Free Bikes Instead of School Bus (long)

Yebbut - both the road danger and the 'stranger danger' were,
statistically, considerably worse forty years ago. By which I mean,
more kids got killed then than do now.

So the difference is that parents are more paranoid and children are
more mollycoddled, and neither of these things is good.

Being a devil's advocate here - perhaps fewer children are killed now, on the
logic that more parents are ferrying them to & from school.

It's not a simple situation at all, as a parent quite determined that her
offspring should grow up to be independent, I allow him a certain amount of
freedom, which includes me no longer acting as ever available taxi - yet I can
quite understand parents' fears about allowing their kids to cycle or walk
unaccompanied.

Cheers, helen s


--This is an invalid email address to avoid spam--
to get correct one remove fame & fortune
**$om $

--Due to financial crisis the light at the end of the tunnel is switched off--

dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers wrote:

Being a devil's advocate here - perhaps fewer children are killed now, on
the logic that more parents are ferrying them to & from school.

It's not a simple situation at all, as a parent quite determined that her
offspring should grow up to be independent, I allow him a certain amount of
freedom, which includes me no longer acting as ever available taxi - yet I
can quite understand parents' fears about allowing their kids to cycle or
walk unaccompanied.


Yet its self defeating. The biggest factor in cycling safety is numbers. Not
letting kids cycle makes it more dangerous for those that do. Get lots of them
out on the road and the safety will rocket, not only because of the numbers
cycling but also because of the reduction of frustrated mums in a hurry on the
school run.

Tony

On Sat, 15 May 2004 21:35:03 GMT, Simon Brooke
wrote in message :

Yebbut - both the road danger and the 'stranger danger' were,
statistically, considerably worse forty years ago. By which I mean,
more kids got killed then than do now.

YA Meyer Hillman & ICMFP ;-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

On 15 May 2004 21:39:24 GMT, omcom
(dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers) wrote in message
:

Being a devil's advocate here - perhaps fewer children are killed now, on the
logic that more parents are ferrying them to & from school.

I recommend "One False Move" by Meyer Hillman and John Whitelegg,
which discusses the issue in considerable detail.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

in message , Tony Raven
') wrote:

dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers wrote:

Being a devil's advocate here - perhaps fewer children are killed
now, on the logic that more parents are ferrying them to & from
school.

It's not a simple situation at all, as a parent quite determined that
her offspring should grow up to be independent, I allow him a certain
amount of freedom, which includes me no longer acting as ever
available taxi - yet I can quite understand parents' fears about
allowing their kids to cycle or walk unaccompanied.

Yet its self defeating. The biggest factor in cycling safety is
numbers. Not letting kids cycle makes it more dangerous for those
that do. Get lots of them out on the road and the safety will rocket,
not only because of the numbers cycling but also because of the
reduction of frustrated mums in a hurry on the school run.

....and that's exactly what the Nottingham policy should achieve. Lots of
kids on bikes, regularly, making all road users (except the kids!)
habitually more careful, and consequently making the roads safer and
more pleasant for everyone.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

my other car is #Subr-Car: #5d480
;; This joke is not funny in emacs.

Simon Brooke wrote:

in message ,
dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers ') wrote:

When I was six, I was accompanied on my walk to school at least
sometimes. I know this because I can remember asking my mother a
question on one occasion. But I can equally clearly remember that I
was not met at the end of the school day - I was expected to walk home
by myself. Mind you, that was only about a mile.

Yup - I walked to & from school unaccompanied from a fairly young age.
Life isn't like that these days. Whether that's a good thing is
entirely a different matter.

Yebbut - both the road danger and the 'stranger danger' were,
statistically, considerably worse forty years ago. By which I mean,
more kids got killed then than do now.

So the difference is that parents are more paranoid and children are
more mollycoddled, and neither of these things is good.

I suspect that many of today's parents have been conditioned by scare
stories put about by the do-good industries which have sprouted up over
the last 30 - 40 years.
That coupled with sitting in front of the box watching numerous
fictional TV cop shows and soaps which repeatedly broadcast stories of
danger and terror.

Viva Nottingham, I say. I think they're taking a courageous and positive
position which will be very good for public health, for the
independence and self-confidence of their children, for the urban
environment and for the atmosphere.

Agreed. But it won't stop parents making excuses as to why they cannot
or have not allowed their children independence.

John B

in message , JohnB ')
wrote:

Simon Brooke wrote:

Yebbut - both the road danger and the 'stranger danger' were,
statistically, considerably worse forty years ago. By which I mean,
more kids got killed then than do now.

So the difference is that parents are more paranoid and children are
more mollycoddled, and neither of these things is good.

I suspect that many of today's parents have been conditioned by scare
stories put about by the do-good industries which have sprouted up
over the last 30 - 40 years.
That coupled with sitting in front of the box watching numerous
fictional TV cop shows and soaps which repeatedly broadcast stories of
danger and terror.

I don't really know how unusual my childhood was. But at age ten I
sometimes (I can't say how often) left the house before anyone else was
awake and just roamed the hills until teatime. There were specific
places I was not allowed to go for specific reasons, and I respected
those (I wasn't allowed to cross the lands of one farm whose owner was
hostile, and I wasn't allowed to go into an area where there were
abandoned mine shafts).

I have wonderful memories of those days. Walking into a wood and finding
myself literally face to face with, and no more than a yard away from,
a young long eared owl, and both of us too startled to react. Or on
another occasion sitting for over an hour watching (from a discreet
distance!) a heavily pregnant adder in the hope she'd give birth.
Usually I'd be alone all day. Later, I sometimes took my little sister.

By the time I was thirteen I sometimes (again, I can't really say how
often - certainly not regularly but I can remember several different
occasions) took my boat down river alone on the morning tide and came
back up again on the evening. And again, I have some cracking memories
of those expeditions.

OK, so this probably was a very privileged childhood. And I know
(because much later she told me) how much allowing me that degree of
liberty cost my mother. But it strikes me that very few kids these days
have a tithe of that liberty, and it strikes me that over-protecting
them must be far more damaging - in damage to confidence, to
independence, self reliance, to assessment of risk, to appreciation of
the natural world - than allowing them a reasonable degree of freedom.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
; gif ye hes forget our auld plane Scottis quhilk your mother lerit you,
; in tymes cuming I sall wryte to you my mind in Latin, for I am nocht
; acquyntit with your Southeron
;; Letter frae Ninian Winyet tae John Knox datit 27t October 1563

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

On 15 May 2004 15:20:59 GMT, omcom
(dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers) wrote in message
:


I must admit, I would not have been a happy bunny with Nathan cycling to school
at age nine. Indeed, he didn't cycle to school unaccompanied until the last
year or so.


Michael cycled to school for the first time aged seven, though he has
never ridden more than a short distance unaccompanied. Perhaps
someone shoudl suggest to the parents that they accompany thier
children. On second thoughts, they'd probably drive along behind in
the car...

My elder one started riding to school accompanied aged 5 or so in
Belgium (about 1 km of moderate pavé with a bit of a mur at each end)
and now he is 8 and doing a rather shorter and flatter ride in the
Nottingham metropolis (but not the CoN itself). He's mostly
unaccompanied now due to the difficulties of persuading him to wait for
me to sort his smaller, Down's Syndrome brother onto the trailer bike in
the usual morning rush. The whole ride is in a 20 mph limit zone
although part of it carries a fair amount of (usually clogged-up)
traffic at 08.55. Not had any major problems, even though he has all the
common sense of a woodlouse, and is generally getting better at it.

On Sun, 16 May 2004 21:08:03 GMT, Simon Brooke
wrote:



I don't really know how unusual my childhood was. But at age ten I
sometimes (I can't say how often) left the house before anyone else was
awake and just roamed the hills until teatime. There were specific
places I was not allowed to go for specific reasons, and I respected
those (I wasn't allowed to cross the lands of one farm whose owner was
hostile, and I wasn't allowed to go into an area where there were
abandoned mine shafts).

I have wonderful memories of those days. Walking into a wood and finding
myself literally face to face with, and no more than a yard away from,
a young long eared owl, and both of us too startled to react. Or on
another occasion sitting for over an hour watching (from a discreet
distance!) a heavily pregnant adder in the hope she'd give birth.
Usually I'd be alone all day. Later, I sometimes took my little sister.

By the time I was thirteen I sometimes (again, I can't really say how
often - certainly not regularly but I can remember several different
occasions) took my boat down river alone on the morning tide and came
back up again on the evening. And again, I have some cracking memories
of those expeditions.

OK, so this probably was a very privileged childhood. And I know
(because much later she told me) how much allowing me that degree of
liberty cost my mother. But it strikes me that very few kids these days
have a tithe of that liberty, and it strikes me that over-protecting
them must be far more damaging - in damage to confidence, to
independence, self reliance, to assessment of risk, to appreciation of
the natural world - than allowing them a reasonable degree of freedom.

Sometimes I think my brothers and I were the last of an era. We had
similar freedom and regarded it as normal. The other children near us
did too. I'm talking 1977-1984 ish when I as the eldest was between
7ish and 14ish.

During term we made our own way to the bus stop (half a mile away).
During holidays and at weekends we were just out.

The only out of bounds areas I recall were the farm (slurry pits, big
machinery etc), the cliffs (avoid the top to avoid falling off and the
bottom to avoid stuff falling onto you) and that was about it.

Everything else was fair game. I spent whole days in the woods; in
groups building frighteningly high treehouses, lighting fires and
catching rabbits; or on my own just watching and exploring. There was
a lake for fishing and rudimentary naval architecture. Used to spend
hours on the beach trying to get things out from under rocks in
rockpools.

[back on topic] Of course bikes were standard issue in those days and
we could take them anywhere. From riding the two or three miles to the
village or setting up cross country races.

Bringing up children of my own today and in a different part of the
country I am stunned and shocked at the imprisonment of children. As I
mentioned before, the school I attended (which my neices do now) runs
a sort of prisoner style transfer system at the start and end of the
day. I have been virtually accused of neglect because I suggested my 7
year old walk half a mile to the river to fish.

We are creating a generation that will reach the age of 16 or 18
having never had the slightest freedom and independance.