the traffic police through the schools, the test ,which included a practical element as well as theory was not easy & a lot of kids didnt pass it on the first try !
This seems like a more responsipal attitude for schools to take.:rolleyes:
chewa
06-20-03, 06:12 AM
I did my test at primary school when I was about 9 or 10.
I remember loads of kids riding to school then (late 60's)
Trouble with today's society is that a lot of people want others to take responsibility for them or their families. What happened to making your own mind up as to whether something was safe or not?
Kids were at greater risk in Victorian times than now. We're raising nations of victims.