View Full Version : SAFETY OF SCHOOL CHILDREN - Weydale to Thurso Road
Highland Council are removing the concessionary pupils' from the Weydale bus to THS as from tomorrow Mon 20 November.
This is solely on the basis of a Report Carried out in November 2008 that the road is not deemed high risk and is therefore classed as a Safe Route to School.
This is a 60 mph single track road, with no pavements or street lighting and during the hours of 7.30 to 8.30 am and 4.00 to 4.30 pm it is PITCH BLACK.
All drivers in this area should be aware of the high risk this will create to both themselves and the children and parents.
They will be on this road between the hours of 7.30 to 8.30 am and 4.00 to 4.30 pm.
We will keep you updated.
Is the bus from Weydale to THS not running from tomorrow or will kids have to pay now?
Alice in Blunderland
22-Nov-09, 14:05
Highland Council are removing the concessionary pupils' from the Weydale bus to THS as from tomorrow Mon 20 November.
This is solely on the basis of a Report Carried out in November 2008 that the road is not deemed high risk and is therefore classed as a Safe Route to School.
This is a 60 mph single track road, with no pavements or street lighting and during the hours of 7.30 to 8.30 am and 4.00 to 4.30 pm it is PITCH BLACK.
All drivers in this area should be aware of the high risk this will create to both themselves and the children and parents.
They will be on this road between the hours of 7.30 to 8.30 am and 4.00 to 4.30 pm.
We will keep you updated.
I am sorry but I am not quite understanding this. Do the kids get transport but now have to pay or do they have to walk all the way from the high school home instead. ( sorry dont live in the area so am not sure of distance involved)
By the way way the post is written it must mean that the children will have to pay for the bus and if they do not pay then they would have to walk.
I do not know what the regulations are now but when my Kids went to Thurso High School it was this. If the distance of your home was 3 miles or more from Thurso High School then they were entitled to free Bus Fare.
If this is still the case, as I said I do not know the rules now, then weydale should come under this surely as Weydale is well over 4 miles awat from THS.
Perhaps someone out there in Org-land knows what the rules and regs are now.
http://i49.tinypic.com/2v27eqw.jpg
manloveswife
22-Nov-09, 14:33
From "THE HIGHLAND COUNCIL EDUCATION SERVICE APPLICATION FOR SCHOOL TRANSPORT" form.
"Children are eligible for transport if they live 2 or more miles from their local school by the shortest available route. This distance is increased to 3 or more miles when the child is age 8 or over"
So, THS being the only "local" school for children of high school age then Weydale needs to be 3 miles or above away from THS BY THE SHORTEST ROUTE.
I couldn't tell you the distance, perhaps someone knows or has measured it? Shame anyway, its pretty abismal for the kids to and from school, especially with some of the driving on the country roads.
The Weydale road has a lot of blind spots and dips in it and with school uniform being black that really is a mad decision.
We all know how kids will overspend without thinking and then have to walk home at times, fine in the summer when it is light but in winter it is lunacy.
I have been told in the past that my child did not qualify for school transport as they were within the allowed mileage to THS even though we are on the busy A9 road with no lights, pavements and have cars that pass, not just at 60 miles, but sometimes alot more. I now have wee ones that just started primary school and was told the same story which i know is a joke. So because of all this i chose to put my children to the school of my choice and not the highland regionals choice. I get very annoyed when i hear the safety of childrens lives being sacrifised just because the council are cost cutting yet again. No bus passes my road end so i have to provide my own transport
As far as I am aware, the bus from Weydale is still running to THS, but only 'eligible' pupils are allowed to travel on it. They have not been given the option to pay for the bus. Simply told they are being removed from it.
The road is not classed high risk and deemed a 'Safe Route to School' therefore 'concessionary' children (those who live within 3 miles) are being removed from the bus. It clearly states on the www.direct.gov.en/parents/Schoollearningdevelopment/Schoollife (http://www.direct.gov.en/parents/Schoollearningdevelopment/Schoollife) that if your child lives within 3 miles of the school and the road is deemed UNSAFE they are entitled to free school transport.
In this case an appeal, was made in Nov 2008 but the road in question was 'deemed safe' on the basis of what can only be seen as a general Road Report by Committee Members at the Appeal meeting.
People should be made aware that this is a busy 60 mph single track road, with Contractors, Haulage Vehicles, Farm Vehicles, Bus Route etc using it on a daily basis. There are no street lights or pavements. In places where there are verges they contain deep ditches and drainage channels and are unlevel. We have spoken to Northern Constabulary and they too agree that this road is a high risk to pedestrians.
As a driver/resident of this road, I would value for your opinion of school children walking in the early hours and latter part of the day on this stretch of road.
manloveswife
22-Nov-09, 14:48
Safety should be a priority when it comes to the children. Our son rides a mile up a single track road which isn't to bad, then to catch the bus he waits on the verge of the Westfield to Thurso road with no where really fit to stand, just past a dip and a bend. Fair enough he gets the transport but it scares the heck out of me when I see cars flying at 70 and above on this narrow road, in the dark, wet and Ice.
I think we all have a part to play in their safety, the council to do its part, and for the rest of us road users to just think a little what may be round the next bend, especially at the times of day when children are to and from school. Just allow a few more minutes to get to or from work, after all you wouldn't do 70 past the school when the lights are flashing would you. ???
Alice in Blunderland
22-Nov-09, 15:08
mmm maybe a few more roads will be re-classed as 'safe'. :confused
Its gonna save the Education Authority some money in such hard times............how much is a child's life worth tho. :~(
cuddlepop
22-Nov-09, 15:15
So are you saying that even if parents pay for their childs bus fare they are not allowed on it?
This is only the start of savage cuts,be afraid be very afraid........:(
They are not being given the choice to pay for the bus simply removed.
In the case of Scrabster pupils to THS, their parents' are given the choice for their children to walk safely to school with pavements and lighting the whole way, or pay for a bus which is laid on.
In the case of the Glengolly pupils whose route is also less than 3 miles and safer (i.e. pavements) to THS their is a 'concessionary' bus laid on for them by Highland Council to take them to school.
The Dixonfield pupils are given no choice.
Anyone who knows this route, would be aware that their childrens' lives would be put at risk walking this deemed 'Safe Route to School', as their is a highly probable chance they could be seriously injured or killed on this road, especially as the times involved is when it is pitch black!
This leaves their parents' with no alternative but to drive or taxi them at their own expense to school.
You can bet if there was a councillor in that area though whose child used the bus then this would not be happening.
Maybe the councillors who made this decision should be asked to walk this route dressed as the kids would be and at the same time they expect these kids to walk it and see how smart an idea it is then.
Absolute imbeciles.
cuddlepop
22-Nov-09, 15:45
is this a public bus or one only used for school children?
I invited both the Head of Support Services, Education, Culture and Sport and the Road Safety Specialist, Tec Services who wrote the report in Nov 2008 to walk with me any morning at 7.30 am this week.
My invited was ignored.
If anybody out there would like a copy of this Report for their perusal, please feel free to contact me under private messages and I will forward it to them.
cuddlepop
22-Nov-09, 15:50
I invited both the Head of Support Services, Education, Culture and Sport and the Road Safety Specialist, Tec Services who wrote the report in Nov 2008 to walk with me any morning at 7.30 am this week.
My invited was ignored.
If anybody out there would like a copy of this Report for their perusal, please feel free to contact me under private messages and I will forward it to them.
Take this informtion and lack of reply to your local paper and Councillor Bill Fernie who should be able to help.
It is not a public bus only one used for school children.
So if god forbid, anything should happen to any of these kids can the council be held accountable for removing the service?
It sounds awfully dangerous..but surely it is the responsibility of parents to make sure their children get to school safely.......it was in my heyday.I had to get 2 public buses over the city...winter/summer..and we paid our way.
Surely there are parents who Could/Would help each other on a rota basis ,with family cars??????:roll:
I do think there is too much molly coddling nowadays..and if [ I do not] I had children,I would ensure that they were safe on the way to school,by any means available to me.
I would be VERY worried about children walking on that road..........make safe arrangements urself.
Private message now deleted.
cuddlepop
22-Nov-09, 16:45
Your right BINBOB it is the parents responsibility to get the children safely to school.
In this caes though the HC have decided to withdraw a service they demeaned necessary in the first place.:confused
Start Digging Ganeesha and you'll find a reason why this bus was introduced in the first place.
Alice in Blunderland
22-Nov-09, 16:50
I would be VERY worried about children walking on that road..........make safe arrangements urself.
I am sure the parents concerned WILL ensure their children are safe whilst getting to school.
I get the impression its the withdrawal of the service and the regrading of the road to 'safe' after so many years of being not safe to walk on and the inability for the children to access the transport even with payment thats frustrating the parents.Whats so different about the road today than it was when first graded safe?
Paths................. No!
Lights.................No!
Speed restrictions.........No!
Fewer cars.................. in your dreams!
Safer .........................YES? ..... No!
This is a cop out for the Education office and gives them the ability to save money. Where next will they do some regrading of whats going to save them money.
Personally there is no way i would allow my children to walk this road-I travel on it a lot and there are always cars driving way too fast!A child walking on this road is an accident waiting to happen!Even more so, as pointed out that they have to wear black uniforms!:eek: This is madness and has to be stopped!Not every parent has transport available to take their child/children to school so they must be given access to a SAFE way of getting there and that road IMO is not safe!x
REPLY TO BINBOB
If you had read the threads you will have noted that it is HC Policy to transport children to school if a route is deemed unsafe. The point being that this is a route that has been deemed safe which everyone including Northern Constabulary is aware is unsafe!
Children on a much shorter and safer route have a 'concessionary' bus laid on at no expense to the Parent, ie. Glengolly to Thurso.
The Dixonfield field parents are not even given the choice to pay for a bus that passes their front door!
The parents of these children are 'ensuring' their children are being transported to school with no risk!
Alice in Blunderland
22-Nov-09, 18:04
You are not alone in your situation with regard to safety. This is a slightly older story from another area but still Highland council.
http://www.whfp.com/Frontpage/Families-concerned-over-walk-to-school-on-busy-road.html
REPLY TO BINBOB
If you had read the threads you will have noted that it is HC Policy to transport children to school if a route is deemed unsafe. The point being that this is a route that has been deemed safe which everyone including Northern Constabulary is aware is unsafe!
Children on a much shorter and safer route have a 'concessionary' bus laid on at no expense to the Parent, ie. Glengolly to Thurso.
The Dixonfield field parents are not even given the choice to pay for a bus that passes their front door!
The parents of these children are 'ensuring' their children are being transported to school with no risk!
I am very glad to hear that parents are transporting children safely to school.
cuddlepop
22-Nov-09, 19:07
You are not alone in your situation with regard to safety. This is a slightly older story from another area but still Highland council.
http://www.whfp.com/Frontpage/Families-concerned-over-walk-to-school-on-busy-road.html
I thought there was a bit of 'da ja vu' about this story.:(
I think that in this day and age it is absolutely ridiculous to expect children to walk this road in the summer months never mind the winter months.Under Scottish government legislation the criteria for making such decisions can be reviewed at any time. With the lack of light, no pavements, atrocious weather, drains cut into the grass verge that has to be walked on and the speed limit (60 mph) on the road surely it should be reviewed NOW. In the curent climate of nearly everything you do having to have a risk assessment accompanying it is it not about time someone from the council risk assessed this for the children and parents before it is to late.
It is a lethal road because of the long straight between Dixonfield and the top of the hill and it is getting worse because of extra houses/contractors yards etc resulting in extra traffic. There is a myth that it is a 'wide' single track road made so because of Norfrost traffic and two vehicles can pass safely. That is fine and indeed true in daylight but in the dark and in bad weather--there is a lot of surface water on it, faced with many reckless users of this road, it is bad enough if you are in a vehicle let alone walking . I often come across dog walkers on it in the dark and you only see them last minute (no slur on dog walkers intended) which is bad enough if there is no car coming in the opposite direction but if there is you are gripping your steering wheell and praying. Dog walkers know the score but would children?
NickInTheNorth
22-Nov-09, 19:26
Hi Ganeesha, if I was you I would get in touch with your MP, MSP, local councillor and local TV and Newspapers. Get them all to agree to a walk along that road at say 8.30am or 4.00pm and then ask the elected representatives if they consider it safe.
I think you will find the decision changed very quickly, probably before the walk takes place!
I'm actually stunned that the school would expect kids to walk to school from Weydale/Dixonfield, yet would lay on a funded bus for Glengolly (which is far closer to the High School, and has a path the whole way into town)! Shocking :eek:!
Ganeesha, have you tried calling the bus depot in Thurso directly, and asking if you can buy a bus pass? If the bus is passing your way anyway, you'll likely find they are more than happy to provide your kids with a student bus pass as long as you're willing to pay.
It doesn't resolve the main issue of course, but it would ensure the kids are getting to school safely in the interim :).
Hi Ganeesha, if I was you I would get in touch with your MP, MSP, local councillor and local TV and Newspapers. Get them all to agree to a walk along that road at say 8.30am or 4.00pm and then ask the elected representatives if they consider it safe.
I think you will find the decision changed very quickly, probably before the walk takes place!
Damn fine idea Nick,I would definately like to see that!x
Hi NickInTheNorth
I have been in touch with them all!
I have asked the Road Safety Officer who carried out the Report and the Head of Support Services, Education Culture and Sport to walk with me on what is deemed as a 'Safe Route To School' but they have not replied to my request.
Bill Fernie, Councillor chaired the original meeting for my first Appeal in November 2008 which was dismissed. My Local Member sent his apologies to the Meeting and all the other members were from outwith the Community.
I'm actually stunned that the school would expect kids to walk to school from Weydale/Dixonfield, yet would lay on a funded bus for Glengolly (which is far closer to the High School, and has a path the whole way into town)! Shocking :eek:!
Ganeesha, have you tried calling the bus depot in Thurso directly, and asking if you can buy a bus pass? If the bus is passing your way anyway, you'll likely find they are more than happy to provide your kids with a student bus pass as long as you're willing to pay.
It doesn't resolve the main issue of course, but it would ensure the kids are getting to school safely in the interim :).
I have offered to pay for my child on what is classed as a school transport bus, but they are refusing to let her on it, because the seats are full. It is a 16 seater bus supplied by Highland Council for Mount Pleasant and Thurso High Schools'. She has been allowed to use it on a concessionary basis since August 2008. I appealed this at a meeting in November 2008 for her to be classed on an eligible basis but it was dismissed. This is the only bus available and Highland Council have withdrawn her seat and she is not allowed on it regardless if she pays for it or not. There are a number of children in the same area who have also had their concessionary seats withdrawn.
I have offered to pay for my child on what is classed as a school transport bus, but they are refusing to let her on it, because the seats are full. It is a 16 seater bus supplied by Highland Council for Mount Pleasant and Thurso High Schools. That is the only bus available and she is not allowed on it regardless if she pays for it or not.
How far is your house from the school?
Alice in Blunderland
22-Nov-09, 20:13
Bill Fernie, Councillor chaired the original meeting for my first Appeal in November 2008 which was dismissed. My Local Member sent his apologies to the Meeting and all the other members were from outwith the Community.
Your appeal as well as everyone else's that day and on most occasions was dismissed................ see a pattern. ;)
How far is your house from the school?
The HC Report measures the distance as 2.11 miles to and from THS. I have done the route a number of times and come up with 2.7 miles
The direct.gov.uk policy is:-
The statutory walking distance is:
two miles for pupils under eight
three miles for those aged eight and over.
BUT
The measurement of the 'statutory walking distance' is not necessarily the shortest distance by road. It is measured by the shortest route along which a child, accompanied as necessary, can walk with REASONABLE SAFETY. As such, the route measured may include footpaths, bridleways and other pathways as well as recognised roads. If there is no such route, the local authority must provide free transport no matter what distance you live from the school.
It is not the distance that it is an issue here - it is the SAFETY of the route. (ie. 60 mph single track road with no pavements or street lighting)
Your appeal as well as everyone else's that day and on most occasions was dismissed................ see a pattern. ;)
Yes............................................... .. there is most defintley a pattern;)
like anything else around here,it takes an accident to happen before anything is done about it,this is a ridiculous desicion,what the hell are they thinking?
I do not know if the rules have been altered since I left the country but
If Wick High School did NOT offer a particular course and Thurso High School did, the council were obliged to offer transport so that the child could achieve their educational potential.
Does Thurso High School offer something on the curriculum that Wick High does not? (Modern Studies, Drama, Dance - for example)?
Is it a 'road' worth pursuing?
tonkatojo
23-Nov-09, 00:57
I am sure the parents concerned WILL ensure their children are safe whilst getting to school.
I get the impression its the withdrawal of the service and the regrading of the road to 'safe' after so many years of being not safe to walk on and the inability for the children to access the transport even with payment thats frustrating the parents.Whats so different about the road today than it was when first graded safe?
Paths................. No!
Lights.................No!
Speed restrictions.........No!
Fewer cars.................. in your dreams!
Safer .........................YES? ..... No!
This is a cop out for the Education office and gives them the ability to save money. Where next will they do some regrading of whats going to save them money.
With all the cut backs in funding, they need to make the funds for the Gaelic projects safe, including those ridiculously proposed bilingual road signs.
Perhaps they will install a Gaelic one stating beware school children, for those that can read bilingual signs.
scottygirl
11-Dec-09, 01:21
Ok, so am I the only one that thinks that this is a really stupid decision?
They were on the bus, now they aren't and not even allowed to pay to get on it!!
These are children, young ones, that road is just not safe in any way shape or form!! I have driven it and been scared to death of the lorries that thunder up without a care, pushing you off the road into the verge never mind a pedestrian and a small one at that.
I am sure that I have seen a school bus stop at a house up there to pick up a girl in the past, is she still getting the bus?????
I think John Thurso would be a good port of call and heck, the national press might well be interested in a good story of a councils recklessness with young lives! risk assessments, like to see the one for this!!!!
I would suggest that as you can't get the folk mentioned to walk the route with you that you walk the kids down the hill with a video camera to show just what it is really like and put that out to the press and see how the council likes it!
Shocking, totally shocking.
Humerous Vegetable
11-Dec-09, 11:34
It is a dangerous road for pedestrians in the winter, however I don't think the OP did her sound arguement any favours by "embroidering" the truth, by telling the press that the road was unpaved, when clearly it isn't and by putting a 60mph speed limit on a B road..... I accept that not many drivers come down there at 50, but that is up to the police to enforce.
But I'm sure these points have already been made to the OP by Highland Council, who will be delighted that she/he has weakened her/his position by stretching the truth in this way.
I agree with all the comments being made about Highland Council's decision to remove concessionary school transport being ill-thought out and dangerous. Unfortunately, living in a rural area there are times when all services are not there and we have to assume responsibility for transporting our children to school by ourselves. Hard fact of life possibly but if you want safe pavements and/or a short walk, street lighting etc. etc. live in the town.
Mr P Cannop
11-Dec-09, 17:01
from the hc council meeting for next week
21. School Transport Appeal – Notice of Referral
There will follow to Members only Report No. HC/44/09 by the Assistant Chief Executive
I agree with all the comments being made about Highland Council's decision to remove concessionary school transport being ill-thought out and dangerous. Unfortunately, living in a rural area there are times when all services are not there and we have to assume responsibility for transporting our children to school by ourselves. Hard fact of life possibly but if you want safe pavements and/or a short walk, street lighting etc. etc. live in the town.
Spot on.;)
It is a dangerous road for pedestrians in the winter, however I don't think the OP did her sound arguement any favours by "embroidering" the truth, by telling the press that the road was unpaved, when clearly it isn't and by putting a 60mph speed limit on a B road..... I accept that not many drivers come down there at 50, but that is up to the police to enforce.
But I'm sure these points have already been made to the OP by Highland Council, who will be delighted that she/he has weakened her/his position by stretching the truth in this way.
What on earth are you talking about? Nothing in this makes any sense at all. I haven't a clue what you are waffling on about...................
Have you got the correct road and story matey??????????????
I agree with all the comments being made about Highland Council's decision to remove concessionary school transport being ill-thought out and dangerous. Unfortunately, living in a rural area there are times when all services are not there and we have to assume responsibility for transporting our children to school by ourselves. Hard fact of life possibly but if you want safe pavements and/or a short walk, street lighting etc. etc. live in the town.
DO YOU EXPECT ALL OF CAITHNESS TO LIVE IN THE TOWNS?
Who is going to farm our land etc. Duhhh
Spot on.;)
Oh no not you again Mr Miserable..........................
I hope you still feel the same way when a young child gets seriously injured or killed on the road...... for the sake of a few measly pound to put on a bigger bus, which I have offered to PAY to get my child on.
Actually,I am not a MR., AND I still stick with the point ...ALL PARENTS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR ENSURING THEIR CHILDRENS SAFETY!!Certainly hope NO child is injured or worse.............
May the new year bring u all that u wish for!!!!;)
Highland Council are presently deeming the 60 mph, single track unpaved, unlit road AS A SAFE ROUTE TO SCHOOL to get out of putting on a larger bus to accommodate all the pupils on this route.
Is it going to take a child being seriously injured or killed before they do something about it, as our children are still not able to use the School Bus, as either free transport or on a paying basis.
We have done some digging and are astonished to find that if we were claiming benefits the distance that would entitle our children to get on the bus would drop from 3 miles to 2 miles.
As we live 2.8 miles our only solution at present is to go on the dole therefore entitling our child to use the bus.
www.direct.gov.uk/en/Parents/Schoolslearninganddevelopment/SchoolLife/DG_10013990 (http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Parents/Schoolslearninganddevelopment/SchoolLife/DG_10013990)
Secondary school pupils
Since 1 September 2008, secondary school aged pupils (11 to 16 years old) have been entitled to free school transport if they are from a low income family, and they go to either:
any one of their three nearest suitable schools, and the schools are between two and six miles away from their home address
the nearest school preferred by their parents on the grounds of religion or belief, and the school is between two and 15 miles away from their home address
The extended rights to free transport are part of wider changes introduced under the Education and Inspections Act 2006.
changilass
31-Dec-09, 20:08
Why have you started a fresh thread when you already have on of the same title?
Have you read the rules?
Didn't realise.
nough said ehhhh........;)
Actually,I am not a MR., AND I still stick with the point ...ALL PARENTS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR ENSURING THEIR CHILDRENS SAFETY!!Certainly hope NO child is injured or worse.............
May the new year bring u all that u wish for!!!!;)
Ok Mrs. But why are the Glengolly Pupils' Parent's not transporting them to school. They are within the three mile limit, and have pavements all the way to school! Bearing in mind the Dixonfield pupils' have no pavements, street lighting and uneven verges on a 60 mph single track road!
nough said ehhhh........;)
Thanks for making me the most annoying person of 2009. All I am doing is trying to protect these children lives and ensure that they get the school bus which they are under direct government policy entitled to.
If I can make it possible I would be glad to make your most annoying list for 2010 as well..................:lol:
Relax Ganeesha...................New Year is comming............May the new year bring a bus pass for your kids.
Relax Ganeesha...................New Year is comming............May the new year bring a bus pass for your kids.
Either that or I am going on the Dole.............
Happy New Year to you!
Ok Mrs. But why are the Glengolly Pupils' Parent's not transporting them to school. They are within the three mile limit, and have pavements all the way to school! Bearing in mind the Dixonfield pupils' have no pavements, street lighting and uneven verges on a 60 mph single track road!
P.S. I am not a MRS. either..............;)Why would I know anything about the Glengolly pupils.......I don not live there,and I do not have any children..anywhere!!
I am sure u will take ur fight into 2010 and wish u well.
Humerous Vegetable
01-Jan-10, 10:47
What on earth are you talking about? Nothing in this makes any sense at all. I haven't a clue what you are waffling on about...................
Have you got the correct road and story matey??????????????
I live further down this road matey, and although there are no pavements, it is not a sheep track either. The speed limit for B roads is 50 mph, not 60. Matey.
We have done some digging and are astonished to find that if we were claiming benefits the distance that would entitle our children to get on the bus would drop from 3 miles to 2 miles.
I am not questioning what you are saying but why should being on benefits make any difference?
I live further down this road matey, and although there are no pavements, it is not a sheep track either. The speed limit for B roads is 50 mph, not 60. Matey.
Are you sure about that the dft.gov site is still saying 60mph.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/speedmanagement/speedknowyourlimits.pdf
Are you sure about that the dft.gov site is still saying 60mph.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/speedmanagement/speedknowyourlimits.pdf
Maybe HM is a bus or lorry because otherwise Tristan is right, the speed limit on all single track roads is 60 unless otherwise indicated. Not that anyone would think so judging by the speeds some car drivers think OK but that's another, and oft-repeated, story.
In the days when children walked miles to school there were either no cars or very few travelling much slower. As with so many things, if it applied personally to those who take these decisions maybe they would think differently.
northener
01-Jan-10, 14:19
I live further down this road matey, and although there are no pavements, it is not a sheep track either. The speed limit for B roads is 50 mph, not 60. Matey.
HV, just to clarify, 'B' roads are not subject to a different speed limit. If there are no signs stating otherwise, the National Speed Limit (60mph) applies.
It is a dangerous road for pedestrians in the winter, however I don't think the OP did her sound arguement any favours by "embroidering" the truth, by telling the press that the road was unpaved, when clearly it isn't and by putting a 60mph speed limit on a B road..... I accept that not many drivers come down there at 50, but that is up to the police to enforce.
But I'm sure these points have already been made to the OP by Highland Council, who will be delighted that she/he has weakened her/his position by stretching the truth in this way.
I live further down this road matey, and although there are no pavements, it is not a sheep track either. The speed limit for B roads is 50 mph, not 60. Matey.
HV, just to clarify, 'B' roads are not subject to a different speed limit. If there are no signs stating otherwise, the National Speed Limit (60mph) applies.
To further clarify....
Northener is correct about the 60MPH speed limit on B Roads.
Ganeesha didn't say the road was 'unpaved'. She said it has 'no pavements'. That is not the same thing at all.
Your posts are both wrong and unhelpful Mr Vegetable.
Humerous Vegetable
01-Jan-10, 16:07
[quote=Ganeesha;638742]Highland Council are presently deeming the 60 mph, single track unpaved, unlit road AS A SAFE ROUTE TO SCHOOL to get out of putting on a larger bus to accommodate all the pupils on this route.
Unpaved does not mean the same thing as un-pavemented. I am wrong about speed limits on B roads, although I think it's probably not even a B road, as it doesn't have a number. It seems to be impossible to find out speed limits for C and unclassified roads.
I am not trying to be unhelpful and have already acknowledged that the OP has a valid point, before he/she started attacking me.
I just think it's a shame when people move into a remote and rural area to enjoy the quality of life it provides, but still expects the same infrastructure to exist that they had in their previous town/city location.
Perhaps if that is there expectation,they should return to original place .........;)
One big issue that needs to be addressed is the number of deaths in Caithness. Even with buses how many children have died going to and from schools? I know of at least 2 deaths and a few injuries. I don't have statistics but that seems higher than other areas - the safety and lives of people, especially children should always be a priority.
Highland Council are presently deeming the 60 mph, single track unpaved, unlit road AS A SAFE ROUTE TO SCHOOL to get out of putting on a larger bus to accommodate all the pupils on this route.
Unpaved does not mean the same thing as un-pavemented. I am wrong about speed limits on B roads, although I think it's probably not even a B road, as it doesn't have a number. It seems to be impossible to find out speed limits for C and unclassified roads.
I am not trying to be unhelpful and have already acknowledged that the OP has a valid point, before he/she started attacking me.
I just think it's a shame when people move into a remote and rural area to enjoy the quality of life it provides, but still expects the same infrastructure to exist that they had in their previous town/city location.
Ganeesha used the word unpaved on this thread almost three weeks after you did.
Northener's point about the national speed limit applies to all roads in the country.
Anyways, I'm not interested in petty point scoring. I think the real point Ganeesha is making is that the road is narrow, it's unlit, it has no pavements, there are no speed restrictions other than the national speed limit of 60mph and therefore it is unsafe for children to walk to and from school. Not that I would expect them to walk 2.8 miles each way anyways.
Crayola the voice of reason..... This thread is about the safety of children, under 16 they are children and I for one would not want my child walking that road at any time let alone winter.
This is not 100 miles away from us all, it is a local issue that is being highlighted.
Yes a parent is responsible for making sure there child is safely to school but when there has been transport and it is suddenly removed it is not always so easy to change traveling arrangements if you work or have other commitments.
I really do not see how a thread like this becomes a battleground.
Alice in Blunderland
01-Jan-10, 21:59
I really do not see how a thread like this becomes a battleground.
Its posted on the org .......................anything and everything can quickly and easily become one big battleground. ;) :lol:
Its posted on the org .......................anything and everything can quickly and easily become one big battleground. ;) :lol:
Yes, I can only agree with that.
As a born and bred resident of Caithness, I was advised to highlight our issue on the Caithness.org to make Local people aware of our plight with regards to the SAFETY of all the local children invovled.
Since the thread was first posted, Northern Constabularly, Jamie Stone MSP, John Thurso MP, the Members of the Local Parent Council, Councillors' D Flear and R Coghill are all backing this issue.
It is Direct Government Policy, that if a road is deemed unsafe for children to walk to school, Highland Council should provide free transport to and from school regardless of the distance.
In matters such as this, The Highland Council use their 'own' Road Specialist, who deems the road in question either Safe or Unsafe. I would also add that this Specialist deemed the said road as two lane, which is 'unfactually' correct as it is classed as a busy SINGLE TRACK 60 MPH road, unpavemented, unlit, unlevel verges and with a high incident count of accidents. The Report gave no reference to the weather conditions in this region or the fact it would be pitch black when these children were using the route during the winter months. It also stated that the few passing places could be used as walkways, but did not state what the children were to do when a car was using them!!!!!!!!!!! It also stated that the children should 'possibly' use the same side of the road on both routes to and from school due to the lack of verges.
Over the past week the road, as deemed unlisted has not been salted or sanded. Therefore it is extremely icy and near impossible to walk on.
In this case, and another 42 cases in the Highland Region over the past 4 years, all Appeals apart from 2 were dismissed.
There is no doubt that this Road is unsafe for children over 8 to walk to school on, and apart from one or two most Org's agree with this.
We are most certainly not shirking our Parental Responsibility, it is wholly what we are and should be entitled to, thus preventing our Children being seriously injured or killed. Is it going to take that to happen before the Highland Council agree with everybody else that the road is unsafe.
Highland Council are at present unwilling to put on a larger bus to accommodate all the children on this route. Another Appeal Meeting is being held in January with regards to this matter.
Its posted on the org .......................anything and everything can quickly and easily become one big battleground. ;) :lol:
took the words out my mouth,every thread seems to just explode by page 2[lol]
In matters such as this, The Highland Council use their 'own' Road Specialist, who deems the road in question either Safe or Unsafe. Does anyone know who this Highland Council Road Specialist is? Perhaps they would like to come onto the Org and explain why the road is safe for children to walk along on the dark twice a day.
Alice in Blunderland
02-Jan-10, 16:14
Its a matter that many people should be watching this is a case of rewriting the rules to the benefit of Highland Council not the children.
If anything the roads should be assessed by an independent party of representatives to give a fairer feel to the whole process not by an inhouse employee as it seems to be.
Does anyone know who this Highland Council Road Specialist is? Perhaps they would like to come onto the Org and explain why the road is safe for children to walk along on the dark twice a day.
Probably the same road experts who came to Thurso a few years ago on a public holiday and claimed that there was nothing wrong with the order of the new traffic lights in Traill Street. [disgust]
Our Appeal was again dismissed on the grounds that the Dixonfield to Thurso Road is perfectly SAFE for children over the age of 8 to walk to school. Bearing in mind the road is unlit, with no pavements and is pitch black during the winter months.
Our MP, MSP and Councillors' Flear and Coghill along with the THS Parent Committee were all in agreement that the road was unsafe but Caithness
Councillor Bill Fernie, Chairman of the Education Culture and Sport Committee along with 4 other Councillors, outwith the Caithness area, voted and dismissed this appeal. They are all on the ECS and responsible for the Education Budget...............
Is it not about time we had people on these committees who are independent of the Highland Region Council and whose main concern is not MONEY.
cuddlepop
14-Jan-10, 20:40
Our Appeal was again dismissed on the grounds that the Dixonfield to Thurso Road is perfectly SAFE for children over the age of 8 to walk to school. Bearing in mind the road is unlit, with no pavements and is pitch black during the winter months.
Our MP, MSP and Councillors' Flear and Coghill along with the THS Parent Committee were all in agreement that the road was unsafe but Caithness
Councillor Bill Fernie, Chairman of the Education Culture and Sport Committee along with 4 other Councillors, outwith the Caithness area, voted and dismissed this appeal. They are all on the ECS and responsible for the Education Budget...............
Is it not about time we had people on these committees who are independent of the Highland Region Council and whose main concern is not MONEY.
Lets just say I'm not suprised.:roll:
Our dealings with the council over the years have alwas had the excuse of..."there isnt any money".....
Well i am sorry to hear that Santa didn't bring any joy with your plight to get your kids to school in safety.
Perhaps Bill Fernie should add to this thread and explain alittle more !
Ok so the road isn't deemed unsafe appartently and they expect the kids to walk on this road.....Now if i was a parent of a ths child the bigger issue for me would be the fact that the kids wear all black uniforms and aren't allowed to wear any other jackets but black ones. In a child's parent who's child has to walk this road wearing that stupid uniform i'd be demanding that my child be allowed to wear suitable gear so they do not end up getting killed for the school's appearance! In fact i'd make my child boycott the uniform untill it was allowed for their safety! But that is just me lol.
scottygirl
15-Jan-10, 05:15
National press may well be interested to hear how the council has voted on this issue I would have thought!!!!
Give them a shout and explain. Show them the petitions you had signed.
I wouldn't want my kids to have to walk that road no matter what time of year. Far too dangerous and it amazes me that the hearing think it's safe.
Video the route, stick it on youtube for all to see, it's just a pity you didn't during the snow to highlight just what it was really like.
DO YOU EXPECT ALL OF CAITHNESS TO LIVE IN THE TOWNS?
Who is going to farm our land etc. Duhhh
What I wrote was that if you want services laid on - live in the town. If you live in the country, you have to assume some responsibility for areas such as transporting children etc. as services are not laid on your plate. Also, for the record, I live in the country and transport my children to school for the same reasons you are bleating about.
Ok so the road isn't deemed unsafe appartently and they expect the kids to walk on this road.....Now if i was a parent of a ths child the bigger issue for me would be the fact that the kids wear all black uniforms and aren't allowed to wear any other jackets but black ones. In a child's parent who's child has to walk this road wearing that stupid uniform i'd be demanding that my child be allowed to wear suitable gear so they do not end up getting killed for the school's appearance! In fact i'd make my child boycott the uniform untill it was allowed for their safety! But that is just me lol.
I would make them safe by taking them myself...........no way would I let them walk.;)
What I wrote was that if you want services laid on - live in the town. If you live in the country, you have to assume some responsibility for areas such as transporting children etc. as services are not laid on your plate. Also, for the record, I live in the country and transport my children to school for the same reasons you are bleating about.
Well done .LMS...u have the right attitude.:D
sevenfortyseven
15-Jan-10, 17:06
Appalling. Hope you get it sorted!
kit them all out with flourecent jackets, vest etc to minimize risk of being hit that way if anything does happen at least they can say they are kitted correctly within the enviroment they are walking in
I would make them safe by taking them myself...........no way would I let them walk.;)
Aye i would make sure my child got to school safely by taking them myself, that goes without saying but my point was that the school refuse to allow anything but black in the kids uniform and outdoor jackets. It is not safe as they can't be seen on a darker or dimly lit road. My point was i'd be kicking up a massive fuss about the schools attidude about allowing the kids to wear light clothing so they can be seen. I would also make sure my child did not wear the uinform untill the school changed it so that the kids were allowed to wear jackets with bits on it that can be seen by cars. Why must parents accept this trivel that the school put out on their children's safety escpeilly when ridicoulous things like banning kids who if they don't catch a bus have to walk on a pitch black road? I'm very much like my mum on this matter and she always kicks up a fuss and demands an answer from the headmistress when something happens that she is not happy with. She always gets an answer too.
kit them all out with flourecent jackets, vest etc to minimize risk of being hit that way if anything does happen at least they can say they are kitted correctly within the enviroment they are walking in
Aye but the school deems that the kids aren't allowed to wear these things even though they save the kid's lives as its not part of the uniform [disgust]
I went to ths when there was no uniform and despite the fact that a uniform is good in school having a all black one is just plain stupid. The kids should at least be allowed to wear whatever colour of jacket they want!
Aye i would make sure my child got to school safely by taking themselves, taht goes without saying but my point was that the school refuse to allow anything but black in the kids uniform and outdoor jackets. It is not safe as they can't be seen on a darker or dimly lit road. My point was i'd be kicking up a massive fuss about the schools attidude about allowing the kids to wear light clothing so they can be seen. I would also make sure my child did not wear the uinform untill the school changed it so that the kids were allowed to wear jackets with bits on it that can be seen by cars. Why must parents accept this trivel that the school put out on their children's safety escpeilly when ridicoulous things like banning kids who if they don't catch a bus have to walk on a pitch black road? I'm very much like my mum on this matter and she always kicks up a fuss and demands an answer from the headmistress when something happens that she is not happy with. She always gets an answer too.
Aye but the school deems that the kids aren't allowed to wear these things even though they save the kid's lives as its not part of the uniform [disgust]
I went to ths when there was no uniform and despite the fact that a uniform is good in school having a all black one is just plain stupid. The kids should at leats be allowed to wear whatever colour of jacket they want!
From what I understand vistravi pupils can wear any kind of jacket to school, as long as it is removed and not worn while they are in school.
Or detachable fluorescent arm bands and tabards cost very little. In fact I saw them recently in Tesco's for a couple of pound. They can be worn on top of their school jacket and then removed and put in their school bag when they reach school. Simples.;)
From what I understand vistravi pupils can wear any kind of jacket to school, as long as it is removed and not worn while they are in school.
Or detachable fluorescent arm bands and tabards cost very little. In fact I saw them recently in Tesco's for a couple of pound. They can be worn on top of their school jacket and then removed and put in their school bag when they reach school. Simples.
Thats still not the point. I remember many a day spent sitting in class in my jacket because it was so cold in the school and all because the temperature was controlled at inverness.... :eek:
If my child goes to a school that is run like THS is with their uniform i would not accept that my child could wear whatever things on their arms or over their jacket so they could be seen at all times by drivers only to have to take it off as soon as they hit the school just because its not in the uniform. I would inform the school that my child wore the jacket or didn't wear the uniform and any problems with this they have to speak to me not my child. Yes i may seem overbearing on this subject but it makes me glad that hopefully with all my child's schools i'll have a choice of where they go and a school run the way THS is would be on the no choice list.
Right time for me to calm down! :roll: Getting this wrung out is not good :eek:
Thats still not the point. I remember many a day spent sitting in class in my jacket because it was so cold in the school and all because the temperature was controlled at inverness.... :eek:
If my child goes to a school that is run like THS is with their uniform i would not accept that my child could wear whatever things on their arms or over their jacket so they could be seen at all times by drivers only to have to take it off as soon as they hit the school just because its not in the uniform. I would inform the school that my child wore the jacket or didn't wear the uniform and any problems with this they have to speak to me not my child. Yes i may seem overbearing on this subject but it makes me glad that hopefully with all my child's schools i'll have a choice of where they go and a school run the way THS is would be on the no choice list.
Right time for me to calm down! :roll: Getting this wrung out is not good :eek:
You'll be hard pushed to find a school nowadays without a uniform.
You'll be hard pushed to find a school nowadays without a uniform.
Safety is the primary concern not the uniform. An all black uniform is just plain stupid and puts the kids lives at risk.
Safety is the primary concern not the uniform. An all black uniform is just plain stupid and puts the kids lives at risk.
It's not the uniform that puts kids lives at risk, it's the lack of common sense.;)
cuddlepop
16-Jan-10, 18:18
I see you made the Press @Journal today.p6
Well done for getting a review on this whole procedure,its long overdue.:D
Well done too for speaking out councillor David Flear,you'll probably be sent to the naughty step now.;)
Bobinovich
16-Jan-10, 18:26
P&J article here (http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1564194) for anyone who wants to read it
Strange isn't it how HRC always suddenly decide to review a process after it's hit the headlines.:roll:
cuddlepop
16-Jan-10, 19:27
P&J article here (http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1564194) for anyone who wants to read it
Thanks for posting the link Bob mind went blank how to do it.:eek:
I see you made the Press @Journal today.p6
Well done for getting a review on this whole procedure,its long overdue.:D
Well done too for speaking out councillor Donald Flear,you'll probably be sent to the naughty step now.;)
David...not Donald.;)
cuddlepop
16-Jan-10, 20:07
David...not Donald.;)
Must get new glasses.:lol:
ShelleyCowie
16-Jan-10, 21:27
I signed a petition for a woman at the school the other day about this. I really hope that a bus runs this route soon.
I wouldnt want my kids walking on a road like that at any age. infact i wouldnt like to do it myself at the busy times of day.
fingers crossed! :Razz
Must get new glasses.:lol:
Specsavers ,maybe.;):D
Plea over school buses appeals
councillor wants overhaul in dealing with challenges from parents
Published: 16/01/2010
Press and Journal
A Highland councillor yesterday called for an overhaul of the way the authority deals with challenges from parents who have been refused school bus places for their children.
David Flear claims defects in the current appeals regime mean the council is not meeting its responsibilities to ensure pupils get to and from school safely.
He has asked officials to carry out a review and says he is prepared to take the issue to the Local Government Ombudsman.
Councillor Flear was speaking after three appeals against refusals, failed.
Though not a member of the appeals sub-committee, he spoke on behalf of two families from Dixonfield, just outside Thurso.
He said the rejection of their cases again highlights major flaws in the system.
Mr Flear said: “My concern is that there are five councilors on the sub-committee who do not have the skills or knowledge in road safety, yet they are being asked to assess a report which is quite technical in nature.”
Mr Flear also questions whether the criteria being used to determine whether a road is safe not complies with Scottish Government guidelines.
Mr Flear is also uneasy about the independence of the appeals panel given that the chairman and vice-chairman of the culture, education and education committee, which funds school transport, sit on it.
He said: “There are no independent people on the sub-committee, parents can’t attend and they are not given any reasons if their appeal is refused. There appears to be a clear breach of natural justice.”
David and Liz Mackenzie, claim it is ridiculous that their 13-year-old daughter Toni and near neighbour Robert Barnard, also 13, are expected to walk to Thurso High along the unlit single-track road without a pavement from their homes at Dixonfield, on the south-east outskirts of the town.
Mr Mackenzie, 47, said yesterday: “No one here would tell you that it is safe to let children walk on this road, which is very busy when they are going and coming back from school
“As far as we’re concerned, the report presented to the sub-committee is complete garbage. It claims the road is two-lane and that laybys can be used as safe stepping-off points.”
Ron MacKenzie, head of support services at the council’s ECS department, yesterday said the appeals are judged against UK guidelines on road safety, and the decision is reached purely on grounds of road safety.
He also revealed that a review of the appeals process is under way.
Have any of the sub-committee members ever walked along the road?
I bet the answer is 'no'.
Have any of the sub-committee members ever walked along the road?
I bet the answer is 'no'.
Yes, the answer is no.
They have been invited several times to walk the road but haven't done so. This is understandable for some of the committee as they live far away, but the Chairman of the Committee is one of our Local Councillors' Bill Fernie who not only didn't take up our offer but also rejected our appeal.
Why would he rely on a Report when he could so easily have accepted the offer and come and see the route at first hand? To be blunt, without a shadow of doubt he is in the pockets of the Highland Council, and his main concern is the budget and not the SAFETY OF CAITHNESS CHILDREN.
He has plenty of time to go to meetings in Inverness that are a total waste of time and money but couldn't take a half hour out to come up and meet with members of his local community. Being a local person, he could so easily have confirmed that the Report was slated and incorrect (as confirmed by Northern Constabulary) in saying that it was a double road etc.
If anybody wishes to have a look at what they class as a Road Safety Report please contact me for a copy. (Done by numpties evaluated by numpties.)
Margaret M.
17-Jan-10, 02:28
You can bet if there was a councillor in that area though whose child used the bus then this would not be happening.
Maybe the councillors who made this decision should be asked to walk this route dressed as the kids would be and at the same time they expect these kids to walk it and see how smart an idea it is then.
Absolute imbeciles.
Good idea! There is no way I would want my child to walk almost three miles each way, in all weather, even if the road was totally safe and had a sidewalk. Why eliminate the option of paying to ride the bus?
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.