Well, if you must leave it open!

[Thistledew]

DS has just turned 2. He is mad about all things diggers. There has been some major resurfacing work on the road near us recently and a digger (sorry DS, backhoe loader) has been left parked just down the road for about a week now. DS likes to go and have a good look at it close up. Today he asked to drive it, i.e. sit in the cab. I said "Sorry DS, it is locked", but stupidly to demonstrate the point I tried the door handle.

It's not locked.

It would make DS's week to sit in the cab and pretend to drive for a few minutes.

Would you let him?

I don't think any of mine have ever jumped a bollard when out with me either.

I am astounded you can't see the difference between a static non moving made of concrete bollard and a piece of heavy machinery that requires a special licence and training to operate.

Because I said so are the 4 most useful words when parenting a child in the why phase. Otherwise you're at it all day and ain't nobody got time for that.

1. It's great he loves diggers/backhoes etc
2. Ever thought of going to Diggerland?
3. Never too young to learn you never ever go on any kind of road/railway /building site to play.

No-one has given reasons other than potential safety as to why there is such a distinction.

I would like raise a child to think critically and make informed choices. One key tenant of this is to examine the harm that your actions cause to others. I would rather raise a child to think about that as the primary principal than one who just does things 'because that's how they are done', regardless of and without thinking of the harm it could cause.

I'm sorry this has riled so many people. I suppose I started the thread because I was thinking it through myself and was interested in other views. Shame on me for not anticipating the angst it would cause other people!

The law says you need a special licence and special training to operate a digger. Isn't that enough of a difference for you?

Are you being deliberately obtuse or something?

The answer to “why” Thistle is in one of my earlier responses.

The habits you teach him now form the building blocks for independent behaviour later.

There’s no magic switch at 10 or 11 where you say “all those things I’ve been letting you away with your whole life aren’t acceptable if you are on your own”

You aren’t teaching your son to be a sensible two year old, you are teaching him to be sensible 11yo/14yo/18yo.

It takes a long time. It starts now.

For example my D.C. both have lovely manners. Other parents always comment on it after play dates, parties or sleepovers.

They don’t do anything especially miraculous but they say please and thank you, they compliment the meal, they ask to be excused from the table, they offer to help clear the table, say “thank you for having me” etc”

Other parents regularly say, “I wish mine did that” but good manners aren’t inherent, they are taught.

And they aren’t taught overnight it’s years of practice and reminders and praise. Years. And it started at about your son’s age.

It’s easy to teach but you have to be consistent.

Risk assessment/safe and considerate behaviour is exactly the same. It’s not rocket science but you have to teach it, discuss it and you have to give reminders so that one day many years in the future your DS makes good independent choices.

You want to raise a child to think critically and make informed decisions by letting him access property that doesn't belong to him.

It. Doesn't. Make. Sense.

I think that it is not unreasonable to assume that if they were bothered about the possibility of people sitting in the cab it would have been left locked!

I think it's not unreasonable to expect folks to keep their hands off somebody else's property.

If that's an interesting thought exercise for you, maybe you should find a hobby?

Exactly what I thought.

Cross post.

Teaching critical thinking is fine. You say “no, because it’s not safe. Can you think of any reasons it’s not safe?”

And then you discuss it.

Tenet, not tenant. Just saying.

would like raise a child to think critically and make informed choices. One key tenant of this is to examine the harm that your actions cause to others. I would rather raise a child to think about that as the primary principal than one who just does things 'because that's how they are done', regardless of and without thinking of the harm it could cause.

This is all bollocks.

If you want to raise a child to make informed choices then teach gem to stay the fuck out of other peoples diggers.

It's not 'because that's how it's done', it's because IT DOES NOT BELONG TO YOU.

What could happen if you go in someone else's digger is not what your son needs to think, it is THIS DIGGER IS NOT MINE, I shall leave it the fuck alone.

You talk about consequences - think long term

Absolutely not. WHY ok earth you would think this is in any way acceptable is beyond me.

They've been very lax by leaving it unlocked, but that doesn't give you free reign to let your very young son into it, however cute you think it might be.

There may be no keys in it, but he could fall, bang himself etc.

You are (attempting) to intellectualise something that is extremely simple.

1. The digger does not belong to you
2. You should teach your son that just because he likes something, doesn’t mean he is entitled to it
3. Would you let him walk along a wall outside a house? Yes? Whatever. Would you let him into the house if he liked it? No? Right, there’s your distinction.

I don't think would be about the immediate danger element for me, as you say it is highly unlikely anything untoward would happen.

However it teaches the wrong message to your DS if you let him do something just because he wants to. The digger does not belong to you so you cannot just have a quick sit in it, same as you wouldn't get into someones car or house without asking - its just rude and entitled behaviour.

Also if your DS thinks it is ok to do this then yes there could be potential danger ahead of thinking he can just get into whatever vehicle takes his fancy.

I think the wall and bollard thing is different. I don't let my kids walk on garden walls, as they belong to someone else - what if we damaged it? municipal wall and bollard which belongs to the council, kind of belongs to us all so slightly different rules apply.

I see you want to give an explanation to your DS and in this case you can't go in the digger because it doesn't belong to you. If there was a nice friendly workman around I am sure he would let you have a go (but probably not due to them getting the sack for H&S breach),but unfortunately they are not around.

Rules in society are varied and not always consistent and this is just another thing that we learn along the way. Everyone knows you don't get into an unlocked digger.

Assuming I also teach him that heavy machinery is dangerous and to be respected?

What about teaching him that other people's property should be respected?
And not that he can sit in anything that's left unlocked.

Some machinery has immobilisers. With several you don't need to switch it on to release it. All you have to do is pull the battery isolator. If he knocked it then it could very easily roll, I've done it myself with a few things. It's hugely dangerous. I think the poster who said leave shit the fuck alone unless you know what you're doing, is right tbh. I DO know what I'm doing and still wouldn't arse about with them.

Hell no.

And if you want to make daft analogies...

Say you went into a corner shop and left your DS' pushchair outside (maybe he wanted to walk and the aisles were narrow), if you came out again to see my 6 and 7 year old playing with it, taking turns to sit in it etc while I beamed encouragingly at them you would not be even mildly peeved?

That is a much better comparison than the "garden wall" analogy.

Although even then, its not as bad; a pushchair costs a lot less than a digger, and is a hell of a lot less dangerous!

We often have a small tractor parked on out street too. My pre-schooler dd is fascinated with it, and we like to walk over to look at it. She stands next to the back wheels and marvels at how they are taller than her.
I don't let her touch it though!

It's probably not the councils digger, but a private contractors. Also doubt any contractor would let a random person sit in digger, you would be sensible and safety conscious but they don't know that. Only takes an accident and legal suit to put said contractor out of business. Take little one to digger land or similar.

The OP is a prime example of poor parenting.

He is TWO.

There is no conversation you can have with him that will make the same impact as the excitement of sitting in a digger.

It doesn’t matter what you say to him. He’ll remember sitting in the digger and want to replicate it.

I think you need to stop thinking of yourself as his God because believe me, he’s definitely not far off the phase of deliberately doing what you don’t want him to.

A 2 year old, closely supervised, is not going to do or cause any harm to the digger just as no harm will be done to the wall or bollard

That's not the point. The point is that you're teaching him from a very early age that it's OK to access the property of others without permission.

Bloodly hell OP. You really need to think long term about the adult you are going to raise with this nonsense.

Respect for other people and their property comes before 'critical thinking'.

Why don't you read him Goldilocks and discuss the rights and wrongs of touching things that DON'T BELONG TO YOU!

Would this still be cute at 15, when's he's being bought home by the police?

I really hope you don't live near me Thistle, I'm always forgetting to lock my door/car!