Parents, how do you feel about risk?

One thing that seems to have been overlooked so far is experience. Lots of oh I'm pretty lax snd my dc are fine. But nobody saying I'm pretty lax and one of mine is dead or paralysed from walking to school across a busy road/ diving/playing in the park by themselves etc but I still let my younger dc do it because it's good for them.
Yes many of us are disproportionately focused on certain risks but that can sometimes be because something has changed something from vanishingly small probability into an actual event. If your friends dc dies in a spontaneous car fire would you leave yours unattended in a car? If your neighbour's dishwasher catches fire would you leave yours on while you were out?

yy, I agree - and I would classify a lot more risks as 'necessary' than many people I think - because they are necessary in order to let a child develop independence iyswim.

Good subject - I think risk is something that is massively understood, especially by parents.

The classic one is the 'should I leave a child in the car while I pay for petrol'? I've heard parents say 'NO WAY, I would NEVER take that risk', whilst not appreciating that there is a risk involved in crossing the forecourt with the child. People fixate on one sort of risk, without realising that their action to avert that risk creates another.

Like the person who is afraid of flying, but is probably at more risk in the car on the way to the airport!

There are 2 types of risk I think - necessary and un-necessary. A car journey may often be necessary, but playing on a railway line is un-necessary. Similarly there are high consequence and low consequence risks.

WRT the children, I think managed risks are the way to go - leaving the children home alone for the first time is a risk, but you give them the tools to cope - e.g. ensuring a neighbour is in, or mobile phone contacts etc. Again, I've heard people say 'I would not take the risk of leaving a child under 16. But then you have not equipped that child, and so they are actually at MORE risk, because they don't have the tools to cope in the case of emergency.

I think it is important to allow children to take some amount of risk from a fairly young age, building it up gradually, rather than never allowing them to do anything then suddenly they are 16 or 17 and expected to know how to manage pretty big amounts of risk.

My 9yo DD walks to school and back without an adult (either by herself or with a same aged friend) every day. She has actually been walking to and from school without an adult since she was 7, but until this year she had at least one of her older brothers in the same school and so they walked with her. School is around half a mile away, but in a quiet village and there is paths or a pavement the whole way. She also runs errands to the shop for me, which is a similar distance. She goes to the park with friends without an adult.

My 11yo DS2 does everything DD does plus can catch buses into town (a 5 mile journey) by himself to meet his friends. He has a door key and is allowed to be in the house for a couple of hours at a time by himself. He and DS1 usually get home from school before I get home from work and let themselves in.

My 13yo DS1 does everything that the other two do, plus frequently takes himself by bus to sports training and matches etc. He is very independent. But he has got there by having risk and responsibility introduced gradually.

Of course people make different risk calculations because they assign different values to both Probabilities and Consequences.

You need to read beyond the first paragraph of my post. Yes, I said Probability of a crash is low, but I also said its overall Risk is even lower because death is not its only outcome. In fact it is a very VERY unlikely outcome of a car crash.

Also, as someone else said, you can drive safely, have your kids safely secured in a good child seat in the back, drive a solid car with multiple air bags that come down side windows during a crash (not fantasy - I have this) to even further reduce the probability of injury or and death. You can do very little to manage the risk of kidnapping.

But Cote the probability of being kidnapped is surely even smaller - plus like the car crash you need to take into account that the large majority of kidnappings in the West are by family members, mostly spouses and the children are not harmed. Why do you discount one because it's improbable but not the other? I assume that's because your risk appetite makes you think that kidnapping really is a possibility and that it is as you said worse than death. Others will make different judgements.

Kevin - re "the probability of a car crash is high. The consequence is high (death is clearly one if them, the 1st reason of death in children I think) but somehow we all seem to think this is an ok activity."

Probability of having a car crash in any given year is very VERY small. Some people go their entire lives without being in a single car crash.

Even when a crash happens, it will most probably damage the bumper a bit (or a lot) but not hurt the passengers. Death by car crash is such a low probability, for child or adult, that it makes the news every time. And that very rarely.

You would calculate the risk to a child of transportation by car as follows (where P is Probability and C is Consequence):

Risk = [ P(death) x C(death) ] + [ P(grave injury) x C(grave injury) ]+ etc if there are other eventualities you are worried about in addition.

The calculated risk would be very low. Also note that the Probabilities in the above equation are not actual statistics but each person's own estimation of his abilities - "I'm such a better driver than everyone else that if death by car is statistically 1/1,000,000 then my probability must be 1/10,000,000" etc.

Actually you make me think about something else. Mainly, if you have discovered a risk (eg the grapes) how do you deal with it?
I look at the probability of it happening (very low) and the consequences (high) and them wondered what I could do. My answer was to do a first aid training to deal with the emergency should it happen (very unlikely) and reduce the consequence.
On the other hand, our school asked us to cut grapes and tomatoes in half incl for the Y5~6 because of one child who died (not in our school) with a grape he was eating on the playground whilst running.
The action taken to 'protect' the children was disproportionate AND didn't actually solve the real issue (eating whilst running).

I think this applies in a number of cases. Sometimes, the answer is very straight forward (like closing the net!). Sometimes though we can reduce the risk greatly wo stopping our children from doing things.
IMO that's what we should be doing rather than a blanket 'you don't do xxx'.

I'm risk-averse when it comes to my DSs, probably made worse because of DH and MIL's much much slacker (IMO) attitude to their safety.

DH can't see risk until something has happened, whereas I can see the potential for it beforehand.
So DS1 fell out of the trampoline chin first onto concrete, because DH hadn't considered the possibility, and therefore hadn't closed the zip on the net. AFTER it happened, of course, DH was adamant that the zip should be closed every time as I'd told him beforehand
DS1 could have drowned in the lake aged 2 or 3 because MIL decided that she was quite able to take him out in the water by herself while DH was fishing on the jetty - except that he was baiting his hook and not watching when she slipped and lost her footing, submerging herself and holding Ds1 just above the water - luckily for all concerned, DH didn't take too long baiting his hook, turned round and saw the problem, so flung himself into the lake to rescue them, ruining both his rod and his phone. I'd also told DH that MIL wasn't to take DS1 in the lake by herself because of the risk of her slipping. She has never done it since.

I'll let DS1 walk to school by himself when he's older - he's 7 now - because he has 2 very large main roads and 3 side roads to cross. No way is he doing it now.

DS1 nearly choked on half a grape when he was around 1 - so I cut them into quarters for ages. DS2, however, has always been a chomper, but also a face-stuffer, so I cut his grapes into quarters too. Not now he's nearly 3 though, even though there's still the risk he could choke - he's far more able to chomp them so I think that's less likely.

I prefer them not to run down hill because it causes me anxiety, but they both seem fine with it and do it anyway, unless it's a complete scree slope.

I prefer them to hold my hand when walking on the oyster rocks at MIL's place, but DH and MIL don't bother, so they regularly have chunks out of their hands/ knees from falling when I'm not there. I don't mind them falling over elsewhere, just oyster rocks are bloody sharp and can get infected like coral cuts.

I know I'm a bit too precious over them, but I'd rather that than blame myself for letting them do too much and then have something awful happen. They're not wrapped in cottonwool, though - mostly covered in cuts, bruises, bangs and scrapes from playing outside (and in!) - but generally in one piece.

I may still refuse to countenance either of them ever getting a motorbike though...

I think I lack courage that my parents had and there is no peer pressure for me to loosen the reins.

Cote with your calculation though, the risk of kidnapping is only so high because you give an extremely high value to death/kidnap. Actually a value so high that nothing can compare to it (seen that the probability is extremely low, to give it such an importance to it you have to give a value out if the scale compare to other things).
However the probability of a car crash is high. The consequence is high (death is clearly one if them, the 1st reason of death in children I think) but somehow we all seem to think this is an ok activity.

I believe this is much mure about what us seen as acceptable. Taking RISK by taking a car is normal. We all do it everyday. Taking the same risk by going climbing/mountaineering/whatever other activity isn't because it's not a 'normal' activity.
And you need to add the issue of 'responsibility'. Nothing us just an accident anymore (apart from at accident maybe). It's all someone's fault. And whose fault us it if a child is kidnapped? The parents if course. Not the kidnapper but the parents to not have 'protected' their child enough.
And that is something else that is making the 'consequence' so high in your calculation. The risk for the parents is too high because on the top if the worry etc caused by such an event you also have to face the disapproval from family/society.

This us very different from the risk for the child though.

Eg a very anxious parent might consider taking the bus on your own top risky because the consequence for them is high (level if anxiety very high) but the risk would be low for the child (consequence is getting lost which is a low consequence).

Which then means we need to ask another question. Who us it risky for?
And what is the risk for the child of NOT doing the activity?

Highly negative consequences combined with very low likelihood can equal high, moderate, medium or low risk, it all depends on how you set up your matrix, a matter of risk appetite (ie how much risk you are comfortable with).

For example to me the risk of my child being kidnapped is so low that I do not even really consider it to be a risk because the probability is so very low. If I felt like bringing my work home with me and making a risk register that's not a risk I'd think worth recording. Of course if I had a dangerous family member or lived somewhere were kidnapping was a real possibility then I'd need to reevaluate.

Of course one of the interesting things about risk and our children is what is the risk that we are taking/running and what is the risk that they are taking/running and when does the decision making move from us to them.

Also if we're looking at threat vs opportunity then what potential benefits are worth what potential losses/harm? Plus if I'm wanting to really apply risk management fully then I need to think about my objectives as a parent or my wishes for their childhood as they will be more than just keeping my children safe, but also things like making sure they have a fun childhood, that they develop the skills then need for adulthood, and also that parenting is manageable. Balancing those different factors (I'm sure there are a few more too) is one of the more interesting risk management challenges.

In practice, like most parents dh and I mostly go on our gut feelings!

Gosh, I didn't realise that walking to and from school was such a high risk activity or that naice parents don't allow it

Mine walk to and from the bus stop as a little posse. It's a 20 min walk through a nice area but there are no pavements. I allow the three youngest to walk back alone from the bus stop in the evening but I would walk down in the morning to ensure they caught the bus OK as it's an hour journey. If the 16yr old biter is with them I will let them walk to the stop alone. Truth be told though, we have quite a lively chat en-route in the morning and the tiddler holds my hand all the way cos she's cute so I usually walk regardless.

I think my 'usually sane parents' and teens with mixed-sex (note the hyphen) parties may not have been clear enough. Seventeen is absolutely an age where you have whether you like it or not as a parent to trust that what you have instilled in your children as regards self confidence, self respect and respect for high-inducing substances has been adequately processed and trust their judgement.

At 13,14 and 15 however, I believe that as a parent you should be protecting them from themselves. The raging hormones and social instability of young teens combined with alcohol, drugs, (there's always someone who brings something naughty-things haven't changed that much I'm sure) peer pressure, camera phones and sleeping 'wherever' together unsupervised is, to my mind, a receipe for disaster that I would rather did not involve my children (boy or girl).

That said, sleepovers where I have chatted to parents are fine, the occasional beer/ glass of wine with a meal is fine, going out with your friends somewhere and either being inconspicuously picked up or getting yourself home at an appropriate time is fine too. Small, bite sized chunks of independence, where, whilst there is scope for stupidity you hope trust that they will 'do the right thing' and hence progress onto the next, bigger chunk unscathed iyswim.

I was allowed to take far more risks as a child than my dcs are and I really benefited but I cannot bring myself to allow what my parents did and I feel guilty about it.

Obviously, everyone decides on the values of Consequence for themselves. That is why what one person considers a risky activity might not be so for another, even when the probability is fixed and known to all such as rolling dice - one person might not care so much about the money he will lose, for example.

The point was that low-probability does not mean low-risk.

Probability of my child getting kidnapped is very low, but because Consequence is so horrible (a fate worse than death, imho) that the risk comes out high.

Most people confuse probability with risk. An outcome with very low probability can be high-risk.

Risk = Probability x Consequence

... where Consequence is how terrible an outcome would be if it actually happened - e.g. a bruise could be a 2, a broken arm 10, broken neck 70, death 100.

So, bruise is maybe a high-probability outcome for an activity at 70% but its rather inconsequential so risk is 2 70% = 1.4, whereas another might have a low-probability for death at 3% but risk would be 100 3% = 3.

All this to say that it can be entirely rational for people to consider activities where probability of negative outcome is very low.

Learning to evaluate risk is one of the most important life skills i.e. does the potential harm outweigh the potential benefit? Complete avoidance of risk (DC never being allowed to go on bus journeys alone or use kitchen appliances or discouraged from physical activity in case they hurt themselves) can result in helplessness and over-reliance on parents. Some parents want DC to remain dependent and close by.

It is possible, though, to teach children age-appropriate/ individual child-appropriate behaviour. For example, how to cross a road, travel safety strategies, how to use appliances correctly and physical activity (with someone standing nearby or underneath just in case perhaps) until regard for safety is learned. There will always be accidents and sometimes there will be dangerous behaviour but these are learning opportunities.

Not trying to minimise the awful events that can happen, just emphasise how important it is that children learn by degrees to become responsible for themselves.

Ego your question about parent A liking dangerous activities and parent B wanting the dcs to be safe...

I have that in my house.
I am not British and my attitude to going to school on your own etc... is much more relaxed than anyone else here. DH on the other side has taken his clues from what other people are doing so would be less inclined to let them do that.
What happens is that the dcs have been left to do a lot of things on their own much earlier than any of their peers (or at least earlier than their peers where I live!).

But then DH is also very keen on a lot of 'dangerous' activities (the high rope courses, caving, climbing etc etc) and I am much more likely to say 'No it's too much/too dangerous' for the dcs. He has another sense of what is dangerous from doing these activities himself than I do.
What we ended up doing is leaving the dcs do what DH though was suitable. Arguably, there has been times when DH realised it was actually too much/unsuitable and he stepped back a bit. But mostly, we now have two dcs who have done a hell of a lot more than any other child and have gained both in self confidence and in resilience.

As an example, my just turned 10year old has done an orienteering course on his own a few weeks ago. He was in the middle of the countryside, on his own with a map and a compass. Somewhere he had never been to. He got lost. Several times. He also found his way back on the course each time. It took him twice as long as his brother (who is 12yo).
He wasn't upset, actually he was proud to have found all the check points. He was proud to have done it on his own. If anything, he was grumpy not to have done it quicker lol.
Now compare that to a child who isn't able to go to school, on the same route each day, because 'he can't be relied on' as he is 'clearly too young/will mess up/do stupid things'. Or one that will get upset and panic because her mum took 10 mins more to go back home (she was having a chat with someone else) and there was no one at home and was so panicked that she didn't even think about walking back towards to school to see what mum was doing...

"I'd love to see the reaction on MN if someone said they were going to let their DCs go sailing by themselves and camp on an island for several days grin Especially at the age of the Swallows."

I'm tempted to name change and do it. I was marmelized for thinking about letting my 14 year old go on a night hike with 2 friends......

Arch I agree that it's more about social disapproval here. So I have seen people tutting at other parents for letting their dcs doing X (such as walking back home on their own from school) saying how dangerous it is. And be absolutely fine to let the same dc on their own outside 'playing with friends' for 2hours.
Apparently, being out with friends for 2 hours is oK but walking home on your own for 10mins isn't .
You just have to see how much disapproval you get on MN for wanting to let your dcs go to school or stay at home on their own for a short time until they are at least in Y6.

Then there is another phenomenum. The people who let their dcs walking back home on their own are the ones from 'that estate' (read working class, benefit people compare to us middle class, naice people) so there is no way anyone will do 'that' as it's clearly bad parenting to do so. Again .

And then yes, as soon as you reach 14yo, then it seems that everything is possible and you 'really can't stop them from doing xxx'. How on earth said children are supposed to move in 2~3 years from a situation where they are completely dependent and mollycoted to a teenager that will fully look after himself (incl being on his own for a week because he can't possiblly go with mum and dad as it's soooo uncool to do so), I have no idea.

The other thing, I think, is that the more you stop your dcs to do things and the longer you do it, the more they will do anything to spread their wings and shout their want to be left alone. So you end up with teenagers that will go over board, have no idea of what is dangerous or not nor will they know how to react but will be so intoxicated by the idea of doing things on their own that they are very likely to do stupid/dangerous things.