The ArgusTwo schoolchildren hit by van at school after lollipop lady not replaced (From The Argus)

Get involved: Send your news, views, pictures and video by texting SUPIC to 80360 or email us.

Two schoolchildren hit by van at school after lollipop lady not replaced

The Argus: Christ Church Primary School. Picture taken from Google Streetview Christ Church Primary School. Picture taken from Google Streetview

Primary school teachers and parents are pleading for their resident lollipop lady to be reinstated after two youngsters were knocked down by a van.

Christ Church Primary School, in St Leonards, has been without one of their two crossing attendants since one died in December 2012.

East Sussex County Council is yet to replace the £4,000 a year post, stating the road does not meet the “nationally accepted criteria”.

However, after two pupils aged eight and 10 were knocked down on Friday, school leaders are calling on them to act now before someone is seriously hurt or killed.

Russell Thorne, deputy head, said: “Thankfully the two children were not too badly hurt but this should act as a warning.

“The position doesn’t cost a lot of money but is very important. We want to see the patrol reinstated.”

The school, which is in Woodland Vale Road, used to have two lollipop ladies – one in London Road and one in Tower Road.

During a council review it was deemed the crossing in Tower Road did not meet the criteria – which takes into account the number of children crossing, speed and number of vehicles – and so was not replaced.

Mr Thorne said that despite not meeting the criteria, the road remained dangerous due to a number of factors.

He said: “It acts as a link road between Bohemia Road and London Road so ends up being a bit of a rat run between the two.

“There are also always plenty of cars parked along the road so visibility is an issue.”

Paramedics were called to the incident on Friday and took both pupils to Conquest Hospital.

Both were released later the same day. One had broken teeth and bruises while the other suffered cuts and bruises.

A spokeswoman for the council said that while the road did not meet the criteria, funding had not yet been withdrawn.

She said: “The savings we’re having to make mean it is not feasible to continue to fund the crossing patrols which do not meet nationally accepted criteria.

“We don’t want to see crossing patrols taken away from schools where staff and parents want them, and we will do whatever we can to assist schools who want to continue their crossing patrol by means of securing sponsorship or recruiting volunteers, as well as supporting and managing such patrols.

“We are talking to all the affected schools to discuss ways in which we can help them to keep their patrol.”

Comments (15)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:01am Thu 20 Mar 14

argchat says...

Makes me so angry all this. In the old days we had lollipop ladies everywhere. The lollipop lady was part of our journey to school, they where part of our education and they where part of growing up. We knew what they stood for and that was road safety. Things like "Didn't meet the criteria", didn't even exist then. I wonder how much it cost to find out that the road "Didn't meet the criteria" in the first place, probably a lot more than employing a single lollipop lady.

If your telling me the council cannot find £4000 a year, that is truly pathetic. I'm sure there are many services they could streamline to cut costs if they really wanted too. Here's an idea, how about cutting things like translation services, how much is this costing a year?. Sorry if that doesn't go down well with some people, but it's the truth, a waste of money.
Makes me so angry all this. In the old days we had lollipop ladies everywhere. The lollipop lady was part of our journey to school, they where part of our education and they where part of growing up. We knew what they stood for and that was road safety. Things like "Didn't meet the criteria", didn't even exist then. I wonder how much it cost to find out that the road "Didn't meet the criteria" in the first place, probably a lot more than employing a single lollipop lady. If your telling me the council cannot find £4000 a year, that is truly pathetic. I'm sure there are many services they could streamline to cut costs if they really wanted too. Here's an idea, how about cutting things like translation services, how much is this costing a year?. Sorry if that doesn't go down well with some people, but it's the truth, a waste of money. argchat
  • Score: 46

9:40am Thu 20 Mar 14

tykemison says...

And the post of the week award goes to.....argchat!!coul
d not agree more, this reasonable and sensible post is sadly, what the majority of idi0ts who somehow find themselves in positions of influence clearly lack.There is definitely a case to answer on the"criteria"matter and I can assure you if my child was ran over and some half-wit waffled on about"criteria"rest assured they would be meeting certain"criteria"whe
n I had finished with them, we need to get rid of these buffoon's and their unelected cohorts!!
And the post of the week award goes to.....argchat!!coul d not agree more, this reasonable and sensible post is sadly, what the majority of idi0ts who somehow find themselves in positions of influence clearly lack.There is definitely a case to answer on the"criteria"matter and I can assure you if my child was ran over and some half-wit waffled on about"criteria"rest assured they would be meeting certain"criteria"whe n I had finished with them, we need to get rid of these buffoon's and their unelected cohorts!! tykemison
  • Score: 14

9:59am Thu 20 Mar 14

From beer to uncertainty says...

Why can't the parents club together and either put a voluntary rota together or pay £10 a year for it?
Before they start bleating about "paying their taxes". Nope, most people do not cover their own cost to the nation, let alone their children's cost to the taxpayer.
It seems to come from an over-developed sense of entitlement. If they can't get each parent to give 4 hours just twice a year then this speaks volumes about why funding should be cut completely for lollipop ladies. Teaching their own children to cross the road seems a bit beyond these parents...it's always someone else's problem with these types.
Why can't the parents club together and either put a voluntary rota together or pay £10 a year for it? Before they start bleating about "paying their taxes". Nope, most people do not cover their own cost to the nation, let alone their children's cost to the taxpayer. It seems to come from an over-developed sense of entitlement. If they can't get each parent to give 4 hours just twice a year then this speaks volumes about why funding should be cut completely for lollipop ladies. Teaching their own children to cross the road seems a bit beyond these parents...it's always someone else's problem with these types. From beer to uncertainty
  • Score: 5

10:39am Thu 20 Mar 14

getThisCoalitionOut says...

Can't the non working be allowed to do this for free? Surely it would be a good idea to have someone who's unemployed, who lives near by, do this?
Can't the non working be allowed to do this for free? Surely it would be a good idea to have someone who's unemployed, who lives near by, do this? getThisCoalitionOut
  • Score: 16

11:12am Thu 20 Mar 14

whatone says...

From beer to uncertainty wrote:
Why can't the parents club together and either put a voluntary rota together or pay £10 a year for it?
Before they start bleating about "paying their taxes". Nope, most people do not cover their own cost to the nation, let alone their children's cost to the taxpayer.
It seems to come from an over-developed sense of entitlement. If they can't get each parent to give 4 hours just twice a year then this speaks volumes about why funding should be cut completely for lollipop ladies. Teaching their own children to cross the road seems a bit beyond these parents...it's always someone else's problem with these types.
That's so wrong on two points.

Firstly. Most people are paying more and getting less for it (and being encouraged to do the jobs for free), whilst a minority are paying less and getting very rich. That's the whole idea of Camoron's 'Big Society'.

So how about you ask whether the 5 families in this country that are worth more than the bottom 20% of the population should pay for something as basic as child safety !

Secondly. Even if parents wanted to do this they would be prevented from doing so by a plethora of 'elf and safety' rules. And each parent would also have to get a CRB (or DBS) check at approx £44 a pop because it's 'contact with children - so its hardly practical is it!
[quote][p][bold]From beer to uncertainty[/bold] wrote: Why can't the parents club together and either put a voluntary rota together or pay £10 a year for it? Before they start bleating about "paying their taxes". Nope, most people do not cover their own cost to the nation, let alone their children's cost to the taxpayer. It seems to come from an over-developed sense of entitlement. If they can't get each parent to give 4 hours just twice a year then this speaks volumes about why funding should be cut completely for lollipop ladies. Teaching their own children to cross the road seems a bit beyond these parents...it's always someone else's problem with these types.[/p][/quote]That's so wrong on two points. Firstly. Most people are paying more and getting less for it (and being encouraged to do the jobs for free), whilst a minority are paying less and getting very rich. That's the whole idea of Camoron's 'Big Society'. So how about you ask whether the 5 families in this country that are worth more than the bottom 20% of the population should pay for something as basic as child safety ! Secondly. Even if parents wanted to do this they would be prevented from doing so by a plethora of 'elf and safety' rules. And each parent would also have to get a CRB (or DBS) check at approx £44 a pop because it's 'contact with children - so its hardly practical is it! whatone
  • Score: 12

11:20am Thu 20 Mar 14

tykemison says...

getThisCoalitionOut wrote:
Can't the non working be allowed to do this for free? Surely it would be a good idea to have someone who's unemployed, who lives near by, do this?
Probably would not meet the necessary"criteria"(
sorry:-)! ).
[quote][p][bold]getThisCoalitionOut[/bold] wrote: Can't the non working be allowed to do this for free? Surely it would be a good idea to have someone who's unemployed, who lives near by, do this?[/p][/quote]Probably would not meet the necessary"criteria"( sorry:-)! ). tykemison
  • Score: 7

11:41am Thu 20 Mar 14

Poem58 says...

Are we still indoctrinating young impressionable minds with religious brainwash.

When you think about it - Christ Church Primary School... what a ridiculous name.
Are we still indoctrinating young impressionable minds with religious brainwash. When you think about it - Christ Church Primary School... what a ridiculous name. Poem58
  • Score: -10

12:03pm Thu 20 Mar 14

PracticeNotTheories says...

Could there not be a crossing installed?
Or perhaps teach the kids the Green Cross Code?

If this is a road past a school, there's a case for a lower speed limit too (but not for the whole town please!).

I'm quite sure that, if the road is a 'Rat Run', and the children were hit by a van, it's quite likely the speed limits of the area were not being enforced, or adhered to.

I do agree that there should be a Lollipop Lady, yes, and for the cost mentioned, it's not a lot, however, there are a number of other factors that should be taken into account.
Could there not be a crossing installed? Or perhaps teach the kids the Green Cross Code? If this is a road past a school, there's a case for a lower speed limit too (but not for the whole town please!). I'm quite sure that, if the road is a 'Rat Run', and the children were hit by a van, it's quite likely the speed limits of the area were not being enforced, or adhered to. I do agree that there should be a Lollipop Lady, yes, and for the cost mentioned, it's not a lot, however, there are a number of other factors that should be taken into account. PracticeNotTheories
  • Score: -1

12:03pm Thu 20 Mar 14

Brighton Living says...

Due care and attention / zebra crossing / Green cross Code comes to mind. End off !!
Due care and attention / zebra crossing / Green cross Code comes to mind. End off !! Brighton Living
  • Score: 5

1:01pm Thu 20 Mar 14

Old Ladys Gin says...

argchat wrote:
Makes me so angry all this. In the old days we had lollipop ladies everywhere. The lollipop lady was part of our journey to school, they where part of our education and they where part of growing up. We knew what they stood for and that was road safety. Things like "Didn't meet the criteria", didn't even exist then. I wonder how much it cost to find out that the road "Didn't meet the criteria" in the first place, probably a lot more than employing a single lollipop lady.

If your telling me the council cannot find £4000 a year, that is truly pathetic. I'm sure there are many services they could streamline to cut costs if they really wanted too. Here's an idea, how about cutting things like translation services, how much is this costing a year?. Sorry if that doesn't go down well with some people, but it's the truth, a waste of money.
Lollipop ladies may have been everywhere but the statistics show that road casualties were much greater than they are now:

http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Reported_Ro
ad_Casualties_Great_
Britain

What still needs to change is the prevailing attitude to the most vulnerable on the roads; other countries have done it and we lag seriously behind.
[quote][p][bold]argchat[/bold] wrote: Makes me so angry all this. In the old days we had lollipop ladies everywhere. The lollipop lady was part of our journey to school, they where part of our education and they where part of growing up. We knew what they stood for and that was road safety. Things like "Didn't meet the criteria", didn't even exist then. I wonder how much it cost to find out that the road "Didn't meet the criteria" in the first place, probably a lot more than employing a single lollipop lady. If your telling me the council cannot find £4000 a year, that is truly pathetic. I'm sure there are many services they could streamline to cut costs if they really wanted too. Here's an idea, how about cutting things like translation services, how much is this costing a year?. Sorry if that doesn't go down well with some people, but it's the truth, a waste of money.[/p][/quote]Lollipop ladies may have been everywhere but the statistics show that road casualties were much greater than they are now: http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Reported_Ro ad_Casualties_Great_ Britain What still needs to change is the prevailing attitude to the most vulnerable on the roads; other countries have done it and we lag seriously behind. Old Ladys Gin
  • Score: 0

5:03pm Thu 20 Mar 14

angrymonkey says...

yes people should be angry you pay tax and want it spent well more so looking after kids going to school but we give loads away to over seas and lazy people that not want to work. I would love to know how much money they paying out to people moving over from the EU not working and see how much could save and spend on looking after kids on the roads in east sussex.
yes people should be angry you pay tax and want it spent well more so looking after kids going to school but we give loads away to over seas and lazy people that not want to work. I would love to know how much money they paying out to people moving over from the EU not working and see how much could save and spend on looking after kids on the roads in east sussex. angrymonkey
  • Score: -2

9:27pm Thu 20 Mar 14

Terry K says...

The term lollipop lady is sexist, the proper term is road safety operative.
The term lollipop lady is sexist, the proper term is road safety operative. Terry K
  • Score: 0

11:35pm Thu 20 Mar 14

ghost bus driver says...

Nah. Lollypop lady (or man) all the way. Less of the PC rubbish please
Nah. Lollypop lady (or man) all the way. Less of the PC rubbish please ghost bus driver
  • Score: 0

8:54am Fri 21 Mar 14

Plantpot says...

We have the safest roads in Europe, behind Malta.

We have no idea of the circumstances behind this crash, therefore we have no idea who was at fault or the contributory factors.

When growing up, road safety was drummed into us, the standard of road crossing these days, especially in Brighton, is terrible and needs sorting out (although of course, in the case of these lads hit by the van, we have no idea of the circumstances).
We have the safest roads in Europe, behind Malta. We have no idea of the circumstances behind this crash, therefore we have no idea who was at fault or the contributory factors. When growing up, road safety was drummed into us, the standard of road crossing these days, especially in Brighton, is terrible and needs sorting out (although of course, in the case of these lads hit by the van, we have no idea of the circumstances). Plantpot
  • Score: 0

9:18am Fri 21 Mar 14

suepernz says...

My grandson goes to school in Hove hence my concern. I'm presently in New Zealand and here the schools have flagpole holders on the posts either side of the crossing. The lollipops slot into the holders and are swung across the road when the traffic needs to stop. The sticks are like downward facing "L"s.This effectively blocks the road to traffic. It takes one adult and two of the older school children to do this, they can easily swing the lollipops while still on the pavement. When the school crossing is no longer needed, the lollipops are removed from the holders and either taken back inside the school or padlocked near to the crossing. The police do the initial training of the adults and children. Seems to work here, although I have to admit they do not have so much traffic on the roads.
My grandson goes to school in Hove hence my concern. I'm presently in New Zealand and here the schools have flagpole holders on the posts either side of the crossing. The lollipops slot into the holders and are swung across the road when the traffic needs to stop. The sticks are like downward facing "L"s.This effectively blocks the road to traffic. It takes one adult and two of the older school children to do this, they can easily swing the lollipops while still on the pavement. When the school crossing is no longer needed, the lollipops are removed from the holders and either taken back inside the school or padlocked near to the crossing. The police do the initial training of the adults and children. Seems to work here, although I have to admit they do not have so much traffic on the roads. suepernz
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree